Hmmm and all the time I gathered this war was because saddam would not comply to resolutions set forth by U.n. and failed to let inspectors in--as for WMD's maybe we need Manson back with his refresher course on list of everyone includings liberals quotes on wmd's.
Maybe I missed somrthing--on GW'S final offer to Saddam was it comply with resolutions or else-or give us your oil or else--:shrug:
What media are are going by Chad?
Its kinda like says in Wikipedia's--
U.S. media influences
One area often ignored concerning the understanding Americans have about the war on terror involves the role the mainstream news media plays. In Bush?s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age Political Communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers illustrates ?how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror.? In each comparison, Kuypers ?detected massive bias on the part of the press.? In fact, this researcher called the mainstream news media an ?anti-democratic institution? in his conclusion. ?What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes, and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror,? said Kuypers. ?Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, and Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president's themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus.?
This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view, which is an important function of the press. ?In short,? Kuypers explained, ?if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech.? The study is essentially a ?comparative framing analysis.? Overall, Kuypers examined themes about 9/11 and the War on Terror that the President used, and compared them to the themes that the press used when reporting on what the President said.
?Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner,? wrote Kuypers. At the core of the book are these questions: What did President Bush talk about, and how did he want us to think about it? What did the mainstream news media talk about following President Bush?s speeches, and how did they want us to think about it? The answers to such questions lead one to consider the role the mainstream news played in developing Americans? understanding of the war on terror. For example, in his November 2005 commemoration of Veteran?s Day, the President publicly attacked his Democrat critics over their remarks on the War on Terror. However, the President also laid out his administration's specific plans for Iraq and the War on Terror in this speech. Americans would not know this, however, unless they actually listened to or read the President?s speech; the press failed to mention that portion of the speech (roughly 85% of the entire speech). Additionally, in the coverage that followed this speech, the press demanded the very information war plans that the President had shared in the speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror
Maybe I missed somrthing--on GW'S final offer to Saddam was it comply with resolutions or else-or give us your oil or else--:shrug:
What media are are going by Chad?
Its kinda like says in Wikipedia's--
U.S. media influences
One area often ignored concerning the understanding Americans have about the war on terror involves the role the mainstream news media plays. In Bush?s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age Political Communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers illustrates ?how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror.? In each comparison, Kuypers ?detected massive bias on the part of the press.? In fact, this researcher called the mainstream news media an ?anti-democratic institution? in his conclusion. ?What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes, and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror,? said Kuypers. ?Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, and Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president's themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus.?
This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view, which is an important function of the press. ?In short,? Kuypers explained, ?if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech.? The study is essentially a ?comparative framing analysis.? Overall, Kuypers examined themes about 9/11 and the War on Terror that the President used, and compared them to the themes that the press used when reporting on what the President said.
?Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner,? wrote Kuypers. At the core of the book are these questions: What did President Bush talk about, and how did he want us to think about it? What did the mainstream news media talk about following President Bush?s speeches, and how did they want us to think about it? The answers to such questions lead one to consider the role the mainstream news played in developing Americans? understanding of the war on terror. For example, in his November 2005 commemoration of Veteran?s Day, the President publicly attacked his Democrat critics over their remarks on the War on Terror. However, the President also laid out his administration's specific plans for Iraq and the War on Terror in this speech. Americans would not know this, however, unless they actually listened to or read the President?s speech; the press failed to mention that portion of the speech (roughly 85% of the entire speech). Additionally, in the coverage that followed this speech, the press demanded the very information war plans that the President had shared in the speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror
Last edited:
