Search

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation had been investigating the relationship between Russian agents and members of Trump’s presidential campaign since July 2016 out of suspicions that the President-elect worked with Russia to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, which became a major news event in American media. The headlines from news media outlets illustrate the strategic use of language to shape opinions and frames. Conducted with the tools of System Functional Linguistics, in particular, the appraisal and ideation resources, based on the framing theory of Journalism Studies, this research aims to answer the two research questions: (1) What frames did The New York Times and Fox News construct in their coverage of the Mueller investigation? (2) What linguistic strategies did The New York Times and Fox News use respectively to construct their frames? It was found that The New York Times uses fewer evaluative tools than Fox News, but the expression of attitudes draws on the context in which they are presented and evaluation is expressed in a more sophisticated and refined manner. Fox News is more straightforward without hiding its own opinion and biases. This research is important in further understanding of the American media and their linguistic strategies in forming manipulative frames.

Reflecting on more than four decades in dual scholarly careers that cut across the boundaries between communication, the sociology of culture, and journalism studies, Professor Todd Gitlin and Professor Michael Schudson discuss the growth, evolution, and strengths and weaknesses of the media studies field with Professor Jiang Chang. The three reflect on the origins of the research, the gap between the field of journalism studies and the field of sociology, the role played by journalism in the growing conflict between China and the United States, the relationship between media and political protest, and whether there ought be any cause for optimism regarding the state of democracy in the twenty-first century.

This study is intended to discuss the development of Iran and the United States relations in the English-based international media by reading the related news material on CNN, Fox News, Al-Jazeera and Press TV websites. The quantitative content analysis has been used in this study and the statistical population includes 465 news materials during the first six months of 2019. In this study, the systematic random sampling method was used in alternate weeks, which resulted in 27 statistical days.The research findings show that most of the reviewed articles have a negative bias (64.5%). Among the reviewed websites, CNN has the highest negative bias (72.1%) according to the materials belong to Iran-US relations. In the other hand, Al-Jazeera website has the lowest negative bias (53.6%) in this regard.The research also shows that the news value of conflict was the highest among the surveyed websites with 75.3%. In the meantime, the Press TV website was the vanguard with 40.3% of all the published content.Finally, most of the reviewed websites have been focused on the news coverage related to “military, defense, war, missile capabilities and psychological operations” subjects. In this regard, Press TV was the vanguard of this category among other websites. The news about “sanctions and resolutions” was the second most used news item. In this respect, Press TV was also the vanguard.

The American talk show The O ’Reilly Factor premiered in 1996 on media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel. Hosted by conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly (1949-), the Factor tackles social and political issues with guests from a variety of fields, and is the highest-rated cable news program in the United States, averaging approximately 3.5 million viewers a night. O’Reilly is the most controversial leader of a new wave of ultra-conservative media pundits that have appeared on Fox News over the last decade, who together have forged a new in-your-face reporting style that has garnered top ratings for the entire network. O’Reilly claims to uphold Fox’s motto of ‘Fair and Balanced’ coverage, and has labeled his own show the ‘no spin zone.’ Here he indulges in over-the-top denunciations of the ‘radical’ liberal establishment, promotes an anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-welfare and anti-abortion platform, and casts himself as the disgruntled voice of patriotic working-class Americans. Most distinctive is his interviewing style: in doing battle with liberal opponents he frequently resorts to the bellicose phrase ‘Shut up!’ among other invectives. Though such histrionics have earned him great fame, O’Reilly's reporting has come under considerable scrutiny from media watchdog groups such as Media Matters for America and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), both of which condemn him for extreme bias and inaccuracy. In addition, a 2007 study of The O 'Reilly Factor by the researchers at the Indiana University School of Journalism has concluded that the program regularly employs propaganda techniques defined by the Institute of Propaganda Analysis in the 1930s. This paper analyzes the provocative stylistic content of The O ’Reilly Factor, and examines the various criticisms the program and its host have so combatively drawn.

En este artículo analizamos, desde la teoría del framing, la información ofrecida por los dos canales de noticias 24 horas del grupo News Corporation, Sky News y Fox News, con relación a la crisis nuclear de Corea del Norte en el periodo 9 -23 de abril de 2013. Nos centramos en aspectos como la “foxificación”, la presencia de expertos militares en los bloques de noticias y los encuadres informativos. En el caso de Sky News, la información se ofrece desde el prisma de los sucesos a nivel nacional debido al tiempo dedicado a la polémica con el documental del programa “Panorama” de la BBC. El tratamiento de la crisis nuclear en Fox News se traduce en cons- tantes críticas a las políticas militares llevadas a cabo por Corea, la exaltación patriótica de los Estados Unidos poniendo el acento sobre el sistema defensivo y todo ello rodeado de una crítica feroz a la Administración Obama por no promover una intervención militar en el conflicto. DOI: 10.5294/pacla.2014.17.3.12