A01=Jonathan Mermin
Agenda-setting theory
Americans
Anti-war movement
Arbitration
Author_Jonathan Mermin
Brezhnev Doctrine
Capitulation (treaty)
Category=JBCT
Category=JPS
Category=JWL
Center for National Policy
Classical realism (international relations)
Cold War
Cold War (1985-91)
Contras
Council on Foreign Relations
Criticism
Declaration of war
Democracy in America
Democratic Leadership Council
Domestic policy
Editorial
eq_bestseller
eq_isMigrated=1
eq_isMigrated=2
eq_nobargain
eq_non-fiction
eq_society-politics
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Foreign policy
Foreign policy of the United States
Gulf War
Gunboat diplomacy
Imperialism
International crisis
International relations
Isolationism
Journalism
Maurice Bishop
Militarization
Military policy
Military threat
Neorealism (international relations)
Non-interventionism
Op-ed
Opposition Party
Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War
Peace and conflict studies
Policy debate
Political agenda
Political communication
Political science
Political spectrum
Political strategy
Political suicide
Politician
Politics
Politics Among Nations
Reagan Democrat
Real War
Reprisal
Saddam Hussein
Sanctions against Iraq
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Terrorism
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
The New York Times
Third World
Treaty
United States Institute of Peace
War
War effort
War of Attrition
War Powers Resolution
War resister
Washington Consensus
What Happened
World Politics
Product details
- ISBN 9780691005348
- Weight: 255g
- Dimensions: 197 x 254mm
- Publication Date: 21 Jul 1999
- Publisher: Princeton University Press
- Publication City/Country: US
- Product Form: Paperback
Secure
checkout
Fast Shipping
Easy returns
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.
Jonathan Mermin earned a Ph.D. and has been a lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Yale University, where he has led a major course on the news media and American politics. He has contributed to Political Science Quarterly and Political Communication.
