Library Catalog
Amazon cover image
Image from Amazon.com

Debating War and Peace : Media Coverage of U.S. Intervention in the Post-Vietnam Era / Jonathan Mermin.

By: Material type: TextTextPublisher: Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, [1999]Copyright date: ©1999Edition: Core TextbookDescription: 1 online resource (168 p.) : 20 tablesContent type:
Media type:
Carrier type:
ISBN:
  • 9780691005348
  • 9781400823321
Subject(s): DDC classification:
  • 070.4/49355/033073 327.73
LOC classification:
  • P96.W352U556 1999
Other classification:
  • online - DeGruyter
Online resources: Available additional physical forms:
  • Issued also in print.
Contents:
Frontmatter -- Contents -- Tables -- Preface -- One. Introduction -- Two. The Spectrum of Debate in the News -- Three. Grenada and Panama -- Four. The Buildup to the Gulf War -- Five. The Rule and Some Exceptions -- Six. Television News and the Foreign-Policy Agenda -- Seven. Conclusion -- Appendix -- Index
Summary: 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.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number URL Status Notes Barcode
eBook eBook Biblioteca "Angelicum" Pont. Univ. S.Tommaso d'Aquino Nuvola online online - DeGruyter (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Online access Not for loan (Accesso limitato) Accesso per gli utenti autorizzati / Access for authorized users (dgr)9781400823321

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Tables -- Preface -- One. Introduction -- Two. The Spectrum of Debate in the News -- Three. Grenada and Panama -- Four. The Buildup to the Gulf War -- Five. The Rule and Some Exceptions -- Six. Television News and the Foreign-Policy Agenda -- Seven. Conclusion -- Appendix -- Index

restricted access online access with authorization star

http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec

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.

Issued also in print.

Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.

In English.

Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 30. Aug 2021)