Search

This paper examines how the New York Times covered the atomic bomb that was dropped over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. The analysis identifies the news frames of front-page stories in the Times during the first two days after the nuclear strike and compares them to the frames promoted by the U.S. government. This study adds to the literature by offering a micro view of the way the government propaganda campaign was embedded directly into the Times' coverage of the atomic bomb. While previous research has provided a broad assessment of how the Times and the news media in general were manipulated, this study identifies the specific news frames as they appeared in government documents and news reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Algerian Historical Journal is the property of Algerian Historical Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

We investigate the level of gender parity in political news reporting at the New York Times. We apply a media sociology approach to examine how gender stereotypes, women in media leadership, and women in political leadership interact to affect the extent to which women journalists appear in bylines about domestic and foreign affairs news. We leverage an original data collection of nearly 3,000 news articles published from 2007–2020. We find several key results. First, women are more likely to appear in bylines about domestic political news than foreign affairs news. Second, we find that during Jill Abramson's tenure as executive editor the number of women writing about politics increased. Third, as the proportion of women in the U.S. Congress rises, more women appear in story bylines about political news. Fourth, while more women write about political news now compared to the past, most political news stories still have men as authors. Our findings show slow but steady improvement in the gender diversity of political news journalists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents serious errors, corrections and omissions in the New York Times coverage of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza from October 2023 to June 2024. The Times was selected for investigation since it is one of the most influential newspapers in the world. Errors were identified by external sources, corrections were late, vague and evasive. Omissions created false context and reporting, and lacked transparency. Among the explored case studies and issues: Al-Ahli Hospital explosion, civilian casualties, misquoting Israeli leaders, employing questionable journalists, and internal newsroom testimonials. The findings reveal misleading repeated errors, inadequate corrections, significant omissions, and poor editorial supervision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An ample body of journalism studies research examines moments of disruption when a particular critical incident sparks widespread reflection about news and journalism. But we should not neglect how moments of orchestrated non-disruption perpetuate journalistic ideologies while stifling potential alternatives or deeper calls for change. This was the case when on April 19, 2022, the New York Times announced that managing editor Joseph Kahn would be taking over as executive editor from the retiring Dean Baquet. As an amiable and expected event, the Times promoted both a discourse of continuity surrounding journalistic norms and practices with a discourse of change focused on digital innovation and global audience growth. These discourses were challenged by critics who used the opportunity to lambaste the Times for insufficient news coverage of antidemocratic forces and a resistance to foundational introspection. This incident reveals how the Times sought to maintain its cultural authority and status as an elite journalistic institution while shaping normative expectations about journalism. It underscores the importance of attending to the interpretive power that privileged news organizations possess to speak about journalism at a time when many voices are contesting what news ought to look like. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research applies framing theory and basic quantitative content methods to analyze the New York Times coverage of the 1959 Cuban Revolution, in order to examine assertions that New York Times stories contributed to Fidel Castro's victory. Specifically, the study analyzes datelines, bylines, types of sources and story framing in all the stories about Cuba published on the front page of the New York Times between January 1, 1957, and December 31, 1962. The findings of this research contest long-held claims that the New York Times stories, in particular those written by reporter Herbert L. Matthews, contributed to the success of the Cuban Revolution. Matthews's three-part front-page scoop in 1957 introduced Castro and the bearded Cuban revolutionaries to the world, but his stories and subsequent New York Times coverage are unlikely to have been decisive in Castro's overthrow of the Batista regime. This study argues instead that the New York Times coverage of the 1959 Cuban Revolution was written through an aspirational lens, much like the stories about other major political revolutions written by U.S. foreign correspondents, and that stories played an important inter-media agenda-setting role, as evident from the many news organizations that covered the revolution after Matthews' scoop. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of China Media Report Overseas is the property of Edmondson Intercultural Enterprises and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study sheds light on interconnected topic dynamics across traditional news sources and social media platforms, emphasizing the influential role of topicality in shaping content popularity in social media. Using the Latent Dirichlet Allocation and BERTopic models, we define sets of 120 New York Times (NYT) topics to compare with 899,766 image-with-text memes from Reddit, showing that social media content aligns with many of the same topical patterns observed in news outlets. Topicality is formalized based on the temporal distributions of topics over the past 5 years. Using these topicality features, the investigation reveals significant correlations between the rising popularity of NYT topics and increased average upvotes on Reddit, particularly evident in "innovator" memes posted during the early stages of a topic's prevalence in the NYT. Furthermore, topicality features show significant predictive power over other content-based control features in a CatBoost classifier prediction of viral Reddit memes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ever since the terrorists" attacks of September 11, 2001, the role of Pakistan has been questionable. Pakistani nationals have been profiled and associated to terrorism acts. This paper aims to explore the post-9/11 media coverage of Pakistan's reputation through a comparative analysis of newspapers from Pakistan and America spanning the years 2001-2015. Researcher has employed a mixed-method (qualitative and quantitative) content analysis approach, the findings were analysed using thematic analysis and statistical analysis. The qualitative content analysis tends to uncover the fundamental stories and themes exist in the news stories, though the quantitative content analysis emphases on methodically measuring and examining communication systems within the newspapers. By exploring content of the prominent newspapers such as 'The Washington Post', 'New York Times', 'Dawn', and 'The News', these papers provided insights into how Pakistan's individuality has been represented in media discourse, especially in the repercussion of 9/11 attacks. The study recommended that both international and national media must carefully measure the influence of coverage to evade negatively representing individuals, societies, or groups, that might tarnish their reputes globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a 2010 online Reuter's news article, Andrew Stern claimed that Tiger Woods placed the condition known as 'sex addiction' in the spotlight. Accordingly, this article discusses the extent to which 'sex addiction' is discursively produced within, and by, the media and explores the extent to which Stern's claim can be substantiated. This paper presents an analysis of articles retrieved from nytimes.com that were published between February 18th, 2009, and February 20th, 2011. It goes on to summarize four key findings: (1) 'sex addiction' was more directly and openly discussed as a concept in the year following Stern's article than it was in the year prior; (2) 'sex addiction' was discursively constructed as a male problem and regarded as an underlying reason for them to commit extramarital affairs; (3) in the year before Stern's article 'sex addiction' was discursively positioned as a social problem; and (4) in the year following Stern's article, 'sex addiction' was also discursively positioned as a medical problem. The paper concludes that the concept of 'sex addiction' is discursively constructed, and that Tiger Woods did, indeed, place a spotlight on the topic. As a result, the author argues that the media has a significant impact on the production, interpretation, and understanding of what many consider to be a sexual problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This longitudinal content analysis examines 128 articles containing the words hemp, hashish or marijuana appearing in the New York Times from 1851-1939, which starts at the publication's inception and concludes with the decade of the Marijuana Tax Act's passage. The research locates master framing of contentious issues by adapting previous computerized content analysis research to address historical documents unavailable for digital analysis. This study paints a more complete picture of one plant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a methodologically novel, large-scale proof of historical bias against Palestine in a newspaper of international importance – The New York Times (NYT) – during the First and Second Palestinian Intifadas. Using state-of-the-art natural language processing toolkits as well as a regression model with over 90 percent accuracy based on a carefully validated word bank, the author analyzes over 33,000 NYT articles for (1) their use of active/passive voice, and (2) the objectivity, tone, and violent sentiment of the language used. She follows up her quantitative analysis with a qualitative validation step, analyzing biased articles in each period. In conjunction with historical context, the article shows that anti-Palestinian bias persisted disproportionately in the NYT during both periods and, in fact, worsened from the First Intifada to the Second. This work builds on a history of qualitative research on anti-Palestinian bias in the US media and attempts to provide a methodological contribution that encourages conversation between quantitative and qualitative metrics of bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Exploring how the human became a troublesome concept, Sylvia Lavin, Professor of History and Theory of Architecture at Princeton University, takes us to Long Island, where a house was rearranged by an unlikely inhabitant – an apple tree. While trees have typically served to reflect and reinforce idealised definitions of the human, the architecture made for this tree shortly after the Second World War suggests instead how interspecies relations were already pointing towards architecture beyond humanity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a 2004 autobiography, legendary player Pete Rose confessed to gambling on baseball games, even those that included his Cincinnati Reds. The passage of time has clarified much about the betting scandal that plagued Major League Baseball (MLB) in 1989. Over the course of the six-month saga, Rose's denials and his adversarial relationship with the Commissioner's Office shrouded MLB's investigation in controversy. This study explores the press coverage of the scandal in 1989 and determines that the Cincinnati press was more sympathetic to, and supportive of Rose than out-of-market coverage, represented in this investigation by The New York Times. These findings are consistent with previous research that indicates that local media favors hometown institutions during times of crisis. This study expands that theory by demonstrating that favoritism extends to individual players whose connection to the city is significant, and furthers our understanding of the media's role in shaping the narratives of scandal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Brazilian Journalism Research is the property of Sur le journalisme, About journalism, Sobre jornalismo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article reports the political violence, censorship, and state terrorism in the first years of the Brazilian military dictatorship in United States' press, especially through the coverage of The New York Times. The research aims to offer more details about how the paper's coverage affected the change in public opinion inside and outside Brazil, with the hardening of the Brazilian dictatorship with the AI-5, that also documented institutionally the process of transition between the ideas of "revolution" and "military dictatorship", considering also, in this context, the Alliance for Progress' policies, idealized by the president Kennedy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At a time of renewed power struggles among nations, especially with the rise of China and Russia, the UK’s loss of leverage as a key player in the European Union following Brexit makes its relationship with the United States more crucial than ever before. That relationship, which is traditionally conceptualised as being ‘special’, undergirds international relations discourses in media spaces and political and academic communities on both sides of the Atlantic. Drawing on news coverage by the New York Times and The Guardian (UK) newspapers, this article explores how the media frame the UK–US relationship against the backdrop of Brexit. The discussion is predicated on the understanding that important sources of information can influence not only people’s perceptions but also how they think about an issue. The study concludes that while a special relationship is still a contested notion, a resilient and abiding alliance between the two countries is alleviating the impact of Brexit.

RESUMO – O objetivo principal deste artigo é identificar os elementos combativos que caracterizam as práticas profissionais das jornalistas norte-americanas Jodi Kantor e Megan Twohey, centrando-se nos trabalhos investigativos sobre violência sexual contra mulheres publicados no New York Times. Para o estudo de caso, realizou-se uma análise qualitativa do livro Ela disse: os bastidores da reportagem que impulsionou o #MeToo e de reportagens de autoria de ambas as jornalistas, pelas quais receberam o Prêmio Pulitzer de 2018. Os resultados indicam que as jornalistas realizaram uma investigação exaustiva, caracterizada por legitimar falas femininas, ao visibilizar as denúncias de mulheres vítimas de assédio sexual. Também é evidente o comprometimento das jornalistas em confrontar os agressores e revelar os fatos silenciados por figuras poderosas, como Donald Trump. ABSTRACT – The main objective of this paper is to identify the combative elements in the professional practices of American journalists Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, focusing on investigative reports on sexual violence against women published in the New York Times. For this case study, a qualitative analysis was carried out on the book She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story That Helped Ignite a Movement and on the 2018 Pulitzer Prize-winning reports authored by these same journalists. The results show that these journalists conducted a thorough investigation, legitimizing female speech by bringing to light the complaints of women victims of sexual harassment. The commitment these journalists have to confronting aggressors and uncovering facts that are concealed by powerful figures, such as Donald Trump, is also evident. RESUMEN – El objetivo principal de este artículo es identificar los elementos combativos que caracterizan las prácticas profesionales de las periodistas estadounidenses Jodi Kantor y Megan Twohey, enfocándose en los trabajos de investigación sobre violencia sexual contra mujeres publicados en New York Times. Para el caso de estudio, se realizó un análisis cualitativo del libro She said: la investigación periodística que destapó los abusos de Harvey Weinstein e impulsó el movimiento #MeToo y de reportajes de autoría de ambas periodistas, por los cuales recibieron el premio Pulitzer de 2018. Los resultados indican que las periodistas realizaron una investigación exhaustiva, caracterizada por legitimar las hablas femeninas al visibilizar las denuncias de mujeres víctimas de acoso sexual. También es evidente el compromiso de las periodistas al confrontar a los agresores y revelar los hechos que estaban silenciados por figuras poderosas, como Donald Trump. Palavras-chave: Jornalismo combativo. Jornalismo investigativo. Assédio sexual. #MeToo. New York Times.

IntroductionSubstances and the people who use them have been dehumanized for decades. As a result, lawmakers and healthcare providers have implemented policies that subjected millions to criminalization, incarceration, and inadequate resources to support health and wellbeing. While there have been recent shifts in public opinion on issues such as legalization, in the case of marijuana in the U.S., or addiction as a disease, dehumanization and stigma are still leading barriers for individuals seeking treatment. Integral to the narrative of “substance users” as thoughtless zombies or violent criminals is their portrayal in popular media, such as films and news.MethodsThis study attempts to quantify the dehumanization of people who use substances (PWUS) across time using a large corpus of over 3 million news articles. We apply a computational linguistic framework for measuring dehumanization across three decades of New York Times articles.ResultsWe show that (1) levels of dehumanization remain high and (2) while marijuana has become less dehumanized over time, attitudes toward other substances such as heroin and cocaine remain stable.DiscussionThis work highlights the importance of a holistic view of substance use that places all substances within the context of addiction as a disease, prioritizes the humanization of PWUS, and centers around harm reduction.

This article aims to analyse the role of translation in the tabloidization of the New York Times in Spanish. Drawing on the findings of a previous study that compared the English, Chinese and Spanish versions of the online newspaper, I hypothesise that the Spanish version focuses on human-interest news items translated from English originals and, therefore, translation may be used in a tabloidization process of the source texts in order to cater for the needs of the target audiences, that is, Spanish speakers of Spanish-speaking origin living in the United States or in Latin America. To study the process, I gathered two constructed weeks, a methodology widely used in communication studies, to analyse the differences between the two versions both in terms of content and format. The analysis, shows a tendency towards the 'diminution of seriousness', which can be explained as the result of the attempts to attract a readership belonging to different news traditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article investigates how the COVID-19 pandemic around the world is represented by the New York Times (NYT) and China Daily (CD), newspapers from two countries with long-standing political tension. The data consists of 2572 reports that are classified into three groups: reports on COVID-19 in the US, reports on COVID-19 in China, and reports on COVID-19 in other countries/regions. The reports are analyzed in terms of their discursive news values. Analysis results show that NYT represents the pandemic in the US, and CD represents the pandemic in China as the least negative, the least impactful and with the most personal accounts. NYT represents the pandemic in China, and CD represents the pandemic in the US as the most negative, the most impactful, the most severe, and the least positive and proximate. The selection and representation of other countries/regions reflect a differentiated coverage of the "Others" by both NYT and CD. The study lends support to a previous hypothesis that domestic crises tend to be presented as less negative than those in other countries, and invites contemplation on the influence of nationalism and political antagonism on the news media in times of global health crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study adopts a critical discourse analysis approach in comparing the portrayal of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in two English language newspapers, China Daily (CD) and New York Times (NYT). It focuses on how these two influential newspapers employ various discursive strategies to portray the BRI and its various players to unpack the embedded ideologies underlying the news reports. The data comprises 165 news reports on the BRI published between 2013 and 2019. By examining key news features such as headlines, leads and quotes, three contrastive themes were uncovered: BRI as a unifying agent or disruptive force; bolstering support for or casting aspersions on the BRI; and a rising China versus a fading US. These themes coalesce and converge into two parallel but distinct discourses. While CD unequivocally depicts the BRI as a collaborative project that seeks to unify and bring widespread benefits to member countries, NYT presents a more complex picture that discursively constructs China's BRI as a geopolitical threat to the waning global influence of the US. These divergent discourses are discussed in light of motivated reasoning theory and in relation to the varying ideological standpoints from which the two newspapers operate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2016 presidential election marked a new era of political campaign featured by social media-powered professional and citizen journalism. Still, legacy news organizations such as the New York Times (NYT) and the Washington Post amassed significant influences among voters in both online and offline settings. Against this backdrop, this study examines how NYT covered Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the 2016 election. Drawing upon the rich literature in moral psychology, particularly the model of intuitive morality and exemplars (MIME; Tamborini, 2012, "A Model of Intuitive Morality and Exemplars." In Media and the Moral Mind, edited by R. Tamborini, 43–74. London, England: Routledge). A computerized textual analysis of over 1,000 socially transmitted NYT stories regarding both candidates was performed. Findings show that the NYT's election coverage displayed a certain level of coverage neutrality, and the use of moral terms in NYT's coverage at critical time points might have contributed to Trump's final victory in 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the major campaign promises of the former US president Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign was to bar Muslims from entering the United States. Donald Trump kept his promise by issuing an executive order on assumption of office. The executive order banned Muslims from seven countries from entering the United States until a judge in Washington halted the executive order. The story received wide coverage in the media. This article will study the news coverage of the executive order in three leading international media organizations, AlJazeera English (AJE), the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. These three media organizations were selected because they provide different perspectives to news and have global audiences that consume the news on daily basis. Using critical discourse analysis (CDA), the article seeks to compare how the three media organizations pitched the story. CDA is interested in identifying the relationship between power, ideology and social inequality. The article explores the issues related to power, ideology and social inequality in relation to the Trump's executive order as reported in the three news media organizations. What are the ethnic, political and cultural issues that dominated the discourse of Trump's ban on Muslims in the three newspapers? The results from the study found ideological differences in the coverage, with AlJazeera and the New York Times being slightly more critical of Donald Trump and his policies in their approach, while the Wall Street Journal was supportive of the executive order. Nevertheless, all three news organizations were similar in promoting discourse, which promotes the interest of power elites. This approach in news discourse further contributes to creating a divided society that is unequal in nature. The article concludes by recommending the practice of a more contextual journalism that promotes a peaceful and harmonious society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At a time of renewed power struggles among nations, especially with the rise of China and Russia, the UK's loss of leverage as a key player in the European Union following Brexit makes its relationship with the United States more crucial than ever before. That relationship, which is traditionally conceptualised as being 'special', undergirds international relations discourses in media spaces and political and academic communities on both sides of the Atlantic. Drawing on news coverage by the New York Times and The Guardian (UK) newspapers, this article explores how the media frame the UK-US relationship against the backdrop of Brexit. The discussion is predicated on the understanding that important sources of information can influence not only people's perceptions but also how they think about an issue. The study concludes that while a special relationship is still a contested notion, a resilient and abiding alliance between the two countries is alleviating the impact of Brexit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: This brief report looks at the language used by The New York Times to report on human-shark interactions and whether they go beyond the phrase "shark attack". "Shark attack" is a phrase that holds a powerful psychological position in the mind of the public and directs the way sharks are talked about in society. However, it raises concerns because the phrase "shark attack" tells a one-dimensional story of shark behavior, which is often misleading. Data shows that between 32–38% of reported shark "attacks" have no injury at all. As a result, scrutiny of media reporting on different types of human-shark interactions is important. This study found The New York Times still uses shark "attack" language but has begun to layer it with more scientifically accurate shark "bite" and "sighting" narratives that convey less sensational stories. This is part of a growing trend to incorporate a broader lexicon that explains that not every interaction with sharks' results in injury or fatality. The social and political dynamics around human–shark interactions are a growing area of interest in marine social science. The question motivating this article asks to what extent media reporting by The New York Times has engaged beyond the lexicon of "shark attack" discourse to describe human–shark interactions. It is important because different styles of reporting on human–shark interactions can influence the public's perceptions about sharks and support for shark conservation. This media outlet is also a paper of record whose editorial style choices may influence the broader media landscape. I review reporting language from The New York Times for 10 years between 2012 and 2021 (n = 36). I present three findings: first, I argue that The New York Times has had an increased frequency in use of the term "shark bite" to describe human–shark interactions. Secondly, I find that shark "attack" is still used consistently with other narratives. Third, there appears to be an increased use of "sightings; encounter; and incident" descriptors since 2020. The implication of this is a layered approach to reporting on human–shark interactions that diversifies away from a one-dimensional shark "attack" discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While environmental degradation has long been a fact of American life, the environment did not become an integral part of American newsmaking until the late 1960s. Then, news organizations began assigning reporters to the environmental beat in the wake of increased public interest in environmental issues. This study examines the emergence of environmental journalism at the New York Times through analysis of the newspaper's organizational archives, to reveal internal discussions about the newsworthiness of the environment, and a comparative analysis of coverage of two similar environmental controversies: first, a 1950s struggle over dam construction in a protected area, and second, a 1960s–70s effort to build a Disney ski resort in a national forest. It demonstrates how the newsworthiness of the environment changed as later stories were reported with more prominence, reporting depth, and narrative emphasis on ecology compared to recreation. Important figures within the Times who advocated for coverage of environmental issues, including publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger and editorial page editor John B. Oakes, were less influential in promoting environmental news than the broader societal changes that gave rise to the American environmental movement in the 1960s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyses the coverage of the Revolution of 1917 in Russia by the American newspaper New York Times. It was the most influential print media which expressed opinions of the political establishment. In November, 1917, New York Times featured the Russian Revolution as the main international news. The publications contained mere facts without conclusions but the comments sounded pessimistic. An object of deep concern was the impact of the Revolution on the role of Russia in WWI. The reports from Russia written in a dry telegraphic style could just confuse an American reader. In order to provide an insight into the Revolution the newspaper published analytical materials such as the essay "Bolsheviki's Chief" by the Russian revolutionary immigrant M. Olgin. Apart from analytical materials New York Times published some narratives by witnesses. One of them described the procedures of the revolutionary court in Petrograd through the trial of countess Panin. Another narrative written by an American businessman S.Lovich provided vivid sketches of everyday life in revolutionary Petrograd. To conclude, New York Times not only covered the twists and turns of political life but also the specific character of revolutionary daily routine.

La Guerra Hispano-estadounidense fue muy apoyada por el periodismo estadounidense que, en ese entonces se encontraba en pleno crecimiento gracias a las nuevas tecnologías. No solo había aumentado la cantidad de diarios y la circulación de los mismos, sino que también había surgido una nueva forma de hacer periodismo, el amarillismo. Esta guerra sería el escenario donde el máximo representante de este periodismo amarillista, William Randolph Hearst, y el máximo representante del periodismo tradicional, Adolph Ochs, expondrían sus métodos periodísticos, su objetividad, su solvencia económica y su capacidad para obtener noticias y hacerlas llegar al público. Ambos hombres, cada uno desde su diario, el New York Journal y el New York Times respectivamente, defendería la expansión y el intervencionismo de su país, pero de formas muy distintas. Este trabajo pretende demostrar cómo cada diario se acomodó a esta lógica imperialista, cada uno desde su estilo.

This article examines the most consequential Constitutional case in American history regarding the right of the press to expose the origins of a war – while it was still being fought. The crisis of the early summer of 1971 was unprecedented. In the past, for the sake of national security, limitations had sometimes been imposed on newspapers and magazines condemning the war that was being fought – most notoriously, in the twentieth century, during the First World War. But the case of the Pentagon Papers was peculiar, because the New York Times, and soon the Washington Post, and then about two dozen other daily newspapers reprinted top secret documents that the press was not authorized to possess. The Supreme Court therefore had to resolve the conflict between the claims of the press under the seemingly unambiguous First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law . . .”) and the warning of the executive branch that the lives of American servicemen in Indochina were at stake because of the most enormous leak of secret government documents ever. The Pentagon Papers represent a revealing episode in the history of journalism, the history of governance and the history of jurisprudence.

This paper examines the role and scope of eyewitness images in open-source investigation, which is becoming a prominent genre of conflict reporting in its own right. Based on interviews with journalists at the Visual Investigations Unit at The New York Times and a textual analysis of their video reports, the paper sheds light on the paradoxical working of the genre, which simultaneously opens up and limits opportunities for eyewitness images as a platform for voice. The paper thus argues that despite the journalists' commitment to innovation, the logics of institutions, the corporate ethos of social media platforms, and the pervasive power of geopolitics continue to shape the articulation, recognition, and agency of voice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A content analysis (N = 520) of Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage in The New York Times (NYT) examined the use of frames and exemplars to understand how the ACA was covered from passage through repeal attempts in 2017. Results show an increase in episodic frames as the law took effect and citizens faced health coverage decisions. There was also a change in NYT use of exemplars over the years. In the earlier stage of the ACA, the exemplars featured elites such as politicians, but later focusing more on citizen experiences and the benefits of the ACA. Findings suggest the change in how the NYT framed the ACA increasingly involved personal stories about the law's benefits as well as the public's experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]