The State of the Union address is an opportunity for a President to outline his or her policy agenda for their upcoming term for a huge national audience whereby taking advantage of the media’s officialdom bias especially centered around the White House (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 4; OPS, 2011; Pol 304 Lectures). The media devoted considerable coverage to President Obama’s State of the Union address in 2011, including before, during, and after the event took place, producing multiple narrative frames around what was essentially another chapter in an ongoing political drama stoked by President Obama’s release to his supporters of a video previewing his main points for the State of the Union address (OPS, 2011; Pol 304 Lectures). I will analyze the development (informational and otherwise) of news coverage via examination of 12 articles before and after the President’s 2011 State of the Union address and their various biases from the perspectives of two media sources of different ideological leanings or “drifts” that had a considerable impact on a journalist’s particular selections of information from the speech transcript: six articles from the conservative FOX News outlet and six from the liberal-leaning New York Times (Bennett, 2007; Pol 304 Lectures; Rojecki, 2008). To conclude, I will elaborate on the implications of my findings for the informational needs of democracy and audience expectations towards media going forward.
I will begin with a compare and contrast analysis of the “preview” (before the speech) articles that FOX and the New York Times presented in terms of their narrative development and degree of bias, and concluding the developmental analysis with an explicit look at the informational value of the 12 articles. It is worth noting that these news outlets had access to a limited preview of the State of the Union address according to official sources via President Obama’s preview address video to his supporters, notwithstanding rumors of a potential leak of the speech transcript beforehand (the latter I will address in more detail later). Based off of this common source of information, the news organizations presented largely different narrative frames from the outset as they sought to predict what in particular the President would highlight in his address to the nation (Bennett, 2007, p. 231-234, 252-253; Pol 304 Lectures). Often enough, this selectivity in narratives could be tied to the ideological drift of the news outlet, in which the narrative content closely mirrors that of the target audience’s attitudes and beliefs (Pol 304 Lectures).
Starting with FOX News, the narrative focus from the outset was that the President was going to address primarily economic concerns, boiled down simplistically to the title of one of the preview articles as “Obama Gets Second Chance to Stress Jobs Focus at State of the Union” with concurrent chorusing of a statistic across all three preview articles regarding how the public was expectant of the President to do something to address the 9% national unemployment rate (Berger, 2011, p.1). The FOX News articles also went further by stressing the behind-the-scenes and public political charades regarding the State of the Union, noting sarcastically in the second paragraph of the latter article that this year’s address was “take 2,” essentially implying a huge lack of trust in the president’s policy priorities and leadership in relation to issues of economic concern (Berger, 2011, p. 1). Surreptitious Obama campaign operations setting up shop in Chicago were first highlighted here in the preview articles in lieu of political maneuvers (i.e. the speech being nothing more than an Obama re-election campaign ad in tougher times for him and his party) and continues more strongly in the “after” coverage (FOX, 2011).
Yet another sub-theme was developed under the political charades narrative in which the Supreme Court (primarily Chief Justice John Robert’s and Justice Antonin Scalia’s declining to attend the State of the Union address) was portrayed as almost disgusted at having to contribute to what Roberts called a very partisan “political pep rally” and what Scalia was quoted as saying, a “juvenile spectacle” that the justices (comprising what was supposed to be a politically neutral and independent branch of government) should not give legitimacy to by attending (Ross, 2011, p. 1-3). Although FOX News leaned more heavily on the political showmanship component in their narratives along with primarily economic concerns, the New York Times also manifested similar skepticism, hinting that President Obama’s motives for emphasizing or including particular issues and policy priorities in his State of the Union address would primarily serve in effect to bolster his re-election campaign’s chances (FOX, 2011; NY Times, 2011).
Moreover, FOX seemed to rebuke the President for his false bipartisan symbolism by recalling Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address in which for Obama called out the court in regards to the 2010 Citizens United decision (which allowed greater election campaign spending by such entities as corporations), noting that the President was going to use the address similarly this time around as merely a tool for his partisan policy agenda (Ross, 2011, p. 1-3; NY Times, 2011). In other words, the President’s symbolic gathering of the three branches of government for his speech along with promotion of across-the aisle mingling in the wake of the events in Tucson was seen by FOX as a partisan façade, with the ideological leanings of FOX amplifying the traditional adversarial tendencies of reporting in this case by playing up conflict between the President, the Supreme Court, and both political parties indirectly for the obligation to ensure truly civil and bipartisan deliberation in democratic decision-making (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 6; Ross, 2011, p. 1-3).
An illustration of the latter idea is shown in the FOX article “Obama’s Economic Agenda: Boost U.S. Competiveness” in the following line: “Heading quickly into reelection mode, Obama is expected to use Tuesday’s prime-time speech to promote spending on innovation while also promising to reduce the national debt and cooperate with emboldened Republicans” (FOX & AP, 2011, p. 1). Heavy also throughout the tone and language of these preview articles from FOX was a notably strong use of the authority disorder bias, essentially juxtaposing the President as under political heat from both the Republicans and the frustrated electorate to demonstrate leadership on the economy, including bipartisan compromises with Republicans in Congress to address the country’s (potentially cataclysmic, as the articles implied especially in regards to the national debt) economic problems swiftly in the post-recession era (FOX & AP, 2011, p.1). Essentially, in the FOX news articles, the public at large is portrayed more as an angry, frustrated collective demanding greater accountability and prioritization of their issues (i.e. jobs) from the government, and thus putting the political onus on the President to either lead the country out of economic disaster (whereby through convincing the public of the truth of his centrist, bipartisan image) or fail, leading to a cataclysm of sorts for the nation’s future (FOX, 2011). There were also implications of a divide in his own party, with rumblings of dissent over the President’s seeming turn away from party principles (such as the consideration of tax cuts for businesses) (FOX, 2011). This cataclysm and disaster angle applied, to a lesser degree, to foreign policy, with the first mentions towards the bottom of the first preview article:
“The Afghanistan war, the global threat of terrorism, the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," border security and other topics are also ripe for discussion in Obama's speech. In a plus for the president, the audience is making an overt effort to be tame and bipartisan, with several lawmakers so far agreeing to sit with a member of the opposite party on Tuesday.” (Berger, 2011, p. 1)
The fact that this brief foreign policy mention got into the article seems to me to demonstrate both the journalistic tendencies towards dramatization and personalization, but also the fact that the foreign policy information that often gets through the media is sensationalized and focused on personalized examples that miss the overall context, despite a journalistic tenet that warns against sensationalism in reporting (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 6; Graber & Baum, 2011, p. 113-125). I also thought the implications of a frustrated collective public reflected the journalists’ frustration at “not getting the whole story” from the official sources they depend upon for their reporting, no matter the ideological drift (Pol 304 Lectures). This is further reflected in the New York Times pieces, albeit more implicitly, in the portrayal of the President as only just another player in the 2012 reelection game, but nevertheless, the journalists grudgingly acknowledge, a seemingly more successful one when it comes to favorably using the media for one’s agenda (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 4; NY Times, 2011; Pol 304 Lectures).
Meanwhile, the New York Times preview articles, while showing hints of ritualistic journalistic adversarialism, focus their prediction narratives for what the President will highlight in his address on a more bipartisan angle, emphasizing that President Obama will be more likely to highlight a more “centrist agenda” in the wake of the Tucson, Arizona shooting, having an obligation similar to what a Washington Times news article covering the President’s speech after the latter event as being under an obligation as leader to be a “healer in chief” and as general unifier of the nation towards a brighter future (with similar undertones of authority disorder bias, although not as stinging as the Washington Time’s language) (NY Times, 2011; Washington Times, 2011, p. 1). While bipartisanship in the wake of the Tucson shooting was used primarily as the FOX news preview articles’ frames in accompaniment with the authority disorder bias stressing the President’s need to lead on addressing economic concerns (in the midst of a re-election campaign year no less and with the Supreme Court portrayed almost as in revolt against the President’s charades), the New York Times generally regarded the President’s message of bipartisan compromise more neutrally in the article “Obama to Press Centrist Agenda in His Address” (Calmes & Zeleny, 2011, p. 1-4; Ross, 2011, p. 1-3). Although, similar skepticism was articulated in the New York Times by painting the President’s actions as mere political calculation (“political rebranding” to win over marginalized independents and wary business advocates) for 2012 farther down on the second page after the opening paragraph used glowing language such as “winning the future” and “national unity and renewal” (Calmes & Zeleny, 2011, p. 1-2).
Continuing on with the predicting narratives in the first three New York Times articles, the journalists primarily continued to explore themes of bipartisanship and collegiality that the FOX News articles generally played down in favor of an economic focus narrative for the address, implying that the President would use the speech primarily to bridge the partisan divides in the wake of Tucson and downplay economic concerns such as deficit reduction in favor of “investment promotion” in areas of social policy such as education and infrastructure (Calmes & Zeleny, 2011, p. 2-4). This implication towards predicting an emphasis on the bipartisan and social investment was further highlighted in the article “As State of the Union Nears, Congress Plays Musical Chairs” that tended to lean towards “soft news” content with very little information about the policy the President plans to emphasize in his State of the Union address (Graber, 2011, p. 113-125; Steinhauer & Hulse, 2011, p. 1-3). Instead, the reporter favors a soft news angle of highlighting Congressional members similarly to celebrities in the coverage of their misadventures in ways that further emphasize the distance between them and the public (Bennett, 2007, Chs. 1 & 2; Graber, 2011, p. 113-125; Steinhauer & Hulse, 2011, p. 1-3). The first paragraph contained language like “BFFs” and “asking out” to imply an almost gossip-like frame from the open, with the second paragraph emblematic of the “soft news” characterization (as laid out by Baum in “How Soft News Brings Policy Issues to the Inattentive Public” and Bennett in Chapter 1) (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 1; Graber & Baum, 2011, p. 113-125):
“The talk in the West Wing may center on what President Obama plans to say on Tuesday in his State of the Union address to Congress about the still-ailing economy, or United States-China relations, or his education agenda. But here on Capitol Hill, the talk for the last few days has been all about the seating for the president’s speech and just who will be next to whom.” (Steinhauer & Hulse, 2011, p. 1)
However, the political charades narrative comes in towards the very end of the article in which ritual adversarialism is on display again more prominently in the last New York Times preview article before the speech (“Senate Republicans to Oppose Obama’s Spending Plans”) in which the bipartisanship predictions (which even the New York Times regards skeptically) for the address are juxtaposed against a Republican-dominated Congress that is hinted to be obstructionist, in particular the Republicans that claim Tea-Party Caucus membership (Berger & NY Times, 2011, p. 1). In terms of officialdom bias, the journalist chose in this article to primarily use the quotes from high-ranking Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, in which he “seemed at times gleefully sardonic” about the President’s attempts to appeal to a wider, more business-oriented side of the political spectrum in order to achieve his policy goals, implying that he was politically wounded after the 2010 Congressional election (in which Republicans gained majorities in Congress) that was essentially forcing him to compromise (Berger, 2011, p. 1-3). The latter, of course, McConnell implied, was because the public had protested whereby it issued a “massive restraining order against government spending and excessive debt” (Berger, 2011, p. 1). Other minor narrative angles present across all three articles include a prediction of a possible stronger focus on social issues like the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Tucson shooting in terms of gun control politics in the address as framed in the larger narrative about promoting national unity and healing in a partisan era, and a general dismissal of national security or foreign policy issues (NY Times, 2011).
Of course, while the President tended to focus on all of the narrative predictions of the six preview articles from FOX News and the New York Times, journalists from both organizations did not have their primary expectations necessarily verified or prioritized (OPS, 2011). In the speech itself, President Obama starts off highlighting the need for national unity (politically and otherwise) in the wake of the Tucson shooting (OPS, 2011, p. 1). Appeals to the American Dream and American exceptionalism are made immediately after as a transition point into a larger focus about achieving economic success, in which the President bases sub-proposals of investments in education, social policy, infrastructure, research, information technology, and clean energy (to name a few) in order to achieve a “Sputnik moment” for America (otherwise invoking the language of competition and competitive advantage in which America can take the lead in the 21st century) (OPS, 2011, p. 1-9). Foreign policy matters, which FOX seemed to highlight as matters that were going to be relevant in the speech as well (again reflecting the niche audience that FOX is trying to appeal to versus a more liberal audience for the New York Times), were touched briefly upon in the end as part of an overture of nationalism and bipartisanship, in which the United States was portrayed, per an American exceptionalist view, a partner for spreading democratic government and prosperity worldwide in various regions (Bennett, 2007, p. 251-254; Berger, 2011; OPS, 2011; Rojecki, 2008).
Now, we turn to an analysis of the development of the “after” news stories from both FOX News and the New York Times in which many of their primary narrative predictions were not necessarily completely verified. Starting against with FOX News, all three articles did not acknowledge that the President did not primarily focus on economics (albeit through an angle of investment vs. spending, the latter of which conservative officials generally denounced in the preview articles), but instead rationalized that relative failure in narrative predictions by doubling down primarily on the theme of the State of the Union address as a short term maneuver in a larger sequence of political charades and showmanship by the President in the last two articles (FOX, 2011). Interestingly enough (although not surprising considering the back-burner it was put on in the prediction articles) foreign policy was not even mentioned in “after” articles in favor of clamping down on the political charade narrative largely focused around domestic economic policy (FOX, 2011). The first of the three articles in the aftermath of the State of the Union address started off with the title “GOP Urge Obama to Join in Cutting Spending” in which there is a reversion to the debt cataclysm angle, but in overall language seemed to acknowledge a victory of sorts in that the President seemed to acknowledged GOP economic concerns in his speech (FOX and AP, 2011, p. 1-3). Seeming to sense a political advantage, the journalist incorporates this kind of generic political fight narrative (wins versus losses between characters from both sides) into the selection of quotes from the opening about Paul Ryan’s delivering of the official GOP response to the President’s address (FOX & AP, 2011).
However, while featuring the obligatory quotes from officialdom, the journalist also juxtaposes Paul Ryan as a controversial figure in his party (even as he is considered fiscally conservative), wanting to privatize Social Security and Medicare programs in his larger “Roadmap for America” plan to tackle the national debt (Bennett, 2007; FOX News & AP, 2011, p. 1; Pol 304 Lectures). The journalist leans heavier on the authority disorder and dramatization biases by portraying Ryan as a potential weakness in the party, a sign of internal divides that the President and his party can exploit: “Ryan’s plan…is so politically toxic that GOP campaign operatives urged candidates to shy away from it. Democrats went on the attack as soon as they heard Ryan was to deliver Tuesday’s GOP response” (FOX News & AP, 2011, p. 1-2). The last two post-address articles by FOX that I analyzed, however, again featured a cynical political charades angle that was continually reinforced (FOX, 2011). Interestingly enough, the “dance” idea between journalists and politicians was very evident in the last article, “Lights, Camera, Action for the State of the Union” in which the contentious symbiotic relationship between journalists and politicians portrayed on the national stage for the President’s State of the Union address was termed a “complicated ballet” and a “hallowed ritual” that constrained both sides in terms of their roles in the political system (Bennett, 2007, Chs. 4-6; Pergram, 2011, p. 1; Pol 304 Lectures).
Furthermore, a media hierarchy was noted based on assigned positions for media outlets in Statuary Hall, in which the media present there “move in like the Mongol Horde” to compete for post-speech reaction by officials (Pergram, 2011, p. 4). This seeming disdain for the journalists seems to reflect journalists’ frustration by the constraints placed on them by wary political actors they depend on for stories (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 5 & 6; Pol 304 Lectures). This piece, while not being informative on policy, seems more to be a fluff piece (produced by the journalist and media company under pressure from a 24/7 news cycle that fill the corresponding news “hole”) that describes the behind-the-scenes preparation for the first page, before continuing to mock the political staging by focusing the last few pages on the bipartisan musical-chairs narrative that both the New York Times and FOX News preview articles focused on (Bennett, 2007; FOX, 2011; NY Times, 2011; Pol 304 Lectures). Randomly inserted bits of obscure rules against reserving seats in the Congressional chamber where the President spoke did not help either to establish a critical grounding context for the reader (Bennett, 2007; Pergram, 2011, p. 1-5).
Meanwhile, the New York Times “after” articles similarly did not have their predictions necessarily completely verified by the President’s speech, which seemed mostly to highlight economic concerns in equal amounts with occasional mentions of bipartisanship sprinkled throughout the patriotic narrative (NY Times, 2011; OPS, 2011; p. 1-9). Their ultimate sub-focus of their bipartisanship prediction narrative, the Tucson shootings, was mentioned merely early on in the speech as a segway into his five “pillars” (policy areas) of investment (such as education and infrastructure) that involved the need for bargaining and consensus (NY Times, 2011; OPS, 2011, p. 1-9). However, the New York Times journalists, with their first article post-speech (“TWO G.O.P. Responses Point to Potential Fault Lines”) instead merely alters the developmental narrative of bipartisanship (with a skeptical undercurrent as to the authenticity or actual practice of such an idea) and hints of political showmanship (from both sides) pre-2012 and chooses to revert to the traditional political conflict, personalization, authority-disorder and drama biases in which the slight liberal drift of the paper contributed to the highlighting of dueling factions in the Republican Party (mainstream represented by Paul Ryan vs. Tea Party represented by Michelle Bachmann) that Democrats could take advantage of (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 2; Zeleny & NY Times, 2011). This reversion to traditional informational biases and the political charades narrative essentially is a non-acknowledgment on the part of the news organization of the fallibility of their predictions (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 2; Pol 304 Lectures).
The latter characters cast in this narrative both gave responses to the President’s speech, with the Tea Party faction painted as rebel-like, threatening the leadership positions and unity of the Republican Party (represented here primarily by Paul Ryan) going into the 2012 elections (Zeleny & NY Times, 2011). The passage towards the bottom of the first page was especially notable in terms of journalistic selection in that the media coverage of Bachmann’s remarks seemed to usurp that of Ryan’s, which “privately angered several leading Republicans [and] highlighted the potential fissures inside the party as the Republicans face the challenges of governing in a time of severe budget constraints” (Pol 304 Lectures; Zeleny & NY Times, 2011, p. 1). This fissure narrative was hinted at again in the FOX News post-speech articles as well, highlighting the way that informational biases common to all journalists can be spun in remarkably similar ways despite different “ideological drifts” as a symptom of increased catering to niche audiences (Bennett, 2007, p. 25-28, 252-254; FOX, 2011; NY Times, 2011).
The next to last New York Times article (“Full Presidential Speech Got an Unscripted Leak”) made a one-eighty back to the political charades narrative that dominated coverage from both organizations especially in the aftermath coverage (Peters & NY Times, 2011 p. 1). The language was overtly bitter and sarcastic compared to previous coverage, with the journalist commenting that the politician-press scripted “dance” seemed to be thrown off balance with a leak of speech excerpts by the National Journal before the President was set to deliver it, juxtaposing National Journal’s head Ron Fournier (a journalistic veteran) against the President (and larger symbolism of political stagecraft) (Bennett, 2007, Chs. 4-6; Peters, 2011; Pol 304 Lectures). Journalists almost seemed in this article to crow about a strike against the restraints put on them by political actors (who are aware of the adversarial nature of journalism) in terms of staged events, as portrayed in the sardonic language in the opening line: “For a White House that prides itself on being fairly leak-free, this one had to hurt” (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 5 & 6; Peters, 2011, p. 1-2; Pol 304 Lectures). At the end, bitter competition between organizations was put on display as well (Bennett, 2007; Peters, 2011, p. 2).
While the second to last article can be categorized under the theme umbrella of political stagecraft, the last New York Times article published after the speech (“Setting Stage for Clash of Ideals over Government’s Role”) merely revisited the classic political conflict narrative, with typical Republican vs. Democrat fare in terms of fiscal politics, seeming to recover well from the last article that seemed more a covert journalistic protest (Peters, 2011; Sanger, 2011, p. 1-3). The President of course was the primary player featured in the heavy authority-disorder bias and conflict narrative, facing questions about his leadership post-recession in terms of moving the country away from an isolationist stance (a formidable challenge as acknowledged at the bottom of the last page) and his plans for long term-investment and short-term cuts contrasting sharply with the Republican vision of cutting taxes and scaling back government (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 2; Sanger, 2011, p. 1-3). However, this article seemed to not be overtly ideologically biased towards either side with skepticism towards Republicans vented in the fourth paragraph with the idea of competitiveness achieved in the above strategy of tax cuts as an unclear “Rorschach test,” and equally vented towards Democrats whereby the President “tried [i.e. struggled]…to differentiate between his short term tactics to get the country working again” in the face of a (portrayed) skeptical public wary of the process (i.e. stagecraft) (Peters, 2011, p. 1-3). The public also seemed wary of his strategy, which was implied as recycled from his 2008 election campaign (Peters, 2011, p. 2). To one person reading this essentially, it seemed that the country was at the forefront of a battle (a symptom of a larger political conflict) in which the audience should stay tuned to see whether the President’s leadership pulls the country out of a sure impending disaster (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 2; Peters, 2011, p. 1-3).
Between the competing narratives and sub-narratives throughout the twelve articles from both FOX News and the New York Times (which ultimately presented a confusing, fragmented picture), what understanding could a reader glean from the coverage of the contexts of the State of the Union and the various domestic and policy issues brought up by the President in the State of the Union address? In other words, was the informational value of the articles adequate for the needs of democracy or otherwise reflecting the tastes of a so-called “inert” audience (Pol 304 Lectures)? I will attempt in this section to glean some insights into what these articles mean for the larger political journalistic system and democracy itself, beginning with the news coverage from FOX.
What informational insights were provided about the contexts surrounding the State of the Union in FOX News’ coverage? I will provide an overview of my thoughts as to the informational content of both the FOX and New York Times articles, before analyzing these findings against readings about the defining characteristics of “soft” versus informational-rich “hard” news (Bennett, 2007, p. 21-24; Graber & Baum, 2011). Because of selection bias first and foremost combined with the ideological drift of the news organization, the audience was first lead in the preview articles to believe that the State of the Union primarily would focus on the President’s attempts to lead the country out of certain economic disaster and be in general an Obama re-election campaign ad on the taxpayer’s dime (FOX, 2011). Recall the concept of summarization bias (imposed by the time pressures of a 24/7 news system and an audience which necessitated an easier communication code via simplified language and narratives) that goes hand in hand with selection and ideological biases (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 2; Pol 304 Lectures). From the outset, this simplified language as product of the above biases produced a strong “us vs. them” and “good vs. evil” fight between Democrats and Republicans (the latter of which were portrayed as the majority public against a President seeming to go against their will in terms of policy prioritization) (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 2; FOX, 2011; Pol 304 Lectures). The most informational substance from the preview articles comes from the article speculating on the attendance of Supreme Court justices (with disagreement over whether attendance at the partisan State of the Union would signal a fundamental shift from the Court’s supposedly non-partisan nature), in which President Obama criticized a 2010 ruling of the Court’s in Citizens United (although the court case name was not explicitly mentioned) (FOX, 2011).
In summary, the reader comes out with a fragmented understanding despite the common source material from the White House Office of the Press Secretary, in which the President is under fire politically from members of his own party, Republicans are portrayed as trying to right the ship of the country, and the public is increasingly angry at a time when manufacturing jobs are going overseas and the unemployment rate is at 9% (FOX, 2011; OPS, 2011). As Andrew Rojecki’s Piece “Rhetorical Alchemy: American Exceptionalism and the War on Terror” demonstrated, journalists have the power in stories attempting to sway public opinion to make the public overestimate support for an opinion (such as that most Americans are concerned with the President’s economic leadership) (FOX, 2011; Graber & Manheim, 2011, p. 421-429; Rojecki, 2008). In these preview articles, FOX News journalists have demonstrated the same potential (FOX, 2011; Rojecki, 2008). Going further, if one considers the informational quality of the news based on policy issues and the depth to which these issues are explored, a reader would get a very fragmented picture, mostly from the ideological lens the media organizations tended to lean towards, as a result of these media organizations starting to chase increasingly fragmented audiences in an era of more channel choices (Bennett, 2007, Chs. 1-7; Pol 304 Lectures).
For example, because the FOX articles as a whole prioritized fiscal issues across both the preview and aftermath coverage, most of the coverage gravitated around proposals to cut Social Security and Medicare programs in order to address the budget deficit and national debt, of course tinged with authority disorder biases juxtaposing, for example, Paul Ryan against the rest of the GOP (and a core part of their base) by endorsing the above policy (Bennett, 2007, Ch.2; FOX & AP, 2011). Additional informational tidbits were also colored with partisan skepticism towards President Obama’s investments in clean energy development, expressing concern about the President’s possible collusion with Wisconsin-based solar company Orion Energy Systems on his “2012 campaign visit” to the state post-State of the Union and going on towards at the end mentioning clean energy companies that have gone out of business (Bennett, 2007, p. 251-254; FOX & AP, 2011). All in all, the FOX articles did not have very much informational depth compared to the New York Times, and more heavily relied on symbolic appeals to fears and uncertainties, very much fulfilling the informational biases that lean towards sensationalism (Bennett, 2007, Chs. 2 & 7; FOX, 2011).
Looking towards the informational quality provided by the New York Times articles examined in this paper, one can tell immediately the core audience is probably geared towards people strongly invested in political news in general (Pol 304 Lectures; Rojecki, 2008, p. 74-75). As Rojecki explains in his piece “Rhetorical Alchemy: American Exceptionalism and the War on Terror,” the New York Times is geared mainly towards the elite intellectuals (in the media and outside the media alike) with a core knowledge of political theory, such as in international relations and domestic affairs alike (Rojecki, 2008, p. 74-75). This tailoring towards a more informed and involved segment of the audience on the part of the New York Times is reflected in the greater detail provided in the articles (minus the gossip-oriented article talking about Congress’s “musical chairs”), which came close to establishing a reliable context or foreground for which the reader could evaluate the President’s statements in his State of the Union address (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 2; NY Times, 2011; Rojecki, 2008, p. 74-75).
For example, in the preview coverage of the President’s State of the Union address, there are informational tidbits intermixed within the articles (more often towards the middle or bottom away from the more “important” facts in the opening paragraphs) talking about what the traditions surrounding the State of the Union address are like (Bennett, 2007, Chs. 5 & 6; NY Times, 2011). In particular, what was highlighted is the role the State of the Union plays in both highlighting a President’s policy initiatives in a largely positive light (utilizing the much used sub-themes surrounding national unity and strength as examined above), whereby allowing the President to also simultaneously promote himself to the public in such times as reelection campaign years (Calmes, Zeleny, & NY Times, 2011; Pol 304 Lectures). The last preview article (while not continuing the background informational tidbits on the State of the Union address itself) before the speech hinted at the larger context of economic issues principally revolving around the budget deficit and government spending, and the larger conflicting views about the role and scope of government between the two political parties that would be addressed primarily in the “after” coverage (Berger & NY Times, 2011).
Moreover, the “after coverage,” while still demonstrating the schizophrenic-like fragmentation of the media to a degree, continued to provide more information about the issues surrounding the budget deficit and federal government spending under a sub-heading of Republican party internal divides in the first article after the speech (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 2; Pol 304 Lectures; Zeleny & NY Times, 2011). This quasi-context was again interrupted by the second-to-last New York Times article in which journalists subtly complained about the staged nature of the State of the Union and journalism’s continued dependence before reverting back to previous exposition on Republican and Democratic clashes over the role of government and expanding the informational background by comparing and contrasting the President’s remarks with speeches made back in the 2008 elections when he was a candidate (Graber & Patterson, 2011, p. 193-200; Peters & NY Times, 2011; Sanger & NY Times, 2011). Relatively little foreign policy context was given against which to juxtapose the President’s remarks, however, and it was almost as fragmented as in the FOX News articles, mostly expounding on rising economic competition from abroad that pose a challenge to American exceptionalism in the world (Rojecki, 2008; Sanger & NY Times, 2011).
All in all, anyone conducting research in the future and the audience alike would come out of reading these twelve articles with a very confused, fragmented understanding of what the President’s 2011 State of the Union address was about, due to the fact that despite journalistic standards and norms of objectivity that hung over all of the coverage I analyzed which actually opens up coverage to more informational biases (Bennett, 2007, Chs. 2 & 6). In other words, the coverage was exposed to biases early on, informed by the officials, the audience targeted by the media organization itself, and the ideological drift of the news organization (as a reflection of audience tastes) itself (Bennett, 2007; Graber, 2011; Pol 304 Lectures). Now if we evaluate the informational value and accuracy of the articles as articulated above based on the standards of what constitutes “hard news,” an article would have to meet the requirements of containing “some public policy content or other useful public information” including provision of context to an event and analyzing of trends, causes, and possible solutions to issues presented (Bennett, 2007, p. 21). Meanwhile, soft news has a comparatively concise definition as more entertainment-oriented stories that are largely stripped of substantive content (Graber & Baum, 2011, p. 114-115). According to this definition, the following articles would roughly fall under the soft news category: “Lights, Camera, Action for the State of the Union” (FOX, “after” article), “As State of the Union Nears, Congress Plays Musical Chairs” (NY Times, preview article), and the FOX preview article “Supreme Court Justices Could Be No-Shows for Obama's State of the Union Address” that was more borderline in my assessment for their stretching of the bipartisanship narrative into the realm of celebrity superlatives and gossip (Bennett, 2007, Chs. 1 & 2; FOX, 2011; NY Times, 2011; Pol 304 Lectures).
While it was noticeably easier to recognize what pieces were considered largely useless in terms of substantive information, the definitions provided by Bennett and other scholars in attempting to define “hard” news are comparatively vague (Pol 304 Lectures). Thus, the only qualitative judgements I can make as to what of the articles I analyzed for this paper constitutes accurate and reliable “hard” news, I think the New York Times came closest largely by virtue of its target audience in the intellectual arena who was already relatively more invested in this type of political information (Bennett, 2007; Graber & Baum p. 113-125; Rojecki, 2008, p. 74-75). For example, I viewed the New York Times as portraying a slightly more accurate and representative picture of the address (although not perfect) compared to FOX because of its imperative towards it audience, despite both news organizations’ ideological drifts (Bennett, 2007; Graber & Baum p. 113-125; Rojecki, 2008, p. 74-75; Pol 304 Lectures). Now, audience tastes, economic pressures, reporting practices and norms, and the officials upon which most of the information in a news piece comes from essentially demonstrate the degree to which journalism can never be completely “objective” or bias free in the first place (Bennett, 2007; Pol 304 Lectures).
Essentially, journalism cannot match up with the mythical ideals as an independent, impartial institution integral to the informational needs of democracy as articulated by many in media academia, a central point emphasized by Thomas E. Patterson in his piece “The Miscast Institution” (Graber & Patterson, 2011, p. 193). Patterson’s central argument, as relevant to this discussion, is that media is not built to be the ideal institution that serves simultaneously as both a watchdog and quasi-political organizational unit (replacing weaker political parties that used to be the primary political mechanism through which to influence the democratic process) whereby informing the audience of candidate positions on issues, winnowing out of worthy candidates for office, and expecting to enable audience members to make informed decisions (Graber & Patterson, 2011, p. 195-196). Patterson essentially argues that strong political parties have the built-in characteristics that allow them to be better arbiters in the electoral process in that they can see the “big picture” (long-term versus fragmented short-term reality), accountability to the public, and incentives to organize various publics vying for influence in the policy-making process into a stable, coherent party platform and coalition (Graber & Baum, 2011, p. 196).
As Patterson sees it, strong political parties, while not popularly perceived as functioning in the interests of the people, actually serve the informational needs of democracy much better than the media, which is ill-equipped in that it is predisposed to the fragmented short-term, and thus allows its issue agenda to be in constant flux rather than stable (Graber & Patterson, 2011, p. 193-200; Pol 304 Lectures). Additionally, because the media “overestimates the voters’ knowledge of candidates and the speed with which they acquire it,” when most voters will not invest the adequate time and energy to understand the issues, voters in our democracy are exposed to a confusing informational system that does not provide the needed stability required for effective governance (Graber & Baum, 2011, p. 113-125; Graber & Patterson, 2011, p. 193-200; Pol 304 Lectures). Nor, might I add, turning to audience expectation of the media, does all of the audience expect impartiality of the media in the political system, as demonstrated by Bennett and the Pew Center’s 2012 “Survey of Media Use in the United States” in which 34% of the audience is documented as seeing a “great deal of bias” and 30% “a fair amount of bias” in news coverage, with a slight skew provided by ideological affiliation (Bennett, 2007, p. 24-28; PEW, 2012, p. 4, 16).
All in all, when taking into account the immense amount of pressures by journalism to be both a watchdog and an institution that replaces a critical political institution (like the political party) while simultaneously dealing with all the pressures I have alluded to from other actors in the political journalistic system, it was no surprise to me that the twelve FOX and New York Times articles I analyzed do not live up to the lofty, ideal expectations as outlined by much of academia (Graber & Patterson, 2011, p. 193-200; Pol 304 Lectures). Bennett’s suggestions in Chapter 8: All The News That Fits Democracy: Solutions for Citizens, Politicians, and Journalists, such as doing careful analyses of news coverage for informational biases, narratives, spin, and plot formulas, and seeking out additional information to construct one’s own narratives from the information gathered end up not taking into account the high time and energy costs from carrying out all of the above on a daily basis (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 8; Graber & Baum, 2011, p. 113-125; Pol 304 Lectures). As aforementioned, those more likely to invest that energy in being a well-informed citizen do so because they have a stake in certain topics like foreign affairs and presidential policy speeches (i.e. State of the Union addresses), compared the majority of citizens who are uninterested in such things (Graber & Baum, 2011, p. 193-200).
To conclude, in light of the twelve articles I analyzed in this paper from FOX and the New York Times and the reality check of the current situation in the political journalistic system, the best one can hope for is for mainstream news organizations to continue to adopt the approach of “soft news” and attach policy information and context to more entertainment-geared narratives to draw the attention of an inattentive public living their lives (Graber & Baum, 2011, p. 193-200). In other words, the best approach for media (because a complete overhaul of the system in which media is placed on the backburners in favor of strong political parties is unlikely) in light of audience expectations and the informational needs of democracy ideals, is one in which the media can try to find a middle ground between competing roles espoused by academia and the reality of their practice today as governed by the pressures I’ve detailed in this paper as manifested in the reporting of the two news outlets of President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union address (FOX, 2011; Graber & Baum, 2011, p. 113-125; Graber & Patterson, 2011, p. 193-200; NY Times, 2011; Pol 304 Lectures). How exactly a reform of the media is to be guided is beyond the scope of this paper, but I tried to speculate on what the media can do realistically to inform citizens in the interim in the confines of the current system (Bennett, 2007, Ch. 8; Pol 304 Lectures). It comes down to the media being able to adapt to the current system and continue to do their informational gathering as best as possible (which ultimately the articles I analyzed did to the best of their ability considering their multiple restraints), which is all one can realistically hope for in the future (Bennett, 2007; Pol 304 Lectures).
Works Cited:
Bennett, W. L. & Graber, D.A. (2007). News: The Politics of Illusion (6th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
Berger, J., & FOX News. (2011, January 21). Obama Gets Second Chance to Stress Jobs Focus at State of the Union. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/21/obama-gets-second-chance-stress-jobs-focus-state-union.html.
Berger, J., & New York Times. (2011, January 23). Senate Republicans to Oppose Obama’s Spending Plans. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/us/politics/24repubs.html.
Calmes, J., Zeleny, J., Stolberg, S. G., Cooper, H. & New York Times (2011, January 22). Obama to Press Centrist Agenda in His Address. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/us/politics/23obama.html?_r=0.
FOX News, & Associated Press. (2011, January 25). GOP Urge Obama to Join in Cutting Spending. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/25/gop-urge-obama-join-cutting-spending/.
FOX News, & Associated Press. (2011, January 22). Obama's Economic Agenda: Boost U.S. Competitiveness. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/22/obamas-economic-agenda-boost-competitiveness/.
FOX News.com. (2011, January 26). Obama Launches 2012 Campaign With Post-State of the Union Trip to Wisconsin. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/obama-launches-campaign-post-state-union-trip-wisconsin/.
Graber, D. (2011). Media Power in Politics (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Pergram, C., & FOX News. (2011, January 26). Lights, Camera Action for the State of the Union. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/26/lights-camera-action-state-union.
Peters, J. W., & New York Times. (2011, January 26). Full Presidential Speech Got an Unscripted Leak. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/us/politics/27speech.html.
PEW Research Center. (2012, February 7). Survey of Media Use in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/.
Rojecki, A. (2008). Rhetorical Alchemy: American Exceptionalism and the War on Terror. Political Communication, 25(1), 67-88. doi:10.1080/10584600701807935.
Ross, L., & FOX News (2011, January 24). Supreme Court Justices Could Be No-Shows for Obama's State of the Union Address. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/24/chief-justice-state-union-alito-begs/.
Rowland, K. and Washington Times (2011, January 13). Obama: May Good Come of Arizona Tragedy. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from https://uwlax.courses.wisconsin.edu/d2l/le/content/3163152/viewContent/19978729/View.
Sanger, D. E., & New York Times. (2011, January 25). Obama Sets Stage for Clash of Governing Ideals. Retrieved January 15, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/politics/26assess.html.
Steinhauer, J., Hulse, C. & New York Times (2011, January 22). As State of the Union Nears, Congress Plays Musical Chairs. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/us/politics/23seats.html.
White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2011, January 25). Remarks by the President in State of Union Address. Retrieved April 23, 2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address.
Zeleny, J., & New York Times. (2011, January 25). Two G.O.P. Responses Point to Potential Fault Lines. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/politics/26repubs.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment