A Feeding Frenzy of Swine

I would like to make a preemptive apology for writing about something that has been covered ad nauseam, but I find it to be a far too fruitful example of framing and semantic acrobatics to forego. On April 30th Joe Biden infamously went live on the Today Show and announced, "I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places... I would not be, at this point,  if they had another way of transportation suggesting they ride the subway." I would post a link to the clip, but at this point it seems unnecessary since it has arguably become more virulent than any strain of flu could possibly be. 

The backpedalling on behalf of the White House and the vice president was almost immediate. The response from one of vice president Biden's spokespersons was published on Politico: "On the Today Show this morning, the vice president was asked what he would tell a family member who was considering air travel to Mexico this week. The advice he is giving family members is the same advice the administration is giving to all Americans...." However, vice president Biden clearly stated he would advise against travel without exception: "It's not that it's going to Mexico, it's you're in a confined space...." Rather, than emphasize vice president Biden's response, the White House has chosen to emphasize the question he was asked in an attempt to recontextualize - or reframe - his comments. Naturally, though, it is difficult to reframe such an explicit statement. 

Despite the efforts of the White House and even other politicians - perhaps most notably Mayor Bloomberg who made a very public commute on the subway the day of Biden's Today Show appearance and has himself adopted the White House's frame - the Vice President has still been receiving abundant criticism and ridicule. The Associated Press has provided comprehensive coverage on the various ways people have tried to rephrase Biden's remarks. One stuck out to me in particular, and that was Homeland Security chief Janet Neapolitano's statement made on MSNBC: "If he [Biden] could say that over again, he would say if they're feeling sick they should stay off of public transportation or confined spaces...." Many of those who have attempted to reframe Biden's statements have said something along the lines of "if he could say that over again," as if to try and convince people either Biden was unaware of what he was saying or did not actually believe what he was saying. What is important is for them to make clear that Biden's statements do not reflect the prevailing wisdom in the White House and are no cause for panic. 

In general, the media has been critical of Biden's remarks, mainly for the reason that they could be panic inducing. However, the media itself has arguably held a large share of the responsibility for "swine flu" related panic. If images are what tend to stick in the minds of viewers and readers, here is a sampling of some images attached to stories published by various mainstream news outlets: NBC, CNN, PBS. The image of someone wearing a surgical mask typically doesn't have a neutral association. One might also want to consider the term "swine flu" itself, which is a rather sensational yet inaccurate term. Organizations like the CDC have been promoting that the virus be called H1N1, although they still refer to it as "swine flu" parenthetically. Many news outlets continue to call the virus "swine flu." On the local NBC New York news the other night, an anchor announced they will continue to use the term "swine flu." Not for shock value, but only for clarity's sake.  

War of Words Over the Budget

The Boston Globe published an article today entitled "Budget Battle Ramps Up" about the current disputes between House and Senate Democrats and Republicans over the current budget proposal. The GOP has been a harsh and increasingly vociferous opponent to Obama's proposed 3.6 trillion dollar budget plan. In the Globe article, Republican House Representative is quoted as saying, "The president's budget is little more than a thinly veiled attempt by Washington to spend its way into prosperity, tax its way into tax relief, and borrow its way into debt reduction." The quote seems to capture the gist of the Republican's frame for Obama's budget fairly well: that it is a hasty, illogical plan to overspend and dig the country further into debt. The desired effect of all this appears to be to draw attention away from Obama's plan and towards the Republican's budget alternative. 

Overall, though, the Globe's article seems rather generous in its positive coverage of the Democrats and Obama's budget. The article ends with a quote from an ad placed by the Rebuild and Renew America Now coalition, a pro-Obama advocacy group, states: "For the first time in years, we have an honest, fair and transparent blueprint to extend opportunity and security for families in all walks of life... making long-term investments in our nation's future while gradually reducing the deficit." The ad echos Obama's mantra of transparency and employs the Democrat's favored frame for the budget - an "investment in the future." In addition to this, the article also contains a link to another article about the Democrats sniping the GOP and their alternative budget proposal. 

An arguably fair criticism was raised in the comments section of the online version of the article,  that the article links to a story about the Democrats criticism of the Republican's alternative budget, but not to an article about the Republican's budget itself. So, I found this article written by Representative Ryan, the top-ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, and published in the Wall Street Journal. 

On the topic of frames, I found something particularly interesting in Ryan's piece. In one of his opening paragraphs, he writes of Obama's budget, "If this agenda comes to pass, it will mark this period in history as the moment America turned European." In addition to the bloated-budget or oceans-of-red-ink frame, it seems that a secondary frame is now being employed: that Obama's proposed budget is inherently un-American and antithetical to American values. The GOP's budget is supposed to be the plan that continues the American tradition of "rewarding individual achievement," "advancing and protecting natural rights," and "embracing freedom." 

These are certainly pleasant thoughts, however, Representative Ryan seems to fail to draw a connection between "advancing and protecting natural rights" or "embracing freedom" by freezing all discretionary spending - with the exception of military spending - for the next five years. I also don't necessarily think that "opening exploration on our nation's oil and gas fields" is a freedom I want to embrace or a right worth advancing. 

The Boston Globe may be susceptible to claims of liberal bias, and I myself have shown some of my own. However, it seems both sides - right or left, Democrat or Republican - have ample opportunity to propagandize when necessary.  

Blog One

An article recently published on the New York Times website reports that Google has begun posting advertisements on some of its Google News pages. Now when users attempt a search on Google News, the results pages contain various small text-only ads for products and services related to the keywords in the search. So, for example, a search such as "Washington, D.C." returns advertisements for sightseeing tours and local hotels in addition to news stories related to Washington. What distinguishes Google News from other news websites is that it functions more as a database rather than an actual news source. It has a multitude of news stories, and users are given a variety of sources to choose from where they will get these stories. Up until now, Google has refused to post ads on its news pages. 

It seems that the majority of the criticism for Google's recent decision to post ads has come from representatives of other media outlets, particularly newspaper publishers. Some publishers see Google's decision as an act of competition against an already financially troubled industry. Although Google does license content from some individual news organizations, such as the Associated Press, the majority of its news depends on other news organizations that run and maintain their own sites. If you click on a link to essentially any article published by another news site, whether it be a newspaper or otherwise, you are likely to encounter at least one banner ad for any number of products. Therefore, Google's response to any criticism so far has been that Google News increases user traffic, thus making ad space more valuable for the other websites it links itself to. 

If Google is damaging print news companies with their new ad placements, it seems that it could only be in an oblique way. Rather, the newspaper publishing industry's response is indicative of something that is already fairly apparent: as choices for news sources generally become more varied, newspapers' market shares are continuously decreasing. The ultimate problem that newspaper publishers have is that they are selling a product which no longer has the same demand it once did. 

Whereas most media outlets and newspapers are aggregates of information and news, Google News is an aggregate of sources of information and news across a broad spectrum of topics. Google News's model affords its users a multiplicity of perspectives on various news stories. Besides this, Google news is also continuously updated - making it arguably more current than print newspapers, even if only by a couple hours to a day. Furthermore, a news source like Google News can be accessed at any time. The variety and convenience of Google News offers its audience something print newspapers cannot deliver. As long as these competing news organizations do not evolve to meet the growing demands of its prospective consumers, they will either fold or at least continue to struggle.