The media industry is a business that plain and simple. When analyzing news content it is important to always keep this in mind, since it is only logical that any given article will be presented with a certain "spin" that not only aims to grab the reader's interest, but often aims to recite precisely what the average reader wants or is willing to hear. Monday's front-page article in the New York Times titled "On Anniversary, Bush and Cheney See Iraq Success," exemplifies this notion as it highlights the Bush administration's current quandaries at a time when President Bush's approval rating is at a record low. It also offers a barrage of "official" statements that portray the administration in a highly defensive manner. In this way, the editor has capitalized on the indexing argument by framing the issue of the war anniversary as a newsworthy conflict in government and our attention is naturally drawn to the issue to see if the conflict can be resolved.
[...] The effect of this quote may in fact lead to the notion of a liberal press bias that refuses to cover the good news in Iraq and harps only on the bad and bloody news. Rumsfeld supports this claim by “insisting the problem was the imagery created by a 24-hour news cycle.” In light of our course material, Cheney and Rumsfeld probably have a valid argument, as the news beat in Iraq can most easily draw attention to the frequent bombings that take place there while simply ignoring most other news. [...]
[...] This brings me back to my initial reminder that the media industry is first and foremost a business. In light of this, this article says absolutely nothing new. It merely rehashes some recent events and offers eleven quotes from high ranking officials, but makes no conclusions about the war's current state and resolves none of the conflicts that were addressed. The article therefore most likely serves to keep the story of Iraq advancing over time, and this is both good and bad for the democratic public. [...]
using our reader.