�The only thing I ever saw that came close to �objective journalism� was a closed-circuit TV setup that watched shoplifters in the General Store at Woody Creek, Colorado. I always admired that machine, but I noticed that nobody paid any attention to it until one of those known, heavy, out-front shoplifters came into the place... but when that happened, everybody got so excited that the thief had to do something quick, like buy a green popsicle or a can of Coors and get out of the place immediately.�
Hunter S. Thompson, 1972 84
Even though a network can only truly claim to be objective in relation to its intended audience, the recent rise in partisan media has led to the questioning of traditional objective values by a number of high profile critics. Like Thompson�s CCTV camera, new media outlets are increasingly selecting a news �niche� and exploiting it. On the other hand, these unruly assailants are then encouraging others to do the same. The �big three� in the American broadcast media, namely ABC, NBC and CBS have come under constant fire from the emerging Right for their criticisms of the present administration. Similarly, liberals and straight-talking moderates alike have lambasted partisan themed media. While most networks can claim to offer objective news output, one can really only value the content in relation to ones own personal ideological reasoning. A supporter of the military, for example, would find himself or herself far more at home on Fox News, for example, than CBS. Telling the audience what they want to hear provides networks with a support base, and while such measures may damage journalistic credibility, the rise and rise of these new media outlets is a strong indication of the changing media environment. It is understandably difficult to �label� any network as pandering to a wholly liberal or conservative cause. All, justifiably, will argue that their network offers the �truth�, and pepper their news broadcasts with catchy buzzwords and slogans to remind the viewing audience of this point (see the Introduction for a variety of them). But one �truth� may be wholly different from another, and as terms such as �spin� and �propaganda� ease their way into the daily lexicon, so the audience needs to adapt to a new form of media analysis. Rather than acting as recipients of news, modern audience should seek a multiperspectival approach, taking in as many sides of the media �argument� as possible from as many different sources. In this way, and only in this way, that the �truth� can have a possibility of emerging.
The �pandering� by media organisations to certain audiences on either side of the �divide� is one of the fundamental development characteristics of media polarisation. I aim to demonstrate this through content analysis. All going well, the ideologies of the respective organisations will present themselves as I examine some of the qualitative features of network coverage. For purely comparative purposes, I will now theorize where each network stands on a hypothetical �polarisation spectrum�.
Fig.1 The network programming included in the study (in �Left� to �Right� order)
Air America Radio => The O�Franken Factor 86
CNN => Newsnight with Aaron Brown
ABC => World News Tonight with Peter Jennings
CBS => CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
NBC => NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw
NPR => Day to Day
Radio America => Newsbeat with Blanquita Cullum
MSNBC => Hardball with Chris Matthews
Fox News => The O�Reilly Factor
EIB => The Rush Limbaugh Show
According to my own estimations, a slight leftward slant should be evident on the major networks. Note that there is no liberal equivalent to Rush Limbaugh in the study. If one exists, I am yet to find it, and thus I include Air America�s �The O�Franken Factor� in the study as its �liberal� parallel, though at this stage I note an obvious imbalance. I place the controversial �O�Reilly Factor� somewhere between �Right-leaning� and �conservative�. Despite liberal arguments to the contrary, I consider Fox News� output less ideologically charged than Limbaugh�s, and given the recent overhaul at MSNBC, there is reason to suspect that as time passes, Fox may find itself entering the mainstream news environment. I consider NPR the most balanced network for inclusion in the study, its status as a public broadcasting body, free of executive and corporate pressure it has no cause for ideological tilting. The above classifications, it should be remembered, are entirely my own opinions, and are presented here for comparative purposes. Unsurprisingly, most, if not all, claim to offer �fair and balanced� reporting in their mission statements, only Limbaugh and Franken shirk from objectivity and acknowledge their partisan structure from the outset
This chapter will concentrate on three news subjects and how various media outlets covered them. Individual reactions by the networks to these subjects should make it easier for us to deduce their framing techniques and/or �house style�. These results may or may not display similarities to my projected polarisation spectrum, and I will draw up an equivalent chart (for purposes of comparison) upon completion. While the results may not indicate a clear divisional �spilt� between a �conservative� and �liberal� media, the study will raise questions regarding certain networks� claims to objectivity. The three stories were selected at random. The study will be coded according to the following variables: (i) �Value� - how much importance the news organisation attributed to the story; (ii) Framing � how framing and other distortions were employed by the news organisation in presenting the story. (iii) Sources- Did the choice of sources slant the way the information was presented? What positions did they take? (iv) Language- what terms were used to describe the events in the story; did they favour a certain position? and (v) Final verdicts- were the representations of the story by the individual news organisations as accurate as they could have been? I will grade each network accordingly. Bear in mind that all of these elements only apply to relative stories on each subject, and other stories of the same day (such as Condoleeza Rice�s 9/11 hearing testimony on April 9th) are excluded.
The study will focus on the news programmes outlined at the end of chapter 3. It will be an entirely text based study, using transcripts that were available on Lexis Nexis. Any scripts that did not appear on Lexis Nexis, (eg: Rush Limbaugh) were transcribed by hand.
The subjects chosen for the study are:
a) The anniversary of the �Fall of Baghdad�. This April 9th story focussed on the continuing bloodshed in Iraq on year on from the �historic� toppling of a statue of Saddam Hussein in a Baghdad square. The violent situation in Iraq formed the centrepiece of most, if not all news stories on the topic. However, by focussing on other elements, such as the recurrent comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, some networks framed the situation using an alternative, or sometimes, ideological approach. These reports I will cover in more detail.
b) The appearance of President Bush on Arab television to condemn the Abu Ghraib prison abuses. Again, the wide coverage devoted to this story indicated its significance on the day in question, May 5th, 2004. While the story could be tied into the larger prison abuse debate that was taking place at the time, I shall be focussing predominantly on the reaction in the media to the president�s appearance and how this fitted into the debate. The wording of these responses are also worthy of note.
c) The third day of official mourning to commemorate the passing of former president Ronald Reagan. The media, three days after the event itself, tended to focus on other news stories, relegating the former president further down the news agenda. Coverage focussed primarily on the masses queuing to catch a glimpse of the casket lying in state at the Reagan library, as well as inviting a myriad of guests to reminisce about the life of the former president. A sombre, respectful mood pervades throughout. The reaction by those news organisations that have previously been accused of a �liberal bias� is particularly worthy of note; similarly the backlash by the openly conservative media often seems wilfully inappropriate. Given the former president�s past relationship with an often-intransigent press, the manner in which both �conservative� and �liberal� media outlets recollect and reminisce on his passing offers us an interesting perspective on how issues (such as the polarisation of the media) are often placed on a kind of journalistic �hiatus� at a time of national mourning. Or are they?
~~~~~~~~~~
i) Value
Unsurprisingly, two of the subjects chosen for analysis dominate the news on their respective days. The anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, set against the backdrop of increasing violence in the city is headline news in all but two of the programmes studied. The majority of broadcasters utilise the image of Firdos square, the area in which the statue of Saddam was symbolically toppled a year earlier to emphasise the violence racking the city during this Easter period. The story is understandably the strongest story of the day, and is covered in considerable depth, particularly by NBC, who devote seven stories to the subject in less than half an hour. Adopting a more conversational approach, Rush Limbaugh and Newsbeat devote an entire hour to the topic, featuring interviews �from the front line�. It should be noted however, that an increase in exposure does not necessarily indicate an increase in accuracy.
Bush�s appearance on Arab television is given equally extensive coverage on all the major networks, with cable channels CNN and MSNBC devoting seven and five stories respectively to the subject. Notably, the �big three� stations, ABC, CBS and NBC all award the story headline status and open their respective programmes with it. Only three broadcasters devote headline status to the Reagan story, understandable given its somewhat stale significance. This story is valued differently by all of the networks. ABC features it in second and third place, CBS in fifth and tenth, while NBC places it sixth, seventh and tenth. Conservative leaning networks place it much higher, with two (Radio America and EIB) devoting the entire programme to the topic. While it is not uncommon for different news organisations to apposite different priorities to certain stories, it should be remembered that the placement of these stories is generally arranged with the intended audience in mind. Placing the Reagan story far down the list of priorities is not an advisable tactic when your target audience comprises conservative Republicans. By awarding the Reagan story headline status in spite of its fragile newsworthiness, Fox News, MSNBC, EIB and Radio America subtly pander to a certain GOP demographic. The larger audience will have moved on by this stage.
ii) Framing
While it may be difficult to observe the ideological positions of the networks in the study through examination of their placement of stories alone, analysis of their content provides a vastly superior means by which we can make a final judgement. A 1999 Project for Excellence in Journalism study 87 determined a set of thirteen �frames�, categories which most, if not all news stories fall into. These are, in no particular order, (i) Straight news account (No dominant narrative frame other than the facts), (ii) Conflict (placing two or more variables in opposition to each other), (iii) Consensus (Examining the points which parties agreed on), (iv) Conjecture (what does the future hold?) (v) Process (examining how or why something works) (vi) Historical (how the story compares with past examples) (vii) Horse Race (Who is winning and who is losing), (viii) Trend (how the story fits in with ongoing trends), (ix) Policy (exploration of policy), (x) Reaction (a response to an event, by some of the players involved), (xi) Reality Check: A look at the veracity of a statement, (xii) Wrongdoing Exposed (intended to �right� a social or classified �wrongdoing�), (xiii) Personality (a profile of the individual in the news). From the outset it should be relatively easy to conclude which stories fit best into certain framing categories by virtue of their constituent parts; while the �fall of Baghdad� story falls undeniably into �conflict� and �conjecture� categories, coverage of Reagan is bound by �historical�, �reaction� and �personality� framing trends. How the individual networks choose to utilise them, however, is entirely at their own discretion. While most (if not all) firmly believe in offering �fair and balanced� coverage, their manipulation of their chosen news frames offers us a clearer indication as to their ideological leanings, if any. They may invoke claims to objectivity and a �straight news� frame, yet by stressing certain aspects over others, most find themselves unavoidably off-centre when the dust settles.
a) The anniversary of the �fall of Baghdad�
The volatile situation in Iraq�s capital city at the time of the news report represents a classic �retrospective� scenario, where a past element (in this case the �fall of Baghdad� one year earlier) is incorporated to parallel with present conditions. The networks are describing a �post-conflict conflict� situation in which the variables have remained unchanged for months. However, the �anniversary� element adds significance to the proceedings- networks recall the boundless possibility represented by the iconic toppling of the Saddam statue and contrast it with the current state of affairs, its polar opposite. Violence is thrust centre stage, as it represents everything that a �peaceful Iraq� is not. And this is not a �peaceful Iraq�.
Symbolism is strongly evident in the initial framing of the story. While all televised reports refer in some degree to Firdos Square in central Baghdad, the location of �jubilant scenes� one year earlier, a few focus on the symbolic significance of a new feature at that same location. Posters of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr adorn the plinth upon which the statue of Saddam once stood, a peculiarity not lost on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN. �The statue meant to celebrate the new Iraq was plastered with a picture of the coalition�s new nemesis,� claims Kimberly Dozier on CBS Evening News, a sentiment echoed by CNN�s Jane Arraf, who notes that �Where Saddam�s statue was toppled, soldiers struggled to remove the image of a new leader.� The significance of the �anniversary� adds a newsworthy symbolism to the event, as simple image becomes representative of the difficulties faced by the US forces. This parallel is echoed in the statements made by the various correspondents, as they incorporate the importance of the date into their broadcasts. �This did not look like a happy anniversary�, notes John Berman of ABC, �In the Baghdad square where one year ago, jubilant Iraqis cheered the fall of Saddam Hussein, today the US military blared this warning: �It is forbidden to enter this area. Anyone seen carrying a weapon will be shot on sight�� CBS� Dozier is no less blunt: �A year after US troops defeated Saddam�s army, they�re battling a splintered force of ordinary Iraqis, no less deadly and perhaps even more determined.� And on NBC, a sombre, defeatist tone is evident in the words of Tom Brokaw, �One year after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq remains a major combat zone and the future looks even more uncertain.�
This cynical tone shapes the news broadcasts on CBS and NBC, however CNN�s Aaron Brown is the worst offender in preserving the downbeat mood, peppering his broadcast with casual references to �this mess�, �crisis� and the distinct lack of �good options�. Brown even feels compelled to pause at one moment to remind the listener �no story is black and white�even in a week of fighting�. By promoting the negative aspects of the situation, these networks frame the story in a wholly pessimistic manner, choosing to highlight the bad news over the good. ABC, CNN and MSNBC even go so far as to invoke the �Vietnam� parallel intermittently to add insult to injury 88 .
Cynics may argue that in war, good news is hard to come by, but the main networks� strong adherence to negativity is notable when compared to the position taken by a resurgent Fox News, Newsbeat and Rush Limbaugh. Through the use of selective imagery and insertion of new variables, the hosts on these stations distance their audiences� attention from the actual physical �conflict� and toward the larger �war effort� including links to Iran and Syria, the well-being of the troops on the battlefield and the optimistic June 30 �handover�. The conversational tone helps in their dissemination of the facts, spurred on by their own ideological concerns. Newsbeat�s Blanquita Cullum seems sufficiently convinced to mention the Iran link three times, a feeling shared by her compatriot on Fox, Tony Snow. �You just put your finger on what I think is the dirty little secret,� he notes, �which is Iranian meddling in Iraq. You�ve got Syrians and others, but the Iranians are the big players and they�re the bad guys.� �Who is really behind this?�, asks Limbaugh, �Are you dealing over there with people from Iran, from Syria who are becoming fearful of what is happening in Iraq and trying to stop it?�. Used primarily to deflect attention from the consistent �quagmire� analogy, the �Iran� frame does not appear on any other networks. The commitment of the �hard working US military� also features strongly on these three networks, as the hosts pause to offer words of encouragement to the armed forces on the front line. �The truth is�we�re kicking ass over there�and there�s nothing that can stop us from kicking ass over there,� explains Limbaugh, a sentiment shared by Newsbeat�s Rob Tappen, broadcasting from Iraq, who freely admits �our young men and women over here are doing a great job of taking the fight to the enemy�we�re very hopeful that we can restore order in a very short time.� Words of encouragement drown out words of caution as broadcasters tone down the violent aspects, thereby increasing optimism amongst their target audience. Polarising themselves from the violence of the main networks, they create an insular news void, in which America is always �winning� and the war effort is �succeeding�. Feeling replaces substance, as the truth becomes hidden through emotional manipulation of �process� and �conjecture� frames. While an overly patriotic stance may be suitable at a time of national crisis, the blacklisting of certain news elements by these networks serves to alienate the public from the actuality of war.
The Associated Press sets the number of fatalities for the week as 40 Americans, more than 460 Iraqis and 2 other coalition soldiers, a piece of information common to three of its news reports on the date in question. However, this figure is open to much manipulation on networks, in keeping with their certain news frames. On ABC, where the tone is ultimately defeatist, �nearly 50� Americans and �hundreds� of Iraqis have perished. CNN and NBC barely refer to American deaths at all, but the high Iraqi death count features strongly on both. On the other hand, Fox News, Radio America and Rush Limbaugh fail to acknowledge any casualties whatsoever. While the conversational tone employed by these three networks is not as direct in its news delivery (and therefore not as thorough) the failure to account for one of the larger (and tragic) elements of that day�s news shows a degree of disregard for the facts by the organisations and their hosts.
On the other hand, I feel that the overexposure of violent elements by some of the networks is not justified either. While the pessimistic view may well be the most newsworthy at a time of war, the portrayal of Iraq by these networks indicates a country approaching a Hobbesian �state of nature�- and not an emerging independent state. By overexposing the brutality aspect, the main networks also lose sight of the innocents caught in the conflict both at home and abroad, from the Iraqi civilians continuing with their lives to the family members of the military personnel in service. Only NBC focuses on the human face of the soldiers in the conflict, but this too is linked inexorably with the carnage, as the station commemorates �fallen heroes�. Freedom of speech becomes freedom to criticise. The aggressive conflict frame adopted by these networks shrouds the humanity of war.
b) President Bush�s appearances on Arab television
Here the frame is also �conflict� driven, however the setting has shifted back across the Atlantic. While Bush�s appearances on Al-Hurra and Al-Arabiya were aimed at an increasingly sceptical Arab audience, the US media response focussed primarily on the importance of the event in an American context, bringing into question the legitimacy of certain military leaders, including the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld. Also significant was the emotional impact of Bush�s �apology� or lack thereof, a feature that divided the networks. Given the potential repercussions from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, most networks agree that this was a move the president had to take, although their individual analyses of �how� and �why� he spoke sheds yet more light on the polarised state of the media environment.
The theme of �damage control� featured heavily on ABC, CBS and CNN, with the latter inviting a damage control consultant, Eric Dezenhall onto the programme to analyse and ultimately �grade� the president�s effort 89 . By opening the show with this theme 90 , these networks shape the public response to the Bush broadcasts. Any further examination is thus tainted by the headline, and while all networks offer effective disseminations of the event, the sceptical element subconsciously creeps into our own analysis through careful framing. The �damage control� frame undermines the credibility of Bush�s appearances on Arab television, as they attribute a second objective to them; rather than offering explanations to an Arab audience, the frame redefines the event as an attempt to save face, and delegitimises his argument. Of course, only Bush knows his own objectives in making these appearances, but these networks evoke a cynical response by employing an element of subjectivity to proceedings. Similarly, the lack of a heartfelt apology by the president features strongly on the same networks, as well as on NBC and the O�Franken Factor. However it is CNN that devotes the most airtime to the argument, with an introduction framed in a �historical� context; intended to draw comparisons between the current situation and similar situations in much the same way as the �Vietnam� analogy paralleled the April 9th story. As host Aaron Brown remarks at the top of his bulletin: �Ronald Reagan took responsibility for the Beirut barracks bombing. If there is to be blame, the president then said, it properly rests here in this office with this president and I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good. That was Ronald Reagan. After the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961, President Kennedy said, "I am the responsible officer of the government." He took the blame. His standing rose. Harry Truman was far more plainspoken "the buck stops here." It's how we remember him.
This administration may yet find the right chord on this but to our ear it hasn't yet.� Stirring stuff it may be, yet Brown�s remarks seem out of place on a straight news broadcast, particularly as it omits details about the content of Bush�s interviews and their relevance to the abuse scandal, elements which are not explored until several stories into the bulletin. By promoting figurative elements rather than the substance of the event, CNN skirts over the news value of the broadcasts. The presence of the �no apology� frame evokes further cynicism in the viewer/listener. The frame features in some degree on all networks other than Fox News and Radio America.
In contrast, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh employ a different tactic, lambasting the larger media for their coverage both of Bush and of the prison abuse scandal in general. This heavily defensive positioning distances the audience from the story, as the examination of Bush�s speech is contrasted with the hosts� strong opinions. This shapes the audience response while shielding them from factual content. In much the same manner as Brown, O�Reilly launches into a damning denunciation at the start of his broadcast; unlike Brown however, his tirade is not directed at the news story itself, but at unrelated elements that he seeks to incorporate into the news frame. A classic example of guilt by (dis)association. Commenting on the �unpredictability of war�, O�Reilly notes: �But many overseas don't accept that. Look at this cartoon on the front page of the French paper "Le Monde." It says �Repeat after me democracy�. The American boot on the face of an Iraqi is a nice touch, isn't it? So why would "Le Monde" do this? Surely the editors of that publication know that U.S. policy doesn't condone or accept torture. Surely they know that soldiers caught abusing Iraqis will be punished. So what's the point here? The answer to that question is the ongoing attempt by France and some other countries to demonise America. Jealousy is a factor, but the situation is far more serious.� In the same way that Brown subtly reproached the president for shirking from responsibility, O�Reilly admonishes the French, dragging them into the news frame. Of course, the French have little, or nothing to do with the prison abuse scandal, but thanks to O�Reilly, who is to say that a surprising proportion of American television viewers won�t make that subconscious link? The fact that Bush appeared on Arab television to condemn the abuses pales in comparison to the larger abuses being perpetrated by the larger media, at home and abroad. As with the Iran parallel in the April 9th story, O�Reilly and Limbaugh frame a single event in a larger context; for �War on Terror� read �War on Liberal Media�.
Again the polarisation of the media is evident through the different approaches taken in covering the story. While cynicism is evident in the major networks, a form of counter-cynicism prevails on others. The audience must choose one side of the aisle or the other, as the presence of a �straight news� frame free of any ideological context is inherently lacking. And while broadcasters such as O�Reilly may be more outspoken in framing their news content, the �neutrals�, through management of the �damage control� and �no apology� frames are guilty of subtle manipulations of their own.
c) Ronald Reagan remembered
Within the �personality� frame there can be little cause for manipulation when the subject has recently passed away; such ideological framing would take away from the sombre occasion and the impartial reverence associated with the dead. The praise for �revolutionary� leaders such as Reagan can seem almost sycophantic at times, as his various indiscretions are brushed over on most of the major networks at a particularly sensitive time. The reverential tone adopted by Radio America, ABC, CBS and CNN is decidedly neutral, and barely touches upon discrepancies in the former president�s record. All are quick to point out that Reagan appealed to both Republicans and Democrats alike, through his charismatic conservatism and strong personality. Former Democratic congressman Dan Rostenkowski, speaking on ABC, notes: �I don�t think you could dislike Ronald Reagan. As a human being, he was a tough guy to dislike�.
Not according to O�Reilly and Limbaugh. Both hosts seek to discredit their fellow media outlets, claiming in the process the legacy of Reagan as their own. By condemning the criticisms of Reagan�s record that have appeared in other media outlets, they aim to purify the legacy of the former president and establish an ideological code of ethics in the process. O�Reilly�s introduction is defensive, yet fierce: �Tonight, the far left strikes back against Ronald Reagan. It�s true. We�ll tell you how and why.� Limbaugh adopts the same tone, attempting to �protect� Reagan�s legacy from the hypothetical liberal backlash: �[The Left] have done everything they can to rewrite the history of Ronald Reagan� �Reagan was mean spirited, he hated the homeless, he caused AIDS�They hated Reagan, folks! I�m going to pull off the muzzle here- they didn�t like him at all.� The agenda shifts once again from the actual �news story� to a larger conceptualisation- the hypocrisy of the major media organisations. As O�Reilly rallies the troops against the �demonising� liberals (whose �missiles�, we learn, �are being launched�), Limbaugh sets out a similar agenda, revealing the truth behind liberal �pandering� (�The reason they are saying such glowing things about Reagan, because, if you notice, after they do, they immediately go to Bush and call him a pretender�). The factual element is removed, leaving the ideological frame to become apparent. The �news� is framed antagonistically to the corresponding reports in the major media. They discuss and discredit in equal measure, subverting network news with their own twisted reporting.
But their censure isn�t justified. The �opposition�, represented by the �big three�, CNN and The O�Franken Factor, are equally reluctant to disapprove of Reaganite philosophy, but in seeking �balance�, subtle criticisms seep into their broadcasts. Yet all are careful not to overstep the emotional mark. CBS, CNN and MSNBC question Reagan�s economic policy, but keep the criticism within the context of the week in question. David Shuster of MSNBC notes: �programs for the poor were slashed, poverty, illiteracy and drug use all went up, and the gap between rich and poor in America got wider�, yet within the same sentence remarks �Nobel-prize winning economists are still divided over Ronald Reagan and are split over his legacy�. On NBC, arguably the most critical of Reagan�s record, a similar parallel is observed. �From the very beginning he was a man of contradictions,� claims reporter Andrea Mitchell. �He promised to eliminate deficits in his first term, but over eight years almost tripled the size of the deficit, exploding the budget.� This criticism is later paralleled with the altogether more optimistic �For all that, he bounced back� at the end of the same report. By incorporating a critical tone into their news reports, these networks retain a degree of objectivity, pandering to a larger audience by appealing to those with whom Reagan might not have seen eye to eye. But the overwhelmingly respectful tone befitting the occasion is present throughout these broadcasts, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Limbaugh/O�Reilly argument.
I will be examining the framing characteristics of language further in (iv) below
iii) Alternative voices
An increase in sources adds legitimacy to news stories. Alternative voices are a necessity in the development of a balanced, �multiperspectival� approach to news. On the other hand, an abundance of partisan voices can be used to manipulate news presentation, tilting perspectives in certain directions by virtue of sheer weight of argument, while an absence of such voices altogether inevitably leads to an increase in ideological content, as the hosts own opinions take centre stage. In examining the number of �alternative voices� present in the news programmes included in the study, one can instantly recognise an unsurprising characteristic. The programmes that seek to toe the moderate line employ a far wider range of sources than those that seek to deliver the news subjectively. On NBC�s April 9th broadcast, airtime is devoted to a myriad of conflicting speakers, as civilians, journalists, soldiers and government members have their say on the Iraq situation. In contrast, Rush Limbaugh�s April broadcast features only one guest, whose military status somewhat diminishes his role as a purely independent thinker. By dividing the number of �alternative voices� on each network by the number of stories afforded to each subject, my study sought to determine which networks offered the greatest diversity of opinion. The findings are shown below. I did not include network correspondents as independent sources.
Fig. 2: Number of �alternative voices� appearing on each programme (by date)
Alternative Voices AP ABC CBS CNN NBC Hardball The O'Reilly Factor Rush Limbaugh The O'Franken Factor Day to Day Newsbeat
April 9th sources 11 7 4 6 10 3 2 1 1 2 3
May 5th sources 15 8 7 9 11 14 4 0 1 4 1
June 8th sources 30 10 8 7 2 4 8 3 2 2 4
Total sources 56 25 19 22 23 21 14 4 4 6 8
Fig.3 : Amount of coverage given to each subject (# of stories, by date)
# of stories AP ABC CBS CNN NBC Hardball The O'Reilly Factor Rush Limbaugh The O'Franken Factor Day to Day Newsbeat
April 9th stories 3 4 2 6 7 2 3 5 2 3 7
May 5th stories 5 3 3 7 4 5 4 3 4 2 2
June 8th stories 10 2 2 3 3 5 3 4 4 1 5
Total stories 18 9 7 16 14 12 10 12 10 6 14
Fig.4 The �alternative voice�/story ratio on each programme
AP ABC CBS CNN NBC Hardball The O'Reilly Factor Rush Limbaugh The O'Franken Factor Day to Day Newsbeat
Ratio 3.1 2.8 2.7 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.4 0.3 0.4 1 0.6
While the high proportion of alternative voices in the Associated Press reports is unsurprising, the similar ratios in ABC and CBS�s coverage sets them far above the rest of the media; a story on ABC, for example, is likely to employ twice as many alternative voices than CNN, or seven times more than �The O�Franken Factor�. The low number of alternative voices on Limbaugh and Franken�s shows owes a lot to the ideological format of both shows, confirming suspicions about their partisan structure. Somewhat surprisingly, O�Reilly warrants the same ratio as CNN, averaging 1.4 per story. Upon closer inspection, one should note that the balance is somewhat tilted by the strong source/story ratio incorporated into O�Reilly�s June 8th broadcast, a day on which a number of leading conservatives joined him to pay their respects to Ronald Reagan. The largest source/story ratio for a single broadcaster is on ABC, as a total of 10 contributors pack into two Reagan stories on June 8th. Also worthy of note is MSNBC�s May 5th coverage, which incorporated 14 alternative voices into a broadcast of five prison abuse related stories.
This section of the study demonstrates that an increase in discursive elements in the news lessens the number of �alternative voices� present, thus affecting the objectivity of the piece. By utilising a multiperspectival approach, ABC and CBS provide the widest range of contrasting elements, allowing the viewer to truly �weigh up the options� before formulating his or her own views. Conversely, the Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken listener finds little independent thought or objective reasoning on their radio. The programme format is the same for both, an ideological monologue in which the listener is guided in the same direction as the host, with little or no regard for the �alternative� frame of mind.
iv) Language
Through incorporating figurative remarks into their speech, the broadcasters �spin� the news presentation in the same manner as powerful imagery. Presidential slip-ups become classified as �government scandals�. Celebrities become �love-rats�. The hyperbolic language creeping into news broadcasts owes a lot to tabloid culture, but does it have a place in serious news. The conversational style of �The O�Reilly Factor�, �The O�Franken Factor�, �Rush Limbaugh� and �Newsbeat� allows the hosts freedom to colour their speech (albeit somewhat ideologically), but should there be a place for overly descriptive language in a serious �straight� news broadcast? In my opinion, evocative speech belongs in the op-ed pages, but given the successful amalgamation of news and entertainment on channels such as Fox News, broadcasters in the US find it increasingly difficult to adopt a purely �straight� angle and some inconsistencies slip into the script.
In this section of the analysis, I examine the possible framing effects of the news �language�, i.e. the comments of the news broadcasters themselves as opposed to their sources. Correspondents are included in the study, as these too �represent� the news organisation. The �frames� corresponding to each particular day are categorized as either �positive� or �negative� and refer to epithets and descriptive terms. On April 9th for example, a �positive� frame would comprise a statement in praise of the American forces, while a �negative� frame would highlight the increasing difficulties facing the troops in the country. Similarly, May 5th and June 8th would feature �pro-Bush�/ �anti-Bush� frames and �praiseworthy of Reagan�/�critical of Reagan� frames respectively. Openly neutral statements are not included. In this study I aim to uncover the imbalance that exists between certain networks, and incorporate this into my examination of the polarisation of the media. Some left-leaning networks should appear clearly opposed to their rightward counterparts, but the leanings of the central contingent of the spectrum, namely the �big three�, CNN and NPR should prove intriguing.
April 9th (The anniversary of the �fall of Baghdad�): A high concentration of outspoken outbursts on Limbaugh and O�Reilly�s programmes come to fit the pattern we have observed thus far; namely that conversation-driven news presentation tends towards opinionated coverage and a strong persuasive element. Thus, remarks such as Tony Snow�s direct �Get the Iranians out of there pronto� on the �Factor� and Limbaugh�s searing �The truth is, we�re kicking ass over there� serve a double purpose, to appeal to the viewer/listener who seeks the �alternative� point of view and to distance themselves from the �other� media (note how O�Reilly almost parallels ABC�s coverage). Not that the hosts are lying, necessarily, but through use of strong epithets to the contrary, the news gets shrouded. However, the �other� side is equally poorly represented, with the three largest networks choosing an overwhelmingly negative approach, in keeping with their �framing� characteristics I examined earlier. Unnecessary terms litter the broadcasts, serving no other purpose than to hyperbolise the deepening conflict. �The Marines, hunkered down in rat infested factories, took intense fire.� 92 , reports David Wright of ABC. This epithet is unnecessary, and while the reporter may have witnessed first-hand the �rat problem�, yet by evoking the image with no concrete evidence to back it up, he is merely drawing attention to the squalid situation the marines find themselves in. On CBS, Dan Rather is equally despondent. �Peace and stability in Iraq,� he notes, �seem more elusive than ever tonight.�
However, many of the strongest remarks regarding the deepening crisis are left to CNN�s Aaron Brown. In a broadcast that is strongly tipped in favour of negativity, Brown�s asides fail to lift the gloom hanging over the awkward subject. There are, according to the host, �no good options- just varying degrees of bad.� The government, we learn �have few, if any options left�. And most strikingly of all, Brown notes that American forces �risk winning the battles but losing the war�, a comment deflected by Limbaugh towards the end of his broadcast; �the US military does not lose, we�re not losing this�. While slanted terms might be commonplace in the ideological world of talk radio, to hear exaggerated comments from a serious broadcaster such as CNN asks questions of the network�s commitment to reliability.
May 5th (President Bush�s appearances on Arab television): Again CNN�s stance is surprising, given its status as a recognised impartial news source. In commenting on Bush�s appearance on Arab television, Aaron Brown�s running cynical commentary is triggered by a clear ideological position at the top of the programme, which I mentioned in (ii) above. Correspondents continue the theme diligently throughout the rest of the programme.�[The president is] playing to a tough audience here in Iraq,� adds Ben Wiederman, �an audience already embittered by what they see as a year of false starts and dashed hopes.� Later, senior analyst John King offers his own bon mot, remarking: �This is a president who doesn�t like to say sorry�. While the quality of CNN�s coverage is thorough and generally excellent, on matters such as Iraq its ideological leanings become all the more apparent. The occupation may not have been the �bed of roses� the administration had hoped, however by framing it in a wholly negative context, CNN lets down its audience in precisely the same manner as Limbaugh or O�Reilly. The �truth� is reinterpreted and while it may be presented factually, it is only through careful examination of the text that the subtle frame becomes evident. Despite outward appearances, it is a news style that is, to paraphrase Aaron Brown, �100 percent radioactive�. And the unwilling audience finds itself on the verge of an ideological �meltdown�.
Also interesting to note from the May 5th language study is the parallel that exists between Limbaugh, NBC and Franken, who each make four contrasting remarks about the president�s �hastily arranged� appearance. The incongruent positioning of Limbaugh and Franken can be explained by their location at opposite ends of the polarisation spectrum and their strong reliance on colloquial phrasing and loose news quality. For every �George W Bush doesn�t make mistakes� from the former, the latter is heard to chip in: �This is a guy who will never admit a mistake.� The two hosts operate as opposing ideologues, and their comments mirror perfectly. It is also worth noting that both programmes are broadcast at precisely the same time, 12pm (Eastern), making one the exact antagonistic parallel of the other. NBC�s positioning is harder to call, however. Despite weighing in at half the length of CNN�s bulletin, hosts still find room for a swipe at the troubled president an average of once every seven minutes or so. �It is hard to know whether his unprecedented appearance can cool the angry reaction in the Arab world�, remarks Tom Brokaw at the top of the programme, a sentiment echoed by David Gregory moments later: �another damaging blow to the goal of winning hearts and minds in the Arab world�. The �Arab world� frames, while relevant to the Bush interviews, are included to conceptualise the event as part of a larger problem. Little coverage of the actual news �event� takes place. A truly �straight� news broadcast might not have made this parallel so evident.
The serious tone of the Reagan coverage is paralleled by the high measure of praiseworthy language featuring in almost all programmes I covered. Newsbeat�s Blanquita Cullum, who notably devotes her entire show to the subject, is the most vociferous in celebrating the former president�s legacy. �It was almost a snobbery at times,� notes Cullum, �because they loved him so much�. Riding high on the pro-Reagan bandwagon are ABC News, whose Dean Reynolds argues that it is �easy to get the impression now that he was always popular, even among Democrats�. Even hardened liberal Al Franken defends the legacy of the so called �Gipper� (�I just think that on a week when a guy dies, and there were good qualities to him as a human being�) before adopting a slightly cynical tone more befitting his liberal rhetorical stance (�Everything went bad during the 80�s that were reversed during the Clinton administration�). Franken�s is the only news programme on which criticisms of Reagan outweigh positive remarks. NBC, meanwhile, provide fodder for both true �Reaganites� and disbelievers in equal measure with their balanced coverage.
Notable too is CNN�s change of tact. While the network openly criticised the conservative government on April 9th and May 5th, here the tone shifts towards reverential reminiscence, an abrupt shift in policy. �He was,� claims senior analyst Jeff Greenfield, �the symbol of American conservatism.� And few, if any, choose to argue. The nature of the story is a strong dictating factor of course, but should we view CNN�s sycophantic Reaganism as inconsistent with their earlier coverage? After all, here is a former president who set the standards for conservatism that produced George H. W. Bush and, consequently, his son. Limbaugh�s comments on �liberal pandering� in order to frame the current president as a �pretender� (as covered in (ii) above) spring to mind; but I believe that this is rendered redundant when set against the overwhelming positivity that encompasses most networks� coverage. The nature of the subject defines the tone of the language used. Even the dead deserve a modicum of respect.
v) Final Verdict
To develop a new, more befitting �polarisation spectrum�, we must first weigh up the pros and cons of each network�s coverage and categorise them accordingly according to �reliability�, �shape� (including framing) and overall �accuracy�. Audience levels are not an effective means of measuring accuracy in this context, given the far higher proportion of viewers that tune into the freely available ABC, CBS and NBC than their cable or radio counterparts. While most networks �reliably� pander to their respective audiences, their factual relevance is only accounted for through examination of their news frames. The addition of extraneous information should not necessarily equate with inaccuracy, as most networks actively seek to �outdo� the opposition with figurative phrasing and imagery on a daily basis. However, when this information detracts from the factual content of the piece, the accuracy of the programme deteriorates accordingly.
Thus programmes such as Franken�s, O�Reilly�s and Limbaughs struggle to match the honest accuracy of most major networks. Their ideological tilting ranks them unsuitable as a �straight� news source, and the incorporation of entertainment values into each broadcast demonstrates their lack of impartiality. They laugh, joke and berate in equal measure, blissfully unaware of their status as legitimate �news sources� in the eyes of a large proportion of American society. The open lack of objectivity and strong production values appeals to audiences seeking alternative news means, as opposed to the �media institutions�- CBS, ABC et al. Limbaugh and co cease to be an entertainers and emerge as legitimate commentators, recognised members of the media �circle�. They may occupy polarised space, but they still have as much influence as a Rather, Brokaw or Jennings. As Jason Zengerle notes, such commentators �happily reinforce that perception, telling listeners that the mainstream media constitutes "a daily assault on what you and I believe" and that "the dominant media culture" is complicit in an effort "to impugn ... the things that most people in this country hold dear.� 94 By adopting the ideological slant as �news�, the audience is duped by infotainment�s charismatic poster boys; by helping to promote such distortion, the audience duly augments polarisation. Traditionalists have met their nemesis. With this in mind, I feel that messrs. Limbaugh, Franken and O�Reilly warrant a D-minus for accuracy, a C for reliability (due simply to the consistency of Limbaugh�s anti-liberal tirade) and a D for shape. The lack of straight news frames on each may be justified by the conversational style adopted by the hosts, but any claims to objectivity or balance should be treated with a great deal of caution.
The so-called �big three� fare slightly better. However, a strong adherence to negative framing impedes the accuracy of the reporting. The networks are �free� to condemn and criticise the American war effort, yet their steady cynicism diminishes their claims to objectivity. They represent the televised �voice of the nation� and command immensely high viewing figures. Yet all struggle to disenfranchise themselves from their ideologically-charged news cousins. For the sake of each subtle aphorism, the credibility of the news is damaged irrevocably. By overemphasising the continuing conflict in Iraq in such a pessimistic manner, these networks� final grades� acknowledge their good intentions but poor delivery. NBC, ABC and CBS each get a B for accuracy and a C plus for reliability, with the latter two earning a mediocre C for shape. NBC, by virtue of its balanced Reagan coverage, earns a B in this latter category.
Cable networks CNN and MSNBC�s own struggle with accuracy owes a lot to their constant news cycle. Their adoption of the �24-hour� frame means that news reaches a repetitive state far quicker than on other networks. However, despite this, MSNBC�s �Hardball� copes rather well. Despite several commentators� claims to the contrary, MSNBC seems to offer the sort of in-depth examination not permitted by the tight news boundaries on its sister network, NBC. It shrugs off its ideological branding and demonstrates the effectiveness of well-crafted cable news. I award B minuses in all categories. CNN, on the other hand surprised me somewhat by is blatant negativity and overemphasis on cynicism in handling the Iraq conflict. Aaron Brown�s unnecessary framing diminishes the credibility of the news value of the station, in my opinion, and as the programme is not conversational in the same manner as Limbaugh or Franken, the inclusion of such elements is not justified. Its coverage is extensive, however, and thus it earns a B plus for reliability. In the �accuracy� and �shape� categories I allocate a C minus.
The remaining two networks demonstrate media polarisation very effectively. The first, NPR, I value as arguably the most accurate in the study. Its low grading in all �phrasing� categories highlights its devotion to accuracy. Consequently, by adopting a neutral frame, stories are presented as is, allowing the audience to form his or her own opinions, a trait notably lacking on some more distinguished networks. For accuracy, the station earns a B minus, as its low story rate omits small pockets of significant information. However, for �shape� and �reliability� the station undeniably deserves an �A�, the consistency of reporting and layout is simple but effective, and reminiscent of traditional news values. In imitating NPR, Radio America attempts to revive traditional reporting within a conservative context. By removing sensationalist values, Cullum�s �Newsbeat� offers news straight down a right-leaning line. The reports are well constructed, keeping the listener well informed. However, by adopting a conservative stance from the outset, Cullum ignores large portions of �straight news�, seemingly taking her cues from far-right media and redeveloping them in order to make them as accessible as possible. For this, her accuracy rating plummets to C minus (witness her strong predilection towards Reagan on June 8th, in which no other stories even got a mention). For shape and reliability I am inclined to denote an A minus, but a B is more befitting, given that the programme only appeals to a small ideological group, and not the �impartial observers� of NPR�s target audience.
In my re-evaluated �polarisation spectrum�, ideological positioning is more �balanced�, indicating the clear divisional split between news organisations along a conservative/liberal divide. Air America is now graded equidistant from EIB, while CNN and Fox News occupy similar positions on either side of the divide. The placing of CNN may seem unfair to the well-respected network, but the subtle manner in which the network framed its stories is unacceptable in straight news broadcasting. While O�Reilly may patronise at will, his commentary is labelled as such. There is no such excuse for Brown�s gratuitous pessimism. The freedom to express one�s views should not be allowed to diminish the quality of news output. CBS and ABC�s position has shifted slightly leftward due to a similar overconcentration on cynicism. Radio America and MSNBC have swapped places, with the latter occupying a position on the inner-right not dissimilar from its sister network. NPR, which I classified as the most �balanced� at the outset, retains its position.
This study is a practical demonstration of the theoretical values I explored in earlier chapters. It also provides a backbone to the overall project. By positioning themselves neatly on opposing sides of the �spectrum� the networks demonstrate the polarised state of the media in the US. Due to factors already discussed in chapter 3 and examined more closely in this chapter, certain media outlets have chosen an ideological news path, and few, with the possible exception of NPR retain a strict adherence to old-fashioned straight news values.
So what now?
�The news,� according to Newsweek journalist Jonathan Alter, �has become like a drug habit that demands a stronger and stronger fix in order to satisfy.� The competitive nature of modern news media often results in distortion of the truth, and while audiences gladly sit back and enjoy the distraction, the constant re-evaluation of traditional ethics has resulted in the creation of a hybridisation of news, entertainment, ideological phrasing, frenzied correspondents and image-heavy hyperbole. The split in public consciousness emanating out of the political environment has infected the media, which now finds itself seeking the ever smaller demographic in a valiant effort to counter the �ideological opposition�. In a true media democracy such an opposition simply wouldn�t exist. Having grown up in the era of Walter Cronkite and his signature sign off, �That�s the way it is�, many in the present media environment choose to embrace the latest trends with little of the journalistic scrutiny of their predecessors. The future is here. The future is now. Long live the past.
In the next chapter I shall be examining some of the ways in which current media polarisation might be slowed down or stopped entirely. The question of whether there can ever be a return to the �old way� is a subject better left to the experts, and I shall be including the thoughts of several leading conservative and liberal media commentators as they put forth possible solutions to the problem.
84 Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail �72, Warner Books, 1985
85 As I am using Associated Press reporting as a �control�; it should be worth noting that I classify it as a �balanced moderate� at the hypothetical �centre� of the polarisation spectrum.
86 The similarities in the titles of �The O�Franken Factor� and �The O�Reilly Factor� is intentional, Air America�s Al Franken chose the name purely to irritate his Fox News counterpart. Franken and O�Reilly have had numerous run-ins in the past, the most notable coming after Franken raised doubts over O�Reilly�s claim to have won a Peabody Award, when in fact he won a Polk. [See Al Franken, Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, Dutton Books, 2003, p81]
87 A full text of the PEJ study, entitled Framing the News: The Triggers, Frames, and Messages in Newspaper Coverage, is available online at http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/framing/default.asp
88 The �Vietnam� parallel, used sporadically by many commentators during the current conflict hit centre stage following Ted Kennedy�s April 5th Senate outburst in which he likened Iraq to �George Bush�s Vietnam.� He went on: �They [the Bush administration] repeatedly invent facts to support their preconceived agenda - facts which administration officials knew or should have known were not true.� [Snippet taken from Brian Blomquist, Bush has Nixon sized credibility gap, New York Post, 6 April 2004, p4]
89 For the record, he gets a B-minus. Dezenhall: �He did the best that he could given the circumstances. I don�t think there were any other options. The reason why he did what he did today is can you imagine what would have happened if he had not done it?�
90 Note that ABC featured the words �Damage Control� in their opening headlines; CBS� Dan Rather proclaimed �Tonight- Operation damage control� at the top of his bulletin
91 The following are some examples of positive and negative phrasing, taken from NPR�s May 5th coverage: POSITIVE: �..this willingness to get to the bottom of what happened..�, �..really trying to capture the gravity of the situation, how serious he takes this...� NEGATIVE: �He said mistakes were made, but that�s about as far as he went.�, �..quite unlikely from the perspective of this US administration�. The very subtle tilting is clearer when presented alongside a straight news statement, for example: �The president described the treatment of Iraqi prisoners as abhorrent�.
92 Note that while this study is focussing on the textual element of the news broadcasts; no actual images of rats or other rodents were shown during the broadcast.
93 Note that Newsbeat use no evocative terms to describe President Bush�s appearance on Arab television. The event is not mentioned on the programme.
94 Jason Zengerle, Talking Back, The New Republic, 16 February 2004, p19