The Challenge of Understanding the Budget

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/26/970290/-The-threat-to-todays-seniors-in-the-Republican-Medicare-Medicaid-plan

The Daily Kos is an unabashedly partisan blog, but this diary by a member raises and important point only tangentially related to bias. The post makes a point about the ramifications of spending cuts to Medicare - a subject surrounded by confusion and misunderstanding. Here the point is about middle-class beneficiaries 55 and older, who are not directly affected in the cuts, but who the author claims would be seriously impacted by the privatization of the program. Although the credibility of the blog is certainly not a given, the point raised here makes it easy to see why this budget debate is so difficult for news outlets to cover. The unfortunate truth is that it's basically impossible to give it a fair and reasonably comprehensive coverage in few stories - it's just too complicated. In order to even begin to grasp the consequences, the public needs to really look at a range of sources, and decide which of the very different interpretations seems correct to them. Unfortunately, as we know, most of them won't bother.

Slate- Wanted: Angry Liberals

If the Ryan budget is so unpopular, where are the town-hall meltdowns?

A Slate article questioned the general lack of reaction to Representative Ryan's controversial budget plan. Around the country, there have been generally low turnout rates at meetings held by congressmen. The story contrasts this subdued atmosphere with the 'explosive' town hall events during the health care debate. In determining why there is such a sharp difference between constituent reactions in the two debates, the article attributes it to a lack of strategy on the Democratic side.

The author notes of the health care debate, "The town halls were overflowing; Republicans returned to Washington after recesses claiming to have survived the biggest crowds they'd ever seen. And that was because all of this was going viral. Talk radio told people where to show up. The town-hall partisans used smartphone cameras and inexpensive video setups to record the damage." He then moves on to assert that Democrats need to undertake similar tactics in order to discredit any Republican budget bill.

However, some aspects of the budget dispute are not comparable to the health care situation. The most important factor is the lack of understanding many Americans appear to have in regards to the debate's progression and the various components of each proposed solution. It was easier for Americans to react to the health care debate and form their own opinions. Health care is a more tangible policy that affects people in a more immediate, direct manner. Budget deficits aren't exactly the top issue on most Americans' minds, especially as such situations are viewed as problems for the 'distant' future. Thus, while some people are dissatisfied with the process, others are more inclined to ignore the debate. Also, because of this complicated nature of the fiscal crisis, it's more difficult for politicians to shape the debate successfully in their favor. Republicans achieved quite a reaction from their constituents in framing their opposition to President Obama's plans for health care reform. The reactionary tactics the article mentions are not successful in the budget debate because many Americans do not have an acute knowledge of what methods and solutions are proposed in each bill.

Multiple Sources at Home and Abroad Shed Light On U.S.-Pakistan Relations

Drone issue puts strain on U.S.-Pakistan relationship

CNN's Pam Benson in Washington, Nasir Habib in Islamabad and Joe Sterling in Atlanta contributed information to this informative story about U.S.-Pakistan in recent years. Framed through a dispute over drone strikes on supposed terrorist targets, the three perspectives give a rounded view of a conflict abroad which has gained limited attention in the media.

Reporting from the ground in Islamabad provides the perspective of the military and government officials, in conjunction with quotes from each source respectively. They demonstrate how the Pakistani's view the conflict and their efforts against known or potential terrorist groups. In contrast, American sources demonstrate what American officials view as a frustratingly lax policy guiding Pakistani tactics in dealing with these terrorist groups. They justify their use of drones as a direct and tangible tactic.

Even so, the story delves into the underlying implications of the conflict and U.S. policies in Pakistan.Emphasis is placed on the threat to Pakistani sovereignty with regards to military operations within their country, as well as the blatant misunderstanding and miscommunication taking place between Pakistani officials, their public and U.S. military officials. This is especially important because the attacks have claimed innocent civilians, most recently 17 in an airstrike in North Waziristan. Civilian deaths are unacceptable and the U.S., in pursuit of what they deem to be an important military goal, seem to wave off the casualties as a war cost; a cost, while tragic, is necessary in pursuit of a larger goal.

The use of think-tank expert to sum up the impact of a potential withdraw placed the conflict into perspective, essentially surmising that even though a withdraw of U.S. military from the base in Pakistan would not necessarily alleviate the conflict as the U.S. assumed. Airstrikes could still be carried out from across the border in Afghanistan because the drones are operated wirelessly.

This accumulation of information from various sources demonstrates what fair coverage of a foreign affairs story should look like. Collaboration between journalists in different parts of the world can frame a conflict for public consumption without presenting a skewed or singular view of a foreign event. The article is informative and probative, demonstrating an investment in the topic and providing a reader with enough information to formulate their own conclusion on the U.S.-Pakistani conflict and relations.

Further, it's an in-depth view of U.S. policies and their impact on our relationships with other countries.

When the press spends time on stories like these, gaining multiple sources and world perspectives, they serve an extrasensory function for the President and Congress. By presenting objective and well-sourced stories about U.S. policies and conflicts abroad, the media either enhances or detracts from the legitimacy of these two branches through their reporting. Whether the outcome of that analysis is helpful or harmful to independent administration of duties on the part of the President or Congress varies, yet the people are well informed in order to make those judgments. A story doesn't have to focus on the President or Congress, nor does it have to be initiated by either side, in order to be relevant and noteworthy to the general public or to shed an informative light.

The public also gets the opportunity to critique and evaluate foreign policies in light of their implementation. This allows the public the opportunity to intelligently convey their support or opposition to particular actions, potentially influence substantive policy changes in those areas.

I'm not a scholar of foreign affairs, but it certainly informed me so that I could be knowledgeable in U.S.-Pakistan relations to some extent.

Under Pressure, Tapper Proves In-Depth Presidential Coverage Lives

ABC News' Jake Tapper Wins Merriman Smith Award for Excellence in Presidential Coverage Under Deadline Pressure for Second Year in a Row

The headline says it all. In the age of new media, when news is constantly changing and it's often difficult to discern what is and what could be news, Jake Tapper "knew the news when the rest of the media sphere was just learning it...able to provide details that few others could match," the White House said in its press release.

Image: Tapper receiving 2010 Merriman Award

Tapper received this award in 2010 for breaking a story about the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, when he was asked by the President to resign. In 2011 he revealed the tax problems hounding Senator Tom Daschle, which derailed his pursuit of a post as the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

This article and its content stood out because it demonstrates the respectful relationship that exists between the media and the White House. It proves that accurate and sometimes damaging reporting is valued in that it upholds the values of governmental transparency that the American public looks to the media to uphold. The relationship between the administration is not a consistently adversarial relationship as many are often likely to think. The prize carries a $2500 award; there are very few people, if any, who would offer a cash prize to their sworn enemy.

It also demonstrates the "world-class" reporting of tomorrow will lie in the hands of those most able to harness the modes of information dispersion, such as blogs and social media, as Tapper utilized many of them:

"Just trying to keep up with the torrent of scoops, tweets, blog posts, radio debriefs and live broadcast coverage Jake generates around the clock from the White House could be a full-time job for even the most dedicated news junkie," the ABC News President said of Tapper's work.

This is particularly revealing in that the award is specifically given in recognition of the reporter's excellence in providing Presidential Coverage under a deadline, an often trying task when you are attempting to obtain information that is not necessarily made available by the administration itself. It proves that Tapper, in order to obtain information necessary to substantiate his stories, had to acquire proof through alternative channels, apart from the leads traditionally pre-packaged by the press department for consumption and presentation to the public. It appears a particularly daunting task which is hardly imaginable in an environment of constantly developing and changing news, which makes Tappers achievement all the more venerable. It's truly a standard that other members of the media should seek to emulate.

In the mean time, it appears that the relationship between the media and the administration is more amiable than it's given credit for.

How Much Do Americans Really Know About the Budget Debate?

Salon: Beware the "middle ground" of the Great Budget Debate

Salon warns of the assumptions of identifying what ‘centrism’ means in American politics as the budget debate continues. The author of the article, Robert Reich, argues that rather than a halfway point between President Obama’s and Representative Paul Ryan’s solutions, the ideal ‘center’ solution for Americans would shift toward the left. In fact, Reich asserts that if more Americans had a higher political awareness, they would have an overwhelming opposition to the House Republican fiscal plan.

He states, “I'd wager if Americans also knew two-thirds of Ryan's budget cuts come from programs serving lower and moderate-income Americans and over 70 percent of the savings fund tax cuts for the rich -- meaning it's really just a giant transfer from the less advantaged to the super advantaged without much deficit reduction at all -- far more would be against it.”

Partisan politics aside, this article is particularly interesting because it brings up the issue of political knowledge in our society. Reich returns to this problem in discussing the high amount of finances for defense, asserting that “If Americans understood how much they're paying for defense and how little they're getting, they'd demand a defense budget at least 25 percent smaller than it is today.” As Congress and President Obama continue to struggle on constructing a universally satisfactory budget plan, Reich’s article begs the question: Do many Americans actually understand what has been happening throughout the budget debate? Furthermore, are they being equipped with the necessary resources to understand?

The media plays an extremely important role in this, as much of the coverage is focused on framing the fiscal crisis as a dramatic dispute between parties and the Obama administration. Some media outlets have even connected the budget debate to discussion of the 2012 election. This brings forth the issue of what the media’s role should be in conveying political information. Should the media be doing more to ensure the audience has a better comprehension of the issues surrounding the fiscal crisis? News outlets can only go so far in providing the audience with general information, especially when partisanship blinds many people to considering the reasoning of the opposing side(s). There may not be a definite resolution on the qualities of an ideal media, but ignoring important details of the debate in favor of highlighting ideological conflicts is unquestionably harmful.

CNN Discusses Obama's Meetings in Context of Elections

Obama: Deficit reduction must keep alive the American dream

CNN reports on President Obama’s meeting in Reno, Nevada, calling it “his third town hall-style event in three days.” In these ‘town hall-style’ meetings, Obama strives to promote the benefits of his plan for financial reform and deficit reduction. However, the article’s authors believe that these events are doubling as a trial of potential messages and slogans for his re-election campaigns. Interestingly, even before this is clearly stated, the beginning of the article reads as if Obama were holding these meetings solely for campaign purposes. The opening of the story is as follows:

“Over and over Thursday, President Barack Obama told workers at a renewable energy that he is like them. He remembers pumping gas when high oil prices ate a hole in his budget, he said. He knows he wouldn’t have made it through college without scholarships and loans. And now as president, he promised that he won’t let the current debate on deficit reduction deny others the chance for the American dream he has lived.”

The wording and sequence of these sentences slightly reminded me of a political ad one might view on TV. Of course, the meetings have a variety of motives including shaping Obama’s campaign. Nonetheless, these first few sentences frame the event in such a way that readers might interpret the president’s meetings as nothing more than a part of his campaign. Only halfway through the article did the authors focus on the actual topic of Obama’s speech: the fiscal crisis. At this point the story discusses the partisan conflicts over the budget in the past several weeks and the prospects of more debates later this year. This article is a good example of how opening statements can set the tone for the entire presentation of political news.

What is the Public Disapproving Of?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-nyhan/no-evidence-obama-deficit_b_851120.html
In this short post, Brendan Nyhan of Huffpost politics calls out NBC for inaccurately interpreting Presidential popularity polling. In their "First Read" newsletter they postulate that Obama's deficit speech didn't "play well" based on the fact that his popularity had gone down 4 points since a poll a month earlier. As Nyhan points out, however, any events which occurred during the month may have hurt the President's popularity, and trying to prove causality on the speech would be tough. Even more disturbingly, he claims that the Gallup poll which is also cited actually contradicts NBC's analysis when looked at closely.
Huffpost is a liberal blog, so anything reads there needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but this blog isn't really serving a partisan purpose. Nyhan doesn't argue that the President's popularity is down, he just points out that the reason isn't as obvious as NBC makes it seem.

NYT: Medicare Plan Runs Into Bipartisan Opposition

Obama Panel to Curb Medicare Finds Foes in Both Parties

President Obama’s intent to increase the influence of the Independent Payment Advisory Board has both Democrats and Republicans wary. As stated in the New York Times, Obama’s plan is to allow the board to have more power in shaping the deficit reduction plan, particularly in regard to Medicare. The article does a good job of providing multiple perspectives on the matter without personalizing or dramatizing the political debate. Rather than the popular tactic of framing the story within party or ideological conflicts, the NYT focuses on why various groups are opposed to increasing the board’s power. Not only are Republican and Democratic congressmen quoted, but members of the administration and lobby groups are heard as well.

While the article does give more attention to those in opposition to strengthening the panel, the writer includes an interesting statement from a supportive senator, John D. Rockefeller IV. He asserts, “Medicare payment policy should be determined by experts, using evidence, not by the undue influence of special interests.” Though this counterargument receives a very brief mention, it does provide a compelling explanation as to why some individuals might be so adamantly against Obama’s plan.

Framing Political Conflict Within Budget Debate

MSNBC: House passes $6 trillion spending cut plan

MSNBC presented this story via the Associated Press. The article on the Republican-backed bill presented the relevant information, but not without a focus on party hostilities. Throughout the story, references to ideological conflicts between President Obama/Democrats and Republicans were highlighted. MSNBC appeared to focus more on the fighting than the actual story; the 2010 and 2012 elections received some attention, as did tensions within and between the political parties. I thought it was interesting that some of the important information, such as the possible effects of the bill, was placed after discussion of the elections and party conflicts. One of the article's closing statements referred to the potential for "another huge spending fight" in the summer and Republican congressmen being "under heavy tea party pressure" in negotiating more spending cuts. This story essentially followed a back and forth method of dramatization with an emphasis on how ideological differences have impacted and will affect elections. I can easily see readers of either political affiliation overlooking the basic information in this article in favor of focusing on the more dramatized points.

"Risks to Boehner in Debt-Ceiling Brinkmanship"

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/risks-to-boehner-in-debt-ceiling-brinksmanship/#more-8391?gwh=594143EC1458742186BDC980FA5A0851

This post from the 538 blog on the New York Times exemplifies the difficulty of covering a topic which is as constant as politics. Even in the midst of a huge crisis, with the possibility of a government shutdown, there is still an urge to look ahead to the ramifications in the next legislative "battle" and the next election cycle.
This particular blog is very blatant in this approach. The final paragraph unabashedly makes use of a game metaphor:

"That’s assuming, of course, that both sides play the “game” optimally, which is far from assured. If Mr. Obama is a good poker player, he’ll know not to disregard Mr. Boehner’s earlier rhetoric, which gave away the vulnerability of his hand. And he’ll recognize Mr. Boehner’s more recent and more confident rhetoric for what it is: the oldest “tell” in the poker book, a show of strength betraying the ultimate weakness of his position."

538 is not completely mainstream, as it caters to a politically involved audience, but as part of the New York Times website it's definitely accessible to a broad audience. Although in many ways it is fair to cover the strategies which are inevitably a part of politics, it shouldn't be at the expense of substantive policy coverage.

A Careful Balance

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/08/roundup.government.shutdown/index.html?iref=obnetwork

I thought this article was a pretty good example of one type of Washington reporting. It's just an opinion piece, which has very short contributions from a range of analysts commenting on the Budget compromise. It might not be very informative for someone looking for the facts of the budget crisis, but it's illuminating in that it shows the many aspects, both political and governmental, of the compromise. Best of all, the piece includes a range of viewpoints, all on one page, which makes it easy for even a very partisan reader to be exposed to opinions they may have avoided in an article by a single author.

The Importance of Accuracy in Ideological Debates

NYT: Progress Reported on Budget Standoff, but No Deal Yet

As the prospect of a federal government shutdown becomes more pressing, the New York Times reports on what progress-if any at all- Congress has made in reaching a compromise. Since much of the trouble with establishing an agreement stems from sharp discord on contentious issues such as funding Planned Parenthood, the article reflects the Republicans and Democrats' blame game of the past several weeks. I do not believe dramatization is a major part of the article, as the politicians have certainly achieved this on their own. However, one aspect that bothered me was the NYT's description of the points of contention.

The article states, "Ideological disputes over abortion financing and changes to the nation’s clean air laws have proven to be major obstacles to a deal." This is in reference to the controversy of providing federal funding to Planned Parenthood, which does much more than just provide abortions. It is referred to as "abortion financing" once again near the story's conclusion. This is especially disappointing since the NYT ran at least one story centered on the Planned Parenthood controversy in the last couple of months: Planned Parenthood Funding is Caught in Budget Feud.

By reducing Planned Parenthood to an issue of "abortion financing", the NYT is contributing to the mistaken yet common perception that all this institution does is provide abortions. It's a seemingly harmless, small reference in the article, but the impact it can have on an uninformed reader is significant. This also illustrates the extent of the influence politicians can wield over the media. Many Republican congressmen have pressed the connection between Planned Parenthood and abortion services, thus media outlets such as the NYT are now more inclined to focus on this aspect of the clinic.

Barack Obama 2012 Campaign Launch Video - "It Begins With Us"

President Obama issued a re-election video in which he does not appear.
Seems like an interesting strategy. It doesn't address any of the current issues facing our society. Instead, it depicts constituents from all parts of the country and of varying racial groups. The ad doesn't talk policy at all, just features individuals from businessman, to college student to a single mom all talking about how the election in is "in our hands" and "we have to make it happen." It's not meant to be in informative or smear potential opponents, it's just a tame re-election campaign video that only boasts it's real purpose at the very end with the iconic Obama logo.
It makes me wonder how hard Obama is really going to have to work as an incumbent President? This message of the campaign being in the hands of the people kind of makes it sound as though he will be too busy to be on the campaign trail again himself. It's a reasonable assumption given that it is currently his job, but was it a good idea to advertise that fact so early on? Republicans might take this as a sign of arrogance on Obama's part, perhaps even suggest that he's "out of touch" with the people.
I wonder how this will play out in the coming months as the field of Republican challengers continues to emerge? Will Obama really be able to leave it in the hands of the people, or will the field of competition lure him into a cross-country campaign?

Fair Reporting of Washington

Roll Call "Administration Opposes Boehner's School Voucher Bill"

Roll Call's coverage of an exchange between the White House and Speaker of the House John Boehner is a rare illustration of reporting of Washington events that isn't dramatized or framed through conflict. It reports the President's opposition to a a school voucher program proposed by Speaker Boehner. The short article concisely reports the basic facts of the legislation, and avoids the pitfall that many paper would likely give in to - the temptation to frame the exchange as just part of a political back and forth. To be fair, Roll Call is a Washington-centric publication which can cater to an audience interested in legislation, and this particular issue is a minor one which doesn't really warrant a longer, more contextualized piece. Still, it's refreshing to see that it is possible to report on events in D.C. in such a straightforward way.

Live in Primetime: Not Obama---Dancing with the Stars

Via NYT: Before Libya, White House Must Negotiate With ABC

I couldn't help but notice this article from the NYT website about Obama's people having to work his speech, a matter of national and international security, around the American people's primetime schedules.


To me it reached back to the article we read about the proliferation of cable channels and it's impact on individual knowledge of current events and political developments. It seems that even the President has come to a similar conclusion: If he wants to get his message out, especially on the national channels who have transitioned into entertainment broadcasters, he'll need to do so in time for the 8pm time slot.

This particular quote caught my attention:

"A White House spokesman, Joshua Earnest, sent a statement by e-mail:

'The White House routinely works with the networks, as a group, in circumstances like these to find a time that’s respectful of both the networks and their audience – while ensuring that the president has the platform he needs to deliver an important message to the American people.'"

I acknowledge that money from advertisers and the fact some shows were presented LIVE had an impact on the decision to collaborate between networks on times. Yet another question arises: Will the future of being an effective President and effective media core hinge on the ability to get the message out in time for Dancing with the Stars?


It's a good question, but perhaps not one that the answer will be immediately apparent in. Perhaps this was a special occasion? What it does reveal is that, in order to be effective, the President ought to be aware of media trends in order to use those trends and the media effectively. This collaboration for Obama's speech on Libya is one such example.


But if there's anything disappointing about this situation it's that matters of national security, which are critical to our survival, are at the mercy of television programming schedules. It just feels silly, and quite frankly somewhat dangerous.

Obama v. Boehner (and everyone else in Congress)

Via the Washington Post: Boehner Presses Obama on Libya Action

In the wake of unrest in Libya, Obama faced the nation this past week to let them know the U.S. will be serving a supporting role in the UN established no-fly zone.

In this WaPo article, Speaker of the House John Boehner voiced his reservations over the lack of defined goals regarding U.S. involvement. What makes this article so interesting is the fact that there is potentially a Constitutional issue at stake. While the War Powers Act authorizes the President to commit troops in times of immediate danger, that clear and present danger is all but present to members of Congress. Furthermore, if U.S. involvement lasts more than sixty days, Obama will need explicit consent from Congress and funding to do so, or else execute a quick withdrawal.

Similarly, Boehner and other Congressional members from both sides of the aisle wished Obama had taken more time to consult with them before agreeing to commit troops to the action.

So why did this story make the news?

Easy: Conflict.

The bipartisan desire for Obama to be more clear on how U.S. involvement would benefit relations with the Middle East and demonstrate commitment to UN sanctions. Conflict between the two branches is nothing new, but it's definitely newsworthy. The constitutional issue is just an added bonus, especially prone to close scrutiny by the media as our time there inches towards sixty days.

There's also the fear that we could be committing ourselves to another war. Our military is already spread thin between Afghanistan and with the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The potential for another military engagement is timely and important, affecting families nationwide.

Further, how does the administration balance the need for stability and the desire to promote freedom and perhaps democracy in another country with the need to fulfill an obligation to the UN resolution? We also have perhaps one of the most capable militaries, with Britain and France, who are both partners in the air-strikes, not far behind. The U.S. is a strong country whose presence in the international community and coveted partnership make it a key and necessary ally. What does it mean for the rebels fighting for freedom in the region when we back out? It's a hard but necessary balance to strike. No wonder its making headlines.

Regardless, this crisis, while difficult, puts both the President and Congress on notice. And we'll be watching to see how it all turns out.

All Time Low...Or So It Feels

Obama Needs to Dramatically Change Course If He Wants Fix His Slipping Poll Numbers

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/18/obama-needs-dramatically-change-course-wants-fix-slipping-poll-numbers/#ixzz1HTkqkTT3

O'Reilly and Dick Morris weigh in:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4589743/obamas-approval-rating-drop-due-to-japan

National Journal (Perhaps the coolest in terms of breakdown + Charts and Graphs): http://nationaljournal.com/magazine/some-encouraging-signs-for-the-president-20110318

These reports came in days before Obama announced to the nation that he would be committing troops to the efforts in Libya. In them, Obama faces a 49% approval rating, and the admission by Rassmussen poll respondents that only 22% of them think the country is headed in the right direction.

What makes these articles interesting to me is that each source has framed and presented the approval ratings results differently. While the Fox News opinion piece and the O'Reilly video lay out the numbers with a little bit of commentary, the National Journal rolls out fancy graphs and a breakdown by race, education, education, gender and party.

While its very easy to accept the assessment that Obama is losing approval and needs to make some changes, the Fox News sources don't analyze the composition or trends in approval like the National Journal. The National Journal seems to indicate that Obama's overall approval rating hasn't really changed over the course of his Presidency. Fox News only seemed to emphasize the fact that his Job Approval Rating has slipped five percentage points in the past week.

The way the media reports numbers like approval ratings is important. While numbers are always subject to manipulation, as analysis is to bias, the background information provided by the National Journal really puts the news into perspective. Anyone who relied solely on the Fox News assessment missed the trending that occurred, though its important to note that both sources were quoting different polls that were taken, both asking about the President and Job Approval.

Either way, it's obvious that different assessments have an important impact as the President seeks reelection in 2012, and the field of potential challengers begins to emerge. They base their strategies in terms of things like this. Bad or out of context information compromises their legitimacy as a candidate.

Word of advice: Never let the numbers, or the pundits, speak for themselves.

Dramatizations and Political Conflicts in the New York Times

White House seeks to Allay Muslim Fears on Terror Hearings

New York Representative (R) and Homeland Security Committee chairman John King is planning to hold hearings on the issue of domestic Islamic radicalism. The New York Times' article discusses President Obama's actions to calm apprehensions among Muslims and adds in a bit of drama as well. While quotes and reactions from members of the Muslim community are dispersed throughout the story, the main point is centered on partisan disputes and religious drama. Part of the article highlighted the mistaken assumptions around Obama's religious identity, as well as the point that "Republicans have accused the Obama administration of ignoring the Islamic nature of terrorism by preferring terms like 'violent extremism'." Interestingly, one of Obama's advisers was tasked with dispelling fears about the hearings, yet the article couldn't refrain from discussing this particular controversy. In one statement that yields both partisan and religious dramatization, the NYT article points out King's debate with Democratic and Muslim Representative Keith Elliot.

At one point, the story notes that "Because Mr. King has not been specific about his plans, rumors are swirling." It seems the NY Times is contributing to the confusion by adding its own dramatized perspective to the mix. Though it is not the most blatant, the opening statement of the article already politicizes the issue by introducing King as "a Republican congressman" while describing the advisor's speech to a largely Muslim audience as a 'reaction' to the former's plans. More attention was generally given to the political players than the Muslim community itself. The title is quite different from actual article content; the political and cultural dramatizations are generally subtle yet pervasive.

Sending Biden into the Fight: Conflict Framing in the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030302223.html

Although the official title of this article is "Biden takes on budget impasse, meets with congressional leaders today" it is advertised on the Post Politics front page as "Obama sends Biden into budget fight with GOP." This difference in titling is reflective of a couple important issues in the Post's coverage of the story. Firstly, the article is advertised with language which uses a distinctly conflict oriented frame, which stands at odds with the more factual, less attention grabbing title featured on the story page itself. This conflict framing is actually largely at-odds with the tone of the article, which acknowledges the difficulty in reaching a compromise but also focuses on Biden's consensus-building skills and good relationship with Republicans in the House. It's significant that a title about potential cooperation was obviously rejected in favor of one which frames the discussions as a "fight." The story also makes use of some other biases we've become very familiar with in class. The following passage contains clear biases towards personalities and a win-lose dichotomy:

The shift comes after Boehner said Monday that Obama should have done more, and two days later Reid, an Obama ally, sidestepped a question about whether the administration had been doing enough before this week.
White House officials privately do not believe a government shutdown would be a political boon to them as it was for President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. They expect both parties would be blamed for the disruption and it would hurt the economy, which they view as the biggest concern for most Americans and for next year's elections.

Overall I was surprised to find coverage like this on the Washington Post website. I would have thought that this media outlet would cater to an especially well-informed and interested audience, and therefore would have more substantive and policy-oriented coverage.

What You Didn't Hear: State of the Union Promises Lacking Coverage

FoxNews: Obama Wants Panel to Select Federal Property to Sell Off

CNN: Obama plan would accelerate sale of unneeded federal real estate

It's a common failing of the constantly changing news cycle that some stories just don't make the front page, or, sadly enough, get buried in so many links that you're likely to never find them unless it happened to be by chance.

In this case, only CNN and FoxNews carried the story.

This story, while perhaps not fraught with GOP versus Democrat conflict does seem to address something that all Americans and media outlets seem to target at one point or another: Whether or not the President has been able to make headway on his State of the Union promises.

It appears Obama has made recommendations to various government agencies to assess what government properties could be sold off in order to cut the federal spending budget. Unhappy with the progress he's now suggested a private- and public-sector commission to evaluate the excess and propose the cuts to Congress for a vote.

FoxNews presented the story essentially as fact-friendly as possible, as did CNN, probably for lack of the juicy conflict that would make for a more catchy or sensationalist headline.

It did seem to me, though, that while CNN presented a lot of facts themselves, in conjunction with many quotes from Jeff Zients, the federal chief performing officer, there was a slight attempt at the beginning to personalize or hook the reader into the story with mention of specific buildings that were on the chopping block.

I think what really struck me was that there was a story that clearly outlined an instance in which the President was actively seeking to make good on one of his State of the Union promises, but the press gave passive attention to it on the way to the two-hundredth story about how the government is about to shutdown over the lack of a budget. Don't get me wrong, that's a pretty important thing to be covering, but for the weight and measure of success we place on a President with the prime indicator his ability to fulfill those beginning of the year promises, we sure did let this one slide to the "back page."

Stopgap Bills and Conflicting Perspectives in the Media

NY Times: Senate Approves Stopgap Spending Bill
Politico: Democrats support Joe Biden's budget role
MSNBC: Obama signs stopgap spending bill

The news of the stopgap spending bill's passage in the Senate was highlighted in the media on Wednesday. The basic information conveyed is that the Senate passed a bill to extend government services through March 18 and initiate $4 billion spending cuts. President Obama quickly approved this bill while calling for more negotiations among Congressional leaders and Vice President Joe Biden's staff. The House's recently passed bill proposing a $61 billion cut throughout the fiscal year was also discussed.

The New York Times, Politico, and MSNBC shared very few similarities in their coverage of this story, though the same information was essentially included. One interesting commonality of all stories was the manner in which the military's concerns over the budget were addressed. The NY Times article placed Defense Secretary Robert Gates' comments at the very end, while MSNBC made a very brief, two-three sentence mention of him in the middle of its story. Politico discussed his worries near the article's conclusion and provided slightly greater coverage than the other outlets. Nonetheless, the articles all reflect a general lack of interest for the military's issues with the proposed budget cuts.

The differences in each media outlet's coverage of the story are demonstrated simply through the titles of each article. These headlines are also an indicator of who has been deemed the most significant subjects in the stories. The actions of the Senate were emphasized throughout the NYT article; the nature of the vote was one of the first aspects covered, with attention focused on Congress in the first five-seven paragraphs. Statements from Republicans and Democrats dominated the story, and the controversy with the House bill received some attention as well.

Politico took a very different approach and interpreted the story in a more biased manner. In the NYT article, one of the first statements notes the 91-9 Senate vote in favor of the bill. Politico's first sentence focuses exclusively on Senate Democrats and describes the bill as their efforts to "forestall" any decisive action on budget cuts. Furthermore, the article does not mention the actual Senate vote until the second page of the story. What the blog does focus on is the Republican reaction to the stopgap bill, providing quotes and framing the information in a manner that emphasizes a lack of action and initiative on the Democrats' part. The author notes, "Indeed, the House has already approved a budget bill for the remainder of this fiscal years that incorporates more than $60 billion in cuts." The title of Politico's article reflects the content well, with significantly more discussion of the Vice President's potential role than in the NYT article.

On the other end of the spectrum is MSNBC, which focuses on both Obama and the Republicans throughout its coverage. The President receives subtle yet consistent support; the article mentions the $4 billion cuts are apparently targeting areas that Obama has already considered for financial reductions. In addition, the $61 billion cuts proposed by the House receive pointed criticism at the story's conclusion. Like Politico, MSNBC includes quotes from top Republican leaders such as John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. However, the network portrays the $61 billion bill as a "slew of provisions that attack clean air and clean water regulations, family planning, and other initiatives." Other criticisms of the Republicans are discreetly dispersed throughout the article.

Each of the articles presents Wednesday's news in distinct methods that result in different priorities. Those who exclusively read the NY Times may contemplate bipartisanship and the possibility for a compromise on the budget issues of the federal government. Politico readers might focus on the Democrats' seeming indecisiveness and how negotiating with Biden and his aides will impact the debate on spending cuts. MSNBC subscribers will probably view the bill as a sign of Obama's dedication to a bipartisan solution and the Republicans' supposed preventions of such an outcome. While the basics of this story remain the same, the method of conveying the information shows how media outlets can influence their audiences' understanding of any given event.