The First Amendment ideal of an independent press allows
American journalists to present critical perspectives on government
policies and actions; but are the media independent of government
in practice? Here Jonathan Mermin demonstrates that when it comes
to military intervention, journalists over the past two decades
have let the government itself set the terms and boundaries of
foreign policy debate in the news. Analyzing newspaper and
television reporting of U.S. intervention in Grenada and Panama,
the bombing of Libya, the Gulf War, and U.S. actions in Somalia and
Haiti, he shows that if there is no debate over U.S. policy in
Washington, there is no debate in the news. Journalists often
criticize the execution of U.S. policy, but fail to offer critical
analysis of the policy itself if actors inside the government have
not challenged it. Mermin ultimately offers concrete evidence of
outside-Washington perspectives that could have been reported in
specific cases, and explains how the press could increase its
independence of Washington in reporting foreign policy news.
The author constructs a new framework for thinking about
press-government relations, based on the observation that
bipartisan support for U.S. intervention is often best interpreted
as a political phenomenon, not as evidence of the wisdom of U.S.
policy. Journalists should remember that domestic political factors
often influence foreign policy debate. The media, Mermin argues,
should not see a Washington consensus as justification for
downplaying critical perspectives.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!