Suchergebnisse

This study presents an integrative model of the press, public opinion, and foreign policy relations during times of international crises. It combines theories of mass communications and international relations, with emphasis on the various stages of the crisis, the roles and functions of the media, and the different positions adopted by the press and the public vis-à-vis government foreign policy. The model is then applied to the United States during the Bosnian crisis (1992—1995), by examining commentary and editorials from The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, news headlines from USA Today and Washington Times, and public opinion data.The findings and conclusions regarding strong and significant correlations among media content, public opinion, and policy clarify the different roles of the press during various stages of an international crisis. They shed new light on scholars' and practitioners' understanding of the complex nature of theses relationships, during both times of crisis and more generally.

This study assesses the role of the press in shaping US foreign policy towards an international crisis. It explores the scope of attention, positions, and metaframes used by the Washington Post and New York Times, as well as the US administration's announcements, in relation to the Bosnian crisis in its different stages. It is suggested that by discerning and highlighting core US interests and values threatened by the developments in Bosnia – that is, using mainly critical positions and emphasizing humanitarian and security metaframes – the elite press may have pushed the Clinton administration to a more active policy in this crisis. With respect to the differences between the two newspapers, it is found that while both papers expressed criticism of government policy, the Washington Post was much more critical than the New York Times. The main differences between the two papers were in the divergent positions adopted and the different metaframes employed in presenting their respective positions. The central metaframe used by the Washington Post was humanitarian, while the New York Times used primarily frames linked to security and world order. It appears that these two elite papers took upon themselves a dual role in the Bosnia crisis. On the one hand, they served as 'watchdog' over the administration's behavior – expressing criticism and recommending policy; on the other hand, by using meaningful and familiar metaphors, they played an important explanatory role in the realm of public opinion. Examining the role of the elite press in the Bosnia crisis from a combined perspective of Communication and International Relations studies points to the possibility that besides its other roles, the press may contribute to transforming a crisis from a macro-systemic crisis, hardly noted by the decisionmakers, into a micro-perceptional crisis, receiving higher priority from them.

The partisan and ideological polarization of American politics since the 1970s appears to have affected public opinion in striking ways. The American public has become increasingly partisan and ideological along liberal-conservative lines on a wide range of issues, including even foreign policy. This has raised questions about how 'rational' the public is, in the broad sense of the public's responsiveness to objective conditions. Widespread partisan disagreements over what those conditions are-i.e., disagreements about 'the facts'-suggest that large proportions of the public may be perceiving the facts incorrectly. The facts in question are important enough that these partisan disagreements may translate into sub-optimal policy preferences and electoral decisions. Adapted from the source document.