Agenda-Setting Theory of Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw
Spiral of Silence of Elisabeth Noelle-Nuemann
In the weeks and months after the attack of 9-11, U.S. sentiment had become overwhelming patriotic (Buying the War, 2007). US citizens were in unison with a call for revenge. News media insisted that Iraq was somehow responsible for the attack and the U.S. would not be safe from future attacks if America did not do something to stop Iraq. In this case we see that “… mass media have the ability to transfer the salience of items on their news agendas to the public agenda” (Griffin, 2009, p. 359).
In President Bush’s Press conference to America after the attack of 9-11, he used the terms Al Qaeda and September 11th 12 times as justification to strike Iraq primitively (Buying the War, 2007). At that time the media ran news using those supports, not questioning the fact that Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and not in Iraq. In this case “… we look to news professionals for cues on where to focus our attention” (Griffin, 2009, p. 359).
The inside the beltline media press core used their voices according to the video to become common carriers of the political message that was crafted by the Bush Whitehouse. Because many Americans did not follow the findings of the UN Weapons Inspectors “… the media act as a mediator between “the world outside and the pictures in our heads” (Griffin, 2009, p.359) we trusted Colin Powell when he delivered his rendition of the assessment of where WMD’s were being stored in Iraq. The findings of the Inspectors were posted on the Internet and the National Intelligence Estimate was a document that congress received of classified evidence used to support preemptively attacking Iraq. Congress had within their grasp all of the evidence it needed to make an educated decision regarding Iraq but instead they choose to ignore it, Noelle-Nuemann proposes “… people will ignore the plain evidence of their senses and yield to perceived group pressure” (Griffin, 2009, p. 373).
On several occasions serious political news media gave interviews to Challaby and others who proposed to have insider information because Americans wanted to hear more about their claims of WMD in Iraq. The ratings that these sources were higher because they supposedly possessed inside knowledge establishing “… the media are just as market-driven in their news coverage as they are in programming entertainment” (Griffin, 2009, p. 361), it did not matter that the information they were being given did not make sense. For example, of the sources stated that Saddam, who was an open tyrant to Kurds, welcomed him into his weapons stores and showed him around, or another who claimed that Saddam had a biological lab built under is house (Buying the War, 2007).
During the video the “Patriotism Police” was mentioned several times and because “Nothing gets put on the political agenda without the concurrence of a few select people- the operations chiefs…” (Griffin, 2009, p. 362). Many times direct orders from the top executives of major news and media outlets as well as well-known and respected talk show hosts like Oprah Winfrey, who were “… key decision makers are undeniably part of media elite that doesn’t represent a cress section of U.S. Citizens (Griffin, 2009, p. 362) let it be known that evading Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein was the only way to keep our country safe and that if you did not agree that your opinion should not be voiced. (Buying the War, 2007) The woman who stood up to speak on the Oprah Winfrey show that questioned popular opinion was cut off very abruptly and meant to feel that her opinion was not wanted. “The term spiral of silence refers to the increasing pressure people feel to conceal their views when they think they are in the minority” (Griffin, 2009, p. 372). I would imagine that was a message for anyone else in the audience and the millions of American watching the show.
Journalist who covered Iraq and were present during the weapons inspections had first hand knowledge of factual information and could make educated deductions as to whether the information that was being reported in American media was accurate were often surprised at the untruthfulness of the information that they were hearing. “Even prestigious newspapers with large investigative staffs such as the Washington Post and the New York Times get more than half of what they print straight from press releases and press conferences” (Griffin, 2009, p. 363). If was found that most of the sources were not professionals in the fields in which they were being asked for their professional opinion.
I would describe the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), that consisted the President Bush’s inner circle of Rowe, Card Medlin, Hadley, Libby and Rice (Buying the War, 2007) to be interest aggregators who demanded center stage to sell their version of evidence to sell the war to the American people. (Griffin, 2009, p. 363) Colin Powell was not mention in this group, but his message before congress was very important, to millions of Americans, Powell is view as vetted in war, smart, honorable and patriotic. Then why was he swept up in this web of deceit, surely he received credible intelligence, “Asch found that most people placed in this stressful situation would conform to the group’s judgment at least some, it not all, of the time (Griffin, 2009, p.374). After the start of the War Powell quietly stepped down from his post as Secretary of state. Many believe he could not continue in good conscience.
In the video, Donahue stated that for every guest he had on his show that was in opposition to the war he was to have 2 that supported it. McCombs and Shaw noted that “some viewers are resistant to media’s political priorities than others- that’s why they filtered out the responses of voters who were already committed…” (Griffin, 2009). Those who still clung to the idea that Al Qaeda and Iraq were not interchangeable marched to air their views with very little coverage. “Hard-core nonconformists are those who “have been overpowered and relegated to a completely defensive position in public” (Griffin, 2009, p. 379). They continued to speak out even though their opinions were mostly ignored or relegated to obscure sections of the newspapers. They continued to question the Iraq war and our reluctance to punish those who were actually responsible for the 9-11 attacks.
Journalist pushed the agenda of the Bush Whitehouse through media framing. It is described by leading writer James Tankard as “the central organizing idea for news content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration” (Griffin, 2009, p. 364). Major newspapers received information form credible sources such as correspondents in Iraq, the Journalist from Knight Ridder and reports from Weapons Inspectors, so one has to ask the question why jump on the Bush bandwagon instead of opting for real investigative journalism? Noelle-Nuemann proposes that in the case of the news media “Even though a go-along-to-get-along approach might brand a person as a conformist or a hanger-on, the people responding to her surveys indicate that rejection is even worse” (Griffin, 2009, p. 374).
The Bush Propaganda Machine pulled off a masterful triumph by leaking to the New York Times that Iraq had aluminum tubes in which to make a nuclear bomb which all Americans saw as a threatening and then making the rounds on the Sunday talk shows quoting the leaked story as evidence. The first level of agenda setting is the “transfer of salience of an attitude object in the mass media pictures of the world to a prominent place among pictures in our head” (Griffin, 2009, p 364).
The Bush Propaganda Machine realized how important it was to solidify their message in the minds of the American people. Given the media’s role in crystallizing public opinion, media access becomes crucial for those who desire to shape the public mood” (Griffin, 2009, p. 375). In the days that followed the message was repeated by the members of the White House Iraq Group and the President over and over again in the media, sometimes 2 or 3 times a day to make sure the message resonated with the American public. The second level of agenda setting is the “transfer of salience of a dominant set of attributes that the media associate with an attitude object to the specific features of the image projected on the walls of our minds” (Griffin, 2009, p. 365).
References
Buying the War. (2007). Retrieved from PBS Web site:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.htmlGriffin, E. (2009). A First Look at Communication Theory. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
