“A Momentary Lapse of Reason”: Media Frames of Bush Administration Policy Issues

Caroline Heldman Occidental College cheldman@oxy.edu

Abstract This paper examines the Bush Administration’s framing of major policy initiatives, and print media coverage of these issues, to determine what role the press played in conveying White House messages to the public. First, I analyze Iraq War coverage and find that reporters generally regurgitated White House messages as a result of the “rally around the flag” effect, described as complicit coverage. Next, I assess media coverage of the Bush Administration’s policy agenda prior to 9/11 and do not find complicit coverage. Lastly, media coverage of domestic policies post-9/11 is assessed to determine if the “rally around the flag” effect extended to issues beyond the Iraq War. Post-9/11 coverage was not complicit, suggesting that heightened presidential power through media coverage only occurs with military actions that are directly linked (at least rhetorically) to the national crisis or threat at hand.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Erinn Carter for her tireless research assistance on this project. I

would also like to thank Tony Barnstone, David Adler, James Pfiffner, Todd Belt, Nancy Kassenbaum, Tom Tripp, and Lori Han Cox for comments on earlier drafts of this project.

Prepared for delivery at the conference on Evaluating the George W. Bush Presidency, University of Hawaii at Hilo, July 29th – 31st, 2009.

1

Table of Contents Introduction 2 The Presidential-Press Relationship 3 Print Media Coverage of the Iraq War 7 Print Media Coverage of the Policy Agenda Pre-9/11 23 Print Media Coverage of the Policy Agenda Post-9/11 40 Discussion and Conclusion 58 Bibliography 60 _______________ Appendix A: Inter-Coder Reliability Analysis for Iraq War Datasets 65 Appendix B: Codebooks and Coding Frames for Iraq War Datasets 67 Appendix C: Inter-Coder Reliability Analysis for Pre-9/11 Policy Datasets 75 Appendix D: Codebooks and Coding Frames for Pre-9/11 Policy Datasets 81 Appendix E: Inter-Coder Reliability Analysis for Post-9/11 Policy Datasets 122 Appendix F: Codebooks and Coding Frames for Post-9/11 Policy Datasets 127

2

Introduction

The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on the morning of

September 11, 2001, left an indelible scar on the American landscape, and ushered in a new era

of presidential politics. In the wake of this tragedy, President George W. Bush vastly expanded

the power of the presidency, mostly in the name of national security. His Administration’s artful

use of Executive Orders, signing statements, “secret” programs such as wiretapping, and skirting

of the Geneva Convention are but a few examples of this seemingly systematic expansion.

Since Clinton Rossiter (1956) first claimed that presidential power lay in formal powers

granted this office through the Constitution, political scientists have actively examined

presidential power and its evolution over time. Richard Neustadt (1960) argues that the power of

the presidency lies in his/her power to persuade Washington insiders, “beltway” insiders, and the

public. This model highlights the dependency of the presidential office on the persuasive

charisma of its occupant. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s (1974) theory of the imperial presidency is

that presidential power has reached a dangerous level for democracy because entities that are

meant to check presidential power – congress, “watchdog” interest groups, an active citizenry,

and media – have atrophied. Both of these classic theories are apropos to the primary question of

this paper: what role did media play in expanding presidential power during the George W. Bush

presidency? Did they serve their textbook democratic watchdog function? Serve as a

mouthpiece for the Administration, thereby enabling constitutionally questionable growth of

presidential power? Both? I approach these questions by analyzing White House “marketing” of

its major policies, and compare this marketing to media coverage of the same policies.

This rather long paper is divided into five sections. The first section of the paper

provides a brief description of the contemporary presidential-press relationship. The second

section analyzes print media coverage of the Second Gulf War to determine its level of

journalistic objectivity. I find that complicit coverage prevailed. The third section investigates

media coverage of President Bush’s policies pre-9/11 to see whether biased Iraq War coverage

was unique. The fourth section examines coverage of policy post-9/11 to uncover whether the

White House enjoyed complicit coverage for other policy initiatives during the “rally around the

flag” period post-9/11. The fifth and final section discusses implications of the findings for

presidential power.

3

The Presidential-Press Relationship

The contemporary presidential-press relationship is marked by presidents “going public,”

increasing inter-dependence, and the “rally around the flag effect.” Each of these is summarized

in turn.

Presidents “going public” with their image and policies started with John F. Kennedy

(Kernell 1986), and those since have controlled their image as tightly as possible by spinning

stories and limiting information. Presidential reliance on public appeals to control their image

and pass major policy initiatives has led to a streamlining and tightening of information released

to the press. “The mass media is the principal vehicle through which [the White House]

influences public opinion” (Grossman and Kumar 1981:4). According to Rick Shenkman

(2001), press conferences no longer hold the importance of past years because the White House

uses them to “advance their own agendas, frustrating reporters who [want] to find out what the

administration’s position [is] on various issues” (1).

The pressure for George W. Bush’s Administration to control the terms of high-profile

policy debates was evident in steps they have taken to do so. The Administration attempted to

“spin” media coverage of Iraq by adopting new rules for press briefings on March 6, 2003.

Reporters were assigned seats, called upon in a pre-determined order, and not allowed to ask

follow-up questions. Helen Thomas, a United Press International reporter who frequently asked

tough questions about Iraq, was not called upon during this press conference. Reporters from

Time, USA Today, Newsweek, and The Washington Post were also overlooked (Johnson, 2003).

Additionally, the Department of Education paid news columnist Armstrong Williams $240,000

to promote Bush’s education initiative, No Child Left Behind, and syndicated columnist Maggie

Gallagher received $21,500 to promote the “Healthy Marriage” initiative (Kurtz, 2005).

In addition to paying reporters to promote policies, the Bush Administration produced

newspaper articles and prepackaged “news” stories that were disseminated to newspapers and

television stations throughout the nation without identifying their source. These stories

commended the Administration’s promotion of science education, praised President Bush’s

tutoring program, and promoted Medicare drug policies (Pear 2005). The Government

Accountability Office (GAO), a non-partisan arm of Congress, investigated these attempts by the

White House to control the terms of debates. The GAO ruled that the Bush Administration’s

“covert propaganda” was illegal, and that “the failure of an agency to identity itself as the source

4

of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the audience to believe

that the broadcasting news organization developed the information” (Poling 2005: 2). These

actions on the part of the Bush Administration illustrate the pressure presidents are under to

control media messages because they influence public dialogue, and ultimately, the passage of

policy initiatives. President Clinton learned about the power of public/media dialogue to

sabotage policy passage with his failure to enact health care reform in 1993, despite high levels

of public support for reform (Jacobs and Shapiro, 1995).

The Bush White House also sought to control media messages through their selection of

press corps members. One press corps member, Jim Guckert (a.k.a. Jeff Gannon), was issued

daily press corps credentials even though he was using an alias and working for Talon News

whose parent organization is a known Republican activist group (GOPUSA) (Froomkin 2005).

Furthermore, Guckert/Gannon attended press briefings four days before his employer was

registered as a news organization with the White House, and had previously been denied a

Congressional press pass due to his lack of proper credentials. Given the tight security after

September 11th, it seems implausible that the White House could be unaware of

Guckert/Gannon’s background. As he sat in close proximity to the President, Guckert/Gannon

posed some obviously biased questions, including one about how the President could work with

the Senate Democrats “who seem to have divorced themselves from reality” (Kurtz 2005). The

details of how and why Guckert/Gannon became a member of the White House press corps are

not known, but given the high stakes of controlling the message, the benefits of his presence are

obvious.

The modern presidential-press relationship is also marked by increasing inter-

dependence. People born in the 1970s and later take the omnipresent existence of mass media in

their lives for granted, but the contemporary environment in which ideas and images can spread

through the social consciousness of the culture like wildfire is a recent phenomenon. This new

media environment has changed politics in many ways. Citizens have greater access to

information about their political leaders, campaigns revolve around candidates instead of the

political parties, and candidates appeal directly to citizens to gain office and support for their

policies. The media-intensive, candidate-centered nature of contemporary politics has brought

with it an increased interdependency in the presidential-press relationship.

5

Presidents have greater resources for conveying their message to the public than in the

past, and more reason to control the images since “going public,” so they leverage reporter

coverage with access (Grossman and Kumar 1981). The White House is dependent upon the

press to convey messages to the public, and the press must establish a favorable relationship with

the administration in order to maintain access to White House stories. Not so hidden agendas

underlie this mutually dependent relationship. It is within the best interest of presidents and their

staff to “spin” messages to the press, given that reporters from even reputable news

establishments are motivated to “dig up dirt” to advance in their profession. On the other hand,

reporters face a counteracting pressure from the White House. According to Washington Post

editor and one time reporter Meg Greenfield, reporters have to engage in a quid pro quo

relationship or face being frozen out of “inside stories” and favorable press room treatment

(Greenfield, 2001). This tension creates a tug-of-war for control of how specific policies are

talked about. At certain points in recent history, the president has dominated, while at other

times, the press has enjoyed an advantage in this on-going struggle.

Members of the press are also motivated to serve the public good by providing

information to citizens. This sometimes involves exposing government wrong doing or secret

internal deliberations. This was the case during the later years of the Vietnam War, when many

reporters were openly critical of the Administration. The New York Times and the Washington

Post published portions of the Pentagon Papers, documents leaked by Pentagon analyst Daniel

Ellsberg that detailed the escalation of the conflict in Vietnam. The press was also critical of the

Bush Administration’s delayed response to Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast in 2005. Even

reporters from traditionally conservative news outlets vocally criticized the President for belated

national government response to the crisis. For example, Fox News correspondents Shepard

Smith and Geraldo Rivera were among many journalists who were openly disparaging of the

Bush Administration’s response to this natural disaster. Rivera, holding a child in his arms,

broke down into tears when describing the conditions at the Superdome shelter and the lack of

assistance provided to those still trapped in the city of New Orleans. These examples illustrate

the intense pressure faced by the White House in an age when mass media enables rapid

communication of news that can make or break a presidency in the eyes of the public.

Another notable aspect of the presidential-press relationship is the “rally around the flag”

effect occurs during times of crisis and uncertainty, describes a high level of public support for

6

the president and the media. John Mueller (1973) notes that the rally effect occurs with “an

event which is international, and involves the United States and particularly the president directly

. . . [I]t must be specific, dramatic, and sharply focused” (208). During times of crisis, the

President acts as a type of “living flag” in which the public looks to in order to bring stability

back to the country (Hetherington and Nelson 2003). “The irony of these events is that the rally

effect of a jump in approval of the president can occur whether of not the president has acted

successfully in an international crisis” (Pfiffner 1998, 42).

The rally effect has previously occurred with the Bay of Pigs invasion, U.S. military

intervention in Korea, the Truman Doctrine, and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. What was

so unusual about the 9/11 rally effect, however, was its lengthy duration. Instead of the typical

three to four months, the 9/11 rally effect persisted for over two years when finally, in April of

2004, presidential approval ratings ceased to be tied to the terrorist attacks (Davis and Silver,

2005). I expect to find that this historical expression of support for the president altered the

delicate balance of power in the presidential-press relationship, thus giving President Bush the

ability to shape public opinion through favorably biased coverage of war in Iraq.

The rally around the flag effect makes it difficult for reporters to ask the hard questions,

since public opinion is so strongly leaning in one direction. ABC anchor Sam Donaldson stated

it well when he pointed out that it is tough for reporters during wartime “to press very hard when

they know that a large segment of the population doesn’t want to see a president, whom they

have anointed, having to squirm.” (Johnson 2003, 4). Dana Priest, national security reporter for

The Washington Post, reports that stories that questioned the basis for the war in Iraq prompted

reader letters "questioning your patriotism and suggesting that you somehow be delivered into

the hands of the terrorists" (Kurtz 2005). The rally effect put pressure on reporters to rely on

messages coming from the White House regarding the war in Iraq as opposed to producing more

objective analysis of the situation. The question is how much did this affect coverage? In the

presidential-press tug-of-war contest, the rally around the flag effect can decisively tilt the

balance of power toward the Commander-in-Chief.

Evolutions in the presidential-press relationship imply coziness between the White House

and media that runs counter to the modern advent of objective journalism.1 In theory, elite

1 Objective or professional journalism emerged in the 1930s. Prior to that time, presses engaged in outright partisan advocacy, and at one time were predominately operated by the major political parties (McChesney, 2004).

7

attempts to convince the public of certain policy positions are “checked” by reporters who cover

topics with a more objective lens. But media objectivity is compromised when coverage is less

than critical of elite messages, or coverage reflects its own biases. The next section highlights

elite use of agenda setting, priming, and framing to influence public opinion and policy support,

and examines each in terms of Iraq War framing and coverage.

Print Media Coverage of the Iraq War

Political elites and media coverage influence public opinion through agenda setting,

priming, and framing (Terkildsen and Schnell, 1997; Krosnick and Brannon, 1993; Krosnick and

Kinder, 1990; Iyengar and Kinder, 1987; McCombs, 1981). Agenda setting – putting certain

topics on the agenda and not others – increases topic salience among the public (Terkildsen and

Schnell, 1997; Iyengar and Kinder, 1987). Priming, or the emphasis on certain aspects of a story

over others, changes the way citizens evaluate policies and politicians by placing more emphasis

on certain issues or attributes than others (Terkildsen and Schnell, 1997; Krosnick, 1990; Iyengar

and Kinder, 1987). Attributes that are emphasized become the yardstick for evaluating public

policy and officials.

The framing of political issues – the narratives or “internal story patterns” (Terkildsen

and Schnell, 1997) that describe the core elements of the problem – shape voter policy

evaluations. Issue frames influence causal attribution for policy problems (Terkildsen and

Schnell, 1997; Gamson, 1992; Iyengar, 1987; Kinder and Sanders, 1990), policy preferences

(Kellstedt, 2000; Jacoby, 2000; Iyengar, 1991), perceived deservedness of different policy

recipient groups (Nelson and Kinder, 1996), and presidential performance ratings (Iyengar,

1987). Issue frames can be overtly stated or more subtly introduced through visual or verbal

symbolic means (e.g., slogans), stereotypes that play upon pre-existing notions of people or

events, historical analogies, and iconic visual images (Nelson and Kinder, 1996: 1057-1058).

Previous scholarship finds that, for the most part, public opinion is shaped through

public-elite interaction, with elites establishing the terms of the debate (Sniderman, Brody, and

Tetlock, 1991). Media coverage tends to reflect the frames presented by political elites; sudden

shifts in policy framing occur with major events and/or elite efforts to alter existing frames

(Gamson and Lasch, 1983; Gamson and Modigliani, 1987). In short, although “old media”

journalists strive for neutrality and fairness in their coverage of political events, coverage is

8

heavily influenced by the way in which public officials talk about these events. This section

assesses coverage of President Bush’s spin on the Second Gulf War in the wake of 9/11 to

determine the extent to which print journalists echoed the “spin” on the war from the White

House.

Data and Methods

Content analysis and two datasets are used for this initial stage of analysis. The White

House Dataset includes communications from President Bush on the Iraq War. The Media

Dataset includes articles from Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News and World Report, America’s

three top-selling magazines, from September 12, 2001 to May 8, 2003.2 These dates span from

the day after the September 11, 2001 attacks to seven days after President Bush declared that the

war in Iraq was both successful and complete.3 The final Media Dataset includes 412 articles.

Print media coverage was selected over television coverage for this analysis because it is broadly

considered to be more substantive and objective. Therefore, if bias is found in this more

objective medium, it was likely heightened in television coverage.

The White House Dataset includes press briefings, press gaggles, radio addresses, and

Presidential speeches given during the same time period. The final dataset includes 361

communications from the White House.

Two trained coders worked on the project, including the author. We coded information

about who was representing the administration, as well as catch phrases used, primary frames

given to justify the war, the emphasis placed on the topic, and a variety of other pertinent

variables. Inter-coder reliability was acceptable using both absolute agreement and Cohen’s

Kappa measures. A detailed discussion of inter-coder reliability for all datasets is included in

Appendix A. Codebooks and coding frames for the Iraq War datasets are found in Appendix B.

2 This research replicates the protocol used by past scholars studying media coverage (Terkildsen and Schnell, 1997; Gilens, 1996; Hunt and Rubin, 1993). These three magazine publications combined have been established as a solid source for media analysis in previous studies based on “broad circulation, readership accessibility, and the ideological range of their editorial positions (Hunt and Rubin, 1993; Davis, 1992; Gamson and Modigliani, 1987)” (in Terkildsen and Schnell, 1997: 883). Furthermore, these weeklies, with a combined circulation of over 10 million readers, are the only sources that can reach a mass audience, comparable to national television news, and still offer content similar to the major daily newspapers (Willings, 1993). Furthermore, while several major print news sources have admitted biased coverage in support of the war in Iraq (The New York Times, The Washington Post). 3 We are not proposing that the war in Iraq has come to an end, but this time period provides a window of analysis that includes the months leading up to the Iraqi war and the period of most intense fighting.

9

The “Selling” of the War

Presidents and other elites use verbal combat to “sell” war to their constituents; “rhetoric is

an essential part of ‘real war’” (Kuusisto, 1998:603). Riika Kuusisto analyzed the selling of the

first Gulf War (1990-1991) and found that “besides framing the conflicts as heroic battles or

tragic feuds, the Western leaders employed various metaphors to make the distant events and

their politics seem significant and coherent” (1998: 603). Foreign events are particularly

susceptible to framing effects because they are geographically far away, necessitating public

reliance on the stories and interpretations of political leaders. The marketing campaign of Gulf

War II is compared to Gulf War I in this essay to illustrate that both campaigns involved

decisions made to sell their respective “products.”

The Bush White House used three primary stories/frames4 to justify going to war in Iraq: (1)

Hussein sponsors terrorism (hereafter referred to as the Terrorist Frame), (2) liberation of the

Iraqi people from an evil dictator (the Liberation Frame), and (3) Hussein’s WMD pose an

imminent threat (the WMD Frame). The coding frame was designed to pick up on multiple

frames, but it soon became clear that these three themes dominated the landscape of White

House communications on the war.5

Unlike the first Gulf War, which was sold to the American people as an international

conflict, the second Gulf War was predominantly framed as a domestic threat. The Terrorist

Frame typically mentioned or implied links between Hussein and al-Qaeda (and by association

or explicit link, September 11th), whereas the Liberation Frame often mentioned bringing

democracy and freedom to a long oppressed people. The WMD Frame frequently referenced

Hussein’s past use of WMD and his apparent inability to tell the truth. The Terrorist and WMD

frames painted the war as a response to a domestic threat by tying Iraq into the events of

September 11th, and suggesting that American soil is in danger from WMD that can strike from

afar. The Liberation Frame conjured emotions of patriotism and altruism for people on the other

side of the world, similar to the stories used to sell the first Gulf War. Even the naming of the

4 Primary frames versus other frames were fairly easy to identify because they were almost always mentioned first and emphasized in White House communications and media coverage by more extensive coverage than secondary frames. 5 We analyzed the primary frame of each communication as well as up to two secondary frames. The secondary frame patterns mirrored those of the primary frames, so for purposes of clarity, only primary frame figures are reported.

10

war, Operation Iraqi Freedom, was an effort to persuade the American public to think in terms of

the Liberation Frame.

Chart 1 shows the percentage of White House communications (speeches, press conferences,

etc.) that employed each of the three major frames. Nearly half of the communications coming

from the White House mentioned the WMD Frame as the primary reason for going to war with

Iraq, clearly the most popular frame of the three.

Chart 1 Percentage of White House Communications Using Each Frame (n=320)

17.2%

33.8%

49.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

TerrorismFrame

LiberationFrame

WMD Frame

One-third of White House communications conveyed the Liberation Frame, while two-thirds

framed the war as a domestic threat (the Terrorist and WMD frames combined). The selling of

the war represented a tightly controlled marketing plan that was highly successful in conveying

certain messages to the American public.6

6 In fact, the Bush Administration continued to sell the war using all three of these primary frames for another two years. Condoleezza Rice appeared on Tim Russert on August 9, 2004, and stated that, “the president has been steadfast in his belief that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that he was a threat that had to be dealt with. This president had to make a difficult decision in a post-9/11 environment in which you do not let threats materialize and then hurt you. . . . And the American people will have a good democratic partner in Iraq that will be stable and that will not be threat to this region. Because after all, to have Saddam Hussein, this terrible tyrant who used weapons of

11

Significant differences were found in terms of the primary frame of each communication pre-

war (September 11, 2001 to March 20, 2003) versus after the start of the war (March 21, 2003 to

May 8, 2003). Use of the domestic threat frames fell precipitously, while the Liberation Frame

shot up pre- to post- (Chart 2). Nineteen percent of pre-war communications presented the

Terror Frame, while only 5% of wartime communications mentioned this frame (p=.000).

Similarly, the use of the WMD Frame dropped to less than half its pre-war level (53.6% down to

20.5%) (p=.000). The Liberation Frame jumped from a pre-war level of 27.2% to 75% of

communications at the start of the war (p=.000).

Chart 2 Percentage of White House Communications Using Primary Frame after Start of War (n=320)

4.5%

75.0%

20.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

TerrorismFrame

LiberationFrame

WMD Frame

The Bush Administration’s strategy for selling the war clearly shifted after troops were engaged

in heavy combat in Iraq, from a domestic threat focus to emphasis on America’s role as liberator

for the Iraqi people.

mass destruction, cavorted with terrorists, we’d gone to war against him before, that was a threat that you could not leave; the most dangerous man in the middle of the world’s most dangerous region.”

12

The existence of WMD was discussed in 75% of communications coming from the White

House, whether or not it was the primary frame of the communication (Chart 3).7

Chart 3 Percentage of White House Communications Mentioning WMD (n=361)

No Mention of WMD24.9%

Mixed Message about WMD

1.1%

Iraq/Hussein has WMD

74.0%

WMD were an important point in selling the Iraqi war, as evidenced by its mention in three-

fourths of White House communications. Among the communications that made mention of

WMD, 98.5% stated, without reservation, that Iraq/Hussein possessed them.

The crucial elements of the White House campaign to sell the war – Hussein being a

terrorist threat who possesses WMD – resonated with the American public. According to an

October, 2003 PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll, many Americans internalized messages from the

administration that ran counter to available evidence.8 Despite the lack of evidence for a

connection between Iraq and 9/11, 22% of the American public believed that “Iraq was directly

7 Two measures of WMD were included in the coding frame: whether this was the primary or secondary frame of the communication/article, and whether WMD were mentioned at all. Chart 3 displays the second measure, whether the communication/article made mention of WMD. 8 Steven Kull, “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War.” The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll, October 2, 2003.

13

involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks,” while 35% thought that Iraq gave

substantial support to al-Qaeda. A Washington Post poll of August, 2003, found that 69% of

Americans thought it somewhat or very likely that “Saddam Hussein was personally involved in

the September 11th terrorist attacks.”9 When it comes to WMD, the CIA’s chief weapons

inspector, David Kay, reported on October 2, 2003 that no WMD had been found in Iraq. He

also reported that inspectors had discovered no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program.

However, 22% of Americans continued to believe that the U.S. had located WMD in Iraq, and

20% thought that Iraq had used chemical or biological weapons during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

President George W. Bush’s selling of the Iraq war was effective, despite the lack of

evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda and the existence of WMD. The summer 2002

Downing Street Memo, (reporting on meetings between British and U.S. officials in

Washington) indicated that even America’s staunch ally was aware that the reasoning for the war

was questionable:

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through

military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence

and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC [National Security Council] had

no patience with the UN [United Nations] route, and no enthusiasm for publishing

material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the

aftermath after military action… It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take

military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam

was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya,

North Korea or Iran.10 (Emphasis added.)

As this memo excerpt indicates, the Bush Administration’s two chief frames used to sell the war

– the Terrorist and WMD frames – were not seen by the British as supported by available

intelligence. But despite this, a majority of people believed these claims, which, in all

probability, inflated levels of public support for the war in Iraq. A majority of Americans

supported the war in Iraq when the White House proposed the idea in 2002 until February, 2005,

when for the first time, over 50% of the American public reported that the United States “should 9 Washington Post Poll, “Questions on War in Iraq.” August 12, 2003. 10 Actual language from the Downing Street Memo, quoted in David Manning, “The Secret Downing Street Memo.” The Sunday Times – Britain, May 1, 2005.

14

have stayed out” of Iraq.11 By October of 2005, only 41% of Americans reported that going to

war with Iraq was the “right thing to do.”12

Several conclusions can be drawn here. First, the White House waged a campaign to sell

the war in Iraq well before the Administration acknowledged this. Secondly, this campaign was

effective: the major theme of domestic threat used to market the war continued to resonate with

the American public for over two years after the start of the war. The role that print media

coverage played in this successful White House public relations campaign is examined next.

Research Questions

Three research questions are of interest in this first of three stages of analysis:

R1: Did print media coverage of the second Iraq War reflect agenda-setting from the White

House?

R2: Did a majority of print media coverage of the second Iraq War reflect the frames used by

the White House?

R3: Did a majority of print media coverage of the second Iraq War reflect the priming of the

White House?

Framing Effects

In order to test whether White House framing of the war was reflected in media coverage

during the period examined, I identified a fairly complete set of stories being told about reasons

for going to war in addition to the three primary frames presented by the administration,

including: spreading democracy, American imperialism/colonialism, oil resources, President

Bush’s political gain, revenge/finishing George H.W. Bush’s work, and defense industry build-

11 CBS News Poll, “Poll: Fading Support for the Iraq War.” October 10, 2005. 12 Ibid. CBS News Poll

15

up.13 As Chart 4 shows, 75% of print media articles used the primary frames presented by the

White House to sell the war.

Chart 4 Primary Frames Used by the White House (light bars) and Media (dark bars)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

TerrorismFrame

LiberationFrame

WMD Frame ImperialismFrame

DemocracyFrame

Political GainFrame

DefenseIndustryFrame

Oil Frame RevengeFrame

The three frames presented by the White House were by far the most popular frames in media

coverage of the war. Nearly half of the articles offered domestic threat (Terrorist and WMD

frames) as the primary reason for the war.

13 Of the 412 media articles analyzed, only 64 percent actually mentioned a reason for the war. More than one-third of the articles failed to analyze why we were or soon would be in Iraq. The lack of “meaty” articles on the subject was a thorn in our side. About half way through the coding process it became necessary to go back and add a code for articles that mentioned Iraq extensively but did not really pertain to the war, e.g., stories about the French illegally shipping goods to Iraq, troop entertainment, rebuilding contracts, Bill Maher getting fired, the sexual proclivities of Hussein’s eldest son, tacky art found in Hussein’s palaces, the pillaging of the museums, the coverage of the war in prime time comedy, and Queen Noor, to name a few. Our first finding then, not related to any specific hypothesis, is that media coverage of the war was often slim on substantive.

16

Agenda Setting Effects

Agenda-setting effects are tested by looking at when the major themes of the war were

put on the agenda, and by whom. The first and most obvious measure of agenda setting is when

the idea of going into Iraq first emerged. The connection between the events of 9/11 and war in

Iraq is not organic. This connection was skillfully drawn by the Bush Administration, selected

from many different strategies available to the White House. While the war in Iraq is now

commonly thought of in terms of the larger war on terrorism, this is a reflection of the success of

the selling of the war and not an inevitable state. Average Americans were not turning their

sights towards Iraq on September 12, 2001.

The first official mention of the Iraqi war came from the White House on September 17,

2001 in a briefing in which President Bush, referring to Iraq, stated that “anybody who harbors

terrorists needs to fear the United States and the rest of the free world. Anybody who houses

terrorists, encourages terrorism will be held accountable.” When asked about possible Iraqi

involvement in 9-11 during this same briefing, he replied “We are gathering all evidence on this

particular crime and other crimes against freedom-loving people.” It is notable that all three

centerpieces of the selling of the war were presented again on the one-month anniversary of 9/11.

After alluding to an al-Qaeda/Iraq connection, President Bush stated that, “There’s no question

that the leader of Iraq is an evil man. After all, he gassed his own people. We know he’s been

developing weapons of mass destruction. . . We’re watching him very carefully.” The story

being told here is that Saddam Hussein is a domestic threat because of his links to al-Qaeda and

9/11, and his WMD. Furthermore, the Iraqi people are victims of his nefarious dictatorship in

this statement – the core of the Liberation Frame.

The timeline below shows that the White House put Iraq on the public agenda before

reporters, shortly after 9-11, first by aligning Hussein with al-Qaeda, and a few weeks later, by

presenting all three primary frames in a major speech by the President on the war on terrorism.

Media coverage of Iraq lagged about a month behind and reflected the Administration’s selling

points early on.

Figure 114

14 This media dataset only includes three sources and is not necessarily representative of all print or other media for that matter. The topic of war in Iraq and the three primary frames of the war could have emerged earlier in media coverage.

17

Emergence of Major War Frames by the White House and Media WH 1st Mention of Iraq WH 1st Mention of (Post 9-11) & Terror Frame Liberation & WMD Frames | | 9/17/01 10/11/01 10/29/01 12/26/01 | |

Media 1st Mention of Iraq Media 1st Mention of (post-9-11), Terror Frame, Liberation Frame & WMD Frame

The analysis up to this point suggests that the Bush Administration had a clear plan to sell

the war in Iraq shortly after 9-11, given the early presentation and unification of the three

primary frames in White House communications of various sorts. Given their content, these

frames were not calibrated to garner support for United Nations weapons inspections; the selling

of the war began early and ran often.

Priming Effects

Priming effects were tested by comparing the importance placed on different aspects of

Iraq by the White House and print media. I compared the popularity of the three primary frames

at different times using a new variable that breaks the White House dataset into quadrants of 90

units each to provide enough cases for comparison between the datasets.15 Chart 5 shows the

percentage of communications/articles using the Terrorist Frame as the primary frame in each

quadrant.

15 We attempted this analysis by month, but many months had too few cases in both datasets for comparison. We also tried to analyze this question by quadrants based on time, but both datasets had too few cases to analyze in the first two quadrants. Our quadrants based on the White House dataset are categorized as follows: Quadrant 1 – 9/17/01 to 9/19/02 Quadrant 2 – 9/20/02 to 11/18/02 Quadrant 3 – 11/19/02 to 2/10/03 Quadrant 4 – 2/11/03 to 5/8/03

18

Chart 5 Percent of Communications/ Articles Using Primary Terrorist Frame by Quadrant

8.0%

22.2%

11.1%5.9%

12.5%

35.7%

15.7%12.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Quadrant 1 Quadrant 2 Quadrant 3 Quadrant 4

Perc

ent o

f Com

mun

icat

ions

/Art

icle

s w

ith

Terr

oris

t as

Prim

ary

Fram

e

White House Media

The use of the Terrorist Frame by the news media appears to be dependent upon White House

priming of this frame in the first three quadrants, but as media use accelerates in the fourth

quadrant, White House use of the frame continues to decline. Further analysis shows that this

media bump can be explained by one event sponsored by the White House: Colin Powell’s

February 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations in which he presented evidence of a link between

al-Qaeda, Iraq, and WMD. The percentage of articles using the Terrorist Frame following

Powell’s speech skyrocketed to 29% until the end of February, when they return to pre-speech

levels of about 10%.16 This indicates that this one action on the part of the Bush Administration

had an unusually potent priming effect.

Chart 6 shows the relationship between White House communications and media articles

that include the Liberation Frame. 16 The start of the war in Iraq does not account for the difference in the fourth quadrant. Nineteen percent of White House communications used the Terrorist Frame as the primary frame prior to the start of war, while 16 percent of media articles did the same. White House use of this frame dropped to 5 percent after the war began, and media use dropped to 4 percent. This uncanny similarity is further evidence of a priming effect.

19

Chart 6 Percent of Communications/ Articles Using Primary Liberation Frame by Quadrant

52.9%

25.9%

44.4%

20.6%

67.5%

37.1%

28.9%

15.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Quadrant 1 Quadrant 2 Quadrant 3 Quadrant 4

Perc

ent o

f Com

mun

icat

ions

/Art

icle

s w

ith

Libe

ratio

n as

Prim

ary

Fram

e

White House Media

Chart 6 indicates a fairly close relationship between White House emphasis on the Liberation

Frame and media articles that use this frame. This frame is initially more popular with the White

House but declines steadily until it quadruples in the fourth quadrant. Media use of this frame is

much higher in quadrant 2, but it then drops in line with the White House and skyrockets in

quadrant 4. Early use of the Liberation Frame does not seem to be primed by the Bush

Administration, but the subsequent drop and then dramatic rise in use suggests a major priming

effect in the third and fourth quadrants. As Charts 6 and 7 indicate, White House priming effects

with the media are not as tight in the time prior to the one-year anniversary of September 11,

2001, than after. This is no surprise given that the Administration first overtly set out a plan for

war with Iraq on this anniversary occasion.

Chart 7 shows the relationship between White House and media use of the WMD Frame.

Chart 7

20

Percent of Communications/ Articles Using Primary WMD Frame by Quadrant

39.1%

51.9%

44.4%

73.5%

20.0%

27.1%

55.4%

72.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Quadrant 1 Quadrant 2 Quadrant 3 Quadrant 4

Perc

ent o

f Com

mun

icat

ions

/Art

icle

s w

ith

WM

D a

s Pr

imar

y Fr

ame

White House Media

This chart provides visibly compelling evidence of a priming effect with the WMD Frame. This

frame is more popular with print media than the White House in the first quadrant, but the latter

three quadrants show the two moving together. It appears that once the Bush Administration

presented the idea that Iraq possessed WMD in September, 2001, media coverage ran with the

idea while the White House remained more tentative. Another interesting point to note is that

while both the Bush Administration and media used WMD as the primary frame in nearly three-

quarters of communications/articles in the third quadrant (November 19, 2002 to February 10,

2003), media use of this frame declined more steeply than that of the White House to the benefit

of the Liberation Frame.

Chart 8 shows the overall picture of media shifting gears in tandem with the White House

in terms of what aspects of the war were emphasized.

Chart 8

21

Use of Primary Frames Pre-war versus During War

19.2%15.7%

4.5% 4.3%

27.2%

35.5%

75.0%78.7%

53.6%48.8%

20.5%17.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

TerroristPre-War

Terrorist inWar

LiberationPre-War

Liberationin War

WMD Pre-War

WMD inWar

Primary Frames Pre-War and After Start

White House Media

This chart indicates that when the Bush Administration shifted focus from one primary frame

to another, media coverage followed suit. All of these shifts are statistically significant from pre-

to post- (p=.000 for all six shifts).

In summary, print media articles reflected the three pillars of the Bush Administration’s

marketing plan in their explanations for the war. Critics might point out that reporters were

simply doing their job and reporting on information coming from the White House, but this is

not the case because their coverage reflected active choices. The “primary frame” code was

assigned to articles that explained the impending/current war in Iraq using a particular frame, and

reporters by and large made the choice to adopt the frames of the Bush Administration despite

knowledge of and access to other frames. Sometimes reporters would tell their story of the war

without citing sources, and at other times they would endorse a certain frame by citing someone

else, but either way, the ultimate responsibility for framing fell on the reporter’s shoulders. It is

evident that reporter choice was involved, especially in retrospect, as frames were used without

compelling evidence and in light of contradictory voices among political elites. With this said,

22

it’s not surprising that reporters relied so heavily on White House “spin” considering the

interdependent presidential-press relationship, unusual Bush White House tactics to control their

message, and the stakes involved in selling the idea of an expensive military operation.

Complicit Coverage

The analysis above shows that print media coverage of the Second Gulf War uncannily

reflected White House attempts to set the agenda, prime, and frame coverage. Additionally, print

media articles generally reflected positive slant towards war in Iraq, rarely mentioned opposition

to or critiques of the war, and overwhelmingly reported that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons

of mass destruction (WMD) without questioning this claim. In short, print media coverage was

complicit coverage, defined as defined as media reporting that conveys the White House

position, typically using White House language and frames, without counter arguments,

discussion of alternative frames, or noting opposition to the policy at hand. Several major news

organizations admitted as much with mea culpas. On May 26, 2004, The New York Times

published an historic admittance of biased coverage. After noting “an enormous amount of

journalism that we are proud of,” the editors stated, “we have found a number of instances of

coverage that was not rigorous as it should have been.” This apology describes problems with

reporting unsupported “facts” and priming certain aspects of coverage more than others:

“Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up

articles that called the original ones into question were buried.” Soon after The New York Times

apology was published, The Washington Post issued their mea culpa. The article notes the

pressure that writers and editors felt, not only to report on the many different facets of the war,

but to also present work that their audience was comfortable with. Reporters noted that

“skeptical stories [about the war in Iraq] usually triggered hate mail ‘questioning your patriotism

and suggesting that you somehow be delivered into the hands of the terrorists’” (Kurtz, 2004).

The “rally around the flag” effect played a key role in pressuring print media outlets to engage in

complicity coverage of the Iraq War during the first two years.

23

Print Media Coverage of the Policy Agenda Pre-9/11

The analysis in this section focuses on press coverage of President Bush’s policy agenda

prior to 9/11 for comparative purposes. Was coverage complicit from the start of his first term,

or did this type of coverage come about after 9/11? President Bush was only in office nine

months when the terrorist attacks occurred, so one would expect that he was relatively popular

among the general public during this time. Most presidents enjoy a “honeymoon” period, or

what Pfiffner (1998) calls the “halo effect”: The first part of their term when public opinion is

high, regardless of presidential action. “From Eisenhower through Clinton (with the exceptions

of Reagan and Bush [senior]), every newly inaugurated president’s approval rating was ten

percentage points or more greater than his election margin” (40). Public opinion polls during the

first nine months of the Bush presidency, however, indicate that his halo was a bit rusty. He had

just survived a nail-biter election which left some people questioning his legitimacy in the Oval

Office. As Chart 9 shows, President Bush’s approval ratings were on the lower end of the

spectrum relative to other media-age presidents, starting with Kennedy, at least for the first eight

months.17 In September, Bush’s approval rating jumped from 55 percent to 90 percent.

17 Presidents Johnson and Ford are not included in this analysis because they were not elected to office and therefore did not experience a comparable halo effect period.

24

Presidential Job Approval of Media-Age Presidents, First Nine Months Source: Gallup Polls

President Job Approval Ratings

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Februa

ryMarc

hApri

lMay

June Ju

ly

Augus

t

Septem

ber

Octobe

r

First Nine Months of the Administration

Perc

ent o

f Pub

lic J

ob A

ppro

val

President KennedyPresident NixonPresident CarterPresident ReaganPresident George H. W. BushPresident ClintonPresident George W. Bush

In addition to relatively low approval ratings leading up to September 11th, President Bush was

second only to Bill Clinton in terms of negative job approval ratings during his first nine months

in office. Chart 10 shows negative approval ratings for media-age presidents since Kennedy.

25

Chart 10 Negative Job Approval of Media-Age Presidents, First Nine Months Source: Gallup Polls

President Job Approval Ratings

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Februa

ryMarc

hApri

lMay

Ju

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

Octobe

r

First Nine Months of the Administration

Perc

ent o

f Pub

lic J

ob D

isap

prov

al

President KennedyPresident NixonPresident CarterPresident ReaganPresident George H. W. BushPresident ClintonPresident George W. Bush

It is safe to say that before September 11th, President Bush was a relatively unpopular, polarizing

president compared to other media-age presidents. Therefore, I anticipate finding that coverage

of the White House during this time was rather negative, despite an active six-point policy

agenda with issues close to the hearts and minds of Americans. Media coverage of Bush’s

policy agenda is analyzed to determine whether coverage was complicit pre-September 11th.

Data and Methods

As with the previous analysis of the Second Gulf War, both White House and media

datasets were generated for the analysis of press coverage during President Bush’s first nine

months in office. The White House Dataset is comprised of press briefings, press gaggles, radio

addresses, and Presidential speeches that mention items on Bush’s policy agenda. President

Bush clearly articulated his six-point policy agenda in his inaugural address on January 20, 2001,

the “big six” as it would later be called by White House officials: Tax reform, education reform,

faith-based initiatives, rebuilding the military, reforming Social Security, and reforming

26

Medicare. The White House Dataset contains 124 cases. A detailed discussion of inter-coder

reliability for this datasets is included in Appendix C, and the codebooks and coding frames used

for this second stage of the project are located in Appendix D.

Six different media datasets were compiled, one for each policy topic put on the agenda

by the Bush Administration during the first nine months of his presidency. Each dataset includes

all articles mentioning the topic that appeared in Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World

Report from January 20, 2001 – the day of Bush’s inauguration – to September 11, 2001.

Articles that were editorial in nature or only mentioned the topic in passing were dropped,

leaving the following number of articles on each topic: Tax reform (92), education reform (24),

faith-based initiatives (11), rebuilding the military (33), reforming Social Security (18), and

reforming Medicare (10).

The Bush Policy Agenda Pre-9/11

As with the Second Gulf War, the White House carefully crafted a marketing plan to

“sell” each of these initiatives to the American people. We identified the frames for each policy

topic by reading through all of the White House communications on the topic. Messages from

the White House reflected six different frames crafted to generate support for the President’s tax

cut plan:

• Government Spending Frame: “Washington was built to spend,” and “the surplus isn’t

the government’s money; it’s the people’s money.”

• Working Class Frame: This tax cut is going to benefit the working class. Bush would

often use an example of a waitress or other working class person.

• Class Warfare Frame: Wealthy people pay an unfair share of taxes, and they should get

a break like everyone else.

• Small Business Frame: Small business owners will benefit from this tax cut that will

keep the entrepreneurial spirit alive. Bush often introduced a “tax family” who would

benefit from his plan.

• Marriage Penalty Frame: The current tax structure penalizes marriage. Reducing the

marriage penalty will build community.

• Economic Stimulus Frame: Tax cut plan will “strengthen the economy”

27

President Bush crafted three different frames to generate support for his education reform

plan:

• Local Control Frame: We should have “deep faith in the ability of local people” to run

their own schools. Control should be at the local level.

• High Standards Frame: Higher standards should be established so that kids who get

shuffled through, e.g., inner city children and those who don’t speak English, will get the

same education as other kids. The goal is to “close the inexcusable achievement gap that

exists among students attending public schools across this country – primarily among

minority students and economically disadvantaged students.”

• Accountability Frame: Increased accountability is needed for schools. More federal

money should be spent to promote greater accountability.

It’s notable that there are seemingly contradictory frames for this policy – control at the local

level but enforcement of accountability at the federal level. Similarly, the Working Class and

Class Warfare frames above seem contradictory in that one is selling the idea that the tax cut will

help the working class while the other says it will benefit the wealthy. Frames are often used to

appeal to specific constituencies, and are thus used at different times and in front of different

audiences. The seeming contradictions are consistent with the purpose of framing, which is to

influence support. Political marketing campaigns are tailored to audience and may shift over

time, depending upon public sentiment. For example, when President Bush did a whirlwind tour

to promote Social Security reforms in March, 2005, he started the tour with “Save Social

Security” banners. However, after realizing that he need to appeal more to Americans over 55

who are more politically active than their younger counterparts for whom Social Security would

be “saved,” his banners were changed to “Protecting Seniors.”

The Bush Administration crafted six frames to market their plan for faith-based

initiatives, a policy designed to give money to local churches and synagogues for social service

provision:

• Compassionate Frame: “On the side of caring and compassionate people, there’s a

Compassionate Capital Fund.” Funding should be given to local religious organizations

because “they have a compassionate mission of help and aid.”

• Community Building Frame: Giving money to local churches, synagogues, and

mosques will build community solidarity.

28

• Family Frame: Broken families can be mended through faith-based initiatives.

• Needy People Frame: Faith-based initiatives will help the poor and needy.

• Love Frame: Legislation can’t achieve love, but people can through faith-based

initiatives.

• Secular Frame: The government should fund both secular and religious programs.

Government should not reject religious programs as long as there are secular alternatives.

Despite the obvious religious bent of faith-based initiatives, the White House carefully packaged

its proposals without overtly religious frames. Instead, it was marketed as a community initiative

to help people help themselves without trying to proselytize. The warm themes of “love” and

“compassion” were strong selling points.

As soon as President Bush took office, he proposed several major reforms to rebuild the

military. Four frames were introduced to promote increased military spending.

• Post- Cold War Frame: The Cold War is no longer the most imperative paradigm. We

have a new environment when it comes to war, and we need to be better-equipped. Thus,

new missile initiatives are necessary.

• Strong Military Frame: A strong, well-equipped military prevents war and defends

American ideals. Increased military spending will strengthen military.

• Clear Mission Frame: We need a clear mission and a clear statement of purpose for our

military.

• Legitimacy Frame: Military careers have lost legitimacy that can be improved by

raising salaries and providing better health care and housing for military personnel. Good

treatment of military personnel will boost morale and pride.

The Administration used three primary frames when talking about reforming Social Security,

clearly aimed at different audiences:

• Honoring Commitment Frame: Reforming Social Security is about “honoring the

commitment of American seniors.” We need to maintain the system for the deserved

(i.e., those who paid into it).

• Preservation Frame: The surplus should be used to protect and preserve Social

Security. Keep Social Security money in the Social Security system.

• Young People Frame: Social Security should be preserved for younger generations.

29

Note that the preservation frame is as much about tax reform and how the surplus is spent as it is

about Social Security.

The last of the “big six” policy proposals, reforming Medicare, was also marketed using three

primary frames:

• Dignity Frame: Seniors should be able to retire with dignity (and not have to eat cat

food!). Seniors should not have to choose between food and prescription drugs.

• Choice Frame: Medicare reform will provide greater health care choices for senior

citizens.

• Cost Frame: The cost of Medicare is out of control. Modernizing Medicare (e.g.,

implementing Medical Savings Accounts) will cut down on Medicare costs.

The use of these frames by the White House and media is analyzed after presentation of the

research questions.

Research Questions

Three research questions are of interest in this second phase of the project:

R4: Did a majority of print media coverage of President Bush’s policy agenda reflect the

framing presented by the White House pre-September 11, 2001?

R5: Did a majority of print media coverage of President Bush’s policy agenda reflect the

priming presented by the White House pre-September 11, 2001?

R6: Did a majority of print media coverage of President Bush’s public policy agenda reflect

complicit coverage prior to September 11, 2001?

Analysis

Tax reform was the most popular policy topic discussed by the White House in the first

nine months of Bush’s presidency. Out of the 124 White House communications mentioning at

least one of the six topics, 69% discussed Bush’s tax cut proposal. About one-in-four White

House communications brought up rebuilding the military (27%), education reform (25%), and

30

Medicare reform (22%). Fewer communications mentioned Social Security reform and faith-

based initiatives (Chart 11).

Chart 11 Percentage of White House Communications Mentioning Policy Topic (n=124)

69%

25%

12%

27%

20% 22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Tax Cuts Education Faith-Based RebuildingMilitary

SocialSecurity

Medicare

The use of White House Frames by reporters for each policy topic is examined to test our first

research question.

Tax Frames

Among the six tax frames used by the Administration – Government Spending, Working

Class, Class Warfare, Small Business, Marriage Penalty, and Economic Stimulus – the Economic

Stimulus and Working Class frames were the most popular. About half of White House

communications used each of these two frames (Chart 12).

31

Chart 12 Percentage of White House Communications on Taxes that Use Each Frame (n=85)

51.8%47.1%

38.8%

27.1%23.5% 21.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

EconomicStimulus

WorkingClass

Govt.Spending

ClassWarfare

SmallBusiness

MarriagePenalty

Although President Bush made appeals to small business owners, married couples, and wealthy

people to sell his tax cut proposal, his tax reform was mostly framed as a boon for the working

class that would stimulate the economy and keep money out of the hands of irresponsible

politicians. The question is, did print media package Bush’s tax package in the same way?

Chart 13 shows the use of White House frames among articles written about Bush’s tax reform

plan.

32

Chart 13 Percentage of Print Media Articles about Taxes that Use Each Frame (n=92)

15.2% 13.0%9.8%

5.4% 5.4%2.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

EconomicStimulus

WorkingClass

MarriagePenalty

Govt.Spending

ClassWarfare

SmallBusiness

As with presidential communications, the Economic Stimulus and Working Class frames were

the most popular. However, very few articles used these or any other White House frames when

discussing Bush’s tax policy. In fact, only 30 percent of articles on taxes mentioned any White

House frame. This lends support for our first hypothesis that print media coverage did not reflect

Bush policy frames pre-9/11.

Education Reform

As Chart 14 shows, nearly sixty percent of communications from the White House used

the Local Control frame, and over half used the Accountability frame. A sizable number also

presented the High Standards frame (45%).

33

Chart 14 Percentage of White House Communications on Education that Use Each Frame (n=31)

58.1%54.8%

45.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Local Control Accountability High Standards

Turning now to our media analysis, only 24 articles on education were available: too few

to analyze.18 The fact that so few articles were written on this subject is a finding in itself. The

Bush Administration attempted to put all six items of its policy agenda on the public radar, but

they were less successful with some of the “big six.”

Faith-Based Initiatives

Chart 15 shows that the most popular frames used by the White House to garner support

for faith-based initiatives were the Community Building and Needy People frames. However,

these percentages are based on only 15 cases.

18 Although too few articles were written on education to properly analyze, it is notable that even these articles did not often include White House frames. Out of the 24 articles written, 11 used the High Standards frame, followed by 8 that used the Accountability frame, and 7 that reflected the Local Control frame. It is also important to point out that media articles written on Bush’s education reform clearly did not follow the Administration’s priming of these different frames.

34

Chart 15 Percentage of White House Communications on Faith-Based that Use Each Frame (n=15)

46.7% 46.7%

40.0% 40.0%

33.3%

26.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

CommunityBuilding

Needy People Family Compassionate Love Secular

Chart 15 indicates that while only a small number of White House communications mention

faith-based initiatives, the Administration used multiple frames in each briefing.

When it comes to analyzing media use of faith-based initiatives, scant media attention is

again a problem. Only eleven articles were written on this topic over the nine month period

examined – not enough to analyze.19

19 Of the 11 articles written about faith-based initiatives, 3 used the Compassion frame, 2 used the Community Building, Needy People and Love frames, while only 1 article used the Family and Secular frames each. Print media coverage did not generally use frames from the White House.

35

Rebuilding the Military

The Bush Administration’s program to market proposals to rebuild the military relied

primarily on the Strong Military and Legitimacy frames, as indicated in Chart 16. The Clear

Mission and Post-Cold War frames were used far less often by President Bush and his staff to

frame this issue.

Chart 16 Percentage of White House Communications on Rebuilding the Military that Use Each Frame (n=33)

66.7% 66.7%

21.2%15.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Strong Military Legitimacy Clear Mission Post-Cold War

A comparison of Charts 16 and 17 illustrates that print media use of the military

rebuilding frames do not match up. The Post- Cold War frame is the most used by reporters, but

only mentioned in a handful of White House communications. This frame is the most used of

any White House frame by reporters, but it still fails to achieve use in a majority of articles on

the subject.

36

Chart 17 Percentage of Print Media Articles about Rebuilding the Military that Use Each Frame (n=33)

45.5%

27.3%

12.1%

3.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Post-Cold War Strong Military Legitimacy Clear Mission

Social Security

The Preservation frame was used in almost three-quarters of White House

communications pertaining to Social Security, making it by far the most popular frame for this

topic. One-third of presidential communications used the Young People frame to garner support

for this policy.

37

Chart 18 Percentage of White House Communications on Social Security that Use Each Frame (n=25)

72.0%

32.0%

12.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Preservation Young People Honoring Commitment

As with previous media coverage on Bush’s policies, too few articles were written on Social

Security to analyze. Only 18 substantive articles were written on the issue during the nine

months examined.20

Medicare

The Bush Administration primarily used the Cost frame in its selling of Medicare. The

Choice and Dignity frames were used far less frequently in White House communications on the

subject, as noted in Chart 19.

20 Of the 18 articles written, 7 articles mentioned the Preservation frame. Only two articles used the Honoring Commitment or Young People frames each.

38

Chart 19 Percentage of White House Communications on Medicare that Use Each Frame (n=27)

51.9%

22.2%

11.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Cost Choice Dignity

Only 10 media articles discussed Medicare in a substantive way during the first nine months of

Bush’s presidency; too few to analyze.21

This analysis of each of President “big six” policy issues shows that White House frames

were not particularly popular in print media articles pre-9/11. With all policies combined, fewer

than 40% of articles used any White House frame. Thus, reporters did not generally use White

House policy frames prior to 9/11.

The next research question of whether media coverage reflected the priming presented by

the White House is tested by examining whether media emphasis on different aspects of policies

reflected White House emphasis on these same policies. In terms of priming the policy agenda

overall, the Bush Administration mentioned all but one topic – faith-based initiatives – in at least

20% of White House communications. Granted, tax policy was emphasized much more than the

others at 70%, but if Bush is priming the agenda beyond just setting it, I would expect all of the

topics except for faith-based policy to receive a moderate amount of media attention. The

overall paucity of articles on the subjects of faith-based initiatives, Social Security, and Medicare

21 Of the 10 articles written on the subject of Medicare, two used the Cost frame and one used the Dignity frame.

39

offers evidence that the White House was not able to prime the media agenda. In fact, so few

articles were written on these topics over a nine-month period that a more in-depth analysis of

priming is not even possible. Furthermore, the percentage of articles on tax reform that used

White House frames is so low (the most used frame is mentioned only 15% of the time) that

framing analysis is also not possible for this topic. In other words, White House frames were

simply not used to a significant enough degree to analyze whether the White House influenced

which frames were used (the priming measure used here). Education reform and military

rebuilding are examined further to see if the White House primed these policy topics.

When it comes to priming education policy, as noted previously, a pattern of presidential

influence in the media is not found. The Bush Administration emphasized Local Control,

Accountability, and High Standards frames in that order, whereas print media articles on this

topic emphasized the opposite framing order. In terms of military rebuilding, the Bush

Administration relied heavily on the Strong Military and Legitimacy frames to sell this policy

proposal, whereas print media used Post-Cold War frame the most, and the Military Rebuilding

frame at a much lower rate. It is worth noting that only 15% of White House communications

mentioned the Post-Cold War frame – the least popular frame presented – while 45% of print

media articles used this frame, making it the most popular of the four. Again, while media

coverage did reflect White House frames to a greater extent with this policy than any other of the

“big six,” the framing use does not reflect presidential priming. In summary, print media

coverage of President Bush’s policy agenda pre-9/11 did not generally reflect the priming of the

White House.

R6, the question of whether media coverage complicit prior to 9/11, is tested with a

simple univariate analysis of a question included in the media coding frame asking whether the

particular article at hand reflected complicit coverage of the policy. Complicit coverage required

that the article presented the White House’s position on the topic using the Administration’s

language and frames, without presenting counter arguments, discussion of alternative frames, or

noting opposition to the policy. Chart 20 shows that few print media articles pre-9/11 were

complicit. Only 16 percent of articles reflected such coverage.

40

Chart 20 Percentage of Policy Complicit Print Media Articles (n=188)

Non-Complicit Coverage,

84.6%

Complicit Coverage,

16.4%

The policy with the highest level of complicit coverage was Social Security with 28% of articles

falling under this category. Military rebuilding had the lowest level of complicit coverage at 9%.

Given the low level of complicit coverage overall and by policy, particularly compared to

coverage of the Second Gulf War, the finding for R6 is that print media coverage of President

Bush’s policy agenda was not generally complicit prior to September 11, 2001

Print Media Coverage of the Policy Agenda Post-9/11

The third and last phase of this project seeks to better define the conditions that induce

complicit coverage. Did the rally effect influence other Bush Administration policies post-9/11?

This analysis replicates the methodology used in the two previous phases of the project to test

agenda setting, priming, and framing effects through April, 2004 when the rally effect reached its

conclusion.

41

The Bush Policy Agenda Post-9/11

The number of policy issues on the Bush Administration’s plate post-9/11 mushroomed

after September 11, 2001 as a result of the terrorist attacks. Four general types of policies were

identified:

1. reactionary policies (e.g., the airline bailout, the USA PATRIOT Act, and creation

of the Department of Homeland Security);

2. crises or events President Bush chose to take a position on (e.g., conflicts in

Northern Ireland and the Middle East, the SARS outbreak, and nuclear testing in

North Korea);

3. policies initiated in the other branches of government that required some action on

the part of the Administration (e.g., campaign finance reform, late-term abortions,

and Affirmative Action); and

4. policies initiated by the White House (e.g., education reform, media deregulation,

and the Clear Skies Initiative).

These four categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, while the late-term abortion

policy was put on the agenda and passed by Congress, President Bush’s vow to approve the

legislation no doubt got the policy ball rolling. Furthermore, some may argue that the USA

PATRIOT Act is not a necessary reaction to the events of September 11th, but rather, a political

move to concentrate power in the executive branch. Given these complications and our primary

questions, our analysis includes only policy topics that originated with the Bush Administration

and are not reactions to pressing events or crisis. Policies were selected that fit the following

criteria: (1) the policy reflects a new position/ new direction; (2) the policy came primarily come

from the Administration; and (3) the policy was non-reactionary, meaning that the content was

primarily determined by the Administration. The following policies were initially picked for

analysis based upon frequency of mention in White House communications:

1. Clear Skies Initiative

2. economic stimulus package

3. energy policy

4. estate “death” tax

5. Faith-based initiatives

6. Healthy Forest Initiative

42

7. Medicare reform

8. missile defense

9. tort reform

10. trade promotion authority

11. Social Security reform

Some policies appeared to be on the President’s agenda, but upon closer inspection, they

were not active policy components during the time period analyzed, including stem cell research,

media deregulation, bankruptcy reform, and education. The Bush Administration took a

complicated stance on stem cell research, approving the use of existing embryos in research, but

prohibiting the harvesting of additional embryos for this endeavor in August of 2001. The

Administration also took a clear stance against human cloning. After 9/11, this policy topic was

not a key component of the President’s agenda. The Administration did issue a statement of

support for HR 2520, an act of Congress approving stem cell research using umbilical cord blood

(and thus not involving embryos) in May of 2005, but stem cell was not actively championed by

the President post-9/11. Likewise, the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to

deregulate some aspects of media ownership in June of 2003 received a lot of press attention, but

it was not actively promoted by the Bush Administration as a policy priority. In fact, the FCC

held only one public forum on the issue. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention, Consumer

Protection Act was signed into law on April 20, 2005, and while the White House did support

this legislation early on, it was primarily a congressional initiative. (Similar legislation was

presented in congress several under the Clinton Administration.)

President Bush’s education reform package, No Child Left Behind, passed on January 8,

2002. It was actively promoted by the Bush Administration prior to 9/11, but then disappeared

from the radar screen after the terrorist attacks. In fact, the President was selling this policy

using an appearance in an elementary school in Jacksonville, Florida, when two planes hit the

Twin Towers, but after this appearance, he spoke of education reform only twice more before it

passed in January of 2002. Neither of these appearances involved direct promotion of what

would become No Child Left Behind, rather, they concentrated on schoolchildren learning more

about American history and connecting with Muslim children. It is safe to say that the high-

profile marketing campaign for education reform ceased after September 11, 2001, even though

this policy item was active.

43

Data and Methods

The methodology used in the third phase of this project replicates the model used in the

first two phases: a content analysis of messages from the White House pertaining to each policy,

and a content analysis of print media coverage of each policy. The White House Dataset is

comprised of press briefings, press gaggles, radio addresses, and Presidential speeches that

mention items on Bush’s policy agenda from September 11, 2001 through April, 30, 2004 – the

end of the “rally around the flag” effect. The White House Dataset contains 480 cases. Inter-

coder reliability was acceptable using both absolute agreement and Cohen’s Kappa measures, as

reported for this dataset in Appendix E. Codebooks and coding frames for this dataset are

located in Appendix F.

Eleven media datasets were originally compiled, one for each policy topic put on the

agenda by the Bush Administration post-9/11. Each dataset includes all articles mentioning the

topic that appeared in Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report.

Chart 13 shows the percentage of White House communications pertaining to each of the

eleven policies initiated by the Administration. The reader should note that each White House

communication could feasibly contain more than one policy topic.

44

Chart 13 Percentage of White House Communications Mentioning Policy Topic (n=480)

12.5%

3.1%

1.9%

10.8%

17.3%

0.8%

8.3%

2.1%

14.0%

36.7%

0.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Clear Skies Initiative

Economic Stimulus

Energy Policy

Estate Tax

Faith-Based Initiative

Healthy Forest Initiative

Medicare Reform

Missile Defense

Tort Reform

Trade Promotion Authority

Social Security Reform

Based on the breakdown of policy mentions above, it seems clear that certain policies are

more important to the White House than others. In fact, five policies – Tort Reform, Missile

Defense, the Healthy Forest Initiative, the Estate Tax, and the Clear Skies Initiative – are

mentioned so rarely as to suggest that the White House was not truly promoting them.

Therefore, the analysis only involves the remaining six topics: Economic Stimulus (176);

Energy Policy (67); Faith-Based Initiatives (40); Medicare Reform (60); Trade Promotion

Authority (52); and Social Security Reform (83).

The Policy Landscape Post-9/11

This section examines how each of the six major policy initiatives post-9/11 were

marketed to the American public by the Bush Administration. Chart 14 shows the frames used

to “sell” the economic stimulus package. A more detailed breakdown of each frame is included

in Appendix F.

45

Chart 14 White House Economic Stimulus Frame Use (n=176)

1.0%

16.4%

26.7%

52.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Jobs Frame

Unemployment Frame

Business IncentiveFrame

Global CompetitionFrame

When it comes to “selling” the Economic Stimulus package, the Bush Administration relied most

heavily on the narrative that this policy would promote the creation of new jobs. The related

Unemployment Frame was mentioned in one-fourth of White House communications. Few

addresses used the Global Competition Frame to sell their Economic Stimulus package.

Chart 15 shows the frames used to market the White House’s energy policy post-9/11.

46

Chart 15 White House Energy Policy Frame Use (n=67)

2.9%

14.9%

16.4%

52.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Reduce ForeignReliance Frame

Economic Stimulus

Find New Source Frame

Business Incentive

A majority (52.2%) of messages pertaining to Energy Policy used the narrative of how it would

reduce reliance on foreign oil, and this in turn would diminish our ties to countries linked to

terrorism. This was by far the most popular frame used when discussing this policy. Far fewer

messages about Energy Policy use the Economic Stimulus and Find New Source Frames.

Only two frames – Needy People and Compassionate Conservatism – were used by the

Bush Administration to market Faith-Based Initiatives post-9/11, as shown in Chart 16 below.

47

Chart 16 White House Faith-Based Initiatives Frame Use (n=40)

25.0%

40.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Needy People Frame

CompassionateConservative Frame

The Needy People narrative – that Faith-based Initiatives will help the neediest Americans get

back on their feet – was used in 40% of White House communications. One-quarter of

communications mentioned Compassionate Conservatism in the context of Faith-Based

Initiatives.

Chart 17 shows the frames used to market the White House’s Medicare Reform proposal.

48

Chart 17 White House Medicare Reform Frame Use (n=60)

16.7%

25.0%

26.7%

40.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Modernize Frame

Strenghen SystemFrame

Choice Frame

Cost Frame

The most popular framed used to sell Medicare Reform is the story of modernizing the system.

Four-in-ten White House communications used this frame when discussing Medicare Reform.

About one-fourth of the communications mentioned the Strengthen System and Choice Frames,

respectively.

49

Chart 18 White House Trade Promotion Authority Frame Use (n=52)

15.4%

17.3%

19.2%

48.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Economic StimulusFrame

Level Playing FieldFrame

Global Prosperity Frame

Economic StimulusFrame

As Chart 18 indicates, the Economic Stimulus Frame was the most popular story used to market

Trade Promotion Authority by the White House, mentioned in nearly half of the communications

on the subject. The ideas that policy will level the playing field, bring about global prosperity,

and stimulate the economy were used far less frequently when Trade Promotion Authority was

discussed by the Bush Administration.

Chart 19 shows the major frames or narratives used when discussing Social Security

Reform.

50

Chart 19 White House Social Security Reform Frame Use (n=83)

15.6%

27.7%

59.0%

63.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Young People Frame

Strengthen SystemFrame

Retirees Frame

Economic StimulusFrame

The most popular story used to sell Social Security Reform was its benefit to young people

(63.8%). The Strengthen System Frame was also quite popular: six-in-ten White House

communications mentioned this as a reason to support reform of Social Security. The benefits to

retirees and the economy were less used frames mentioned by the White House to promote

support for Social Security Reform.

Research Questions

I anticipate that President Bush’s domestic policy agenda benefited at least somewhat

from the extended rally effect post-9/11. Perceptions of the president as a “living flag” may have

buoyed support for President Bush beyond the Iraq War. Three research questions are of interest

in this last stage of analysis:

R7: Did a majority of print media coverage of President Bush’s policy agenda reflect the

framing presented by the White House post-9/11?

51

R8: Did a majority of print media coverage of President Bush’s policy agenda reflect the

priming presented by the White House post-9/11?

R9: Did a majority of print media coverage of President Bush’s public policy agenda reflect

complicit coverage post-9/11?

Framing Effects

Framing effects are tested by comparing White House frames with print media frames on

each topic. The following number of articles were written during the time period analyzed:

economic stimulus (58), energy policy (41), faith-based initiatives (36), Medicare reform (51),

trade promotion (9), and Social Security reform (48). Trade promotion received too little media

attention for analysis, which indicates that reporters were not following the White House agenda-

setting, at least for this policy topic.

Chart 20 Economic Stimulus: White House and Media Frame Use

1.0%

16.4%

26.7%

52.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Jobs Frame

Unemployment Frame

Business IncentiveFrame

Global CompetitionFrame

White House Media

As chart 20 shows, fewer than 10% of print media articles about President Bush’s economic

stimulus used the Business Incentive, Jobs, or Unemployment frames coming from the White

52

House. In other words, print media reporters were not the mouthpiece of the Administration

when it came to reporting on the stimulus.

The analysis of energy policy frames in shown below. Reducing foreign reliance on

energy sources was by far the most popular frame used by the White House to promote this

policy, and it was also the most popular media narrative. Likewise, the narrative about finding

new energy sources is equally popular with the White House and reporters. Thus, for energy

policy, print media coverage framing looks strikingly similar to President Bush’s frames.

Chart 21 Energy Policy: White House and Media Frame Use

36.6%

0.0%

15.5%

4.4%2.9%

14.9%

16.4%

52.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Reduce ForeignReliance Frame

Economic Stimulus

Find New Source Frame

Business Incentive

White House Media

Chart 22 compares media coverage of faith-based initiatives to White House frames on

the issue. Reporters simply did not discuss these initiatives in the same way the President

presented them. Furthermore, as noted below, coverage of this policy issue was quite negative in

print media articles.

53

Chart 22 Faith-Based Initiatives: White House and Media Frame Use

8.30%

2%

25.0%

40.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Needy People Frame

CompassionateConservative Frame

White House Media

According to Chart 23, the Modernizing Frame was the most popular frame used by both

the White House and print reporters. However, media use of this frame is much lower than

White House use, and a clear pattern of joint media-White House framing is not apparent with

this policy domain.

54

Chart 23 Medicare Reform: White House and Media Frame Use

15.6%

2.6%

13.0%

4.4%

16.7%

25.0%

26.7%

40.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Modernize Frame

Strengthen SystemFrame

Choice Frame

Cost Frame

White House Media

The most popular White House frame for Social Security reform – that it would benefit

young people, was not very popular in print media articles, as indicated in Chart 24. Overall,

President Bush’s framing of this policy area was not picked up by the press for the most part.

55

Chart 24 Social Security Reform: White House and Media Frame Use

11.7%

5.5%

9.3%

4.6%

15.6%

27.7%

59.0%

63.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Young People Frame

Strengthen SystemFrame

Retirees Frame

Economic StimulusFrame

White House Media

In summary, the only policy area where reporters followed White House framing post-

9/11 is energy policy, and the two most popular frames for this policy – ending oil dependence

and finding new energy sources – were both rhetorically tied to the war on terrorism by the Bush

Administration. Officials frequently referenced our dependence on foreign oil as related to

countries in the Middle East – some of which harbor terrorists – so this finding adds a nuanced

wrinkle to the post-9/11 coverage of domestic policy issues. Print media leaned towards

complicit coverage on the only domestic policy post-9/11 that was rhetorically linked with

terrorism.

Priming Effects

Priming effects are tested by revisiting the charts in the previous section to see if the

emphasis placed on certain frames by the White House were also reflected in media coverage

post-9/11. Media framing did not follow White House framing, with the exception of energy

policy that was framed in terms of foreign oil dependence promoting terrorism. With regard to

56

R8, media coverage of President Bush’s policy agenda did not generally reflect the priming

presented by the White House post-9/11.

Complicit Coverage

Our last research question concerns complicit coverage of domestic policies post-9/11.

Chart 25 shows the number of articles that achieved the criteria for complicit coverage for the

five policies that received enough media coverage to be analyzed.

Chart 25 Complicit Coverage by Policy

15.1%

4.4% 3.8%9.8%

17.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

EconomicStimulus

Energy Faith-BasedInitiatives

Medicare SocialSecurity

While some of the Administration’s policies received more complicit coverage than others post-

9/11, none of the five policies examined received a substantial amount of such coverage.

Furthermore, negative affect was high for most policies, reflecting a generally critical tone of

policies coming from the White House. Clear negative affect was present in 48% of articles

about President’s Bush’s economic stimulus package, 47% of energy, 42% of faith-based, 34%

of Medicare, and 48% of Social Security articles. Chart 26 shows that a vast majority of print

57

media articles covering the White House policy agenda pre-9/11 were not complicit in their

coverage. Only a small number of articles fit this criterion.

Chart 26 Percentage of Policy Complicit Print Media Articles Post-9/11 (n=188)

Non-Complicit Coverage,

87.0%

Complicit Coverage,

13.0%

The response to the last research question, R9, is that media coverage of President Bush’s policy

agenda was not generally complicit post-9/11. As shown in Chart 27, print coverage was slightly

more complicit pre-9/11 than in was post-9/11.

58

Chart 27 Percentage of Complicit Print Media Articles Pre- and Post-9/11

16.4%

13.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Pre-9/11 Post-9/11

In summary, post-9/11 print media coverage of President Bush’s policy agenda does not

generally reflect the priming or framing put forth by the administration, nor complicit media

coverage. The only exception is energy policy that was rhetorically linked to terrorism.

Discussion and Conclusion

This paper presents two major findings. First, print media coverage of the Iraq War was

complicit and influential in the marketing of the war to the American people, The severity of the

terrorist attacks, coupled with unprofessionally complicit media coverage, extended the rally

around the flag effect from the typical three or four months (Pfiffner, 1998: 42) to April of 2004

when presidential approval was no longer tied to 9/11.

The second major finding of this paper is that media coverage of President Bush’s

domestic policy agenda post-9/11 was not complicit, despite the country rallying behind the

President for over two years. In fact, reporters were critical of the Administration and their

policies, suggests that complicit coverage will surface in times of national crisis only for policies

that are characterized as a response to the crisis. This finding is further confirmed by the fact

59

that the only policy where coverage followed the White House was energy policy, and the

primary frames focused on foreign reliance promoting links to terrorists.

With regard to democratic checks on presidential power, these findings show that

complicit media coverage during times of national crisis can be added to the list of eroding

democratic checks on the White House. This type of coverage is the result of new developments

in the presidential-press relationship, namely, heightened inter-dependency between reporters

and the White House land the “rally effect” leading to biased coverage and public

misinformation. The crisis of 9/11 allowed President Bush to persuade the public through

media; he did not enjoy a particularly favorable relationship with the press prior to the terrorist

attacks.

President Kennedy “went public” four decades ago and set the stage for a new media-

centered style of presidential politics, but he did not have the level of persuasion with the press

and the public that President Bush enjoyed for at least a year. Perhaps it is all simply due to the

effect of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, but it is possible that an extended rally effect and the new

“going public,” which now often means not going public with information, has a multiplicative

effect that is to be expected with future crisis situations. If the nation is again confronted with

circumstances similar to 9/11, reporters will again experience extreme pressure to rally behind

the president and give him/her immoderate power to persuade. This scenario is likely for two

reasons. First, reporter-presidential interdependence is as strong as ever. Reporters will

acquiesce to the pressure to provide complicit coverage from both the White House and the

public when it arises. Secondly, the White House’s selling of the Iraqi war was ingenious and

illustrates the power of a strong political marketing campaign. Bush Administration messages

were unified from the start, expertly communicated through multiple channels by many different

White House representatives, and resonated well with the American people. The primary

framing of the war as a domestic threat was perhaps the crowning point of this campaign. This

frame elicited strong emotions post 9/11 by presenting a tangible target in the war on terrorism

and suggesting that the country would be safer if that target were defeated. Another professional

campaign along these lines would have a similar effect, regardless of the person or political party

in control of the White House, as long as the marketing experts are top-notch. This threatens the

representative basis of our republic when public opinion can be so effectively be set by political

leaders if the conditions are right.

60

Bibliography

Aho, James, 1994. This Thing of Darkness. A Sociology of the Enemy. University of Washington Press,

Seattle, WA.

-- 1981. Religious Mythology and the Art of War. Comparative Religious Symbolisms of Military

Violence. Aldwych, London.

Davis, Darren W. and Brian Silver, 2004. “The Threat of Terrorism, Presidential Approval, and the 2004

Election.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association,

Chicago, IL, September 2-5.

Ewens, Michael, 2004. “Casualties in Iraq: The Human Cost of Occupation.” Antiwar.com, July 27.

Froomkin, Dan, 2005. “The Scandal That Keeps on Giving.” The Washington Post, February 18.

Gamson, William, 1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge Press, New York.

Gamson, William A. and Andre Modigliani, 1987. “The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action,” in

Research in Political Sociology, Vol. 3, Richard D. Braungart, Ed., JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Gamson, William A. and Katherine E. Lasch, 1983. “The Political Culture of Social Welfare Policy,” in

Evaluating the Welfare State, Shimon E. Spiro and Ephraim Yuchtman-Yaar, Eds., Academic,

New York.

Greenberg, Edward S. and Benjamin I. Page, 2001. The Struggle for Democracy, 5th Edition. Longman

Publishers, New York.

Greenfield, Meg, 2001. Washington. Public Affairs, New York.

61

Grossman, Michael Baruch and Martha Joynt Kuman, 1981. Portraying the President: The White House

and the News Media. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Hetherington, Marc J., and Michael Nelson. 2003. “Anatomy of a Rally Effect: George W. Bush and the

War on Terrorism.” PS: Political Science and Politics (January).

Iyengar, Shanto, 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

-- 1987. “Television News and Citizens’ Explanations of National Affairs.” American Political Science

Review, Vol. 81, No. 3, September, 815-831.

Jacoby, William, 2000. “Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending.” American

Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, No. 4, October: 750 – 767.

Jacobs, Lawrence R. and Robert Y. Shapiro, 1995. “Don’t Blame the Public for Failed Health Care

Reform.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, Vol. 20, No. 2: 411-423.

Johnson, Peter, 2003. “Media Mix: Bush has Media Walking a Fine Line.” USA Today, March 9.

Kellstedt, Paul M., 2000. “Media Framing and the Dynamics of Racial Policy Preferences.” American

Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, No. 2, April: 245-260.

Kernell, Samuel, 1986. Going Public. CQ Press, Washington, D.C.

Kinder, Donald and Lynn Sanders, 1990. “Mimicking Political Debate with Survey Questions: The Case

of White Opinion on Affirmative Action for Blacks.” Social Cognition, Vol. 8, No. 1: 73-103.

Krosnick, Jon and Laura A. Brannon, 1993. “The Media and the Foundations of Presidential Support –

Bush, George and the Persian Gulf Conflict.” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 49, No. 4: 167-182.

62

Krosnick, Jon and Donald Kinder, 1990. “Altering the Foundations of Support for the President Through

Priming.” American Political Science Review, Vol. 84, No. 2: 497-512

Kull, Steven, 2003. “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq war.” The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll,

October 2.

Kurtz, Howard, 2004. “The Post on WMDs: An Inside Story.” The Washington Post, August 12, Page

A1.

-- 2005 “Administration Paid Commentator: Education Dept. Used Williams to Promote ‘No Child’

Law.” The Washington Post, January 8.

-- 2005 “Writer Backing Bush Plan Had Gotten Federal Contract.” The Washington Post, January 26.

-- 2005. “Online Nude Photos are Latest Chapter in Jeff Gannon Saga.” The Washington Post, February

16.

Kuusisto, Riikka, 1998. “Framing the Wars in the Gulf and Bosnia: The Rhetorical Definitions of the

Western Power Leaders in Action.” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 35, No. 5, September: 603

– 620.

Lombard, M., J. Snyder-Duch, and C.C. Bracken, 2002. “Content Analysis in Mass Communication:

Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability.” Human Communication Research, Vol. 28:

587-604.

Manley, John F., 1978. “Presidential Power and White House Lobbying.” Political Science Quarterly,

Vol. 93, No. 2, Summer.

McChesney, Robert W., 2004. The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st

Century. Monthly Review Press, New York.

63

McCombs, Maxwell, 1981. “The Agenda-Setting Approach,” In Dan Nimmo and Keith Sanders, Eds.

Handbook of Political Communication. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Mueller, John, 1973. War, Presidents and Public Opinion. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.

Nelson, Thomas E. and Donald R. Kinder, 1996. “Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public

Opinion.” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 58, No. 4, November: 1055-1078.

Neustadt, Richard, 1960. Presidential Power. Wiley, New York.

Pfiffner, James P., 1998. The Modern Presidency, 2nd Edition. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Rossiter, Clinton, 1956. The American Presidency. Harcourt and Brace, New York.

Shenkman, Rick, 2001. “Presidency: What George W. Bush and William Howard Taft Have in

Common.” History News Network, August 27.

Schlesinger, Arthur, Jr., 1974. The Imperial Presidency. Popular Library, New York.

Squitieri, Tom and Dave Moniz, 2004. “U.S. Force in Iraq to Grow as Marine Deployment Pushed Up.”

USA Today, June 8.

Sniderman, Paul M., Richard A. Brody, and Philip E. Tetlock, 1991. Reasoning and Choice:

Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Society for Professional Journalists, 2004. Code of Ethics. http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp.

Terkildsen, Nadya and Frauke Schnell, 1997. “How Media Frames Move Public Opinion: An Analysis

of the Women’s Movement.” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 4, December, 879-900.

64

Trimble, Phillip, 1989. “The President’s Foreign Affairs Power.” The American Journal of International

Law, Vol. 83, No. 4, October: 750-757.

Washington Post Poll, 2003. “Questions on War in Iraq.” August 12.

Willings Press Guide, 1993. Alphabetical and Classified Index, No. 2, GB: Reed Information Services

Ltd.

Zur, Ofer, 1991. “The Love of Hating: The Psychology of Enmity.” History of European Ideas, Vol. 13,

No. 4: 345-369.

65

Appendix A: Inter-coder Reliability for Iraq War Datasets

Precautions were taken at every stage of the coding process to ensure high inter-coder

reliability. During training, two coders completed 30 entries each for the Media Dataset, and 15

entries each for the White House Dataset to pre-test the coding frames. Significant coder

differences were initially found in a few key variables in both datasets, and additional training

and discussion took place. Specifically, disagreements emerged with respect to the depth of

interpretation applied to speeches/articles. One coder was picking up on more positive war and

positive Bush affect, so it was decided that slant would only be recorded if actual language

supporting the impression of slant could be identified. The coders also discussed the bias that

comes from retrospective analysis, analyzing articles that were written two years ago through

today’s lens. Both coders agreed to guard against reading ideas into articles/speeches by

considering the actual language instead of allusions.

After the initial test of reliability, the coders completed another 15 entries each from each

dataset and produced at least 80 percent agreement on all key questions. Each coder completed

half of the articles/speeches in each dataset. In all, training required approximately 40 hours, and

coders spent well over 200 hours each on the coding portion of the project.

Inter-coder reliability for the Media Dataset was based on five key variables: (1) primary

frame of the article, (2) primary critique of the war, (3) reporting of WMD, (4) war affect, and

(5) Hussein/administration affect. These variables were selected because they involved varying

levels of subjective interpretation on the part of the coder. Percentage agreement and Cohen’s

Kappa were used to calculate the level of agreement between coders. The latter method is

preferable to the more liberal measure of absolute agreement, but researchers are encouraged to

use multiple methods to determine inter-coder reliability (Lombard, Snyder-Duch, and Bracken,

2002). Each variable in our Media Dataset reached acceptable absolute agreement (at least .80)

and Cohen Kappa scores (at least .60) as shown in the table below. These reliability measures

are based on 30 cases from the Media Dataset.

66

Variable Percent Agreement Cohen’s Kappa primary frame of the article .83 .71 primary critique of the war .86 .70 reporting of WMD .90 .80 war affect .86 .69 Hussein/administration affect. .93 .85

Inter-coder reliability for the White House Dataset was calculated using the following

variables: (1) primary frame of the speech/conference, (2) whether Iraq was a primary topic of

the speech/conference, (3) reporting of WMD. These variables were selected because they

represent key aspects of the coding that required some interpretation on the part of the coders.

All three variables have acceptable levels absolute agreement and Cohen’s Kappa scores as

shown in the table below. This reliability analysis is based on 30 cases.

Variable Percent Agreement Cohen’s Kappa primary frame of the speech/conference

.83 .76

whether Iraq was a primary topic .82 .67 reporting of WMD .93 .84

Both tests for inter-coder reliability show acceptable levels for both databases.

67

Appendix B: White House and Media Dataset Codebooks for Iraq War Dataset

White House Codebook [Note: Some categories, such as the frames, were collapsed for purposes of analysis] 1. ID# -- Identification number of speech/address. 2. Source of speech: (1) presidential speech

(2) press conference (3) press gaggle (4) presidential briefing (9) other

3.Date of Speech: (enter numeric date) 4. Speaker(s): (1) President Bush (2) Ari Fleisher (3) Scott McClellan

(9) Other 5. Length of Remarks: Record # of paragraphs on war in Iraq 6. % of speech about Iraq: (1) mentioned in passing (2) key part of speech/address 7. Frames: (1) Hussein sponsors terrorism/ harbors terrorists*

(2) Link between Al Qaeda and Iraq* (3) Evil empire/ Axis of Evil+ (4) Freedom from evil dictator/ freedom for Iraqi people# (5) Imminent threat/preemptive strike/WMD+ (6) America as hero/super cop/rescuer (7) God is on our side (8) UN is weak/ not taking action (9) War is about democracy ---------------- (10) War for Bush’s political gain (11) War for oil (12) War is about colonialism/ imperialism (13) War is about finishing H.W. Bush’s job/ revenge (14) War is about benefiting defense industries

* Terrorist Frame + WMD Frame # Liberation Frame

68

8. Critiques of the War: (1) Opposition to the war (domestic or global) (2) U.S. Actions Violate U.N. Charter/lack of U.N. support

(3) No WMD/ lack of evidence of WMD (4) No link between Al Qaeda and Iraq (5) War is costly (6) War is unjustified

(7) Transition efforts are flawed/ problematic (8) War is a quagmire (9) War about “daddy”/ revenge (10) U.S. previously supported Hussein (11) War is for oil (12) Bad intelligence (13) Mention of casualties

9. Primary Topic? (1) Yes (2) No 10. Iraq/ Saddam Hussein/ (Iraqi) War in Headline? (1) Yes (2) No 11. Iraq brought up by press or by Bush/official? (1) press (2) Bush/ official 12. Weapons of Mass Destruction: (empty) no mention of WMD (1) Assumed (2) Existence questioned (3) Do not exist (4) Mixed/ other 13. Evil Empire: (empty) no mention of Evil Empire (1) Mentioned Evil Empire 14. WWII: (empty) no mention of WWII (1) Mentioned WWII 15. Cold War: (empty) no mention of Cold War (1) Mentioned Cold War 16. First Gulf War: (empty) no mention of First Gulf War (1) Mentioned First Gulf War 17. Name used for Saddam Hussein: (empty) didn’t mention S.H. (1) Primarily Used Hussein (w/ or w/out first name) (2) Primarily Used Saddam (3) Mix of both Saddam and Hussein

69

18. Axis of Evil: (empty) no mention of Axis of Evil (1) Mentioned Axis of Evil 19. Operation Shock and Awe: (empty) no mention of OSA (1) Mentioned 20. Operation Enduring Freedom: (empty) no mention of OEF (1) Mentioned OEF 21. Hussein/ Admin. Adjectives: list first two adjectives mentioned 22. War Adjectives: list first two adjectives mentioned 23. Good quote? (empty) no good quote in article (1) yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote) Coding Rules to Remember:

Don’t include speeches/addresses with only passing mentions of the war in Iraq past ID # and % of article about war in Iraq.

“Primary topic” coding is based on whether the war in Iraq has more coverage than other topics in the speech/ gaggle/ conference.

“Primary frame” is based on the timing of the topic and the amount of space dedicated to it. Ask yourself “what is the major story being told about Iraq?”

The number of paragraphs dedicated to the topic is measured from the point the topic is introduced to a clear switch to another topic.

Coding mostly applies to communications from the president/ administration. If in doubt about how to code something, ask yourself if it is coming from the administration or not (except for questions that specifically apply to the press).

70

Media Codebook [Note: Some categories, such as the frames, were collapsed for purposes of analysis] 1. ID #: ID number given to article. 2. Source: (1) Newsweek (2) Time (3) U.S. News and World Report 3. Date of Article: Date the article was written. 4. Section of Magazine: (1) Arts and Entertainment (2) National (3) International (4) Editorial/letters (5) Special section on Iraq (6) Side articles (9) Other 5. Cover Story? (1) Yes (2) No 6. Frame in Headline? (1) Hussein sponsors terrorism/ harbors terrorists*

(2) Link between Al Qaeda and Iraq* (3) Evil empire/ Axis of Evil+ (4) Freedom from evil dictator/ freedom for Iraqi people# (5) Imminent threat/preemptive strike/WMD+ (6) America as hero/super cop/rescuer (7) God is on our side (8) UN is weak/ not taking action (9) War is about democracy ---------------- (10) War for Bush’s political gain (11) War for oil (12) War is about colonialism/ imperialism (13) War is about finishing H.W. Bush’s job/ revenge (14) War is about benefiting defense industries

7. % of Article about Iraqi War: (1) mentioned in passing (2) key part of article 8. Length of Article: Enter the number of words.

* Terrorist Frame + WMD Frame # Liberation Frame

71

9. First Outside Expert Used in Article: (1) Named (enter name) (3) Unnamed/ associated with admin. (4) Unnamed/ not associated with admin. (5) Unnamed/ association unclear 10. Second Outside Expert Used in Article: (1) Named (enter name) (3) Unnamed/ associated with admin. (4) Unnamed/ not associated with admin. (5) Unnamed/ association unclear 11. Frames: (1) Hussein sponsors terrorism/ harbors terrorists*

(2) Link between Al Qaeda and Iraq* (3) Evil empire/ Axis of Evil+ (4) Freedom from evil dictator/ freedom for Iraqi people# (5) Imminent threat/preemptive strike/WMD+ (6) America as hero/super cop/rescuer (7) God is on our side (8) UN is weak/ not taking action (9) War is about democracy ---------------- (10) War for Bush’s political gain (11) War for oil (12) War is about colonialism/ imperialism (13) War is about finishing H.W. Bush’s job/ revenge (14) War is about benefiting defense industries

12. Critiques of the War: (1) Opposition to the war (domestic or global) (2) U.S. Actions Violate U.N. Charter/lack of U.N. support

(3) No WMD/ lack of evidence of WMD (4) No link between Al Qaeda and Iraq (5) War is costly (6) War is unjustified

(7) Transition efforts are flawed/ problematic (8) War is a quagmire (8) War about “daddy”/ revenge (10) U.S. previously supported Hussein (11) War is for oil (12) Bad intelligence (13) Mention of casualties

* Terrorist Frame + WMD Frame # Liberation Frame

72

13. Weapons of Mass Destruction: (empty) no mention of WMD (1) Assumed (2) Existence questioned (3) Do not exist (4) Mixed/ other 14. Evil Empire: (empty) no mention of Evil Empire (1) parallel to Iraqi war (2) not parallel to Iraqi war (3) mixed/ other 15. Quagmire: (empty) no mention of quagmire (1) parallel to Iraqi war (2) not parallel to Iraqi war (3) mixed/ other 16. Vietnam: (empty) no mention of Vietnam War (1) parallel to Iraqi war (2) not parallel to Iraqi war (3) mixed/ other 17. WWII: (empty) no mention of WWII (1) parallel to Iraqi war (2) not parallel to Iraqi war (3) mixed/ other 18. Cold War: (empty) no mention of Cold War (1) parallel to Iraqi war (2) not parallel to Iraqi war (3) mixed/ other 19. First Gulf War: (empty) no mention of First Gulf War (1) parallel to Iraqi war (2) not parallel to Iraqi war (3) mixed/ other 20. Name used for Saddam Hussein: (empty) didn’t mention S.H. (after first mention) (1) Primarily Used Hussein (w/ or w/out first name) (2) Primarily Used Saddam (3) Mix of both Saddam and Hussein 21. Axis of Evil: (empty) no mention of Axis of Evil (1) Term used by administration (2) Term used by reporter (3) Mixed/ other

73

22. Operation Shock and Awe: (empty) no mention of OSA (1) Term used by administration (2) Term used by reporter (3) Mixed/ other 23. Operation Enduring Freedom: (empty) no mention of OEF

(Iraqi Freedom) (1) Term used by administration (2) Term used by reporter (3) Mixed/ other 24. Administration Officials Quoted: (empty) no official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Donald Rumsfeld (3) Colin Powell (4) Condoleezza Rice (5) Dick Cheney (6) Unnamed administration source (9) Other 25. Bush/ Admin. Adjectives: list first two adjectives mentioned 26. Hussein/ Admin. Adjectives: list first two adjectives mentioned 27. War Adjectives: list first two adjectives mentioned 28. War Affect: (empty) no affect towards war (1) Positive affect towards the war (2) Negative affect towards the war (3) Mixed affect towards the war 29. Bush/admin. Affect: (empty) no affect towards Bush/administration (1) Positive affect towards Bush/administration (2) Negative affect towards Bush/administration (3) Mixed affect towards Bush/administration 30. Hussein/admin. Affect: (empty) no affect towards Hussein/administration (1) Positive affect towards Hussein/administration (2) Negative affect towards Hussein/administration (3) Mixed affect towards Hussein/administration 31. U.N. Affect: (empty) no affect towards UN (1) Positive affect towards the UN (2) Negative affect towards the UN (3) Mixed affect towards the UN

74

35. Good quote? (empty) no good quote in article (1) yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote) Coding Rules to Remember:

Don’t include letters to the editor in the analysis. List the name of the expert(s) used at the bottom of the first page. Don’t code articles with only a passing mention of Iraq beyond ID # and % of article

about war in Iraq.

75

Appendix C: Inter-Coder Reliability for Pre-9/11 Policy Dataset

During training, the three coders completed at least 15 entries each for the White House

Dataset, and at least 15 entries for each of the six different policy directives from the Media

Dataset to pre-test the coding frames. The inter-coder done on the White House Dataset proved

to be rather clear, as all three coders identified the defined frames from the administration, with

the exception of two variables. Further discussion between all three coders took place in order to

more clearly define these variables. Problems began to arise during the initial inter-coder of the

Media Dataset as there were significant coder differences found in key variables in five of the six

datasets, excluding the “Educational Improvements” dataset. Specifically, disagreements

emerged with respect to the depth of interpretation for key variables including the “complicit

coverage” variable. It became clear that it was more difficult to develop inter-coder reliability

with topics that were not as clearly defined by the administration. Additional training was

undertaken to address bias that comes from retrospective analysis, analyzing articles that were

written four years ago through today’s lens. All coders agreed to guard against reading ideas into

articles/speeches by considering the actual language instead of allusions. After the initial test of

reliability, the coders each completed another 15 entries from each dataset until agreement

occurred. In all, training required approximately 40 hours, and coders spent well over 200 hours

each on the coding portion of the project.

White House Inter-Coder Reliability

Inter-coder reliability for the White House Dataset was calculated using the following variables:

(1) tax cuts mentioned, (2) Working Class Frame used, (3) education improvements mentioned,

(4) High Standards Frame used, (5) Faith-based Initiatives mentioned, (6) Love Frame used, (7)

rebuilding the military mentioned, (8) Post-Cold War Frame used, (9) Social Security mentioned,

(10) Preservation Frame used, (11) Medicare mentioned, (12) Cost Frame used. These variables

were selected because they represent key aspects of the coding that required some interpretation

on the part of the coders. All three variables have acceptable levels absolute agreement and

Cohen’s Kappa scores as shown in the table below. Ten of the twelve variables included had

acceptable levels of absolute agreement and Cohen’s Kappa scores as shown in the table below.

This reliability analysis is based on 15 cases.

76

White House Dataset Variables

Inter-coder One: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder One: Cohen’s Kappa

Inter-coder Two: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder Two: Cohen’s Kappa

Tax cuts mentioned

1.00 1.00 .86 .93

Working class frame used

.93 .84 .67 .87

Education improvements mentioned

.87 .78 .68 .80

High standards Frame used

.88 .62 .60 .87

Faith-based Initiatives mentioned

.87 .69 .62 .80

Love Frame used

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Rebuilding the military mentioned

.87 .69 .71 .87

Post-Cold War Frame used

1.00 1.00 .64 .93

Social Security mentioned

1.00 1.00 .88 .93

Preservation Frame used

.93 .82 .76 .93

Medicare mentioned

1.00 1.00 .88 .93

Cost Frame used

.93 .76 .87 .60

Media Datasets Inter-Coder Reliability

Inter-coder reliability for the Media Dataset was based on three key aspects of the coding

process: (1) article specific questions (2) framing specific questions, (3) and affect and complicit

questions. In each of the inter-coder tests, variables that would randomly test inter-coder

reliability of all three of the key aspects of coding were selected. Variables that were the most

difficult to obtain inter-coder agreement, like complicit coverage and affect, were specifically

selected because they involved varying levels of subjective interpretation on the part of the

coder. Two coders, as opposed to all three, were used for both the tax media dataset and the

military media dataset. Percentage agreement and Cohen’s Kappa were used to calculate the

77

level of agreement between coders. The latter method is preferable to the more liberal measure

of absolute agreement, but researchers are encouraged to use multiple methods to determine

inter-coder reliability (Lombard, Snyder-Duch, and Bracken, 2002). Inter-coder testing was

done for each of the individual frames in the Media Dataset. Each individual frame in our Media

Dataset reached acceptable absolute agreement (at least .80) and Cohen Kappa scores (at least

.60) as shown in the tables below.

Tax Media Dataset Inter-coder One: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder One: Cohen’s Kappa

Inter-coder Two: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder Two: Cohen’s Kappa

Section of article 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A Percent of article .90 .815 N/A N/A Government frame .91 .707 N/A N/A Economic stimulus frame

.80 .833 N/A N/A

Class warfare frame .90 .833 N/A N/A Tax policy affect .80 .600 N/A N/A Bush/Admin affect .80 .674 N/A N/A Complicit coverage: tax policy

.80 .773 N/A N/A

Complicit coverage: Bush/admin

.80 .667 N/A N/A

78

Education Media Dataset

Inter-coder One: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder One: Cohen’s Kappa

Inter-coder Two: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder Two: Cohen’s Kappa

Article Section .93 .873 .94 .873 Cover 1.00 1.00 .93 .634 Topic .93 .762 .93 .762 High Standards Frame

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Accountability Frame 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Education Policy Affect

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Bush/Admin Affect .93 .634 1.00 1.00 Complicit coverage: education policy

.93 .726 .88 .589

Complicit coverage: Bush/admin

.82 .585 .82 .585

Military Media Dataset

Inter-coder One: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder One: Cohen’s

Kappa

Inter-coder Two: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder Two:

Cohen’s Kappa

Source .95 .865 N/A N/A Percent of article .88 .857 N/A N/A Post-Cold War frame .89 .782 N/A N/A Legitimacy frame .93 .636 N/A N/A

Faith-based Initiatives Media Dataset

Inter-coder One: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder One: Cohen’s Kappa

Inter-coder Two: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder Two: Cohen’s Kappa

Article Section 1.00 1.00 .94 .916 Percent of article .89 .81 .95 .798 Compassionate Conservatism frame

.95 .710 .89 .868

Love frame .89 .852 .89 .827 “Helping people” phrase

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Admin. Official quoted

.88 .702 .94 .776

Faith policy affect .88 .663 .94 .776 Bush/Admin affect .88 .692 .88 .610 Complicit coverage: Faith policy

1.00 .856 .88 .611

Complicit coverage: Bush/Admin

.88 .774 1.00 .878

79

Critique of military policy

1.00 1.00 N/A N/A

Praise of military policy

.93 .636 N/A N/A

Affect of military policy

1.00 1.00 N/A N/A

Affect of Bush/Admin

1.00 1.00 N/A N/A

Complicit coverage: military policy

1.00 1.00 N/A N/A

Complicity coverage: Bush/Admin

.88 .828 N/A N/A

Social Security Media Dataset

Inter-coder One: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder One: Cohen’s Kappa

Inter-coder Two: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder Two: Cohen’s Kappa

Cover story 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent of article .93 .884 .87 .762 Preservation frame

.88 .752 .82 .651

“Save Social Security” phrase

.93 .634 1.00 1.00

Critique of Social Security policy

.93 .857 .93 .857

Praise of Social Security policy

.93 .762 .93 .762

Social Security policy affect

.93 .826 .87 .605

Bush/Admin affect

.93 .706 .80 .651

Complicit coverage: Social Security policy

.87 .758 .80 .634

Complicit coverage: Bush/Admin

.87 .767 .87 .756

Medicare Media Dataset

Inter-coder One: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder One: Cohen’s Kappa

Inter-coder Two: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder Two: Cohen’s Kappa

Section .88 .765 .94 .882 Percent of article

.88 .761 .88 .762

Dignity frame 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Cost frame 1.00 1.00 .81 .619

80

Critique of Medicare policy

.81 .634 .87 .634

Praise of Medicare policy

.88 .636 1.00 1.00

Medicare policy affect

.76 .622 .88 .858

Bush/Admin affect

.76 .622 .88 .858

Complicit coverage: Medicare policy

.88 .856 .88 .856

Complicit coverage: Bush/Admin

.88 .856 .88 .856

81

Appendix D: White House and Media Dataset Codebooks for Pre-9/11 Policy Dataset

Codebook for White House Content Analysis 1. ID# -- Identification number of speech/address. 2. Source of speech: (1) presidential speech

(2) press conference (3) press gaggle (4) presidential briefing (5) radio address (9) other

3. Date of Speech: (enter numeric date) 4. First Speaker: (1) President Bush (2) Ari Fleisher (3) Scott McClellen (4) Karl Rove (5) Claire Buchanan

(10) Other (specify in the space provided)

5. Second Speaker: (1) President Bush (2) Ari Fleisher (3) Scott McClellen (4) Karl Rove (5) Claire Buchanan

(9) Other (specify in the space provided) 6. Tax cuts mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 7. Government Spending Frame used? (1) yes 8. Working Class Frame used? (1) yes 9. “tax relief” or similar phrase used? (1) yes 10. “target in, target out” or similar phrase used? (1) yes 11. Small Business Frame used? (1) yes 12. “entrepreneurial spirit” or similar phrase used? (1) yes

82

13. Economic Stimulus Frame used? (1) yes 14. Marriage Frame used? (1) yes 15. “marriage penalty” or similar phrase used? (1) yes 16. Class Warfare Frame used? (1) yes 17. “death tax” or similar phrase used? (1) yes 18. “getting money into people’s pockets” (quickly!) (1) yes 19. Tax cut comments: Write down common phrases, additional frames here. 20. Education improvement mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 21. Local Control Frame used? (1) yes 22. “one size does not fit all” or similar phrase? (1) yes 23. High Standards Frame used? (1) yes 24. “no child left behind” or similar phrase used? (1) yes 25. Accountability Frame used? (1) yes 26. “streamlining” or similar phrase used? (1) yes 27. Educational improvement comments: Write down common phrases, additional frames here. 28. Faith-Based Initiatives mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 29. Compassionate Conservatism Frame used? (1) yes 30. “help people help themselves” or similar phrase used? (1) yes 31. “compassionate conservatism” or similar phrase used? (1) yes 32. Community Building Frame used? (1) yes 33. Needy People Frame used? (1) yes

83

34. Family Frame used? (1) yes 35. Love Frame used? (1) yes 36. Secular Frame used? (1) yes 37. Faith-Based comments: Write down common phrases, additional frames here. 38. Rebuilding Military mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 39. Post-Cold War Frame used? (1) yes 40. Strong Military Frame used? (1) yes 41. “spending more money and spending more wisely” or similar phrase used? (1) yes 42. “extend peace by advancing technology” or similar phrase used? (1) yes 43. Clear Mission Frame used? (1) yes 44. Legitimacy Frame used? (1) yes 45. Rebuilding Military comments: Write down common phrases, additional frames here. 46. Social Security mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 47. Honoring Commitment Frame used? (1) yes 48. Preservation Frame used? (1) yes 49. “save Social Security” or similar phrase used? (1) yes 50. Young People Frame used? (1) yes 51. Social Security Comments: Write down common phrases, additional frames here. 52. Medicare mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 53. Dignity Frame used? (1) yes

84

54. Choice Frame used? (1) yes 55. Cost Frame used? (1) yes 56. “modernize Medicare” or similar phrase used? (1) yes 57. Medicare comments: Write down common phrases, additional frames here.

85

Tax Cuts--Media Content Analysis Codebook 1. ID #: ID Number assigned to the article 2. Date of Article: Date the article was written 3. Source: (1) Newsweek (2) Time (3) U.S. News and World Report 4. Section of Article*: (1) Arts and Entertainment (2) National (3) International (4) Business and Technology (5) Health/Medicine (6) Other (specify) include letters and editorials here 5. Cover Story: (1) Yes (2) No 6. Topic of Article: (1) Tax cuts (2) Education Improvements (3) Faith-based Initiatives (4) Rebuilding Military (5) Social Security (6) Medicare 7. % of Article on Topic: What percentage of this article focuses on the topic you are coding? (1) Mentioned in passing* (2) Topic covered more that just in passing; article mostly not about topic (3) Topic covered more than just in passing; taxes primary topic *Do not code “mentioned in passing” articles. Note this on the sheet, but do not enter any data. If an article discusses one aspect of taxes in great detail, code it as a (3). 8. Other Topics: What other topic out of the six primary topics are mentioned in the article (1) Tax cuts (2) Education Improvements (3) Faith-based Initiatives (4) Rebuilding Military (5) Social Security (6) Medicare 9. Frame/Phrase in Headline: (1) Government Spending Frame (2) Working Class Frame (3) Small Business Frame

86

(4) Economic Stimulus Frame (5) Marriage Frame (6) Class Warfare Frame (7) Estate/Death Tax Frame (8) “Tax relief” Phrase (9) “Target in, target out” Phrase (10) “Entrepreneurial spirit” Phrase (11) “Marriage penalty” Phrase (12) “Death tax” Phrase (13) “Getting money into people’s pockets” Phrase 10. Headline Policy Tone: If you read only the headline of this article, would you think the author is in favor of Bush’s policy, neutral about Bush’s policy, or opposed to Bush’s policy? (empty) Coding topic isn’t in headline (1) In favor (2) Opposed 11. Headline Bush/ Admin. Tone: Is the headline positive, neutral, or negative towards President Bush? (empty) President Bush isn’t mentioned in the headline (1) Positive (2) Negative 12. Frame: Government Spending (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 13. Frame: Working Class (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 14. Frame: Small Business (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used

87

15. Frame: Economic Stimulus (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 16. Frame: Marriage (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used

88

17. Frame: Class Warfare (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 18. Frame: Estate/Death Tax (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 19. Phrase: “Tax relief” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 20. Phrase: Target in, target out” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 21. Phrase: “Entrepreneurial spirit” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 22. Phrase: “Marriage penalty” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 23. Phrase: “Death tax” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 24. Phrase: “Getting money into people’s pockets” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 25. First Outside Expert Used in Article*: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear 26. Second Outside Expert Used in Article:

89

(1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear * Only code experts that are discussing the topic you are coding for. Do not code experts who are discussing other topics in the article. Also, only record experts, not “average” people who are interviewed. Thirdly, only code experts who are actually reported as talking or are quoted, not those who are simply mentioned in the article. 27. First Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 28. Second Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 29. First Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 30. Second Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify)

90

31. Critique(s) of Tax Policy: (empty) No critique (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 32. Description of first critique of Tax policy: Enter a brief description of the first critique of the Tax policy. 33. Praise of Tax Policy: (empty) No praise (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 34. Description of first praise of Tax policy: Enter a brief description of the first praise of the Tax policy. 35. General Affect: Tax policy* (1) Positive affect towards Tax policy (2) Negative affect towards Tax policy * Only code affect if a clear bias is apparent. Leave this space clear if the coverage is even-handed or mixed. 36. General Affect: President Bush/ Admin.* (1) Positive affect towards President Bush/ Admin. (2) Negative affect towards President Bush/ Admin. *If the words “Bush” or “White House” or similar terms are used in the article, even briefly, code for this variable (if clear affect or bias is present). 37. Complicit Coverage: Policy (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 38. Complicit Coverage: President Bush/ Admin. (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 39. Bush/Admin Adjective: First adjective mentioned 40. Bush/Admin Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 41. Tax Policy Adjective: First adjective mentioned

91

42. Tax Police Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 43. Good Quote? (empty) No good quote in article (1) Yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote)

92

Education--Media Content Analysis Codebook 1. ID #: ID Number assigned to the article 2. Date of Article: Date the article was written 3. Source: (1) Newsweek (2) Time (3) U.S. News and World Report 4. Section of Article: (1) Arts/Entertainment (2) National (3) International (4) Business/Technology (5) Health/Medicine (6) Other (specify) include letters and editorials here 5. Cover Story: (1) Yes (2) No 6. Topic of Article: (1) Tax cuts (2) Education Improvements (3) Faith-based Initiatives (4) Rebuilding Military (5) Social Security (6) Medicare 7. % of Article on Topic: What percentage of this article focuses on the topic you are coding? (1) Mentioned in passing* (2) Topic covered more that just in passing; article mostly not about topic (3) Topic covered more than just in passing; education primary topic *Do not code “mentioned in passing” articles. Note this on the sheet, but do not enter any data. If an article discusses one aspect of policy in great detail, code it as a (3). 8. Other Topics: What other topic out of the six primary topics are mentioned in the article (1) Tax cuts (2) Education Improvements (3) Faith-based Initiatives (4) Rebuilding Military (5) Social Security (6) Medicare 9. Frame/Phrase in Headline: (1) Local Control Frame (2) High Standards Frame

93

(3) Accountability Frame (4) “One size does not fit all” Phrase (5) “No child left behind” Phrase (6) “Streamlining” Phrase 10. Headline Policy Tone: If you read only the headline of this article, would you think the author is in favor of Bush’s policy, neutral about Bush’s policy, or opposed to Bush’s policy? (empty) Coding topic isn’t in headline (1) In favor (2) Opposed 11. Headline Bush/ Admin. Tone: Is the headline positive, neutral, or negative towards President Bush/ Admin.? (empty) President Bush isn’t mentioned in the headline (1) Positive (2) Negative 12. Frame: Local Control (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 13. Frame: High Standards (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 14. Frame: Accountability (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 15. Phrase: “One size does not fit all” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 16. Phrase: “No Child Left Behind” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used

94

17. Phrase: “Streamlining” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 18. First Outside Expert Used in Article*: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear 19. Second Outside Expert Used in Article: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear * Only code experts that are discussing the topic you are coding for. Do not code experts who are discussing other topics in the article. Also, only record experts, not “average” people who are interviewed. Thirdly, only code experts who are actually reported as talking or are quoted, not those who are simply mentioned in the article. 20. First Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 21. Second Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 22. First Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 23. Second Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted

95

(1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 24. Critique(s) of Education Policy: (empty) No critique (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 25. Description of first critique of Education policy: Enter a brief description of the first critique of the Education policy. 26. Praise of Education Policy: (empty) No praise (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 27. Description of first praise of Education policy: Enter a brief description of the first praise of the Education policy. 28. General Affect: Education Policy* (1) Positive affect towards education policy (2) Negative affect towards education policy * Only code affect if a clear bias is apparent. Leave this space clear if the coverage is even-handed or mixed. 29. General Affect: President Bush/ Admin.** (1) Positive affect towards President Bush/ Admin. (2) Negative affect towards President Bush/ Admin. **If the words “Bush” or “White House” or similar terms are used in the article, even briefly, code for this variable (if clear affect or bias is present). 30. Complicit Coverage: Education Policy (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify)

96

31. Complicit Coverage: President Bush/ Admin. (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 32. Bush/Admin Adjective: First adjective mentioned 33. Bush/Admin Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 34. Education Policy Adjective: First adjective mentioned 35. Education Police Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 36. Good Quote? (empty) No good quote in article (1) Yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote)

97

Faith Based--Media Content Analysis Codebook 1. ID #: ID Number assigned to the article 2. Date of Article: Date the article was written 3. Source: (1) Newsweek (2) Time (3) U.S. News and World Report 4. Section of Article*: (1) Arts and Entertainment (2) National (3) International (4) Business and Technology (5) Health/Medicine (6) Other (specify) include letters and editorials here 5. Cover Story: (1) Yes (2) No 6. Topic of Article: (1) Tax cuts (2) Education Improvements (3) Faith-based Initiatives (4) Rebuilding Military (5) Social Security (6) Medicare 7. % of Article on Topic: What percentage of this article focuses on the topic you are coding? (1) Mentioned in passing* (2) Topic covered more that just in passing; article mostly not about topic (3) Topic covered more than just in passing; taxes primary topic *Do not code “mentioned in passing” articles. Note this on the sheet, but do not enter any data. If an article discusses one aspect of policy in great detail, code it as a (3). 8. Other Topics: What other topic out of the six primary topics are mentioned in the article (1) Tax cuts (2) Education Improvements (3) Faith-based Initiatives (4) Rebuilding Military (5) Social Security (6) Medicare 9. Frame/Phrase in Headline: (1) Compassionate Conservatism Frame (2) Community Building Frame

98

(3) Needy People Frame (4) Family Frame (5) Love Frame (6) Secular Frame (7) “Help people help themselves” Phrase (8) “Compassionate Conservatism” Phrase

99

10. Headline Policy Tone: If you read only the headline of this article, would you think the author is in favor of Bush’s policy, neutral about Bush’s policy, or opposed to Bush’s policy? (empty) Coding topic isn’t in headline (1) In favor (2) Opposed 11. Headline Bush/ Admin. Tone: Is the headline positive, neutral, or negative towards President Bush/ Admin? (empty) President Bush isn’t mentioned in the headline (1) Positive (2) Negative 12. Frame: Compassionate Conservatism (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 13. Frame: Community Building (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 14. Frame: Needy People (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 15. Frame: Family (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 16. Frame: Love (empty) Frame not used

100

(1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used

101

17. Frame: Secular (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 18. Phrase: “Help people help themselves” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 19. Phrase: “Compassionate Conservatism” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 20. First Outside Expert Used in Article*: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear * Only code experts that are discussing the topic you are coding for. Do not code experts who are discussing other topics in the article. Also, only record experts, not “average” people who are interviewed. Thirdly, only code experts who are actually reported as talking or are quoted, not those who are simply mentioned in the article. 21. Second Outside Expert Used in Article: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear 22. First Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 23. Second Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 24. First Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted

102

(1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 25. Second Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 26. Critique(s) of Faith-based Policy: (empty) No critique (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 27. Description of first critique of Faith-based policy: Enter a brief description of the first critique of the Faith-based policy. 28. Praise of Faith-base Policy: (empty) No praise (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 29. Description of first praise of Faith-based policy: Enter a brief description of the first praise of the Faith-based policy. 30. General Affect: faith-based policy* (1) Positive affect towards faith-based policy (2) Negative affect towards faith-based policy * Only code affect if a clear bias is apparent. Leave this space clear if the coverage is even-handed or mixed.

103

31. General Affect: President Bush/ Admin.** (1) Positive affect towards President Bush/ Admin. (2) Negative affect towards President Bush/ Admin. **If the words “Bush” or “White House” or similar terms are used in the article, even briefly, code for this variable (if clear affect or bias is present). 32. Complicit Coverage: Policy (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 33. Complicit Coverage: President Bush/ Admin. (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 34. Bush/Admin Adjective: First adjective mentioned 35. Bush/Admin Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 36. Faith-based Policy Adjective: First adjective mentioned 37. Faith-based Police Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 38. Good Quote? (empty) No good quote in article (1) Yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote)

104

Military--Media Content Analysis Codebook 1. ID #: ID Number assigned to the article 2. Date of Article: Date the article was written 3. Source: (1) Newsweek (2) Time (3) U.S. News and World Report 4. Section of Article*: (1) Arts and Entertainment (2) National (3) International (4) Business and Technology (5) Health/Medicine (6) Other (specify) include letters and editorials here 5. Cover Story: (1) Yes (2) No 6. Topic of Article: (1) Tax cuts (2) Education Improvements (3) Faith-based Initiatives (4) Rebuilding Military (5) Social Security (6) Medicare 7. % of Article on Topic: What percentage of this article focuses on the topic you are coding? (1) Mentioned in passing* (2) Topic covered more than in passing; article mostly not about topic (3) Topic covered more than in passing; military primary topic *Do not code “mentioned in passing” articles. Note this on the sheet, but do not enter any data. If an article discusses one aspect of policy in great detail, code it as a (3). 8. Other Topics: What other topic out of the six primary topics are mentioned in the article (1) Tax cuts (2) Education Improvements (3) Faith-based Initiatives (4) Rebuilding Military (5) Social Security (6) Medicare 9. Frame/Phrase in Headline: (1) Post-Cold War Frame (2) Strong Military Frame

105

(3) Clear Mission Frame (4) Legitimacy Frame (5) “Spending more money and spending it more wisely” phrase (6) “Extending peace through advancing technology” phrase 10. Headline Policy Tone: If you read only the headline of this article, would you think the author is in favor of Bush’s policy, neutral about Bush’s policy, or opposed to Bush’s policy? (empty) Coding topic isn’t in headline (1) In favor (2) Opposed 11. Headline Bush/ Admin. Tone: Is the headline positive, neutral, or negative towards President Bush/ Admin.? (empty) President Bush isn’t mentioned in the headline (1) Positive (2) Negative 12. Frame: Post Cold War (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 13. Frame: Strong Military (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 14. Frame: Clear Mission (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 15. Frame: Legitimacy (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used

106

16. Phrase: “Spending more money and spending it wisely” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 17. Phrase: “Extending peace through advancing technology” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 18. First Outside Expert Used in Article*: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear 19. Second Outside Expert Used in Article: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear * Only code experts that are discussing the topic you are coding for. Do not code experts who are discussing other topics in the article. Also, only record experts, not “average” people who are interviewed. Thirdly, only code experts who are actually reported as talking or are quoted, not those who are simply mentioned in the article. 20. First Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 21. Second Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 22. First Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige

107

(8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 23. Second Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 24. Critique(s) of Military Policy: (empty) No critique (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 25. Description of first critique of Military policy: Enter a brief description of the first critique of the Military policy. 26. Praise of Military Policy: (empty) No praise (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 27. Description of first praise of Military policy: Enter a brief description of the first praise of the Military policy. 28. General Affect: Military policy* (1) Positive affect towards military policy (2) Negative affect towards military policy * Only code affect if a clear bias is apparent. Leave this space clear if the coverage is even-handed or mixed. 29. General Affect: President Bush/ Admin.** (1) Positive affect towards President Bush/ Admin. (2) Negative affect towards President Bush/ Admin. **If the words “Bush” or “White House” or similar terms are used in the article, even briefly, code for this variable (if clear affect or bias is present).

108

30. Complicit Coverage: Policy (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 31. Complicit Coverage: President Bush/ Admin. (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 32. Bush/Admin Adjective: First adjective mentioned 33. Bush/Admin Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 34. Military Policy Adjective: First adjective mentioned 35. Military Police Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 36. Good Quote? (empty) No good quote in article (1) Yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote)

109

Social Security--Media Content Analysis Codebook 1. ID #: ID Number assigned to the article 2. Date of Article: Date the article was written 3. Source: (1) Newsweek (2) Time (3) U.S. News and World Report 4. Section of Article*: (1) Arts and Entertainment (2) National (3) International (4) Business and Technology (5) Health/Medicine (6) Other (specify) include letters and editorials here 5. Cover Story: (1) Yes (2) No 6. Topic of Article: (1) Tax cuts (2) Education Improvements (3) Faith-based Initiatives (4) Rebuilding Military (5) Social Security (6) Medicare 7. % of Article on Topic: What percentage of this article focuses on the topic you are coding? (1) Mentioned in passing* (2) Topic covered more that just in passing; article mostly not about topic (3) Topic covered more than just in passing; taxes primary topic *Do not code “mentioned in passing” articles. Note this on the sheet, but do not enter any data. If an article discusses one aspect of taxes in great detail, code it as a (3). 8. Other Topics: What other topic out of the six primary topics are mentioned in the article (1) Tax cuts (2) Education Improvements (3) Faith-based Initiatives (4) Rebuilding Military (5) Social Security (6) Medicare 9. Frame/Phrase in Headline: (1) Honoring Commitment Frame (2) Preservation Frame

110

(3) Young People Frame (4) “Save Social Security” Phrase

111

10. Headline Policy Tone: If you read only the headline of this article, would you think the author is in favor of Bush’s policy, neutral about Bush’s policy, or opposed to Bush’s policy? (empty) Coding topic isn’t in headline (1) In favor (2) Neutral (3) Opposed (4) Mixed (5) Other (specify) (6) Cannot determine 11. Headline Bush/ Admin. Tone: Is the headline positive, neutral, or negative towards President Bush/ Admin.? (empty) President Bush isn’t mentioned in the headline (1) Positive (2) Neutral (3) Negative (4) Mixed (5) Other (specify) (6) Cannot Determine 12. Frame: Honoring Commitment (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 13. Frame: Preservation (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 14. Frame: Young People (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 15. Phrase: “Save Social Security” (empty) Phrase not used

112

(1) Phrase used 16. First Outside Expert Used in Article*: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear

113

17. Second Outside Expert Used in Article: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear * Only code experts that are discussing the topic you are coding for. Do not code experts who are discussing other topics in the article. Also, only record experts, not “average” people who are interviewed. Thirdly, only code experts who are actually reported as talking or are quoted, not those who are simply mentioned in the article. 18. First Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 19. Second Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 20. First Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 21. Second Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify)

114

22. Critique(s) of Social Security Policy: (empty) No critique (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 23. Description of first critique of Social Security policy: Enter a brief description of the first critique of the Social Security policy.

115

24. Praise of Social Security Policy: (empty) No praise (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 25. Description of first praise of Social Security policy: Enter a brief description of the first praise of the Social Security policy. 26. General Affect: Social Security* (1) Positive affect towards Tax policy (2) Negative affect towards Tax policy * Only code affect if a clear bias is apparent. Leave this space clear if the coverage is even-handed or mixed. 27. General Affect: President Bush/ Admin.** (1) Positive affect towards President Bush/ Admin. (2) Negative affect towards President Bush/ Admin. **If the words “Bush” or “White House” or similar terms are used in the article, even briefly, code for this variable (if clear affect or bias is present). 28. Complicit Coverage: Policy (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 29. Complicit Coverage: President Bush/ Admin. (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 30. Bush/Admin Adjective: First adjective mentioned 31. Bush/Admin Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 32. Social Security Policy Adjective: First adjective mentioned 33. Social Security Police Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 34. Good Quote? (empty) No good quote in article (1) Yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote)

116

Medicare--Media Content Analysis Codebook 1. ID #: ID Number assigned to the article 2. Date of Article: Date the article was written 3. Source: (1) Newsweek (2) Time (3) U.S. News and World Report 4. Section of Article*: (1) Arts and Entertainment (2) National (3) International (4) Business and Technology (5) Health/Medicine (6) Other (specify) include letters and editorials here 5. Cover Story: (1) Yes (2) No 6. Topic of Article: (1) Tax cuts (2) Education Improvements (3) Faith-based Initiatives (4) Rebuilding Military (5) Social Security (6) Medicare 7. % of Article on Topic: What percentage of this article focuses on the topic you are coding? (1) Mentioned in passing* (2) Topic covered more that just in passing; article mostly not about topic (3) Topic covered more than just in passing; taxes primary topic *Do not code “mentioned in passing” articles. Note this on the sheet, but do not enter any data. If an article discusses one aspect of taxes in great detail, code it as a (3). 8. Other Topics: What other topic out of the six primary topics are mentioned in the article (1) Tax cuts (2) Education Improvements (3) Faith-based Initiatives (4) Rebuilding Military (5) Social Security (6) Medicare 9. Frame/Phrase in Headline: (1) Dignity Frame (2) Choice Frame

117

(3) Cost Frame (4) “Modernizing Medicare” Phrase

118

10. Headline Policy Tone: If you read only the headline of this article, would you think the author is in favor of Bush’s policy, neutral about Bush’s policy, or opposed to Bush’s policy? (empty) Coding topic isn’t in headline (1) In favor (2) Neutral (3) Opposed (4) Mixed (5) Other (specify) (6) Cannot determine 11. Headline Bush/ Admin. Tone: Is the headline positive, neutral, or negative towards President Bush/ Admin.? (empty) President Bush isn’t mentioned in the headline (1) Positive (2) Neutral (3) Negative (4) Mixed (5) Other (specify) (6) Cannot Determine 12. Frame: Dignity (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 13. Frame: Choice (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 14. Frame: Cost

(empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 15. Phrase: “Modernizing Medicare” (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used

119

16. First Outside Expert Used in Article*: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear * Only code experts that are discussing the topic you are coding for. Do not code experts who are discussing other topics in the article. Also, only record experts, not “average” people who are interviewed. Thirdly, only code experts who are actually reported as talking or are quoted, not those who are simply mentioned in the article. 17. Second Outside Expert Used in Article: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear 18. First Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 19. Second Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 20. First Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 21. Second Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice

120

(5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 22. Critique(s) of Medicare Policy: (empty) No critique (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 23. Description of first critique of Medicare policy: Enter a brief description of the first critique of the Medicare policy. 24. Praise of Medicare Policy: (empty) No praise (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 25. Description of first praise of Medicare policy: Enter a brief description of the first praise of the Medicare policy. 26. General Affect: Medicare policy* (1) Positive affect towards Medicare policy (2) Negative affect towards Medicare policy * Only code affect if a clear bias is apparent. Leave this space clear if the coverage is even-handed or mixed. 27. General Affect: President Bush/ Admin.** (1) Positive affect towards President Bush/ Admin. (2) Negative affect towards President Bush/ Admin. **If the words “Bush” or “White House” or similar terms are used in the article, even briefly, code for this variable (if clear affect or bias is present). 28. Complicit Coverage: Policy (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 29. Complicit Coverage: President Bush/ Admin. (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify)

121

30. Bush/Admin Adjective: First adjective mentioned 31. Bush/Admin Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 32. Medicare Policy Adjective: First adjective mentioned 33. Medicare Police Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 34. Good Quote? (empty) No good quote in article (1) Yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote)

122

Appendix E: Inter-coder Reliability for Post-9/11 Policy Dataset

Two coders completed 30 entries each for the Media Dataset, and 30 entries each for the

White House Dataset to pre-test the coding frames. Inter-coder reliability was achieved for each

of the policy domains individually on the first attempt.

White House Dataset Inter-Coder White House Dataset

Inter-coder: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder: Cohen’s Kappa

Economic Stimulus Mentioned

93.0%

81.5%

Medicare Mentioned

93.0 86.5

Tort Reform Mentioned

93.0 76.2

Lawsuit Abuse Frame Used (Tort Reform)

100.0 100.0

Social Security Mentioned

93.0 81.5

Young People Frame Used (Social Security)

100.0 100.0

Missile Defense Mentioned

93.0 63.4

Energy Policy Mentioned

87.0 72.2

Reduce Foreign Reliance Frame Used (Energy Policy)

93.0

81.5

Jobs Frame Used (Trade Promotion Authority)

100.0

100.0

123

Economic Stimulus Inter-Coder Economic stimulus Media Dataset

Inter-coder: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder: Cohen’s Kappa

Article Source 100.0% 100.0% Section 93.7 90.5 Cover Story? 100.0 100.0 % of Article on Topic

86.7 79.6

Tax Cut Frame Used?

93.7 88.1

Business Incentive Frame Used?

100.0 100.0

Jobs Frame Used?

100.0 100.0

First Democratic Insider Mentioned

93.3

82.6

Policy Affect 93.3 72.7 Complicit coverage: Bush/Admin

86.7

72.2

124

Energy Policy Inter-Coder Energy Policy Media Dataset

Inter-coder: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder: Cohen’s Kappa

Article Source 100.0% 100.0% Section 100.0 100.0 Cover Story? 87.5 61.4 % of Article on Topic

94.1 80.9

Find New Source Frame Used?

88.2 61.8

Business Incentive Frame Used?

100.0 100.0

Economic Stimulus Frame Used?

100.0 100.0

First Democratic Insider Mentioned

100.0

100.0

Policy Affect 93.7 77.5 Complicit coverage: Bush/Admin

93.3

63.4

125

Medicare Reform Inter-Coder Medicare Media Dataset

Inter-coder: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder: Cohen’s Kappa

Section of Article

93.3% 90.4%

Percent of article

86.7 76.2

Headline Policy Tone

80.0 70.0

Modernize Medicare Frame

93.3 90.0

Strengthen System Frame

93.3 90.0

Lawsuit Abuse Frame

100 100

Critique of Medicare

86.7 81.5

Praise of Medicare

93.3 90.0

General Affect: Medicare policy

93.3 84.2

Complicit coverage: Bush/Admin

100.0 100.0

126

Social Security Reform Inter-Coder Social Security Reform Media Dataset

Inter-coder: Percent Agreement

Inter-coder: Cohen’s Kappa

Article Source 100.0% 100.0% Section 100.0 100.0 Cover Story? 93.3 63.4 % of Article on Topic

86.7 78.3

Young People Frame Used?

86.7 72.2

Economic Stimulus Frame Used?

100.0

100.0

Retirees Frame Used?

93.3 76.2

First Democratic Insider Mentioned

93.3

81.5

Policy Affect 93.7 89.3 Complicit coverage: Bush/Admin

100.0

100.0

127

Appendix F: White House and Media Dataset Codebooks for Post-9/11 Policy Dataset

Codebook for White House Content Analysis 1. ID#: Identification number of speech/address. 2. Source of speech: (1) presidential speech

(2) press conference (3) press gaggle (4) presidential briefing (5) radio address (9) other

3. Date of Speech: (enter numeric date) 4. First Speaker: (1) President Bush (2) Ari Fleisher (3) Scott McClellen (4) Karl Rove (5) Claire Buchanan

(11) Other (specify in the space provided)

5. Second Speaker: (1) President Bush (2) Ari Fleisher (3) Scott McClellen (4) Karl Rove (5) Claire Buchanan

(10) Other (specify in the space provided) 6. Economic stimulus mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 7. Tax Cut Frame used? (1) yes 8. Business Incentive Frame used? (1) yes 9. Jobs Frame used? (1) yes 10. Unemployment Frame used? (1) yes 11. Global Competition Frame used? (1) yes 12. Economic Stimulus Comments

128

13. Estate/ “Death” Tax Mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 14. Economic Stimulus Frame used? (1) yes 15. Fairness Frame used? (1) yes 16. Farmer Frame used? (1) yes 17. Estate/ “Death” Tax comments (enter verbatim) 18. Medicare mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 19. Modernize Frame used? (1) yes 20. Choice Frame used? (1) yes 21. Cost Frame used? (1) yes 22. Strengthen System Frame used? (1) yes 23. Red Tape Frame used? (1) yes 24. Lawsuit Abuse Frame used? (1) yes 25. Medicare Reform comments 26. Tort Reform mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 27. Lawsuit Abuse Frame used? (1) yes 28. Tort Tax Frame used? (1) yes 29. Health Care Frame used? (1) yes 30. Small Business Frame used? (1) yes 31. Clogging Courts Frame used? (1) yes 32. Economic Stimulus Frame used? (1) yes

129

33. Global Competition Frame used? (1) yes 34. Tort Reform comments (enter verbatim) 35. Social Security Reform mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 36. Strengthen System Frame used? (1) yes 37. Young People Frame Used? (1) yes 38. Economic Stimulus Frame used? (1) yes 39. Retirees Frame used? (1) yes 40. Social Security comments 41. Missile Defense mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 42. National Security Frame used? (1) yes 43. Post-Cold War Frame used? (1) yes 44. Missile Defense comments 45. Energy Policy mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 46. Find New Sources Frame used? (1) yes 47. Business Incentive Frame used? (1) yes 48. Economic Stimulus Frame used? (1) yes 49. Reduce Foreign Reliance Frame used? (1) yes 50. Energy Policy Comments (enter verbatim) 51. Clear Skies Initiative mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 52. Economic Stimulus Frame used? (1) yes

130

53. Red Tape Frame used? (1) yes 54. Clogging Courts Frame used? (1) yes 55. Jobs Frame used? (1) yes 56. Betterment of Americans Frame used? (1) yes 57. Clear Air Frame used? (1) yes 58. Clear Skies Initiative comments (enter verbatim) 59. Healthy Forest Initiative mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 60. Preventing Wildfires Frame used? (1) yes 61. Red Tape Frame used? (1) yes 62. Clogging Courts Frame used? (1) yes 63. Community Frame used? (1) yes 64. Economic Stimulus Frame used? (1) yes 65. Saving Lives Frame used? (1) yes 66. Health Forest Initiative comments 67. Trade Promotion Authority mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 68. Global Prosperity Frame used? (1) yes 69. Jobs Frame used? (1) yes 70. Economic Stimulus Frame used? (1) yes 71. Level Playing Field Frame used? (1) yes 72. Trade Promotion Authority comments 73. Faith-based Initiatives mentioned? (1) yes

131

(2) no (3) mentioned in passing 74. Needy People Frame used? (1) yes 75. Compassionate Conservatism Frame used? (1) yes 76. Love Frame used? (1) yes 77. Faith-based Initiatives comments 78. Health Care mentioned? (1) yes (2) no (3) mentioned in passing 79. Lawsuit Abuse Frame used? (1) yes 80. Business Incentive Frame used? (1) yes 81. Long Term Care Frame used? (1) yes 82. Prescription Drug Frame used? (1) yes 83. Health Care comments 84. Afghanistan mentioned? (1) yes 85. Iraq/Saddam Hussein mentioned? (1) yes 86. Bin Laden/ Al Qaeda mentioned? (1) yes 87. 9/11 mentioned? (1) yes 88. War on Terror mentioned? (1) yes 89. Good Quotes on Topics (84 – 89)? 90. Percentage of Speech about Iraq? (1) mentioned in passing (2) key part of speech/ address 91. Iraq War Frames used? (1) Hussein sponsors terrorism/ harbors terrorists (2) Link between Al Qaeda and Iraq (3) Evil Empire/ Axis of Evil (4) Freedom from evil dictator/ freedom for Iraqi people (5) Imminent threat/ preemptive strike/ WMD (6) America as hero/ super cop/ rescuer

132

(7) God is on our side (8) UN is weak/ not taking action (9) War is about democracy _______________________

(10) War for Bush’s political gain (11) War for oil (12) War is about colonialism/ imperialism (13) War is about finishing H.W. Bush’s job/ revenge (14) War is about benefiting defense industries 92. Critiques of the War? (1) Opposition to the war (domestic or global) (2) US actions violate UN charter/ lack of UN support (3) No WMD/ lack of evidence of WMD (4) No link between Al Qaeda and Iraq (5) War is costly (6) War is unjustified (7) Transition efforts are flawed/ problematic (8) War is a quagmire (9) War about “daddy”/ revenge (10) US previously supported Saddam Hussein (11) War is for oil (12) Bad intelligence (13) Mention of casualties 93. Iraq Brought up by Press or Administration? (1) press (2) Administration 94. WMD Assumed or Questioned? (1) assumed (2) existence questioned (3) do not exist (4) mixed/ other 95. Good Comments?

133

Economic Stimulus--Media Content Analysis Codebook 1. ID #: ID Number assigned to the article 2. Date of Article: Date the article was written 3. Source: (1) Newsweek (2) Time (3) U.S. News and World Report 4. Section of Article: (1) Arts/Entertainment (2) National (3) International (4) Business/Technology (5) Health/Medicine (6) Other (specify) include letters and editorials here 5. Cover Story: (1) Yes (2) No 6. Topic of Article: (1) Economic stimulus/ tax cuts (2) Estate/ death tax (3) Medicare (4) Tort reform (5) Social Security (6) Missile defense (7) Energy/ ANWR (8) Clear Skies Initiative (9) Healthy Forest Initiative (10) Trade promotion authority (11) Faith-based initiatives 7. % of Article on Topic: What percentage of this article focuses on the topic you are coding? (1) Mentioned in passing* (2) Topic covered more that just in passing; article mostly not about topic (3) Topic covered more than just in passing; Economic Stimulus primary

topic *Do not code “mentioned in passing” articles. Note this on the sheet, but do not enter any data. If an article discusses one aspect of policy in great detail, code it as a (3).

134

8. Other Topics: What other topic out of the six primary topics are mentioned in the article (1) Economic stimulus/ tax cuts (2) Estate/ death tax (3) Medicare (4) Tort reform (5) Social Security (6) Missile defense (7) Energy/ ANWR (8) Clear Skies Initiative (9) Healthy Forest Initiative (10) Trade promotion authority (11) Faith-based initiatives 9. Frame/Phrase in Headline: (1) Tax Cut Frame (2) Business Incentive Frame (3) Jobs Frame (4) Unemployment Frame (5) Global Competition 10. Headline Policy Tone: If you read only the headline of this article, would you think the author is in favor of Bush’s policy, neutral about Bush’s policy, or opposed to Bush’s policy? (empty) Coding topic isn’t in headline (1) In favor (2) Neutral (3) Opposed 11. Headline Bush/ Admin. Tone: Is the headline positive, neutral, or negative towards President Bush/ Admin.? (empty) President Bush isn’t mentioned in the headline (1) Positive (2) Neutral (3) Negative 12. Frame: Tax Cut (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 13. Frame: Business Incentive (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter

135

(2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used

136

14. Frame: Jobs (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 15. Frame: Unemployment (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 16. Frame: Global Competition (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 17. First Outside Expert Used in Article*: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear 18. Second Outside Expert Used in Article: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear * Only code experts that are discussing the topic you are coding for. Do not code experts who are discussing other topics in the article. Also, only record experts, not “average” people who are interviewed. Thirdly, only code experts who are actually reported as talking or are quoted, not those who are simply mentioned in the article. 19. First Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party)

137

20. Second Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party)

138

21. First Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 22. Second Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 23. Critique(s) of Economic Stimulus: (empty) No critique (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 24. Description of first critique of Economic Stimulus policy: Enter a brief description of the first critique of the Economic Stimulus policy. 25. Praise of Economic Stimulus Policy: (empty) No praise (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 26. Description of first praise of Economic Stimulus policy: Enter a brief description of the first praise of the Economic Stimulus policy. 27. General Affect: Economic Stimulus Policy* (1) Positive affect towards Economic Stimulus policy (2) Negative affect towards Economic Stimulus policy

139

* Only code affect if a clear bias is apparent. Leave this space clear if the coverage is even-handed or mixed.

140

28. General Affect: President Bush/ Admin.** (1) Positive affect towards President Bush/ Admin. (2) Negative affect towards President Bush/ Admin. **If the words “Bush” or “White House” or similar terms are used in the article, even briefly, code for this variable (if clear affect or bias is present). 29. Complicit Coverage: Economic Stimulus Policy````````````````````` (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 30. Complicit Coverage: President Bush/ Admin. (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 31. Bush/Admin Adjective: First adjective mentioned 32. Bush/Admin Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 33. Economic Stimulus Policy Adjective: First adjective mentioned 34. Economic Stimulus Police Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 35. Good Quote? (empty) No good quote in article (1) Yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote)

141

Energy --Media Content Analysis Codebook 1. ID #: ID Number assigned to the article 2. Date of Article: Date the article was written 3. Source: (1) Newsweek (2) Time (3) U.S. News and World Report 4. Section of Article: (1) Arts/Entertainment (2) National (3) International (4) Business/Technology (5) Health/Medicine (6) Other (specify) include letters and editorials here 5. Cover Story: (1) Yes (2) No 6. Topic of Article: (1) Economic stimulus/ tax cuts (2) Estate/ death tax (3) Medicare (4) Tort reform (5) Social Security (6) Missile defense (7) Energy/ ANWR (8) Clear Skies Initiative (9) Healthy Forest Initiative (10) Trade promotion authority (11) Faith-based initiatives (12) Health care 7. % of Article on Topic: What percentage of this article focuses on the topic you are coding? (1) Mentioned in passing* (2) Topic covered more that just in passing; article mostly not about topic.

(3) Topic covered more than just in passing; Energy/ANWR primary topic.

*Do not code “mentioned in passing” articles. Note this on the sheet, but do not enter any data. If an article discusses one aspect of policy in great detail, code it as a (3).

142

8. Other Topics: What other topic out of the six primary topics are mentioned in the article (1) Economic stimulus/ tax cuts (2) Estate/ death tax (3) Medicare (4) Tort reform (5) Social Security (6) Missile defense (7) Energy/ ANWR (8) Clear Skies Initiative (9) Healthy Forest Initiative (10) Trade promotion authority (11) Faith-based initiatives (12) Health care 9. Frame/Phrase in Headline: (1) Find New Sources Frame (2) Business Incentive Frame (3) Economic Stimulus Frame (4) Reduce Foreign Reliance Frame 10. Headline Policy Tone: If you read only the headline of this article, would you think the author is in favor of Bush’s policy, neutral about Bush’s policy, or opposed to Bush’s policy? (empty) Coding topic isn’t in headline (1) In favor (2) Neutral (3) Opposed 11. Headline Bush/ Admin. Tone: Is the headline positive, neutral, or negative towards President Bush/ Admin.? (empty) President Bush isn’t mentioned in the headline (1) Positive (2) Neutral (3) Negative 12. Frame: Find New Sources (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 13. Frame: Business Incentive (empty) Frame not used

143

(1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 14. Frame: Economic Stimulus (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 15. Frame: Reduce Foreign Reliance (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 16. First Outside Expert Used in Article*: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear 17. Second Outside Expert Used in Article: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear * Only code experts that are discussing the topic you are coding for. Do not code experts who are discussing other topics in the article. Also, only record experts, not “average” people who are interviewed. Thirdly, only code experts who are actually reported as talking or are quoted, not those who are simply mentioned in the article. 18. First Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 19. Second Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name)

144

(2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party)

145

20. First Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 21. Second Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 22. Critique(s) of Energy/ANWR policy: (empty) No critique (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 23. Description of first critique of Energy/ANWR policy: Enter a brief description of the first critique of the Energy/ANWR policy. 24. Praise of Energy/ANWR Policy: (empty) No praise (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 25. Description of first praise of Energy/ANWR policy: Enter a brief description of the first praise of the Energy/ANWR policy. 26. General Affect: Energy/ANWR Policy* (1) Positive affect towards Energy/ANWR policy (2) Negative affect towards Energy/ANWR policy

146

* Only code affect if a clear bias is apparent. Leave this space clear if the coverage is even-handed or mixed.

147

27. General Affect: President Bush/ Admin.** (1) Positive affect towards President Bush/ Admin. (2) Negative affect towards President Bush/ Admin. **If the words “Bush” or “White House” or similar terms are used in the article, even briefly, code for this variable (if clear affect or bias is present). 28. Complicit Coverage: Energy/ANWR Policy````````````````````` (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 29. Complicit Coverage: President Bush/ Admin. (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 30. Bush/Admin Adjective: First adjective mentioned 31. Bush/Admin Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 32. Energy/ANWR Policy Adjective: First adjective mentioned 33. Energy/ANWR Police Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 34. Good Quote? (empty) No good quote in article (1) Yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote)

148

Faith Based--Media Content Analysis Codebook 1. ID #: ID Number assigned to the article 2. Date of Article: Date the article was written 3. Source: (1) Newsweek (2) Time (3) U.S. News and World Report 4. Section of Article: (1) Arts/Entertainment (2) National (3) International (4) Business/Technology (5) Health/Medicine (6) Other (specify) include letters and editorials here 5. Cover Story: (1) Yes (2) No 6. Topic of Article: (1) Economic stimulus/ tax cuts (2) Estate/ death tax (3) Medicare (4) Tort reform (5) Social Security (6) Missile defense (7) Energy/ ANWR (8) Clear Skies Initiative (9) Healthy Forest Initiative (10) Trade promotion authority (11) Faith-based initiatives 7. % of Article on Topic: What percentage of this article focuses on the topic you are coding? (1) Mentioned in passing* (2) Topic covered more that just in passing; article mostly not about topic (3) Topic covered more than just in passing; Faith Based Initiatives

primary topic *Do not code “mentioned in passing” articles. Note this on the sheet, but do not enter any data. If an article discusses one aspect of policy in great detail, code it as a (3).

149

8. Other Topics: What other topic out of the six primary topics are mentioned in the article (1) Economic stimulus/ tax cuts (2) Estate/ death tax (3) Medicare (4) Tort reform (5) Social Security (6) Missile defense (7) Energy/ ANWR (8) Clear Skies Initiative (9) Healthy Forest Initiative (10) Trade promotion authority (11) Faith-based initiatives 9. Frame/Phrase in Headline: (1) Needy People Frame Used (2) Compassionate Conservative Frame Used (3) Love Frame Used 10. Headline Policy Tone: If you read only the headline of this article, would you think the author is in favor of Bush’s policy, neutral about Bush’s policy, or opposed to Bush’s policy? (empty) Coding topic isn’t in headline (1) In favor (2) Neutral (3) Opposed 11. Headline Bush/ Admin. Tone: Is the headline positive, neutral, or negative towards President Bush/ Admin.? (empty) President Bush isn’t mentioned in the headline (1) Positive (2) Neutral (3) Negative 12. Frame: Needy People (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 13. Frame: Compassionate Conservative (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration

150

(4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used

151

14. Frame: Love (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 15. First Outside Expert Used in Article*: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear 16. Second Outside Expert Used in Article: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear * Only code experts that are discussing the topic you are coding for. Do not code experts who are discussing other topics in the article. Also, only record experts, not “average” people who are interviewed. Thirdly, only code experts who are actually reported as talking or are quoted, not those who are simply mentioned in the article. 17. First Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 18. Second Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 19. First Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio

152

(99) Other (specify)

153

20. Second Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 21. Critique(s) of Faith Based Initiatives: (empty) No critique (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 22. Description of first critique of Faith Based Initiatives policy: Enter a brief description of the first critique of the Faith Based Initiatives policy. 23. Praise of Faith Based Initiatives Policy: (empty) No praise (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 24. Description of first praise of Faith Based Initiatives policy: Enter a brief description of the first praise of the Faith Based Initiatives policy. 25. General Affect: Faith Based Initiatives Policy* (1) Positive affect towards Faith Based Initiatives policy (2) Negative affect towards Faith Based Initiatives policy * Only code affect if a clear bias is apparent. Leave this space clear if the coverage is even-handed or mixed. 26. General Affect: President Bush/ Admin.** (1) Positive affect towards President Bush/ Admin. (2) Negative affect towards President Bush/ Admin. **If the words “Bush” or “White House” or similar terms are used in the article, even briefly, code for this variable (if clear affect or bias is present). 27. Complicit Coverage: Faith Based Initiatives Policy````````````````````` (1) Yes (2) No

154

(3) Other (specify) 28. Complicit Coverage: President Bush/ Admin. (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 29. Bush/Admin Adjective: First adjective mentioned 30. Bush/Admin Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 31. Faith Based Initiatives Policy Adjective: First adjective mentioned 32. Faith Based Initiatives Police Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 33. Good Quote? (empty) No good quote in article (1) Yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote)

155

Medicare--Media Content Analysis Codebook 1. ID #: ID Number assigned to the article 2. Date of Article: Date the article was written 3. Source: (1) Newsweek (2) Time (3) U.S. News and World Report 4. Section of Article: (1) Arts/Entertainment (2) National (3) International (4) Business/Technology (5) Health/Medicine (6) Other (specify) include letters and editorials here 5. Cover Story: (1) Yes (2) No 6. Topic of Article: (1) Economic stimulus/ tax cuts (2) Estate/ death tax (3) Medicare (4) Tort reform (5) Social Security (6) Missile defense (7) Energy/ ANWR (8) Clear Skies Initiative (9) Healthy Forest Initiative (10) Trade promotion authority (11) Faith-based initiatives 7. % of Article on Topic: What percentage of this article focuses on the topic you are coding? (1) Mentioned in passing* (2) Topic covered more that just in passing; article mostly not about topic (3) Topic covered more than just in passing; Medicare primary topic *Do not code “mentioned in passing” articles. Note this on the sheet, but do not enter any data. If an article discusses one aspect of policy in great detail, code it as a (3).

156

8. Other Topics: What other topic out of the six primary topics are mentioned in the article (1) Economic stimulus/ tax cuts (2) Estate/ death tax (3) Medicare (4) Tort reform (5) Social Security (6) Missile defense (7) Energy/ ANWR (8) Clear Skies Initiative (9) Healthy Forest Initiative (10) Trade promotion authority (11) Faith-based initiatives 9. Frame/Phrase in Headline: (1) Modernize Medicare Frame (2) Choice Frame (3) Cost Frame (4) Strengthen System Frame (5) Red Tape Frame (6) Lawsuit Abuse Frame 10. Headline Policy Tone: If you read only the headline of this article, would you think the author is in favor of Bush’s policy, neutral about Bush’s policy, or opposed to Bush’s policy? (empty) Coding topic isn’t in headline (1) In favor (2) Opposed 11. Headline Bush/ Admin. Tone: Is the headline positive, neutral, or negative towards President Bush/ Admin.? (empty) President Bush isn’t mentioned in the headline (1) Positive (2) Negative 12. Frame: Modernize Medicare (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 13. Frame: Choice (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration

157

(4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used

158

14. Frame: Cost (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 15. Frame: Strengthen System (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 16. Frame: Red Tape (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 17. Frame: Lawsuit Abuse (empty) Phrase not used (1) Phrase used 18. First Outside Expert Used in Article*: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear 19. Second Outside Expert Used in Article: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear * Only code experts that are discussing the topic you are coding for. Do not code experts who are discussing other topics in the article. Also, only record experts, not “average” people who are interviewed. Thirdly, only code experts who are actually reported as talking or are quoted, not those who are simply mentioned in the article. 20. First Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 21. Second Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party)

159

160

22. First Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 23. Second Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 24. Critique(s) of Medicare: (empty) No critique (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 25. Description of first critique of Medicare policy: Enter a brief description of the first critique of the Medicare policy. 26. Praise of Medicare Policy: (empty) No praise (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 27. Description of first praise of Medicare policy: Enter a brief description of the first praise of the Medicare policy. 28. General Affect: Medicare Policy* (1) Positive affect towards Medicare policy (2) Negative affect towards Medicare policy

161

* Only code affect if a clear bias is apparent. Leave this space clear if the coverage is even-handed or mixed.

162

29. General Affect: President Bush/ Admin.** (1) Positive affect towards President Bush/ Admin. (2) Negative affect towards President Bush/ Admin. **If the words “Bush” or “White House” or similar terms are used in the article, even briefly, code for this variable (if clear affect or bias is present). 30. Complicit Coverage: Medicare Policy````````````````````` (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 31. Complicit Coverage: President Bush/ Admin. (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 32. Bush/Admin Adjective: First adjective mentioned 33. Bush/Admin Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 34. Medicare Policy Adjective: First adjective mentioned 35. Medicare Police Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 36. Good Quote? (empty) No good quote in article (1) Yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote)

163

Social Security Reform--Media Content Analysis Codebook 1. ID #: ID Number assigned to the article 2. Date of Article: Date the article was written 3. Source: (1) Newsweek (2) Time (3) U.S. News and World Report 4. Section of Article: (1) Arts/Entertainment (2) National (3) International (4) Business/Technology (5) Health/Medicine (6) Other (specify) include letters and editorials here 5. Cover Story: (1) Yes (2) No 6. Topic of Article: (1) Economic stimulus/ tax cuts (2) Estate/ death tax (3) Medicare (4) Tort reform (5) Social Security (6) Missile defense (7) Energy/ ANWR (8) Clear Skies Initiative (9) Healthy Forest Initiative (10) Trade promotion authority (11) Faith-based initiatives 7. % of Article on Topic: What percentage of this article focuses on the topic you are coding? (1) Mentioned in passing* (2) Topic covered more that just in passing; article mostly not about topic (3) Topic covered more than just in passing; Social Security Reform

primary topic *Do not code “mentioned in passing” articles. Note this on the sheet, but do not enter any data. If an article discusses one aspect of policy in great detail, code it as a (3).

164

8. Other Topics: What other topic out of the six primary topics are mentioned in the article (1) Economic stimulus/ tax cuts (2) Estate/ death tax (3) Medicare (4) Tort reform (5) Social Security (6) Missile defense (7) Energy/ ANWR (8) Clear Skies Initiative (9) Healthy Forest Initiative (10) Trade promotion authority (11) Faith-based initiatives 9. Frame/Phrase in Headline: (1) Strengthen System Frame (2) Young People Frame (3) Economic Stimulus Frame (4) Retirees Frame 10. Headline Policy Tone: If you read only the headline of this article, would you think the author is in favor of Bush’s policy, neutral about Bush’s policy, or opposed to Bush’s policy? (empty) Coding topic isn’t in headline (1) In favor (2) Neutral (3) Opposed 11. Headline Bush/ Admin. Tone: Is the headline positive, neutral, or negative towards President Bush/ Admin.? (empty) President Bush isn’t mentioned in the headline (1) Positive (2) Neutral (3) Negative 12. Frame: Strengthen System (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 13. Frame: Young People (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter

165

(2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used

166

14. Frame: Economic Stimulus (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 15. Frame: Retirees (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 16. First Outside Expert Used in Article*: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear 17. Second Outside Expert Used in Article: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear * Only code experts that are discussing the topic you are coding for. Do not code experts who are discussing other topics in the article. Also, only record experts, not “average” people who are interviewed. Thirdly, only code experts who are actually reported as talking or are quoted, not those who are simply mentioned in the article. 18. First Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 19. Second Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party)

167

20. First Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 21. Second Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 22. Critique(s) of Social Security Reform: (empty) No critique (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 23. Description of first critique of Social Security Reform policy: Enter a brief description of the first critique of the Social Security Reform policy. 24. Praise of Social Security Reform Policy: (empty) No praise (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 25. Description of first praise of Social Security Reform policy: Enter a brief description of the first praise of the Social Security Reform policy. 26. General Affect: Social Security Reform Policy* (1) Positive affect towards Social Security Reform policy (2) Negative affect towards Social Security Reform policy

168

* Only code affect if a clear bias is apparent. Leave this space clear if the coverage is even-handed or mixed.

169

27. General Affect: President Bush/ Admin.** (1) Positive affect towards President Bush/ Admin. (2) Negative affect towards President Bush/ Admin. **If the words “Bush” or “White House” or similar terms are used in the article, even briefly, code for this variable (if clear affect or bias is present). 28. Complicit Coverage: Social Security Reform Policy````````````````````` (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 29. Complicit Coverage: President Bush/ Admin. (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 30. Bush/Admin Adjective: First adjective mentioned 31. Bush/Admin Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 32. Social Security Reform Policy Adjective: First adjective mentioned 33. Social Security Reform Police Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 34. Good Quote? (empty) No good quote in article (1) Yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote)

170

Trade Promotion --Media Content Analysis Codebook 1. ID #: ID Number assigned to the article 2. Date of Article: Date the article was written 3. Source: (1) Newsweek (2) Time (3) U.S. News and World Report 4. Section of Article: (1) Arts/Entertainment (2) National (3) International (4) Business/Technology (5) Health/Medicine (6) Other (specify) include letters and editorials here 5. Cover Story: (1) Yes (2) No 6. Topic of Article: (1) Economic stimulus/ tax cuts (2) Estate/ death tax (3) Medicare (4) Tort reform (5) Social Security (6) Missile defense (7) Energy/ ANWR (8) Clear Skies Initiative (9) Healthy Forest Initiative (10) Trade promotion authority (11) Faith-based initiatives 7. % of Article on Topic: What percentage of this article focuses on the topic you are coding? (1) Mentioned in passing* (2) Topic covered more that just in passing; article mostly not about topic (3) Topic covered more than just in passing; Trade Promotion Authority

primary topic *Do not code “mentioned in passing” articles. Note this on the sheet, but do not enter any data. If an article discusses one aspect of policy in great detail, code it as a (3).

171

8. Other Topics: What other topic out of the six primary topics are mentioned in the article (1) Economic stimulus/ tax cuts (2) Estate/ death tax (3) Medicare (4) Tort reform (5) Social Security (6) Missile defense (7) Energy/ ANWR (8) Clear Skies Initiative (9) Healthy Forest Initiative (10) Trade promotion authority (11) Faith-based initiatives 9. Frame/Phrase in Headline: (1) Global Prosperity Frame (2) Jobs Frame (3) Economic Stimulus Frame (4) Level Playing Field Frame 10. Headline Policy Tone: If you read only the headline of this article, would you think the author is in favor of Bush’s policy, neutral about Bush’s policy, or opposed to Bush’s policy? (empty) Coding topic isn’t in headline (1) In favor (2) Neutral (3) Opposed 11. Headline Bush/ Admin. Tone: Is the headline positive, neutral, or negative towards President Bush/ Admin.? (empty) President Bush isn’t mentioned in the headline (1) Positive (2) Neutral (3) Negative 12. Frame: Global Prosperity (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 13. Frame: Jobs (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration

172

(3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used

173

14. Frame: Economic Stimulus (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 15. Frame: Level Playing Field (empty) Frame not used (1) Frame used by reporter (2) Frame used by administration (3) Frame used by both reporter and administration (4) Anti-frame used (5) Mixed: Both Frame/Anti-Frame used 16. First Outside Expert Used in Article*: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear 17. Second Outside Expert Used in Article: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed/Associated with Administration (3) Unnamed/ Not associated with Administration (4) Unnamed/ Association unclear * Only code experts that are discussing the topic you are coding for. Do not code experts who are discussing other topics in the article. Also, only record experts, not “average” people who are interviewed. Thirdly, only code experts who are actually reported as talking or are quoted, not those who are simply mentioned in the article. 18. First Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party) 19. Second Democratic “Insider” Quoted: (1) Named (enter name) (2) Unnamed person/ identified (3) Whole party cited (e.g. The Democratic Party)

174

20. First Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 21. Second Admin Official Quoted: (empty) No official quoted (1) President Bush (2) Vice President Cheney (3) Donald Rumsfield (4) Condaleeza Rice (5) Colin Powell (6) Tommy Thompson (7) Rod Paige (8) Karl Rove (9) John DiIulio (99) Other (specify) 22. Critique(s) of Trade Promotion Authority: (empty) No critique (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 23. Description of first critique of Trade Promotion Authority policy: Enter a brief description of the first critique of the Trade Promotion Authority policy. 24. Praise of Trade Promotion Authority Policy: (empty) No praise (1) Yes (2) Other (specify) 25. Description of first praise of Trade Promotion Authority policy: Enter a brief description of the first praise of the Trade Promotion Authority policy. 26. General Affect: Trade Promotion Authority Policy* (1) Positive affect towards Trade Promotion Authority policy (2) Negative affect towards Trade Promotion Authority policy

175

* Only code affect if a clear bias is apparent. Leave this space clear if the coverage is even-handed or mixed.

176

27. General Affect: President Bush/ Admin.** (1) Positive affect towards President Bush/ Admin. (2) Negative affect towards President Bush/ Admin. **If the words “Bush” or “White House” or similar terms are used in the article, even briefly, code for this variable (if clear affect or bias is present). 28. Complicit Coverage: Trade Promotion Authority Policy (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 29. Complicit Coverage: President Bush/ Admin. (1) Yes (2) No (3) Other (specify) 30. Bush/Admin Adjective: First adjective mentioned 31. Bush/Admin Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 32. Trade Promotion Authority Policy Adjective: First adjective mentioned 33. Trade Promotion Authority Police Adjective: Second adjective mentioned 34. Good Quote? (empty) No good quote in article (1) Yes, good quote in article (list page # of good quote)