Skip to comments.Rush Limbaugh Live Thread Monday Dec 4th, 2006
Posted on 12/04/2006 8:24:04 AM PST by MNJohnnie
Communication Professor Examines Media Bias in President's Speeches Virginia Tech News ^ | 11/30/06 | Jean Elliott
Posted on 12/02/2006 5:28:58 PM CST by LS
BLACKSBURG, VA., November 30, 2006 -- Jim A. Kuypers, assistant professor of communication in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences at Virginia Tech, reveals a disturbing world of media bias in his new book Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006).
Convincingly and without resorting to partisan politics, Kuypers strongly illustrates in eight chapters how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror. In each comparison, Kuypers detected massive bias on the part of the press. In fact, Kuypers calls the mainstream news media an anti-democratic institution in the conclusion.
What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes, and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror, said Kuypers, who specializes in political communication and rhetoric. Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, and Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president's themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus.
This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view. In short, Kupyers explained, if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech.
The book is essentially a comparative framing analysis. Overall, Kuypers examined themes about 9-11 and the War on Terror that the President used, and compared them to the themes that the press used when reporting on what the president said.
Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner, notes Kuypers.
At the heart of each chapter are these questions: What did President Bush talk about, and how did he want us to think about it? What did the mainstream news media talk about following president Bushs speeches, and how did they want us to think about it?
According to Arkansas State Universitys Dennis W. White, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, "This is a time of maximum danger for our countrya time of crisis. The American people historically turn to the President during these times for explanation, for comfort, and for exhortation to purpose. Yet, the President does not speak directly to the people. His speech is mediated; he speaks through the media, members of the media comment on presidential speech, and others comment on the comment. Jim Kuypers is the best in the business at explaining presidential crisis communication and its relationship to the media.
"This is a skilled and thoughtful work of scholarship, well worth a careful reading, said Stephen D. Cooper of Marshall University. Kuypers's book is provocative in the best sense of the word: It can stimulate fresh thinking about presidential rhetoric and press reporting of itwhich Kuypers shows can be two very different things.
Kuypers, of Christiansburg, Va., received his Ph.D from Louisiana State University and both his bachelors degree and masters degree from Florida State. He joined Virginia Tech's Department of Communication last year after having taught political communication for tens years at Dartmouth College
With my luck, I'd be wearing headphones at the time and my ears would be ringing the rest of the night! LOL!
Only got to see Cinci because they played Rutgers who needed that win. Cinci beat them big time.
People like Chris the Moonbat don't understand. It's like saying you support the cops except when they arrest people.
No, friend, the person on FR this morning was ranking Lincoln with Clinton and Carter. That's NOT a good thing! I freepmailed asking him to explain and haven't gotten an answer. I think it's fairly universal thinking that Lincoln is a great US president.
IF YOU SUPPORT THE TROOPS YOU MUST SUPPORT WHAT THEY DO!!!
Now that was a true American caller.
Please shut up already!
How could anyone say what he said about admiring Hillary...and still claim conservative pedigree?
What a nut case!
I have to wonder if it was the same person who was going off on me a couple of days ago because I said Lincoln did a good thing by preserving the USA.
I didn't realize this point could be debated. I thought he was a great president. 8-/
You do realize your total ignorance of even the most basic political facts is only exceeded by the rabid arrogance you demonstrate by insisting on screaming your rabid stupidity at people MUCH smarter then you. Wander back to the old folks home Grampa, the kids have no more time for your senile rantings
"I certainly do not want Hillary but if we are now relegated to a democrat (which I truly believe we are) in the next election I would rather have her than any other democrat contender"
Oh really now?
This woman (Hillary) was in the very unique position to be an incoming senator and former first lady in 2001. As former first lady, she had knowledge of the threat of islamic terror as did her husband, the president. As a senator, she could have acted to pass strong legislation to protect borders, ports and to give law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to thwart attacks. But did she? NO She didn't! And, after 9/11 what did she do? She marched her fat butt to the Senate floor spouting that "Bush Knew" crap. Excuse my french, but, how you can call this woman worthy of the presidency is beyond me.
I can see where you'd be concerned about Stewart. He's on during primetime, not late night after the news. And he's where a lot of people get their news, not understanding the facts which his satire is based upon.
I think Stewart's funny once in awhile, but I also read FR and other news sites and already have an opinion before I watch. A lot of these people who watch are just "sheeple".
Michael Savage-is that you?
Of course- by all means- the way to further the Conservative agenda is to vote for Hugo Chavez in a dress.
We should not only vote for Hillary"We're going to take things away from you for the common good"-Clinton- We should volunteer to drive democrats to the polls. Yeh, that's the way to win one for conservatives. (ROFL)
If you are truly interested in correcting revisionist
history, then this book is for you, or a liberal that
you love who is on your Christmas list ... hit list.
ANTHONY AND THE MAGIC PICTURE FRAME
By Michael S. Class
Let's just see what we can do to make it better, Kerretarded.
Right now ................ I'm going to get about twelve Penn Dark Lagers and go down in the back acres down by the pond with the deer.
God Bless America and FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.