Media Framing and Foreign Policy: The Elite Press vis-à-vis US Policy in Bosnia, 1992–95

Abstract

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.

Studying the Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy in International Crises: The United States and the Bosnian Crisis, 1992—1995

“…A comparative analysis was conducted of different types of press-the elite versus popular press.The print media were chosen as they are among the most influential in agenda setting, and the public uses them as a source of detailed information (Auerbach and Bloch-Elkon 2005;Neuman et al 1992;Paletz 2002;Taylor 2000;Vincent 2000). The press is among the key organizations that assist the public and decision makers in formulating and evaluating issues by presenting extensive facts and a variety of commentaries and opinions (Beaudoin and Thorson 2002;Brown 2001).…”

“…Presentation of the news and commentary on foreign policy is anchored in "frames," whereby journalists "package" information presenting a specific reality to their audience (Entman 1991;Entman and Rojecki 1993;Gitlin 1977;Wolfsfeld 1997).As a result, not only is the issue presented in a "preset" fashion, familiar to the public and therefore "comprehensible" (Callaghan and Schnell 2001;Durham 1998;Eilders and Luter 2000;Gamson and Herzog 1999;Norris 1997), but also, the very meaning of the news may vary by frame (Bloch and Lehman-Wilzig 2002;Kuypers 1997;Putnam et al 1996;Scheufele 1999). The decision to raise the prominence of a particular subject, to choose and to emphasize a certain image or word, to promulgate specific explanations and commentary regarding the reasons for-and consequences of-events, and the attempt to connect new stories with old ones all contribute to the construction of news frames with an indentifiable "slant" (Auerbach and Bloch-Elkon 2005;Callaghan and Schnell 2001;Gamson 1992;Naveh 2002;Paletz 2002;Tankard 2001).These frameworks create a certain image of the world and set the public mood (Beaudoin and Thorson 2002;Brown 2001;D'Angelo 2002) in a way such that audiences are not fully aware of this process (Beniger and Gusek 1995;Tversky and Kahneman 1981) and therefore may be more susceptible to influence (Kennamer 1994;Patterson 1998).…”

“…It is possible that the press, in conjunction with public opinion, urged the government to intervene and cross over into Stage 2 by turning the event from a noncrisis (on the macrosystem level) into a crisis (on the microperceptual level). Thus, the press synthesized the two levels and functioned as a critical factor in the shaping of policy (for further analysis, see Auerbach and Bloch-Elkon 2005).…”

“Gatekeeper or Crisis Manager? Coverage of "Lahad Datu" Conflict”

“…When the media place stories in specific frames, they lend a different meaning to the news. Furthermore, the media"s function is to increase or decrease the salience of issues which can allow the public to remember and make judgments on such issues (15). Media coverage is an appropriate measurement of response effectiveness because the public"s primary source of crisis information is the media (9).…”

Foreign News and Public Opinion: Attribute Agenda-Setting Theory Revisited

“…In a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of commentary and editorial articles published in The New York Times and Washington Post about the Bosnia crisis, Auerbach & Bloch-Elkon (2005) found a strong connection between the position of the press and the crisis stage. They suggested that the elite press highlighted the threat to vital U.S. interests, and, consequently, pushed Clinton administration to a more active policy (Auerbach & Bloch-Elkon, 2005). Cohen (1963) performed a substantial analysis on the topic of the press and foreign policy.…”