9/11 and the power of the press

After reading President Bush’s address to the nation, in March of 2003, I was interested in viewing the speech, and seeing the different responses that each gave. After completing both the difference in responses is clear. When reading the address, it is clear how President Bush is trying to frame his decision. He is trying to place a gain frame on the subject by pointing out all the great things this move will do for the people of Iraq. He explains the intent is to “to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” The frame is trying to avoid the negative aspects of war, and focus on how this was a necessity of human rights. When watching the speech, the response is much different. The frame is more on emotion and how the president is speaking. President Bush’s tone is somber, but clear. This shows that this decision was tough, but had to be made. The frame is to humanize the president, but still show power.

These two examples exemplify the power of the press, especially after 9/11. There was a difference in opinion post 9/11 throughout the country, and media helped perpetrate the argument by sharing information. How certain media outlets chose to frame the news, in this case President Bush’s address to the nation in March 2003 effected how the viewer reacted to the news. In the Wikipedia page on Popular Opinion in the US of the Iraq war, it shows that in the same month as the speech, 54% of Americans favored an invasion, while just two months later, 89% of Americans believed the war was justified. This rise in numbers has a lot to do with the way media chose to portray the news. It was framed by certain outlets positively; therefor viewers began to view the war as justified. Other media outlets framed the war negatively, thus a number of polls had varying numbers of American’s support of the Iraq war.