Book Review: Obama, the Media, and Framing the U.S. Exit from Iraq and Afghanistan, by Erika G. King
| Autor: | Oliver Boyd-Barrett |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2014 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 91:839-841 |
| ISSN: | 2161-430X 1077-6990 |
| DOI: | 10.1177/1077699014554765b |
| Popis: | Obama, the Media, and Framing the U.S. Exit from Iraq and Afghanistan. Erika G. King. Farnhamz, UK: Ashgate, 2014. 226 pp. $109.95 hbk.If U.S. mainstream media form a cavalry that too often arrives late, is it still better that they arrive late than not at all? This volume, which looks at presidential priming and media framing at the end of conflicts, would tend to answer affirmatively insofar as media capacity for critical dissection of official agenda-setting for war is concerned. Erika King sets her study within a preliminary discussion of American exceptionalism in presidential speechmaking. She concedes that media deference to the prevailing national security frame is common as the nation marches to war, but shows that acquiescence cannot be assumed throughout a lengthy conflict and in a competitive and fragmented reportorial environment.King, professor of political science at Grand Valley State University in Allendale, Michigan, draws inspiration from developments in framing theory that have identified how growing gaps between presidential war rhetoric and "reality" on the ground lead to greater divergence between presidential and media narratives-media narratives become more critical, expansive, and negative. Once a media narrative takes root, such as the media view that Iraq by 2006 had become a violence-ridden quagmire, it is resistant to revision. Administration persistence of the "surge" strategy, linking it to General Petraeus, did achieve a partial revision. Most importantly, and in striking confirmation of Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent thesis, unfavorable media narratives tend not to extend to criticism of a president's underlying rationale for going to war. Journalists may privilege political conflict, controversy, and gamesmanship yet never interrogate the fundamental premises.King's study examines coverage by the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press (AP), NBC News, and Fox News of President Obama's policy making for Afghanistan 2009-2010, and his 2010 announcement of the end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq. As a senator, Obama had decried the Iraq war as a costly diversion from the "real" war in Afghanistan. He emphasized the non-martial aspects of the conflict, and sought a finer correspondence between America's core values and its anti-terrorist strategy. King argues that he veered toward the exemplary rather than the missionary interpretation of American exceptionalism.Her first case study examines Obama's "surge-then-exit" strategy for Afghanistan at a time when media interest and public support had waned significantly. She finds that the president was able to prime journalists' attention and achieved more substantial coverage. He was less successful in controlling the substance and tone of storylines. The media preferred to focus on rampant corruption and chaos in the Af/Pak region, the president's protracted deliberations, terrorism attempts on U.S. soil, and the strategic calculus of surge-then-exit policy.Media were sometimes distracted from the official narrative-often as a pack-by on-the-ground, event-driven news stories that could more easily be personalized and dramatized. … |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|