media analysis framework

When engaging in media analysis, there are certain principles one should keep in mind during the process, principles that, taken together, form a sort of compass to help guide one through the turbulent, convoluted waters of the ocean of media that we are engulfed in.

Elements of the framework (in progress):

• Legitimacy vs. effectiveness - When looking at questions of perspective (i.e., "left" and "right"), consider that those on the left rarely question the legitimacy of the government's actions/policies. More commonly, the left will engage in critical discussions on the effectiveness of those policies, not the nature of the policies themselves.
  
• The portrayal of dissidents - When a dissident from an "enemy state" criticizes or takes action against it, the media will tend to portray him or her in a positive light. Reason? It gives us legitimacy. However, when a dissident from our own society criticizes or takes action to try and change the status quo (for reasons that are legitimate from the standpoint of basic human decency), he/she will be discredited, vilified, or simply ignored.
• Role-reversal - Role-reversal is an exercise that reveals the assumptions that are woven into the stories we tell about "us" and "them" and it also reveals the active double-standards at work in U.S. foreign policy. Changing the roles of the players reveals the underlying structures, characterizations, mythos, ideology, assumptions, and biases that serve to legitimize one side at the expense of the other. Role-reversal reveals the absurdity and hypocrisy that are woven into the framing of those stories as well. Below is a list of situtations where applying this technique might be enlightening:
• almost any covert/overt foreign policy act of the U.S. government
• the Vietnam War
• the Iraq War
• the recent implication by the U.S. of Iran supplying arms to Shi'a militias in Iraq, which are being used against American troops. Reasons for this implication? 1) Larger reason: to continue on the path of American hegemony in the Middle East, with Iran being the U.S.'s next target 2) The Bush administration needs a scapegoat in the current political environment to take public attention off of its failures
  
• Israel/Palestine
• the nuclear technology issue, especially as applied to "rogue states" (e.g. North Korea, Iran)
  
• The nature of terrorism - The distinction between the terrorism of "us" and "them" requires the creation of a double-standard in the public mind, one that justifies our terrorism and that simultaneously demonizes their terrorism. An important function of the mass media is the active creation of that double-standard. (Link here for a model of how the media do this...)
• The nature of "special interest" groups (such as labor, women, farmers, the environmental movement, gay/lesbian, handicapped, ethnic minorities, etc.) vs. the "national interest" (i.e. corporations, major financial institutions, the business elite). How did these terms get turned on their head in the public mind? It seems more fitting to reverse the nomenclature here, because "special interest" groups more accurately reflect the national interest than the supposed "national interests" do....
• The Milton principle, namely that "They who put out the people's eyes reproach them for their blindness" (1642). This principle applies to many aspects of U.S. foreign policy, wherein our government criticizes the very forces it has unleashed in a client state, particularly when those forces step outside of the acceptable boundaries of action deemed appropriate for them by their masters (e.g. Central America, death squads, paramilitary, coup de tat...)
• The anti-democratic bias in media coverage of labor and community. See the domino effect. Essentially the same rhetoric as the 'domino effect', but applied nationally. If the citizenry of this country were to gain the awareness that they have the power to stand up to and change the institutions that control them, there would be much more 'democratic' involvement. But such activity is a threat to the institutions that exert so much control over our lives (capitalist, profit-driven corporations, big business). As a result, we can expect that portrayals of the successes of labor and community will be given minimal coverage, because to do so would highlight the power of the people to change their circumstances in a democratic way, which threatens the existing power structure in this country, (i.e., the status quo). Thus, anti-democractic bias is yet another filter to be added to an already thick layering that shapes the content of the news produced by mainstream media (ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak, ideology; see Chomsky and Herman, "Manufacturing Consent")
  
• The relationship between U.S. foreign aid and human rights violations. (e.g. Israel, Nicaragua...Iraq,)
• worthy and unworthy topics - similar to the Chomsky/Herman idea of worthy/unworthy victims, this idea suggests that there are topics which will be considered (even internalized) as worthy/unworthy in the realms of professional and commercial journalism of the modern era...thus topics with a pro-business slant will be more readily reported than the opposite...likewise, critiques of corporate behavior will be minimized, as the corporate role in mainstrea media becomes more and more prominent...(it is unwise to slap the hand that feeds you...)
  
• That media practices establish 'normative behaviors' that over time become self-legitimating...e.g. portrayal of the 'other'
  
• The nature of the language used itself - What words, phrases and descriptions are used and what feelings, emotions, attitudes, stereotypes, images do they evoke in the public mind? To what effect are such emotions, attitudes, stereotypes, etc. used? (To legitimize one point of view at the expense of another...?)