Government Communication in Post-9/11 Media

I went back and correct all of my subject verb agreements. I also made sure to remain in the same person and the same tense throughout the essay. I went back to my more vague statements, and I tried to elaborate on them instead of making very broad analysis and moving on. There were also a few punctuation and grammatical errors that needed to be fixed, so I went back and cleaned those up. Hopefully, this is a little more clear and the deeper analysis is evident.

Many years ago, one could not have imagined obtaining information and updates by the second with such ease. But for today’s citizens, unlimited access to copious amounts of news and notifications of new information is at their fingertips. What those citizens can easily forget is that many of those news stories and updates comes with a message that some individual, whether it be the writer of the story, the character of the story, or the CEO of the media outlet, is attempting to convey to the consumer. The unfortunate reality is that some of the most influential news stories are being manipulated by a group with a message, and one of the most recognizable examples is the message that was conveyed by the government in regards to coverage of 9/11 and the “War on Terror.” The government plays one of the largest roles in setting the tone for how foreign affairs can be understood, and in this example, the government’s role was immensely exhumed and shaped the way many Americans understood 9/11 through strategic communication from the Bush administration.

In order to understand how the Bush administration was able to use such effective communication, there needs to be an understanding of the relationship between the federal government and popular media outlets. One of the most important findings of this relationship in a study by Amelia Arsenault and Manuel Castells (2006) is that there is a hierarchy of important news, and whether a news outlet is typically right or left-winged, political communication is at the top of that hierarchy. Being at the top of the hierarchy means that the political actors will receive the most attention and have their messages spread. Additionally, the relationship is mutually beneficial because for the media, political actors are an easy and reliable mechanism to receive attention, while the political actors benefit by having their concerns and messages spread throughout the nation with just one appearance. The interdependence of the political actors and the press allows for the opportunity of one party to sometimes overstep its role without any consequence because the other party will not want to raise conflicts and risk hurting their delicate relationship.

In terms of 9/11, the Bush administration took full advantage of this relationship with the expectation of having its message conveyed to the public with little opposition or criticism. In one journal article, the authors discuss the “going public” tactic that the Bush administration employed. The Bush administration used the press to convey regular messages to the country that citizens could rally behind, and public support was uncharacteristically high when compared to similar events in history (John et al., 2007). Research shows that this regular dialogue between country and citizen is likely to be accompanied by public support for the administration because they believe the institution is preserving a transparent trend. In addition to public support, this dialogue was communicated with a frenzy of reports and broadcasts, which meant that the message of the administration would not be denied attention. When the large spread of the public message and the immense amount of support combine, the result is immense pressure on Congress to make decisions that support the administration and keep their public image untarnished.

Another aspect to the administration’s communication strategy was simply avoiding critical questions, a political ploy that has been utilized throughout history. In one New York Times article, attention is drawn to the questions that the public eagerly wanted answered at the time, which were essentially “how to move forward” and “what was learned?” Instead of Bush answering those questions, he narrowed his focus on comments on how terrible terrorism was and that the country needed to “stay the course” (New York Times, 2004). The people knew terrorism was awful and that the country needed to stay on the course of distancing itself from the event of 9/11, but there was no mention of the big questions that citizens could not seriously answer without knowing the position of the Bush administration. This illustrates the awareness of the administration and their hesitation to give controversial answers to a curious public in order to maintain popularity. They made well-liked, uncontroversial statements during press conferences and enjoyed increasing public support while they made the vexed decisions behind the scenes without any uproar from the people.

Finally, the Bush administration was given the advantage of the media participating in the patriotic trend that the administration began. In one New York Amsterdam News article by George Curry, there is evidence of the media making decisions that echoed statements from the president that didn’t incorporate any negativity to America or Americans political actors. One example of this is when the Time magazine labeled Rudolph Giuliani as the “Person of the Year,” a title reserved for an individual who is said to be the most influential person of that current year. Proper analysis makes the argument that Osama Bin Laden was realistically the person who had the most influence of media and the world in 2001, but instead the award was given to Giuliani. Giuliani had been surrounded by controversy when it came to rumors of an affair in his personal life, which was forgotten after praise from Bush (2002). The country now understood Giuliani only as a hero and influential being, and they forgot the controversy that had earlier plagued his name. This was not representative of the year before them and is just one of many examples of how the American understanding of 2001 was not accurate because of popular media organizations.

Overall, there are many factors that contributed to the Bush administration and their influence, which led to the reality that public knowledge and support was a result of what was being fed to them my the government, and it allowed the opportunity to move forward with little consequence or objection. The statements that were made were critical in the involvement of the United States in an extremely controversial war, because this discourse shaped the attitude of the country. Had these factors not been a piece of the puzzle, the American public may have had more of an objection to the decisions involving the “War on Terror” that faced little scrutiny.

References

Arsenault, A., & Castells, M. (2006). Conquering the minds, conquering Iraq: The

social production of misinformation in the United States — a case study.
Communication & Society, 9(3), 284–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/

13691180600751256

Curry, G. E. (2002, January 10). MEDIA SWITCHES FROM ‘WATCHDOG’ TO ‘LAPDOG.’.

New York Amsterdam News, p. 13.

John, S. L., Domke, D., Coe, K., & Graham, E. S. (2007). GOING PUBLIC, CRISIS
AFTER CRISIS: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE PRESS FROM SEPTEMBER 11 TO SADDAM. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 10(2), 195–219.

Mr. Bush’s Press Conference. (2004, April 14). New York Times, sec. A, p. 26.