McQuail tells us that framing is how the media portrays a piece of news, and how it makes it relevant to other events. It is difficult for the media to remain 100% objective when they are delivering a broadcast or writing an article because news is often presented in a story-like form, and not simply a list of facts. There are many different way in which bias is visible, McQuail sites a few "They include using certain words or phrases, making certain contextual references, choosing certain pictures or film, giving examples as typical, referring to certain stories and so on."
The following article is about Tony Blair's decision to pull half of the UK's troops out of Iraq. The article is framed using many of the elements discussed above, which also causes a deal of bias to be visible throughout. The article makes reference to Tony Blair's comments a month ago about how an arbitrary time table for withdrawal would send a disastrous message to those we are fighting, placing a quote from Blair immediately following the details of his decision for withdrawal. The article also compares the number of British troops currently in Iraq (7,000) to 20,000 additional units Bush wants to send over, by mentioning it a little further on in the article. Not all the references made in the article are negative, there are quotes in the article from Whitehouse officials who see the withdrawal as a sign of progress, and mention how the US's goal is to follow suit. CNN however quickly follows up with the following message, which seems to be CNN's alternative reasoning behind the withdrawals "Opposition to the war has hurt Blair politically, with his ruling Labor Party losing seats in Parliament and in local elections in the past two years. The prime minister announced in September that he would leave office within a year." It also immediately follows up with the following statement, placed in it's own 1 line paragraph..."More than 130 British troops have been killed in Iraq."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/20/uk.iraq.troops/index.html
This second article examines a guerrilla marketing campaign which inadvertently caused a major bomb scare which caused major disruptions in the city of Boston. (Notice very stern looking photo; top left) The article discusses how a third party company working for Adult Swim (part of Cartoon Network, owned by Turner) placed small boxes, similar to "Light Brights", featuring cartoon characters in major cities, in locations where they would attract a great deal of attention. The device looked like a small light up LED and had wires coming out the back that went onto a battery. The devices were described as looking "menacing" in the article. The article features one comment from the Turner CEO, followed by quote after quote from various law enforcement officials stating basically how irresponsible Turner, Cartoon Network, and the 2 men who were arrested were for attempting such a marketing technique. The quotes which CNN chose to use feature some extremely harsh comments. "Scaring an entire region, tying up the T and major roadways, and forcing first responders to spend 12 hours chasing down trinkets instead of terrorists is marketing run amok," "It would be hard to dream up a more appalling publicity stunt." One quote cited how disgusted they were that someone would attempt something like this in a post 911 era. The article did not feature any quotes from the two men who were actually arrested surprisingly. The two men spoke at a press conference after their arrest. I believe the comments were not included in CNN's article because they did not fit the frame which the article created, or because the article was written before the conference (The conference and article, both Feb 1st)
I highly recommend watching the conference (included below). Notice the framing in the video as well. The graphic at the bottom of the screen reads "two suspects arraigned in terror promotion scare".
Article
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/31/boston.bombscare/
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2fGzmphx4U
-Derek Varga
11 comments:
Being 100% objective is nearly impossible as long as humans are still delivering the news.
Sara Welch said this to me yesterday from news channel 8 in the words of "people aren't perfect," when I freaked out about making a mistake.
So I think the same theory with mistakes goes along with objectivity as well.
Even though the news claims to be unbiased, most people are, because it's very difficult to write something without putting your two sense in.
Now the news media is currently blamed for being too liberal. Why is this? I think the liberal bias is due to the fact that members of the news media (reporters) have a democratic opinion.
Let me also mention this: I think the lack in objectivity is not just the fact that the news is told in story form, I think it's the thoughts and political orientation of those writing it.
So I'll put this up to the class...as Derek put in his original post...do you think the news would be less biased if relayed to the public simply as a list of facts?
I believe that the media is biased eve though they claim not to be. It is blatant in news reports on television and newspapers. Fox is a great example of a media outlet that is extremely biased. I feel that the two articles presented in the blog do a good job of illustrating that the media is biased. The article about the bomb scare in Boston shows no views from the two me arrested and they didn't seem to make an attempt to find concrete information on the two men. How are people supposed to form opinions on the matter without all the proper information. No matter what the media does, it can't change the fact that it is biased. People will continue to read information that isn't completely true and will only have half the story. I do however believe that if the media only presented the facts, it would be less biased but I don't think that will ever be possible because people will always find a way to add their opinions.
This is going to be a short response but I feel as if there is only one real question that people need to think about.
News is storytelling. Framing is not a concept, it is an executed practice. The best reporters made you weel like you were there even without pictures, and the best photographers are the ones who can develop human emotion out of an image.
With this said, I feel the question should not be "How difficult is it to be objective?" And should instead be "What is objectivity?"
Im not sure if the word biased is the right word that people are using.
I believe each newscast must have its own opinion in some way. Yes they should always relate on both sides of the story but everybody watchs a certain station for a reason. They relate in some way shape or form to that station. So if you say Fox is "biased" but its my fav station then its not biased to me.
Every station must find a way to tell the news and also entertain the viewer. In order to do just that they must include some kind of opinion. ESPECIALLY in the world today where the only thing people care about are opinions. Like blogs for instance. Or if you turn on ESPN, all they offer is opinions about the news of the day.
Its the world we live in and its that way because we want it that way. So I don't see anything wrong with being a little biased in reporting the news.
Mayer
To answer the question that Sandra asked, I think the news would be less biased if it was just giving the straight facts(all the facts) instead of giving a story. But then again... there is that problem where they are limited to only a certain amount of time to give the facts so it will have to used their judgement to determine which facts are worthy of importance in order to fit that time frame.
Framing as discussed in the articles are "principles of selectin, emphasis, and presentation composed of little tactic theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters."
The news channels are the ones who determine what is important enough to be on the front page or headline news. Mcquil describes in the book that the newsworkers determine what is hard news and what is soft news.. everyone has their own opinions about what is important in life and what is worthy of up front converage...
in the end there will always be some kind of bias towards the news and the information that is being given to the public
In response to sandra, I do believe the news would be less biased if they just relayed the facts to the viewer. This would not give the broadcaster any type of say or opinion to what is being put on the air. The thing is that is not what people want to see. I feel as if people enjoy watching the different news stations to watch how the news portrays different events. I am a huge sports fan and watch ESPN all the time. They have different reporters come on everyday and basdically contradict one another about a certain situation. I find that intertesting and without the different sides taken the news would be boring.
I think the main job of the media is to deliver the news, including all sides of the story. That way people can have all the facts and therefore form their own opinions. After reading the article written by CNN, I could clearly identify this as an example of framing. Although in no way do I agree with the marketing campaign that resulted in the bomb scare, I would have liked to read more from Turner. Why did it take them so long to contact proper authorities telling them this was not a bomb scare? How was this a marketing technique? When did they place all of these electronic ads? How did they place them, and why did they choose those specific places? I felt the article completely concentrated on the poor choices made by Turner, and the hardships it caused to the city of Boston. However, what was Turner’s side? A few quotes were included from Phil Kent, issuing a public apology, however I would have liked to read more of his side of the story. Why doesn’t CNN do a little bit more research, make a few more phone calls, get more facts from Turner’s side. Allow me to read more facts from both sides of the story.
In response to sandra's question...it is impossible for the news to just give straight facts. it would just be too long and boring for the average American to sit through. The "storytelling" is what keeps the people watching. Whether or not the news is objective is part of the trust that we instill on the media, that they are telling us the whole truth. Everyone knows that CNN and Fox news have certain agendas that they follow but we should turn our focus on the local news and whether or not they are being objective.
In response to the Boston bomb scare, it seems a little odd that a marketing campaign would allow this type of advertisement. I wonder who was in charge of that campaign because I bet they are out of a job by now. Also, I'd like to see more on Turners reasoning behind the advertisments.
-Katie Cocozza
I have to agree with the majority of the people on this concept. Framing is all around and the news is bias. As the audience, we see only certain "frames" of the complete slideshow-- meaning, the media chooses what side of the story they want to write about. This obviously affects us and how we are going to perceive the story...There was actually a news story on this past week on the possible recovery of Jesus’ tomb. It was playing on CNN for the past two days and I noticed something very interesting-- something that definitely has to deal with what we are talking about. Every time they would post the headline "Jesus’ tomb found," they would show a clip right after from an architect who believes it to be untrue. I heard very few details on the actual possibility that it may be true. The media only showed the controversial part of it. Here, we have another example of the public getting half the story.
The media is going to be biased no matter what. Perhaps, the news should just talk about the facts..BUT then again, if they did that...it wouldn't be called news would it? The whole point of news is to have that extra exaggeration on subjects or that controversial element that arouses interest in the viewer.
Framing, particularly in the news media, reinforces viewpoints regarding issues and events that are covered. One of the more sensationalized examples of framing that come to mind is what happened after the 9/11 attacks. Every station from FOX News to CNN to MSNBC had “America At War!” slogans plastered on their screen in dark, bold letters. Coverage of terrorism was everywhere; it flooded households all over the nation and eventually reached a point where most people could only think or talk about Bin Laden and the attacks. News coverage caused Americans to fear living a normal lifestyle. A friend of mine recently asked me “What happened to all the dreams people had on September 10, 2001?” I had no response other than to say that those dreams were gone. Shock value alone cannot explain this. Rather, it was the way the terrorist attacks were framed by the news, both liberal and conservative alike.
Another example of framing can be seen in the media coverage of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Thousands of people lost their lives in this natural disaster and some have even compared it to the 9/11 attacks. Though it took a while President Bush managed to make his way to ground zero of this tragedy. This was around the same time FEMA was under increasing scrutiny by the public. And despite the obvious destruction and death in the area, broadcast crews from CNN and other news stations were told by the Presidential Advisors to shoot areas with the least amount of damage. This was not the only incident in New Orleans where severe faming deception was used. There was also a great deal more coverage of minorities “stealing” food from abandoned stores; whites were described as more as salvaging for survival. In this situation framing of the news indicated a great deal of prejudice and was harmful to those already suffering at the hands of nature and the mismanagement of FEMA.
The examples I have given illustrate a core belief of mine; that the faming of the news is simply another method of bias in the news media, a bias too often designed to serve those in power, facilitating the government’s ability to set the public mood through agenda setting.
The articles in this blog are interesting. Tony Blair’s decision has indeed been hailed by many in the Bush Administration as a step forward in the war in Iraq. Others say it’s an act of desperation and an admission to a failure to achieve promised goals. These points of view were presented by FOX News and CNN repeatedly. Again, here I claim that FOX News is working as more of an extension of the Bush Administration than anything else in terms of the way they covered Blair’s action.
As for how the news media responded to the botched advertising campaign by Comedy Central, I find it difficult to call their framing of the situation contrived in any way. The advertisement caused a panic and the news media was pretty consistent in calling it as they saw it. It might have been a bit much to refer to it was terrorism but the American psyche has adjusted to that frame of mind. Had the networks not covered the event in such a way people still would have thought of it as terrorist-like.
So is framing positive or negative? In light of the current national and international events as well as the current presidential influence on the news media, I’d say it’s certainly not positive. It is another form of propaganda. And a dangerous form one.
Post a Comment