Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

Analysis:

The Grand Rapids Press ran this LA Times article on Wednesday, August 24. In the article they give a fairly long quote from Robertson in which he says that Chavez has made his nation “a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent” and also that “We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.” In response to these comments, the article quotes the Venezuelan vice-president who simply calls Robert’s remarks “Terrorist statements” and the Bush administration who called the comments “inappropriate.” Most of the article is focused on Robertson and the only independent voices presented are Jesse Jackson and the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and state, both who make comments about the level of Robertson’s political influence. No voices are presented giving further assessment of the validity of Robertson’s comments and his depiction of Hugo Chavez as a dictator.

It should be noted that what Robertson is calling for, the assassination of a foreign leader, is illegal under international as well as US law, a fact that was briefly mentioned in the GR Press article. In fact, the very act of just calling for political assassination, as Robertson did, may be illegal, depending on how one interprets Title 18 of the United States code. But more importantly, it should be noted that while all this article is critical of Robertson’s call for assassination, it does not challenge his claims about the need for political change in Venezuela or his depiction of Chavez as a “strong-arm dictator”. Not mentioned is the fact that Huge Chavez is a democratically elected official who has three times won elections and that the elections have been certified as valid by foreign observers. It is also worth noting that while Venezuela does not have a perfect human rights record, according to mainstream human rights organizations (1, 2), its record is much better than its neighbor Colombia, a country which is a US ally and recipient of more US military aid than any other country in the Hemisphere. Another important contextual bit of information left out of the GR Press article is that Venezuela is a major oil exporter and that their number one customer is the United States. This oil relationship is the reason Robertson said the US should assassinate Chavez; calling Chavez “a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil that could hurt us very badly.” This rationale which Robertson put forward was not included in the article. Finally, readers should ask themselves what would have been the response if a foreign religious leader had called for the assassination of George Bush or Tony Blair? Would the media portray those comments as merely “controversial” as in this case, or would they be denounced as illegal and possibly even terrorism?

Video clip of Robertson’s comments

Story:

WASHINGTON — Televangelist Pat Robertson’s call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez provoked a storm of criticism Tuesday, triggering condemnation from religious leaders and international outrage, though the Bush administration said he was a private citizen whose remarks were “inappropriate.”

Robertson, who did not comment on the furor, was criticized across the political spectrum in the United States. The head of the National Assn. of Evangelicals said Robertson was endangering the lives of Christian missionaries in Venezuela.

A pioneer of the nation’s evangelical political movement, Robertson is the founder of the Christian Coalition of America and was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988. Hundreds of thousands of his conservative Christian fans tune in daily to his television show “The 700 Club.”

Although in recent years the influence of the 75-year-old Robertson has ebbed among religious conservatives nationally, he retains a huge following and occupies a revered position within a key GOP constituency.

Robertson said on Monday’s “700 Club” program that the Venezuelan leader would make his nation “a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.” Killing Chavez, an ally of Cuban President Fidel Castro, would be “a whole lot cheaper than starting a war,” Robertson said.

He added: “We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200-billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”

In Venezuela, Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said Tuesday that Robertson’s remarks were “terrorist statements.” He condemned them as incitement to commit murder, and called on U.S. officials to make clear that the law applied “even to such Christians.”

An executive order signed by President Ford on Feb. 18, 1976, prohibits any U.S. government employee from engaging in political assassination.

Chavez, who was winding up a visit with Castro in Cuba, brushed off the controversy. He told reporters at Havana’s Jose Marti International Airport that he had never heard of Robertson and did not know or care what the televangelist had said.

Still, Robertson’s remarks caught — and exaggerated — the tensions that have existed between the Chavez and Bush administrations.

Some of his most vocal critics insisted in telephone interviews Tuesday that he remained influential.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said any effort to portray Robertson as lacking an audience was “just not accurate,” and the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Robertson had “tremendous authority in the minds and hearts of about 20% of the American electorate.”

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

Speaking at a news conference in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, Rangel said: “The ball is in the U.S. court after this criminal statement by a citizen of that country. It’s a huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those.”

Chavez, who according to polls has the approval of 70% of his nation even as poverty increases, uses his open hostility toward the United States to maintain his political foundation, and the U.S. government, wary of Chavez, nevertheless looks to Venezuela as a reliable supplier of oil.

The scope of Robertson’s influence drew considerable debate Tuesday.

His syndicated television program, for which he claims an audience of at least 1 million, has drawn an average of 863,000 viewers a day during the 2004-2005 television season, Nielsen Media Research said.

His electoral reach was at its peak in the 1988 presidential campaign. He won primary elections in Hawaii, Alaska, Nevada and Washington, but captured only 15% of his native state, Virginia, and was out of the race after the Super Tuesday contests.

Some in the evangelical movement have said Robertson’s influence among evangelicals in the United States had weakened.

“He’s an old man and there’s a group of old women and old men who watch him,” said one leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he said he respected Robertson’s past ministry and did not want to alienate Robertson’s followers. “The spokespeople for evangelicalism are significantly distanced from him politically and spiritually. The Moral Majority days are long gone. It’s a different world.”

Yet, Robertson maintains a degree of influence with the religious conservative movement through his Christian Broadcasting Network and, in particular, as a leader in the push to confirm conservative judges. He has had differences with the White House and is not considered a member of President Bush’s inner circle.

Bob Edgar, the general secretary of the National Council of Churches USA and who served as a Pennsylvania Democrat on the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1976 to 1979, said Robertson’s comments made no sense.

“It defies logic that a clergyman could so casually dismiss thousands of years of Judeo-Christian law, including the commandment that we are not to kill,” Edgar said.

The Rev. Ted Haggard, a Colorado pastor and president of the National Assn. of Evangelicals, said Robertson increased the danger for evangelical missionaries in Venezuela because “if this dictator starts to think of evangelicals as people who are gunning for him, that could be difficult for missionaries there.”

In California, the Rev. Kevin Mannoia compared Robertson’s statement to those of Islamic extremists. “We complain about the Islamic fanatics making statements like that,” said Mannoia, a former president of the National Assn. of Evangelicals who is now chaplain at Azusa Pacific University, an evangelical institution.

He called Robertson’s statement “an extreme, fanatical reaction that is not representative of the Christian faith in general and the evangelical movement in particular. It’s out of line and inappropriate and should not be made by a serious person in a serious forum.”

Mannoia said he thought Robertson’s influence was diminishing, particularly with new generations of evangelicals.

The ABC Family Channel, one of the outlets for “The 700 Club,” distanced itself from Robertson, saying in a statement that it was contractually obligated to carry the program and had “no editorial control over views expressed by the hosts or guests.”

“ABC Family strongly rejects the views expressed by Pat Robertson in the Aug. 22 telecast of the program,” the statement said.

Robertson’s office did not respond to a telephone call or an e-mail message seeking comments on his remarks and the reactions.

Robertson is familiar with controversy.

In 1998, he responded to a campaign to fly flags in downtown Orlando, Fla., to celebrate National Gay Pride Month with a warning to the city: “You’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you. This is not a message of hate; this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor.”

During the 2004 presidential campaign, in which he supported Bush’s reelection, Robertson said he had expressed to the president his misgivings about going to war with Iraq.

Bush told him, Robertson said on CNN, “Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.”

This year, Robertson said he would be wary of appointing Muslims to top positions in the U.S. government, including judgeships.

The White House made no comment on Robertson’s remarks. At the State Department, spokesman Sean McCormack said Robertson’s views did not “represent the policy of the United States.” He called the comments “inappropriate.”

“I would think that people around the world would take the comments for what they are,” he said. “They’re the expression of one citizen.”

But Bernardo Alvarez Herrera, Venezuela’s ambassador to the United States, pointed to Robertson’s Republican political ties and his support for Bush and said, “Mr. Robertson is, of course, no ordinary private citizen.”

McCormack rejected suggestions that Robertson’s remarks would damage the U.S. agenda in Latin America. One expert in the region said the comments amounted to a political windfall for Chavez.

“This is pure gold for Chavez,” said Moises Naim, editor of Foreign Policy magazine, who served as Venezuela’s minister of trade and industry and played a central role in starting economic reforms in the early 1990s. “He could not have wished for anything better to happen.”

The comments dominated news coverage in Venezuela, which is divided between fierce Chavez opponents and an equally strident and larger group of loyal Chavistas.

“As a Venezuelan, I can tell you it was just an act of stupidity,” said Livia Suarez, a civil servant who works for the ministry of communications. She said she did not take Robertson’s comments as representative of a broader segment of the U.S. population. “I think this man is speaking without support from anyone.”

Alberto Ravel, president of private Globovision TV, which has sparred with the populist president over curbs on broadcast media, said “a lot of us can’t understand how a priest could say such things, even among opponents of Chavez.”

Analysis:

This story provides very little journalism and is primarily a forum of stenography, where viewers are provided a brief summary of the issue and a sound bite from Pat Robertson calling for the assassination for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The story doesn’t explore the implications of this assassination call, both in terms of US relations with Venezuela, nor the legality of such a claim.

There are also no other voices heard in this story other than Pat Robertson’s. Particularly relevant would be a Venezuelan perspective, which Fox 17 does not provide. There is also no contextual information, particularly the US relationship with Venezuela since Chavez became President.

Story:

WXMI 17 News reader – A prominent Christian broadcaster wants the US to assassinate the President of Venezuela. Pat Robertson’s comments are causing a big uproar tonight. The White House says he went way too far, but Robertson is sticking with it. On his show the 700 Club he said “Hugo Chavez is going to turn Venezuela into a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.

Pat Robertson – We have the ability to take him out and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one strong arm dictator.

News reader – Chavez says he doesn’t even know who Robertson is. The televangelist ran for President in 1988. The Christian broadcast network says about a million people watch his show everyday.

Total Time: 48 seconds

Analysis:

This story basically plays into and perpetuates a limited debate between the two major political parties in Michigan. This is underscored by how the reporter frames the issue at the beginning when he says “it feels like fall doesn’t it. That is what happens when you combine the cool weather with a campaign for Governor that is already quite hot.” Viewers should ask themselves what is hot about the two major political parties making different claims?

The story is premised on claims by both sides having to do with job creation and job loss in Michigan. Viewers hear both Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer and GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Dick DeVos. They both make claims, but by the end of the story viewers have no idea which is telling the truth, especially since the reporter does not seek to independently verify either of the claims made. Viewers could ask themselves if an independent perspective or organization that looks at job loss or job creation in Michigan was also included in the story would that change your understanding of the issue?

Story:

WZZM 13 TV News reader – In other news today the Democrats made the claim months ago about the GOP’s leading contender for Governor sending jobs overseas. Now the Republicans respond. Today the fight for Michigan’s top seat heats up.

Reporter – Lee, it feels like fall doesn’t it. That is what happens when you combine the cool weather with a campaign for Governor that is already quite hot.

Reporter – It’s about this, Amway’s $200 million dollar investment in China. In the 90’s Republican Gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos was President of the company and helped open a plant there. While here in Michigan the company was trimming 600 jobs.

Dick DeVos – We expect that majority of the impact was going to be in the administrative areas as opposed to manufacturing.

Reporter – Michigan’s Democratic Party chairman…..

Mark Brewer – This is the record. Reduce employment in Michigan and invest overseas.

Reporter – ….has goaded DeVos about this for eleven weeks.

Mark Brewer – …..but he has not done a single thing in his tenure, as head of Amway, which has benefited the people of Michigan in terms of creating and keep jobs in this state.

Reporter – Finally, Monday DeVos responded.

Dick DeVos – Well it’s an absolute falsehood what the Governor is perpetuating, but it is understandable because the Governor would clearly rather talk about me than talk about the failed agenda of the Granholm administration.

Reporter – DeVos says China required Amway to build manufacturing there if they wanted to sell there.

Dick DeVos – The net result of the investment has been hundreds of jobs in Michigan, but not one job was moved from Michigan to China.

Reporter – Democrats Monday also alleged Amway imported product from China to America. Something DeVos’ spokesman denied.

DeVos Spokesman – Alticor has been a great success story for Michigan. The Governor on the other hand has been a big failure for Michigan.

Mark Brewer – I think we need to have a debate. I think we need to have a debate….

Reporter – And I think there will be plenty of debates. In fact, they are already underway for an election over 14 months away.

Total Time – 2 minutes and 3 seconds

Analysis:

In our studies on local media coverage of the Iraq war, we have noted that the local TV stations relied almost exclusively on official sources, government or military, for war reporting. These news outlets acted primarily as a conduit for official sources, rarely questioning or providing other perspectives, whether they are national or local. And yet, in the limited instances where the local media do report on a local event or action opposed to the war, great efforts are made to provide “balance” by including pro-war voices.

The coverage of yesterday’s national vigil to show support for Cindy Sheehan was no exception. While all three TV stations and the Grand Rapids Press covered the event, the coverage was superficial and lacked context. WZZM 13 ran a fairly lengthy piece in which they gave brief quotes from some of the organizers and participants of the vigil. After the piece ended, the newsreader stated: “Now that you’ve heard from the people who think that US forces should pull out of Iraq, we’d like to hear from those of you in support of the war. So you can call our talkback line at that number right there, 559-1302 and tell us why you think American military should stay in Iraq, we’ll listen to some of your responses at the end of tonight’s newscasts.” Some of these call-in responses were then played at the end of the broadcast.

Providing more than one perspective on an issue is one of the requirements of good journalism. And yet, it seems that the local media seem to hold to this standard only when reporting on voices or events that are critical of the war in Iraq, and not vice-versa. Stories and articles reporting on local soldiers and families, which make up a large percentage of the local news coverage of the Iraq war, almost never contain any perspectives critical of US government policy. In stories about unfolding events in Iraq, the voices presented are almost always governmental or military, and if an opposing voice is heard, it quite often is still coming from a “official” source, that is, an opposition voice within the government. Grass roots and citizen groups opposed to the war, while representing the concerns and opinions of large percentages of the American populace, are usually excluded, or if included, are juxtaposed with opposing voices.

Story:

News reader – A grieving Texas mother has become the focal point of the division in this country over the war in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan’s son died in Iraq and for the last twelve days she’s been holding a vigil outside President Bush’s ranch. She wants to talk to the president again and believes we should withdraw from Iraq now. She’s also accused the president of being a terrorist himself. Well tonight many are supporting Sheehan through vigils of their own, from this one in Washington DC to here in Holland and Grand Rapids. Tonight WZZM 13’s Kathy Reynolds has their story.

Reporter – In Monument park they light candles, one hundred strangers with only a feeling in common, a feeling of loss.

Diane Thole – Whether they’re wounded or coming home in a coffin, it’s just awful to hear.

Woman #2 – I just can’t comprehend what it must be like to lose a son or a daughter.

Reporter – this vigils one of more than fourteen hundred happening across the country, all in support of a woman they’ve never met.

Sheehan – this is a way that I can honor my son’s memory, by standing up and doing what I know is right too.

Reporter – Cindy Sheehan is a military mom whose son died in Iraq. She’s camping outside of President Bush’s Texas ranch.

Thole #1 – Cindy wants to meet with the President.

Man #2 – If I had my opportunity I’d be there with her.

Thole #1 – I relate to her like a sister.

Reporter – so many feel so close to Cindy, close to her message.

Woman #1 – She’s had a son in the military but she has always believed in peace. And that’s very much my own story.

Reporter – Diane Thole’s son is stationed near Baghdad.

Thole – this blue star means my son is still alive, you get a gold star when they die, and I’ve got a gold candle.

Reporter – Candles for strangers who have lost their lives and support for the families left behind. In Grand Rapids, Kathy Reynolds, WZZM 13 News.

Newsreader – Tonight’s nationwide vigils were organized by the political group Move on.org, a liberal advocacy group. Now that you’ve heard from the people who think that US forces should pull out of Iraq, we’d like to hear from those of you in support of the war. So you can call our talkback line at that number right there, 559-1302 and tell us why you think American military should stay in Iraq, we’ll listen to some of your responses at the end of tonight’s newscasts.

Analysis:

This story is what appears to be based on a press release from the American Beverage Association. This organization is not a neutral group. A look at their board of directors should be an indicator to people about what their interests are.

The story claims that the industry group wants to “join the fight against the increasing rate of childhood obesity,” but the channel 8 news reader never questions the industry intentions, nor provides a different perspective. The story provides the claim from the American Beverage Association that “drinks are not inherently bad and can be fine for active children who eat correctly.” This comment provides no context, such as the tremendous lobbying that the industry and individual soda companies engage in to push their products on children.

Story:

WOOD TV 8 News reader – Well, here is a story that ought to have lots of parents talking. The American Beverage Association is saying that they think it is a good idea to remove soda pop from elementary schools. Imagine that. The group recommended Tuesday that such drinks be pulled from vending machines in elementary schools. Their reasoning? The industry needs to join the fight against the increasing rate of childhood obesity. The groups’ president argues drinks are not inherently bad and can be fine for active children who eat correctly, but he says parents need to be sure their children are not getting excessive amounts of sugary drinks in school. Under the groups’ recommendation, Middle schoolers would have access to other kinds of drinks – like sports drinks, diet soda, and low calorie juices. High School students do have access to soda and the other drinks, but the machine would also have to be stocked with no more than 50% soda.

Total Time: 52 seconds

Analysis:

This story is one example of the numerous stories that appear int he local news whenever the price of gas rises significantly. In the three days from Aug 15 through Aug 17, the three local TV stations ran a combined total of seventeen stories on gas prices. Despite the large number of stories dedicated to this topic, very little information is usually offered as to why prices are rising. In this particular piece, a few possible reasons are offered, but with no elaboration. The viewer is told that gas prices are going up because of the London bombings and nuclear power plants in Iran but no clear linkage of these factors is provided. An expert is sourced as the president of IRN, but it is never explained what IRN is. Would it matter to the viewer to know that IRN is a local consulting firm serving the automotive industry? No other independent voices are presented representing consumer advocacy, environmental or alternative energy perspectives. Viewers should ask themselves why does the local news dedicate so much time reporting on gas prices, something that anyone that drives a motor vehicle is certainly aware of.

Story:

WXMI Newsreader – How high will they go? Rising gas prices with no relief in sight. The average cost for unleaded in Michigan is now $ 2.71, that’s up 67 cents from a year ago. Fox 17’s Rachel Calderon is live in Grand Rapids to show how people are coping with it.

Reporter – Amy, the cost for regular unleaded gas at some stations around town earlier today was about $2.55 a gallon, that’s a steal compared to where they are now $2.79 and it also looks like the cost to run a business is on its way up.

The sign at J Morello’s Pizzeria used to say fast and free delivery. Owner Jeff Murell says six months ago that had to change.

Murell – We went from free delivery to a dollar charge per delivery which I give straight to my drivers because of the gas issue with increasing prices.

Reporter – the added fee isn’t sitting well with customers. Explaining why doesn’t get him much sympathy.

Murell – But these guys are driving their own cars and paying their own insurance, I have to charge a dollar to give them something otherwise it cost them money to come to work.

Reporter – Grant Dubridge spent $ 84 filling up his carpet cleaning van. He said raising his rates isn’t something he wants to do.

Dubridge – It’s cutting into my costs, my profits, my ability to pay for my family, my home, my food.

Reporter – High gas prices are keeping kids at Shannon Franklin’s daycare center indoors this summer.

Franklin – We take the kids on outings and stuff like that but we try to cut it down because it’s high.

Reporter – The price around Grand Rapids, $ 2.79 a gallon. On May 27th gas was under 2 bucks. Economy experts say the hikes are a combination of what’s happening around the world, attacks in London, nuclear power plants in Iran, and what those events might do to the worlds oil supply. Key words: might.

Kim Kourth (IRN President) – Nothing Real. Nothing that actually has happened as yet. And then you have some industry structural issues where there are a fair number of refineries that were taken down for repair and maintenance.

Reporter – Kim believes the prices could come down soon but at the BP gas station, another problem.

Elayne Durham (BP Cashier) – You’re busy working at the register and you glance up to check the pumps and they’ll look you right in the eye and get in their car and drive away.

Reporter – The person that did got away with $ 63 in gas. With prices going up, stations say they are seeing more and more drive offs. And driving off is a larceny, if you do get caught you could spend up to 93 days behind bars, a second offense, you could lose your license. Live in Grand Rapids, Rachel Calderon, Fox 17 News at 10.

News reader – thanks Rachel, and we have all been on a roller coaster lately, gas prices going up and slowly falling. A few months ago we found prices for unleaded in Grand Rapids under two dollars, that was back in May. Compare that with today. Some stations jumped more than 30 cents in just a few hours. Last December it was at $ 1.65. and back in 2002 a gallon of unleaded was going for a dollar twenty. The all time high after figuring inflation, way back in 1982 a gallon of gas was over three dollars.

Analysis:

This story is problematic on many levels. First, the language that is used frames the story in such a way as to negate or minimize the fact that the land being “Handed over” to the Palestinians was their land to begin with. This fact is down played since there is only one reference to the 1967 War, which began the 38 year occupation of Palestinian land, an illegal occupation as stated in the United Nations Resolution 242.

Second, the only voices viewers hear are that of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former Israeli Cabinet Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. No Arab perspectives or independent voices are heard.

Lastly, while it may be true that Ariel Sharon is now receiving death threats, this point is taken out of context. To be fair, there would have to be some mention of the historical treatment and abuse of Palestinians under the occupation.

Story:

WXMI 17 News reader – Israeli troops bracing for most certain trouble tonight. The deadline for settlers to leave Gaza has come and passed. Now the Army is waiting for sunrise to move in a force them out. Handing over the land to the Palestinians.

Reporter – Israel took this land in 1967 during the so-called 6-day war. The man who helped lead that campaign is the same man who is telling his countrymen they have got to give up their homes and get out. The land is being given back to the Palestinians.

Ariel Sharon – We are taking this step with great anguish. We can not hold on to Gaza forever.

Reporter – But Prime Minister Ariel Sharon knows many of these residents are about to leave peacefully. Some are burning their homes and cars, shouting curses at the soldiers who have come to lead them away. Their determination buoyed by outside activists who snuck into the area. They claim they are anxious to take part in a last stand if that is what it comes to. Over the next few days Israeli troops will go house to house. They say they will be gentle at first but they will result to brute force if necessary. There have already been a few dozen arrests. Those who continue to defy the evacuation orders stand to lose roughly half of the compensation they have been offered by the government. No matter they say, this isn’t about money. They don’t want Palestinians to ever live on their land.

Former Israeli Cabinet Minister Netanyahu – I think this will in all likelihood this will become a base of terror.

Reporter – That is one opinion. Others in the government hope that Israel’s withdraw will help jump start the peace process, but it is really too soon to know what will come of all this upheaval. As we understand only roughly half of the 9,000 settlers that have been told to leave have complied. Now five times that many soldiers are on the scene. They’ll spend the next three weeks clearing out the area before the empty homes are bulldozed and the land is handed back to the Palestinians.

WXMI 17 News reader – Sharon support among Israeli’s is way down tonight and he is not going anywhere without body guards surrounding him at all times. He has apparently received numerous death threats.

Total Time: 2 minutes and 2 seconds

Analysis:

First, the story doesn’t say who organized the protest, which sort of implies that it is this one woman crusade. You can see in the video b-roll the name of one of the groups, Bring Them Home Now, yet this group not any of the other organizations involved were never mentioned in the story. Second, the reasons for the protest are not provided other than to simply say that Sheehan’s son was killed in Iraq in 2004. Sheehan did provide the more substantive reasons for her protest, but channel 8 did not run those. Here is an excerpt of those comments “I want him to tell me is ‘just what was the noble cause Casey died for?’ “Was it freedom and democracy? Bullshit! He died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East. We’re not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get *America out of Iraq* and *Israel out of Palestine* and you’ll stop the terrorism. There, I used the “I” word, imperialism, and now I’m going to use another “I” word, impeachment because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail.” A question for listeners to consider is, if comments like these are included in the story, does that change how the public understands what is going on? What we have found in our news monitoring is that while protests might be reported on from time to time, the reasons for the protest are rarely given.

Story:

WOOD TV 8 News reader – President Bush spoke publicly today about the California mother who has been protesting outside his Texas ranch. The woman’s son died in Iraq a year ago.
Reporter – Cindy Sheehan says her grief turned to anger, but feels the two demands she brought from California to a tent in Crawford. Sheehan – This is George Bush’s accountability moment and we are not leaving Crawford until we hold him accountable.
Reporter – Accountable for the deaths of US troops, including her oldest son Casey, an Army specialist, killed in Iraq last year. Sheehan met the President then, but wants another meeting now turn urge Mr. Bush to withdraw from Iraq. Sheehan – He is on vacation here for 5 weeks. I don’t understand why he can’t take an hour to speak with somebody who’s life he has devastated. Reporter – Other military families joined her here. Demonstrators planted hundreds of crosses to line the dusty road. While senior advisors said the President understands and respects her position he does not plan to meet Sheehan and says a full pull-out of troops would be wrong. Bush – Listen, I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan. She feels strongly about her position and she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America, she has a right to her position.
Total Time: 1 minute 22 seconds

Analysis:

This is a rather short news clip, being less than half a minute long. It starts out with the newsreader stating that “US forces on a major offensive to route out insurgents in Iraq, Operation Quick strike is unfolding north west of Baghdad where 22 marines were killed just last week.” Rather than providing any more information about this operation, the rest of the story is some grainy aerial footage of what is described as insurgents firing a mortar and then being destroyed by a missile fired by a US drone. In the report it is noted that the footage is provided by the pentagon. This footage is available online at the DVIDS website, which is a site run by the military providing news stories and footage to news agencies. On the DVIDS website this same footage is available but it is identified as “Aerial Imagery of insurgents detonating a car bomb”, a very different description than what is offered in the story. Looking at the footage it’s hard to tell which is the accurate description of events. Also worth noting is that according to the DVIDS site, this clip was filmed on Aug 2. Operation Quick Strike, which is what the story is supposed to be about, was launched on August 5th, three days later, so this footage actually is not related to this operation.

Story:

WXMI 17 Newsreader – US forces on a major offensive to route out insurgents in Iraq, Operation Quick Strike is unfolding northwest of Baghdad where twenty two marines were killed just last week. Tonight the Pentagon is releasing some video from one of those UAV remote control spy planes. It spots some insurgents firing mortar rounds from a school yard. They escaped in a car but the unmanned drone then follows them to a safe house and then launches a hellfire missile at the building, killing all the terrorists inside.

Total Time: 25 seconds