On September 11th, 2001, a group of terrorists led airplane attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (Merskin 375). The American government would eventually blame the attacks on terrorists of “Arab/Middle Eastern descent,” an American enemy that, according to Debra Merskin, had been well in place since the Gulf War of 1991 (Merskin 375). Given this, when Bush delivers his speech on the morning of the attacks, it is important to keep in mind that an enemy is already firmly in place (though the President does not explicitly identify the enemy). Further, it is crucial that we note George Bush’s credibility prior to the attacks. Bligh, Kohles and Meindl remark that, “Despite earlier doubt in the President’s tenure regarding voting scandals,
On January 16th, 1991, President George H. W. Bush publicly announced in the Address to the Nation the United States’ participation in the Gulf War. The Gulf War arose when Iraq accused Kuwait—rich in oil—of keeping the price of crude oil low, demanding it to forgive its thirty billion dollar debt in compensation for the acclaimed conspiracy (Smitha, n.d.). In this announcement, President Bush stated the United States’ just intentions for participating, and its goals. President Bush affirmed that other means to make Iraq leave Kuwait had been tried, but were unsuccessful. Thus, the US’s goal in this engagement was “…to drive [Iraq] from Kuwait by force.”
The attacks of September 11th, 2001 left nearly 3,000 innocent Americans dead. It was the worst attack ever on American soil, and the worst terrorist attack the world has ever seen. It left America in a difficult situation-it must do something to confront the growing terrorism problem around the world. George Bush, the leader of the nation, had to come up with a response to this attack and gave a speech to Congress outlining his plan to combat terror. He made his purpose very clear throughout the speech, as he consistently laid out plans to combat terror.
The objective of these speeches was to change the world politically, economically and socially, and they succeeded. By materializing this enemy known as “terrorism”, George Bush changed the world. In his Remarks Following a Meeting With the National Security Team, George Bush labels the attacks of 9/11 as “acts of war” (Bush 2001, 1100). For the first time in
He acknowledges the importance of the power of the media through highlighting that public opinion can be swayed to satisfy the needs of the dominant political elite. This is so extreme that it impacts the audience, behind the screen, as they too are part of the society being depicted as gullible and it encourages them to become aware of the media’s potential in its representation of people and
Also they make any discrimination in the corporations as something that are “regrettable small incidents” (24 Van Dijk). Thus the media helps convey both the political and corporate discourse to the larger population on their biased perspective. For the political side, this can be used in both sides of the political party spectrum. Liberals can use it to say that white liberals are the middlemen,
A media source which ignores or censors important issues and events severely damages freedom of information. Many modern tabloids, twenty four hour news channels and other mainstream media sources have increasingly been criticized for not conforming to general standards of journalistic integrity. In nations described as authoritarian by most international think-tanks and NGOs media ownership is generally something very close to the complete state control over information in direct or indirect ways. Undesirable consequences which occur due to media imperialism are: • Commercially driven ultra-powerful mass market media is primarily loyal to sponsors i.e. advertisers and government rather than to the public interest.
Iraqis provided bomb-making expertise and advise to the al-Qaeda organization. Finally, President Bush demanded that Taliban leaders close terrorist camps, hand over leaders of the al-Qaeda, and return all foreign nationals. To get the information they needed to get what they needed to get done was hard to accomplish.
On what was expected to be another day for every American became a burning memory in both Americans and America’s history. September 11, 2001 was the day where fear shook America into recklessly declaring war on terror against Iraq. At 8:46 am, the North Tower of the World Trade Center is interrupted by the American Airline Flight 11 by Mohammed Atta and the hijackers (History); seventeen long minutes later, the South Tower of the World Trade Center is also interrupted by the United Airlines Flight 175 by the other hijackers (History). In order to fight for the endangerment of America’s freedom was being attacked, President George Bush and the Bush Administration contrustred an aggressive invasion in the Middle East. In response to this, George
When thinking of the media you think they are reporting the appropriate and accurate information not based on any personal opinions and feelings. Also one would not think the media would be reporting based on one side of politics or the other. The media is extremely biased when it comes to politics and news. While some of the media is conservative-biased I believe the mass media is liberal-biased. Majority of media outlets are liberal companies, media personnel and journalists will identify themselves as democrats and liberals more so than republicans or conservatives and lastly the left side (liberals) of the mass media is persuasive on what information to report.
The argument can be made that, instead of appealing to the lowest common denominator in the public, at least some media should give the more informed and critical segment of the people what it wants (Lazere 305). The people are considered to be the largest segment of the audience and that should be enough evidence for the media members to make the news tailor made for the viewing public. When confronted with said evidence, most media members blame it on education. “One professional consultant who pioneered these formats justified them by claiming, “People who watch television the most are unread, uneducated, untraveled and unable to concentrate on single subjects more than a minute or two.” (Lazere 306).
The initial posed questions were whether a linguistic approach is the best way to analyze political text in the media and which approaches tend to be the most reliable in sense of analyzing political discourse in the media. (also, see: Richardson, 2006; Reah, 2002) As a result, an independent systematic analysis was conducted, which provided the existing literature of developments from political, linguist, communitive and psychological perspectives. In addition, as a part of the systematic analysis, 50 news items on the United Kingdom’s membership in the European Union were extracted from the leading British quality press and the headlines and lead sentences were evaluated in accordance with the discussed approaches, models and frameworks based on their political grounds, if any, and the relationship between the political orientation of the newspaper owners in reflecting their favored political party’s ideology on the media had been scrutinized. That study concluded that analyzing the same text based on different approaches, models and frameworks leads to a diversity in the findings.
The term Research Methodology refers to a set of procedures, methods & techniques that are put together by the researchers to obtain a solution to the problems they confront during the collection of data. The researchers look for the most crucial data which is inevitable for the research. Generally there are three kinds of approaches or research methods namely Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed. These methods are used to gather data and resolve issues that emerge during the process of data gathering. The researcher can bring forward his findings either in the form of quantitative or qualitative or mixed research methodologies only when the data is collected based on the preliminary data gathering process and the secondary data gathering process.
By having access to instruments of mass media and other systems of public opinion, elites are able to shape the opinions of people and this makes their opinions to be taken seriously even when people do not necessarily agree with them. They use this aspect to control events and shapes attitudinal postures in how people relate with events that occur in the society. Indeed, elites can use their power to shape the complex processes of social cognition to line up with their preferences and ideals. The opinions of these elites are not necessarily adopted by the society at large. With this aspect in mind, elites can as well use their powers to suppress or marginalize alternative options (Dijk, p.44,