FRAMING INFECTIOUS DISEASES AND U.S. PUBLIC OPINION

Link to download complete 288 page PDF (4.3MB)

digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1626&context=etd

Yes, elite academia studies how to manipulate public opinion for their elite masters.

The reader may benefit by searching text for terms like ebola.

It is well worth taking the time to read the entire document.

I will post a few interesting excerpts as teasers.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. FRAMES IN THE INFECTIOUS DISEASE DEBATE 17
2.1. HIV/AIDS as a Security Threat 19
2.2. HIV/AIDS and the Economic Frame 31
2.3. HIV/AIDS and Human Rights 34
2.4. SARS as a Security Threat 43
2.5. SARS and the Economic Frame 46
2.6. SARS and Human Rights 47
2.7. Avian Flu as a Security Threat 54
2.8. Avian Flu and the Economic Frame 56
2.9. Avian Flu and Human Rights 57
2.10. Conclusion 60
III. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH DESIGN 63
3.1. Framing and Framing Effects 63
3.2. Studies on Emphasis Framing 69
3.3. Research Design 82
3.4. Conclusion 87
IV. CASE STUDY: SEVERE ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME 89
4.1. Content Analysis of Newspaper Reports 96
4.2. Data Analysis: The Mean Ratios of Four Coverage Types/Newspapers 98
4.3. Changes in Media Coverage over Time 102
4.4. Public Opinion Analysis 107
4.5. Relationship between Media Coverage and Public Opinion 111
4.6. Relationship between Media Coverage and Public Opinion (Coverage on United
States) 115
4.7. Discussion and Conclusion 116
V. CASE STUDY: AVIAN FLU 121
5.1. Content Analysis of Newspaper Reports 132
5.2. Data Analysis: The Mean Ratios of the Four Coverage Types/Newspapers. 134
5.3. Changes in Media Coverage of Avian Flu over Time 136
5.4. Public Opinion Analysis 145
5.5. Relationship between Media Coverage and Public Opinion 151
5.6. Discussion and Conclusion 159
VI. HUMAN IMMUNE DEFICIENCY VIRUS AND ACQUIRED IMMUNE
DEFICIENCY SYNDROME 165
viii
6.1. Content Analysis of Newspaper Reports 173
6.2. Data Analysis: The Mean Ratios of Four Coverage Types/Newspapers 173
6.3. Changes in Media Coverage over Time 177
6.4. Public Opinion Analysis 182
6.5. Relationship between Media Coverage and Public Opinion (Overall Samples) 188
6.6. Relationship between Media Coverage and Public Opinion (Coverage of the
United States) 199
6.7. Discussion and Conclusion 201
6.8. Limitations of the Study 208
VII. CONCLUSION 209
7.1. Research Findings 209
7.2. Implications of the Study 218
REFERENCES 225
APPENDIX 234
VITA 273
ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
Table 4.1. Data Sources and Overall Coverage………………………………………….97
Table 4.2. Frequency of News Content by Geographic Location……….…….…………98
Table 4.3. Mean Ratios for Each Coverage Type in both Newspapers Combined……...99
Table 4.4. Mean Ratios for Coverage Type by Region……………………………..…...99
Table 4.5. Comparison of the Four Frames over Entire Sampling Period………..….101
Table 4.6. Comparison of Four Frames during the Three Phases (Weekly Trend)…….107
Table 4.7 Correlation between Worry about Exposure to SARS and Media Coverage..114
Table 4.8 Correlation between Worry about Exposure to SARS and Media Reports of the
Impact of SARS on the United States…………………………………………………..116
Table 5.1. Data Sources and Overall Coverage…………………………………...……133
Table 5.2. Frequency of News Content by Geographic Location……………….……..134
Table 5.3. Mean Ratios for Coverage Type by Region……………………………...…135
Table 5.4.Mean Ratios for Coverage Type in The New York Times and The Washington
Post (combined)……………………………..………….………………………………135
Table 5.5. Comparison of Four Frames over Entire Sampling Period (1/14/04–
12/11/07)………………………………………………………………………………..136
Table 5.6. Comparisons of the Four Frames in 2004……………..….…………………139
Table 5.7. Comparisons of the Four Frames in 2005………………………...…………141
Table 5.8. Comparisons of the Four Frames in 2006………………………...…………142
Table 5.9. Comparisons of the Four Frames in 2007……………………………….…..144
Table 5.10. Comparisons of Each Frame (2004–2007)…………...……………………145
Table 5.11 Correlations between Levels of Worry about Being Exposed to Avian Flu and
Media Coverage: Pearson Correlation Coefficients (p-value)…………………………157
x
Table 6.1. Data Sources and Overall Coverage…..…………………………………….174
Table 6.2. Frequency of News Content by Geographic Location…………….….……..174
Table 6.3. Mean Ratios for Coverage Type by Region…………….…………………..175
Table 6.4. Mean Ratios for Coverage Type in The New York Times and The Washington
Post…………………………………………………………………..………………….176
Table 6.5. Comparison of the Four Frames over the Entire Sampling Period………….177
Table 6.6. Correlation Analysis Results for Media Coverage and Percentage of Positive
Responses………………………………………………………………………….……198
Table 6.7. Correlation Analysis for Changes in Media Coverage (United States) only and
Percentage of Positive Responses…………………………………………………...….201
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 4.1. Changes in Media Coverage over Time at Monthly Intervals………..……104
Figure 4.2. Changes in Media Coverage over Time at Weekly Intervals………..……..106
Figure 4.3. Changes in Media Coverage and Willingness to Change Behavior….…….112
Figure 4.4. Changes in Media Coverage and Behavioral Changes Made………..…….114
Figure 4.5. Changes in Media Coverage and Perception of SARS as a Threat……...…115
Figure 5.1. Changes in Media Coverage over Time at Quarterly Intervals……..……...137
Figure 5.2. Media Coverage Changes over Time: Weekly Averages of the Four Media
Frames in 2004…………………………………………………………………...……..138
Figure 5.3. Media Coverage Changes over Time: Weekly Averages of the Four Media
Frames in 2005………………..………………………………………………………...140
Figure 5.4. Media Coverage Changes over Time: Weekly Averages of the Four Media
Frames in 2006………………………………………………………………………….141
Figure 5.5. Media Coverage Changes over Time: Weekly Averages of the Four Media
Frames in 2007………………………………………………………………………….143
Figure 5.6. Changes in Media Coverage and Willingness to Change Behavior…..……153
Figure 5.7. Changes in Media Coverage and Behavioral Changes Made…………..….154
Figure 5.8. Changes in Media Coverage and Perception of Avian Flu as a Threat…….156
Figure 5.9. Changes in Media Coverage and Public Support for Funding………….….159
Figure 6.1. Changes in Media Coverage over Time at Quarterly Intervals…………….178
Figure 6.2. Changes in Media Coverage over Time at Semiannual Intervals…….……178
Figure 6.3. Number of Articles Focusing on the Impact of HIV/AIDS on different
Geographic Regions over Time at Semiannual Intervals………………………………181
xii
Figure 6.4. Change in Media Coverage over Time and Public Opinion about Willingness
to Change Behavior……………………………………………………………………..191
Figure 6.5. Changes in Media Coverage over Time and Public Opinion about Actual
Behavioral Changes over Time…………………………………………………………192
Figure 6.6. Changes in Media Coverage over Time and Public Opinion about HIV as a
Threat………………….…………………………………………….....……………….197
Figure 6.7. Changes in Media Coverage over Time and Public Support for
Funding…………………………………………………………………………………199
xiii

I usually find out about “Pandemic scares” after they are over. I don’t have TV. It saves me from a lot of hype.

I. INTRODUCTION
During the Cold War, nuclear weapons and bloc rivalry dominated the foreign
policy and security agenda of the United States government.1 Issues such as public health
and infectious diseases were considered to be “low politics.”2 Although the 1981-89 era
saw the discovery of a new plague (HIV/AIDS), it was not seen as a security or foreign
policy concern within the United States. With the end of the Cold War, as old military
threats from other states waned, some scholars alleged that rather than originating from
rival states, threats were either domestic or transnational (i.e., non-state) or the state itself
posed a challenge to its citizens.3 Not only was the origin of threats different, the nature
of threats differed as well.4 Some international relations theorists focused attention on
threats arising from political, environmental, and societal sectors.5 Scholars argued that in
an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, events such as civil wars,
environmental degradation, infectious diseases, migration of refugees, international
narcotics, and terrorism were transnational threats that could not only threaten the
internal stability of states but also the security of other states. These transnational issues
were security issues to be addressed by foreign policy officials.
While twentieth century scholars argued about whether poverty, degradation of
the environment, climate change, and other concerns should be treated as security issues,
it was HIV/AIDS that was declared a security threat by the United Nations Security
Council and United States security agencies in 2001.6 With globalization and increased
migration, air travel, and food and animals trade, infectious diseases could emerge
anywhere in the world and spread quickly to other parts of the world, including the
United States. Threats could arise not only from naturally occurring diseases but also
from deliberate use of microbes as weapons. Policy makers grew increasingly concerned
about the threat of bioterrorism.7 Infectious diseases were not just the concern of public
health officials and a domestic issue of any one country but a foreign policy concern as
well. The potential danger posed by infectious diseases required coordination among
national health agencies, investment in disease surveillance, and close cooperation among
international agencies. This dissertation explores the reaction of the public to this new
foreign policy and security issue—one that traditionally was a biomedical and
humanitarian issue. While the focus of this work is on the public response to framing
infectious diseases as security threats, this study also adds to the larger debate regarding
domestic public opinion as a factor that affects the foreign policy decisions of
governments in an increasingly interconnected world. 8 A body of scholarly work has
debated the role of public opinion in foreign policy decision making in democratic
societies. The debates have centered on the role of the public in foreign policy decision
making (i.e., whether public opinion follows, determines, or sets some limits on leaders
who avoid making policies that might later evoke “public retribution”). 9 With the
increased importance of issues such as immigration, infectious diseases, and the
environment, the policy making elite increasingly feel the pressure to consider and
respond to domestic public opinion and popular preferences. 10 The study of public
opinion on a transnational issue like infectious diseases also contributes to the existing
debates on the theory of international relations. In a world faced with pressing non-
military issues and with domestic and transnational actors linked to these issues,
international behavior could be the result of a “multiplicity of motives, not merely the
imperative of systemic power balances.”11
An extensive literature on the nexus between public opinion and foreign affairs
exists. The literature, however, is limited to an understanding of traditional security
issues. Much of the early literature from the two decades after the Second World War, as
represented by the works of Walter Lippmann, Hans Morgenthau, and Gabriel Almond,
posits a rather pessimistic view of public opinion on domestic and foreign policy issues.
Studies on public opinion on foreign policy issues were concerned mainly with issues
such as war, military intervention abroad, nuclear arms policy, international trade,
defense spending, and foreign aid. Policy makers perceived these issues to be far
removed from peoples’ lives, and the public was seen as disinterested in these issues.
Added to this was the belief that some of the foreign policy issues required secrecy,
speed, and flexibility in the use of classified information.12 Decision makers, therefore,
felt that there was little need to engage public opinion, which they considered to be
erratic, unstable, emotional, and volatile.13

The Vietnam War was a turning point at which policy makers began to
understand that public opinion was important. Subsequent studies by liberal theorists,
including Richard Aldrich, Benjamin Page, Robert Shapiro, Ore Holsti, John Mueller,
and Bruce Jentleson, suggested that the public did have stable views and was capable of
addressing serious foreign policy issues. In the post-Cold War era, researchers such as
Richard Sobel, James Larson, Bruce Jentleson, Rebecca Britton, Eugene Wiittkoph,
Miroslav Nincic, Bruce Russett, Ronald Hinckley, Peter Feaver, Christopher Gelpi,
Kenneth Scheve, Matthew Sloughter, Richard Eichenberg, and Elisabeth Neuman studied
issues like public tolerance of war causalities, international trade, and military
involvement. Although no consensus exists amongst these scholars as to what determines
people’s attitudes towards these problems, most scholars “understand the public as
reasoned and reasonable.”14
Within the context of this persistent debate, there was agreement among scholars
of public opinion and foreign policy about the sources of information about international
events and foreign policy issues and the accessibility of this information to the public.
Because many ordinary citizens were inattentive to international issues and foreign news,
public opinion about foreign policy issues often was activated through elite discourse
(e.g., policy making elite and opinion leaders) and by the media.15 Extensive research has
shown that the media is most able to activate opinion when these elite debates are
presented as “frames” to which people are particularly receptive and which seem to have
an impact on people’s lives.16 Framing may be seen as an attempt by leaders and other
actors to insert into the policy debate organizing themes that will affect how the public
and other actors such as the media will perceive an issue.17 Political actors, who perceive
the importance of media coverage in influencing policy outcomes, often try to advance
their policy positions via greater media coverage and engage in what has been called
“framing wars.” 18 The assumption here is that widespread discussion of issues in the
media will activate public opinion.

Barack Hussein Ebola.

There. There’s your framing.

I would strongly urge you to read the teasers I’ve posted.

If you search for the terms

frame
framing

you will find information that is revealing.

This is about public opinion manipulation, and it contains quite a bit of proof of what is actually going on with the engineered ebola scare.

THIS STARTED WAY BEFORE OBAMA.

If you read the document you will gain information.

Read the copious sources she references.

Not much can be learned from soundbytes.

Here’s some ammo!

8/06/2014 — OMG! UNPROTECTED man just 5 FEET from 2nd Ebola Patient

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3LrsPV0jTU&feature=youtu.be&list=UUHE92x768p8h-fMrqhsnE1Q

Ping.

While I agree with your premise that many of these “we are all gonna die” news events are manufactured or used by government smeg heads to enact policy, I also find that not much engineering is required to get a response that is favorable to creating demands for more government.

It appears to me, that much of the US population is already pre-programmed.

Note the references to Walter Lippmann, et.al.

"Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes,
they just don't know where to look."

~Ronald Reagan

please click the pic
donate today!
Help support Free Republic

If you read this document you will see explicit goals of generating support for government spending.

This is science to the elites. They don’t even hide it - IF people are willing to read what the elites publish. That’s what’s called “hidden in plain sight”. Us sheeple are all too often flabergasted at what we see happening, but we don’t read the recipe books the elites publish which prove what they are doing and how they are doing it.

It’s long, it’s technical, but trust me, read, take your time (might need to take it in “small portions”).

Ebola? What’s that?

;-)

I’ll check out the words you mentioned. Thanks.

Well yeah, they use ten thousand words to express a simple concept, boiled down here in Lippman’s Bio on wiki.

“Lippmann saw the purpose of journalism as “intelligence work”. Within this role, journalists are a link between policymakers and the public. A journalist seeks facts from policymakers which he then transmits to citizens who form a public opinion. “

From the dissertation:

“... some national news sources like The New York Times and The Washington Post are considered the “gatekeeper” or “elite” sources of news, in that they influence news coverage made in other national and regional newspapers.68 Analysis of these two newspapers gives an indication of reporting trends likely to be followed in other news reports.”

Personally, I think this has it’s roots in Marxism, the journalist’s idyllic founder of all that is good and wise.

As such, they are steeped in it and develop the same perceptions. As a result it appears from the outside perception that they all are smarter and more knowedeable about current events and how to interpret them, when in reality that are ....ummm....”brainwashed Marxist puppets”.....

Most people, in my experience’s, are not very analytical. Their perceptions are fairly shallow on most topics, even the ones that directly affect them in some way. Thus they are easy to manipulate into forming a “public opinion” which I often find myself at direct odds with, because I am analytical.

Critical thinking is not on the list of the voting or non voting public interests.

Any governing body today or yesterday will certainly take advantage of it, unless they have a moral center to guide them in determining what is allowable and what is not.

Obviously the current battle for public perception employed by our current governing body has no moral guidance to act as a throttle. So it’s damn the torpedo’s, full speed ahead.

Actually....(speak of the devil) this is on topic...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3189668/posts