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.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
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.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
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.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
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.
Monday, March 7, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
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:
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.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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)