In this chapter, you will read about various "frames" that shaped the purportedly objective coverage of Gray Davis's recall. If Lakoff is right, if there is no way to write a story without a frame, then objectivity is not only an ideal but an impossibly distant dream, something we shouldn't hope for or even consider. I'll give you two choices here:
(1) Agree with Lakoff and offer analysis of another article (another frame) as evidence in support of your agreement.
(2) Disagree with Lakogg and offer analysis of an objectively framed article as support of your argument.

In chapter 5, Schudson blames a code of journalistic ethics for the resulting collusion between news media and government during the 1960s (especially regarding the Vietnam War). In short, he argues that the journalistic code of objectivity and the reliance on official sources led reporters to accept what the government had to say and to assume that, since no official sources offered a significantly oppositional viewpoint, covering the perspectives of all official sources was sufficient to provide an objective and fair account of the event and the competing perspectives thereabout. McChesney and Nichols claim, however, that presently the reliance on official sources has less to do with a journalistic code of objectivity and more to do with the private ownership of news media. News corporations, say McChesney and Nichols, are driven by a need to cheaply produce stories and to curry favor with governments who then lard favorable treatment on those corporations who depict the present administration favorably. Since it’s cheaper to listen to what the government sez about the war in Iraq (without paying people to do a lot of investigative work), and since it’s also one way to gain favor with the government, why not go ahead and repeat the administration’s line about, say, the war in Iraq?

In this chapter, Schudson argues that radical uncertainty brought on by capitalism and by democracy led peole to doubt anyone's ability to just offer the facts. According to Schudson, this uncertainty led journalists to embrace the ethic of objectivity. People like Lippmann figured that if they couldn't avoid presenting some kind of bias, then they were obligated to present all biases, all perspectives on an issue. They also figured that journalists were at least obligated to try to avoid inserting their own subjective dispositions into the story. Today, we live in an era typically labelled "postmodern," a period when people are equally likely to question any claims to certainty or truth. Yet, we have taken a radically different path in journalism. We do not embrace objectivity. Usi

In ch. 3, Schudson chronicles the principal division between newspaper journalism before objectivity and fairness became the standard for ethical reporting. On the one hand are those outlets that present news as a story—entertaining, dynamic, interesting. On the other hand are those that present news as information—dry, ordered, presumably disinterested. If we live in a post-objectivity era, if journalists have today abandoned the ethical standards of fairly presenting all sides of an issue and of not inserting political or personal bias into news coverage, then are we returning to the pre-objectivity standards of journalism that Schudson covers here? Using an example of print journalism, try to illustrate either one of these two points (1) the ideal of the story or of information

Jamieson sez that because of the television and the rhetoric which it promotes, Americans have lost the ability to critically approach associative arguments that would not withstand the scrutiny of a mind carefully trained in the practice of deliberative rhetoric. She analyzes a 1968 political ad ,“Hot Time in the Old Time Tonight,” as an example of what can get by when people are not able critically to approach television’s rhetorical appeals. Taking her arguments about the rhetoric promoted in television media today (associative, emotional, narrative, personal), do you find that recent political ads in the 2004 campaign commit the same sins that Jamieson locates in the “Hot Time” ad. If so, is this such a bad thing? Is it so wrong to have Americans voting based on their personal identification with, their trust of, and their associations to their candidates? In your post, closely analyze one of the commercials from the 2004 election (http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/election/index.php?nav_action=...).

Among the most curious variables in public speech-making today are the informality of a speaker’s lexicon (vocabulary) and the complexity of her syntax (how simply constructed are her sentences). In this chapter, Jamieson argues that the televised medium encourages a less complicated syntax and a more informal vocabulary—Reagan gets to use contractions, gets to begin his sentences with “well,” etc. Recent empirical studies done by Roderick Hart indicate that the presidents most revered by scholars of public address as “eloquent” (John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton) are the least effective orators (if efficacy can be defined in strict terms of immediate popular approval after a speech). Hart’s numbers reveal that the most efficacious orator of the 20th century was Reagan, who spoke like the C-student who sat behind you in eighth-grade English. Jamieson argues that the medium (TV) makes this possible. According to her, we would not be so impressed with Reagan’s oratory if we had to see it performed live or if we read it on the page. Let’s test that theory. Read the following speech by George W. Bush (a famously pedestrian—if not linguistically incompetent—speaker). Then watch it on TV. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/stump_10-19.html#) Do you have different responses? Are your responses to the televised speech consistent with what Jamieson predicts?

Chapter 6 argues that television allows politicians to caption their words with images, thereby uniting two very powerful persuasive media. Jamieson looks at how Reagan managed to accomplish this task in his rhetoric. Try to extend this kind of analysis to the media coverage of a more recent president—George W. Bush. What images do the news media use when depicting Bush? Think about the often-repeated image of Bush staring out the window of Air-Force One to survey the damage done by Katrina (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/pictures/WAS713D.htm), or the image of Bush at the site of the WTC attacks, speaking through a bullhorn, or the image of him declaring the end of major combat operations in Iraq in front of the now famous “mission accomplished” banner (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/).

Jamieson argues in this chapter that a feminine style of argument developed during the 18th and 19th centuries in American culture. This was: grounded in personal experience, associative, dramatic, narrative, personal, tentative (pp. 75-6), uncompetitive, emotional, delicate (p. 78), ornamented (p. 80). Using references to specific passages in Jamieson’s book and references to a recent political speech or debate that you’ve witnessed, test these claims. Do you find, for instance, that Bush was particularly conversational in his last state of the union address? Did he rely on narratives? Were his arguments more associative (linking) than deductive (evidence and claim)?