Stephen D. Cooper

A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War

A 2003 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that ‘‘Most Americans (53 percent) believe that news organizations are politically biased, while just 29 percent say they are careful to remove bias from their reports’’ (Harper, 2004). Although it would seem that the audience for news has a strong concern that news products are slanted in some way, scholarly opinion on the media bias issue is far from settled (Cooper, in press; Vatz, 2003). Although a contested position, we believe that reporters and editors frame the news in a way that reflects their personal feelings and newsroom culture (Kuypers, 1997, 2002, 2005; Cooper, in press). Audiences usually receive their political news from only a few press sources; rarely do they read the original statements of those being reported upon. Yet all that one has to do to see how the press changes*/ regardless of intentionality*/the meaning of covered material is to compare the frames used by the press with those in the material being reported. For example, if the press reports on a politician’s speech, compare the actual speech to the press accounts of that speech. Cohen (1963) made an astute observation: the press ‘‘may not be very successful in telling its readers what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about’’ (p. 13). For example, McCombs and Shaw (1972) found that voters learn about an issue in direct proportion to the attention given that issue by the press, and that voters tend to share what the media defines as important. This is called agenda setting. Subsequent studies into agenda setting confirmed that the media have enormous influence upon political decision making, and that they are considerably influential in telling the general population what to think about. In

An effect of the medium in news stories: “The pictures in our heads”

This study used an experimental design to test for a channel effect in news stories. Four television news stories were recorded off‐air, then the narrations were transcribed to form a print news story containing the same words; the broadcast video and the print story were the two treatment levels. Subjects received the stories in one of the treatment levels, and were asked to judge the blameworthiness or praiseworthiness of the actors named in the story. Logistic regressions could predict with substantial accuracy the medium in which subjects had received the story from these judgments, indicating a channel effect on their making of meaning. There is some evidence that viewers of television news are inclined to judge actors in the stories as members of categories or groups, while readers of print news tend to be more specific.

Privacy and the news media

The right of the public to know and the right of the individual to be let alone are inherently in conflict. The origins of these rights are quite different: the former derived from the First Amendments protection of a free press, the latter in a law journal article published in the late nineteenth century. So, too, has the development of these ideas followed different paths: the former as Constitutional law, the latter as tort law. This article examines the relationship between privacy law and the press. A century ago two lawyers called for legal relief from aggressive newspaper reporters. At the present time, the development of electronic media, and struggles over group identities have given privacy concerns a new life and new urgency.

News Media Objectivity: How Do We Ask the Questions?

There is a lively and often public debate in progress concerning the objectivity of the news media, or the lack of it Scholars have approached this topic from three distinct angles: content analysis, values, and the economics of the news industry. Their conclusions have varied markedly, apparently guided by their particular frames of reference. This article suggests that while we seem to have lost our fix on objectivity as a measurable attribute of news products, the newswork routine of objectivity encourages fairness in our public discourse, and deserves attention in scholarly research.

Bringing Some Clarity to the Media Bias Debate

Perhaps one of the oddest debates in scholarly circles—at least, in recent times—has been that over the notion of press bias. It would seem that there is something of a tacit consensus that the news media do a poor job of conveying reality; at least, it would appear so from the plethora of journal articles critiquing reporting of various incidents, political campaigns, or issues, or from the plentiful works making the broader case that the press is in some way the structural tool of some particular interest group, ideology, or elite. The oddity about the debate is the direction in which the press is alleged to tilt, the supposed beneficiary of the press’s favoritism. Does the presumed systematic bias in news coverage favor liberals? Or conservatives? Or free market capitalists? Or social reformers? Jim A. Kuypers’ recent book, Press Bias and Politics, has made a significant advance in the methodology of inquiring into this issue—although it’s a safe bet that many in the scholarly community will be tempted to dismiss it out of hand. That’s a shame, if so, because even if one is disinclined to accept Kuypers’ conclusion that the press tends to favor ideas associated with the political left, his method can at least put the debate on a firmer footing. A fundamental problem with considering media bias as a scholarly question— rather than a polemical opportunity—is operationalizing the construct of press bias. Some have used the personal politics of newsworkers as an indicator of bias. The classic Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter study (1990) took this approach, for instance; it showed the members of the press corps to be far more liberal, in their personal viewpoints, than the population as a whole. Others have pointed to the industrial organization of news outlets as a structural bias inherent in the production of news material; this is

Common Law, and Privacy in Computer-Mediated Environments

Computer‐mediated environments pose a special challenge to our legal and cultural protections of privacy. These environments are unprecedented in the way commercially valuable information can be generated in their very use. The ease and low cost with which electronic information can be gathered and disseminated in these environments have led many to advocate regulation protecting privacy interests from commercial encroachment. At the same time, the use of digital communications to support criminal or terrorist activities have led others to advocate regulation allowing law enforcement agencies to eavesdrop or intercept. The cultural history of the Internet as a self‐regulating, almost anarchical, environment provides an interesting background to this issue. Many writers have looked to statutory law for a solution to the issues of control over, and commercial or governmental use of, information about individuals. This article contends that the current discussions have overlooked the potential of common law ...

Military Control over War News: The Implications of the Persian Gulf.

News coverage of warfare poses a difficult problem for political systems with a free press, such as ours in the United States. In an era of high‐tech weaponry and nearly instantaneous global communications, conflicts are inevitable between the obligation of the press to inform the general public, and the obligation of the military to successfully conduct war. The militarys controls over newsgathering during the 1990–91 Persian Gulf War set off a controversy still smoldering during the Haiti occupation of 1994. This paper examines the legal, historical, and technological aspects of this