Rush Limbaugh Live Thread Monday Dec 4th, 2006

Communication Professor Examines Media Bias in President's Speeches Virginia Tech News ^ | 11/30/06 | Jean Elliott

BLACKSBURG, VA., November 30, 2006 -- Jim A. Kuypers, assistant professor of communication in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences at Virginia Tech, reveals a disturbing world of media bias in his new book Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006).

Convincingly and without resorting to partisan politics, Kuypers strongly illustrates in eight chapters “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, Kuypers calls the mainstream news media an “anti-democratic institution” in the 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, who specializes in political communication and rhetoric. “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. “In short,” Kupyers 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 book 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,” notes Kuypers.

At the heart of each chapter 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?

According to Arkansas State University’s Dennis W. White, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, "This is a time of maximum danger for our country—a time of crisis. The American people historically turn to the President during these times for explanation, for comfort, and for exhortation to purpose. Yet, the President does not speak directly to the people. His speech is mediated; he speaks through the media, members of the media comment on presidential speech, and others comment on the comment. Jim Kuypers is the best in the business at explaining presidential crisis communication and its relationship to the media.”

"This is a skilled and thoughtful work of scholarship, well worth a careful reading,” said Stephen D. Cooper of Marshall University. “Kuypers's book is provocative in the best sense of the word: It can stimulate fresh thinking about presidential rhetoric and press reporting of it—which Kuypers shows can be two very different things.”

Kuypers, of Christiansburg, Va., received his Ph.D from Louisiana State University and both his bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from Florida State. He joined Virginia Tech's Department of Communication last year after having taught political communication for tens years at Dartmouth College

Personally, I think Hillary Clinton would make the best president of all the democrats running. The republicans with GWB in the White House have no chance of winning the presidency in 2008, no matter their candidate. Hillary Clinton does exhibit some independence and can be very tough. While I am not sure of her real views, I think that she could be a Thatcher like president certainly better than any democrat alternative. The republicans can kiss off the next 10 to 14 years. Bush by his inept handling of the Iraq war and his total inability to communicate conservative positions with the American people has relegated the conservative movement to obscurity for the forseeable future. I welcome responses to this post from only those who had the foresight to know and predict the outcome of this last election. Wishful thinking as exhibited by the hopeless Bushbots just is so much hot air.

The sooner the conservatives recognize that GWB is not only no better but actually worse than a liberal democrat for his ineptness and past and coming betrayal of conservative values, the sooner we can begin the process of reorganizing ourselves into a possible but probably unlikely conservative majority (recognizing the suffrage will be granted to millions of illegal aliens in the next few years.) I venture to suggest that we might have a 1 in 3 chance of turning things around in the next two decades but it will be a long and difficult fight and due to my age at present I will never see it happen.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230099,00.html

Hype and Hope

by Col. Oliver North | Friday , November 17, 2006

Washington, D.C. — It all sounded too good to be true — and now we know that it was. For a few days after the midterm elections, leaders of the new Congressional majority talked like they really wanted to work with the Bush administration for the "common good." But like so much in Washington, it's now clear, that was just hype.

In their first flush of victory, the idols of the American left were scrambling to sound like reasonable, responsible legislators who recognized that our nation faces serious challenges. Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) initially described last week's vote as a mandate "to restore stability and bipartisanship" in Washington. Senate Majority Leader-in-Waiting Harry Reid (D-NV) said, "The only way to move forward is with bipartisanship and openness, and to get some results...I want to work with the president of the United States." Unfortunately, rhetoric has now surrendered to reality. Nothing has changed.

The "wake-up call" about how America's liberal icons will run the 110th Congress came late last week when the Bush administration urged that John Bolton — currently serving a recess appointment as our ambassador to the United Nations — be confirmed by the Senate. The suggestion had barely been uttered when Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) announced that Mr. Bolton, despite admirable work trying to protect U.S. interests, would be rejected. "I see no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination," he said.

Though Mr. Bolton says he still hopes for "a straight up or down vote on the Senate floor," lame duck Republicans on Capitol Hill have been acting like crippled chickens. When GOP "leaders" failed to rally to Bolton's cause, triumphal Democrats began floating the names of potential replacements. Among those deemed "acceptable" as U.N. emissaries were former Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa and former Democrat Sen. George Mitchell — both ardent supporters of the international body's globalist agenda.

Just to make sure that Mr. Bush is getting the message about how stiff the opposition is, and how rudderless his party has become, the House of Representatives refused to vote on a trade bill that was all but assured a week ago. As a result, the president arrived in Vietnam for the Asian Economic Summit empty handed.

For an additional taste of the way things are going to be, Air Force One was still heading west when the Senate Armed Services Committee summoned Gen. John Abizaid, the senior U.S. officer fighting the global war on terror, to appear before them to discuss next steps in Iraq. Though Abizaid argued against setting timelines for withdrawing U.S. forces and stated, "the prudent course ahead is to keep the troop levels about where they are," it didn't matter to incoming committee chairman, Carl Levin (D-MI). He's already decided that we must "begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months."

And, in case anyone has forgotten how the legislative branch can make just a withdrawal happen, Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) reminded his colleagues — as the President was headed to Vietnam — how a hostile, liberal-led, anti-military, blame-America-first Congress ensured defeat in Vietnam: "There's one solution here," Mr. Kucinich explained, "and it's not to engage in a debate with the President...but it's for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds."

Finally, to remove any doubt as to where she really stands on cooperating with Mr. Bush on Iraq, Mrs. Pelosi threw her weight behind the most outspoken critic of the war in the Democrat caucus, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) in his bid for Majority Leader. Notably, Mr. Murtha commented this week that a proposal made by his colleagues was "total crap." He was, for once, not referring to American troops in Iraq, but to suggested ethics reforms.

The brief post-election hiatus from liberal viscera is now over. The left is — as it was before November 7 — still fervently committed to undoing the Bush presidency, whatever the cost. A few nameplates have been replaced on doors in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill, but things are pretty much unchanged.

While they savor their triumph, the Democrats would be wise to consider some other things that their "new management" will not change:

• Our porous borders are still a major vulnerability and the American people know it;

• Kim Jung Il in Pyongyang, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran, Hugo Chavez in Caracas and now, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua are still evil despots and will do us great harm if given the chance;

• The Jihad being waged against us continues and American citizens are still the number one target for Islamic radicals.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.