|
Literature
Review
Tone of coverage
We anticipate the tone of
the reports produced by embedded reporters will be more positive toward
the military than those reports from non-embedded reporters, and we
expect that the reports will be more episodic in nature. We present
five theories from communication literature illustrating how this integration
affected the reporter-troop relationship and subsequent reporting tone.
By becoming functioning
members of the military units, the reporter’s objectivity is biased
in favor of their new associates. The embedded reporters use the ideas
set down in social penetration, organizational culture, organizational
trust and organizational identity theories to become integrated, trusted
team members. This bias facilitates the reporter’s producing more
positive coverage of the military and its personnel. Bob Steel, from
the Poynter Institute, an organization for journalists, says the embedding
is health and allowed journalists to understand the complexities of
war (PBS, 2003). One explanation for a possible bias is found in Social
penetration theory.
Social penetration theory
This theory states that
as relationships develop, communication moves from relatively shallow,
non-intimate levels to deeper, more personal ones (Altman & Taylor,
1973). Originally proposed by Altman and Taylor in 1973, the theory
has been expanded upon over the years. Altman and Taylor laid out a
framework for examining interpersonal relationships. There are four
stages in social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973). The
orientation stage is the first stage where individuals get a feel for
each other without revealing much detail about them. The exploratory
affective exchange stage represents when individuals are more relaxed
and open with one another. They will share some information with one
another. The affective exchange stage is the stage of friendships and
romantic relationships; it is a stage where intimate details are known
about each other. The final stage, the stable exchange stage, is a long-standing
intimate relationship.
Another major component
of social penetration theory is that of breadth and depth of relationships.
Relationships between individuals grow more intimate when personal and
intimate details are gradually revealed. The orientation stage is typified
by superficial behavior and communication. Communication becomes less
superficial and more personal with the advancement of each stage (Miller,
2002). This is characterized as the breadth and depth of relational
communication. The onion model of social penetration is the symbol to
show how a relationship, like an onion, has layers that lead to a deeper
point. It is a metaphor for breadth and depth (Altman & Taylor,
1973).
The third and fourth major pieces of social penetration theory are self-disclosure
and reciprocity, respectively (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Self-disclosure
occurs when an individuals reveals information about themselves. This
disclosure may range from non-intimate to intimate (Miller, 2002). For
example, saying “I am from Michigan” and saying “I
used to dream of being an actor” are wholly different levels of
self-disclosure (Miller, 2002). The former is a less-intimate detail
while the latter is more intimate. Reciprocity essentially is the idea
that when one person divulges intimate details about themselves, the
person receiving the information will likely respond with a similar
response (Miller, 2002). A final element of relationship development
in Altman and Taylor’s social penetration theory is the aspect
of motivation force as a social exchange theory (Altman & Taylor,
1973). Altman and Taylor posited that when individuals meet they conduct
a reward/cost assessment (Altman & Taylor, 1973). This assessment
continues throughout the lifespan of the relationship. As relationship
develops individuals look at the possible rewards of becoming increasingly
intimate, however, the individuals also look at the cost of such actions.
Taylor and Altman (1973) posited this is what motivates individuals
to either withdraw from a relationship or self-disclose more.
Social penetration theory has been used by researchers to look at many
different types of relationships. Its broad perspective makes this possible.
For example, social penetration has been used to examine the relational
development between nurses and patients (Williams, 2001), and to look
at the ethical and moral decisions and their impacts on personal relationships
(Baack, Fogliaso & Harris, 2000). These same concepts relate to
how the embedded journalists developed relationships with the military
members in the units. Greg Kelly, an embedded Fox News reporter and
former Marine said the reporters were ‘emotionally invested’
in the combat operations and wanted the unit he was assigned to be successful
(Carr, 2003). Another reason for a positive bias with embed reporting
is based on organizational culture.
Organizational culture
Organizational culture is a set of practices seen as characteristics
of an organization that distinguish it from other organizations and
captures the essence of the organization and how it operates as a social
collectivity (Meek, 1988). Every organization has its own unique culture
or value set. Most organizations do not consciously try to create a
certain culture. The culture of the organization is typically created
unconsciously, based on the values of the upper management or the founders
of the organization. History shapes the organizational culture by affecting
values and beliefs that have developed over time (Park and Luo, 2001).
Organizational culture is the personality of the organization and is
not limited to the organizational leaders and managers. Every member
participates in the culture of the organization consciously and subconsciously.
Culture is to an organization as personality is to an individual. Like
human culture, the culture of the organization is generally passed from
one generation to the next. The culture is comprised of the assumptions,
values, norms, and tangible signs of organization members and their
behaviors. Members of an organization soon come to sense the particular
culture of an organization. Culture is one of those terms that are difficult
to express distinctly, but everyone can sense it. For example, the culture
of a large, for-profit corporation is quite different from that of a
hospital, which is quite different that that of a university. You can
tell the culture of an organization by looking at the arrangement of
furniture, what they brag about, what members wear, similar to what
you can use to get a feeling about someone’s personality. The
culture is also made up of the organization’s practices of rites
and ceremonies. Rites are elaborate dramatic activities that consolidate
cultural expressions into one event, while rituals are the norms and
behaviors that enact the rites. Rites and ceremonies are public events
like retirement dinners, new member orientations, and award ceremonies,
whereas rituals are less scripted behaviors like handshakes, coffee
breaks, gift giving, and staff meetings. While these symbols are common
in organizations, they lack conceptual distinction. While some of this
is contested, researchers acknowledge patterned and repeated social
activities serve an important role in maintaining an organization’s
infrastructure (Putnam, Phillips, & Chapman, 1998).
Just as individuals process information, so do groups and units of people.
In doing so, they develop collective belief systems about social arrangements.
These include beliefs about organizational purpose, criteria of performance,
the location of authority, legitimate bases of power, decision-making
orientations, style of leadership, compliance, evaluation, and motivation;
as well as consistency, consensus, and clarity. These beliefs can affect
the personality of the group, including generating an increased sense
of loyalty, commitment, and enthusiasm (Martin, 1992).
There are differing views on how this immersion in the military culture
affects the journalists and their reporting. Susan Stevenson (“Pros
and Cons,” 2003) from the Atlanta-Journal-Constitution believes
the embedded reporters make the stories real, lending immediacy and
humanity to the reports. While Syracuse University professor Robert
Thompson warns, “When you are part of the troops that you’re
going in with, these are your fellow human beings. You are being potentially
shot at together, and I think there is a sense that you become part
of that group in a way that a journalist doesn’t necessarily want
to be” (“Pros and Cons”, 2003).
Embedded reporters become immersed in the culture and belief systems
of the military service and unit they are assigned to. As they learn
about the organization’s rites, beliefs, and ethics they start
to understand and accept the level of organizational trust and comradeship
among the military members. We believe the knowledge and acceptance
of military norms will affect the tone and style of reporting.
As embedded reporters merge into the military culture, they also learn
about the organizational trust, which can also bias their reporting.
Organizational trust. Organizational Trust has existed as long as man
has been gathering together to work as teams. Webster (1996) defines
organization as an administrative and functional structure (such as
a business or political party) and trust as the assured reliance on
the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something;
to place confidence. Research also found organizational trust is not
only affected by individuals within an organization, but is affected
by external organizations as well (Rogel, 2003). While trust is usually
gained over time, in highly dynamic organizations in crises or crisislike
situations, the members quickly form a cohesive collective mind. This
swift-trust arises during dangerous, uncertain situations, such as combat
(Soeters, 2000). This is reflected in comments made by embedded Cable
News Network reporter Walter Rogers when one of the troops he was traveling
with shot an Iraqi soldier who was sneaking up on their vehicle. “When
you share an experience of danger – that together you have cheated
death – it certainly has an effect on people” (Carr, 2003).
Organizational trust is defined by Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, and Winograd
(2000) as positive expectations individuals have about the intent and
behaviors of multiple organizational roles, relationships, experiences
and interdependencies. Although extensive research is limited, researchers
have discovered successes of organizational trust through several methodologies.
These include Galford and Seibold Drapeau’s (2003) five key building
blocks, the development of a model of trust, consisting of the five
dimensions for both individuals and organizations (Mishra, 1996; Shockley-Zalabak,
Ellis, & Winograd, 2000), and Golin’s (2003) 10 commandments
of organizational trust. Additionally, the need for trust (Mayor, Davis,
& Schoorman, 1995), how violations of trust affect an organization
(Braun, 1997) as well as the importance of the role of the leader (Galford
& Seibold Drapeau, 2003) are significant.
Organizational trust includes trust in the unit (organization), the
unit’s mission and it’s leaders. This is only one of many
examples of organizational trust from a military perspective. Organizational
trust is an unwritten act occurring on a daily basis. The success or
failure of an organization is dependent on organizational trust, or
the lack of it.
It wasn’t until the early 1980’s that Barnes (1983) studied
organizational trust independently. Barnes (1983) describes organizational
trust as expectations individuals have about networks of organizational
relationships and behaviors. Barnes goes onto say that networks of trust
hold important implications for the organization’s ability to
participate in adaptive organizational forms and succeed in crisis management.
In The Evolution of Cooperation, Axelrod (1984) identifies the importance
of trust ranging within echelons of the organizational activities (teamwork
and leadership). In recent years definitions of how individuals experience
trust have gone from emphasis on intentions and motivations to behavioral
orientations (Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, 2000). Organizational
trust is viewed as positive expectations individuals possess about the
intent and behaviors of multiple organizational members based on organizational
roles, relationships, and experiences (Hosmer, 1995).
The embedded reporter is just as affected by organizational trust as
the military unit members. As members of a military unit, the embedded
reporters must build and identify with the same positive expectations
the troops have about the intent and behaviors of the multiple organizational
roles, relationships, experiences and interdependencies within the unit.
In the following pages, it is demonstrated how these attributes can
be reflected in the organizational identity, another factor in an embed
journalist developing a predisposition in their reporting.
Organizational identity
According to Albert and Whetten (1985) in their seminal article, “Organizational
Identity”, an organization’s identity is comprised of their
central, distinctive, and enduring features. Over the past 18 years,
this idea has continued to be a foundation of organizational identity
research, although researchers have also expanded their studies to embrace
the
individual identity as it impacts the organizational identity (Rodrigues
& Child, 2002).
In order to understand organizational identity, it is imperative to
understand it’s concepts. Continuity and distinctiveness are the
two identity requirements in both individual and organizational identity
concepts. Identity is built around those attributes which satisfy a
person’s need to have stability, while allowing them the flexibility
to express their own distinctiveness (Whetten & Mackey, 2002). Organizational
identity requires continuity for stability, and distinctiveness to help
differentiate the organization or it’s product from competitors
(Whetten & Mackey, 2002).
An organization’s identity is vital to preserving employee loyalty.
In an era of increased availability of communications through live news,
worldwide programming, and the internet, organizations have discovered
that their internal audience, employees, are also their external audience.
Employees can also be consumers of the organization’s products.
This blurring of organizational lines requires organizations to ensure
their identity is accurately portrayed to both the employee and the
consumer. If an employee sees a different organizational identity being
marketed to customers outside organization, the employee can become
disenchanted with the organization, affecting that employee’s
identity within the organization (Cheney & Christensen, 2001).
Managers study organizational identity to help initiate change within
their organizations (Fiol, 2002), and to help combat perceived threats
to the organization’s identity (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996). On
an individual level, understanding how people identify themselves with
the organization can assist in predicting personnel turnover (Mael &
Ashforth, 1995). Personal organizational identity can include an affiliation
with both the company or organization with which an individual is employed,
such as a newspaper, or with other people throughout a career field,
such as journalism (Kuhn & Nelson, 2002).
As the study of organizational identity progressed, researchers saw
the need to investigate how individuals identified themselves within
the organization, with the organization’s identity, and with other
groups (Mael & Ashforth, 1995; Russo, 1998; Kuhn & Nelson, 2002).
The research expanded into how organizations identify themselves with
other organizations (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996).
Early researchers consolidated organizational identity with the related
constructs of organizational commitment and internalization (Ashforth
& Mael, 1989). Identification can be defined as organization-specific,
while internalization and commitment are not (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
Social identity theory (SIT) has been used to link an individual’s
identity to their perception of, and interaction within, the constructs
of the organizational identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This identification
with the salient group memberships within an organization helps a person
define their perception of oneness or belonging to a group (Ashforth
& Mael, 1989).
Researchers have studied how organizational identity affects the way
organizations interpret issues, and the actions taken to correct problems.
The organizational identity has the ability to shade and shape the organization’s
interpretation of issues and the way it deals with the issues (Dutton
& Dukerich, 1991). People outside an organization, including researchers,
investors or leaders of other organizations, scrutinize the manner in
which an organization responds to issues because they use these actions
(or inactions) to make character judgments about the organization and
it’s members (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). The connection between
an individual’s perception of the organization versus their sense
of who they are and what their values are, influences how the individual
responds to issues and their support of the organization in resolving
those issues.
During the genesis of organizational identity studies, it was discovered
that individuals may identify with multiple organizations. A case study
of newspaper journalists showed that the identities of the research
subjects included the newspaper (as an organization), and the career
of journalism (as another type of organization or brotherhood). Because
journalists are in a specialized skill group, they frequently identify
themselves as being part of an organization even before they are hired
to a specific newspaper (Russo, 1998). The study concluded there were
positive relationships between organizational identification, professional
identification, and job satisfaction.
As new members of the military unit, the embedded reporters built relationships
with military members, linking their own identities with those of the
military member and the units. This identification with the salient
group membership defined the reporter’s perception of oneness
or belonging to the group. The reporter’s identification with
the units with which they were embedded was clear in the way they frequently
used the term “we” during their reporting (Ricchiardi, 2003).
This identification gave the reporters insight into the military members
and their mission, building the foundations for open communication through
positive relationships as defined through social penetration theory.
As the newest members of the military units they are assigned to, embedded
reporters use the concepts delineated in organizational culture, organizational
trust, organizational identity and social penetration to become integrated,
trusted team members.
We’ve shown through theory and anecdotal evidence, embedded reporters
were assimilated in the military units they were assigned to cover during
Operation Iraqi Freedom. As a result, we posit that:
H1: Compared to non-embedded reporting, embedded journalist produce
more positive coverage of
a) military generally, and b) its personnel.
Framing of stories
The reporters develop their news stories by choosing their perceived
reality of the events and bounding, or framing the information. The
reporter is embedded with troops who are now fundamental elements of
the reporter’s existence. This affects the topic of the reports,
emphasizing concrete and specific events of episodic news coverage.
Media Framing
Miller (2002) states that, “framing is a process through which
the media emphasize some aspects of reality and downplays other aspects”
(p. 262). The conceptual studies and explorations that led to Miller’s
definition are the result of almost a century of scholarly research.
Framing concepts have their roots in the observations and conceptual
developments of Walter Lippman (1922) and Goffman (1974). While these
early studies of media influence do not specifically refer to framing,
the concept of creating “pictures in our heads” is attributed
to Walter Lippman (1922) and is the same terminology used to define
framing today (Infante, Rancer, Womack, 1990).
Walter Lippman, a newspaper columnist in the 1920’s, proposed
that media created “images” in the minds of the public and
that politicians should take heed with respect to those “pictures”
being put in people’s heads (Infante et al, 1990). He proposed
that media could control public opinion by focusing on selected issues
and ignoring others (Kelton, 1997). As a newspaperman, he also warned
the public that media firsthand experiences were limited, so the public
should be wary when it depended on the media to report events. Lippman
(1922) went on to stress that “facts of modern life do not spontaneously
take shape on their own; they must be shaped by somebody…”
(p. 345).
In the mid-1970’s, the concept of framing received increased attention
from media researchers in the communication, sociology and political
science arenas (Rees, 2001). Framing in general refers to the way the
media organize events and issues in their reporting. Although an outgrowth
of Lippman’s works, many scholars are credited with initial development
of the concept of framing. The concept of framing, as we know it, is
a result of works by Goffman (1974)
in his book Frame Analysis: An essay on the organizational of experience.
He credits Bateson with originating the metaphor of framing (Takeshita,
1997). Maher (2001) stated that Bateson described framing as a certain
set of rules for making and understanding messages. Bateson’s
early concepts of “how” you frame versus “what”
issues were framed did lay the groundwork for heated framer versus agenda
setter discussions of today. Goffman (1974) defined framing as the meaning
a person gives to a particular situation, referring mainly to face-to-face
interpersonal encounters (Goffman, 1974). Takeshita (1997) explains
that Goffman’s description could be interpreted as people using
different frames for different types of media content. For example,
if a person were watching a television advertisement, they would apply
an advertising frame, which warns the person to take the communication
at face value because they are trying to sold something. The person
would apply different frames to drama’s and newscasts.
Concepts of framing come from both psychological and sociological origins.
Psychologists define framing as “changes in judgment caused by
alternatives to the definition of judgment,” while the sociological
perspective on framing was derived from the works of Bateson and Goffman
and focused on the use of story lines, symbols and stereotypes in media
presentations (Takeshita, 1997, p.23). Researchers in the late 1970’s
and early 1980’s expanded on Goffman’s work and developed
a plethora of definitions for framing. Origins of the term “framing”
in communication generally come from photography and cinematography,
where framing refers to camera angles and styling of the message to
set certain tones and messages (McCombs & Ghanem, 2001). Most researchers
defined framing in general terms of the “effect” it had
on the audience as well as by “how” it was accomplished
(Ghanem, 1997).
According to Enteman (1993), frames “call attention to some aspects
of reality while obscuring other elements, which might lead audiences
to have different reactions” (p. 55). Enteman (1993) also said
that, “To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality
and make them more salient in a communication context, in such a way
as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation,
moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described”
(p. 52).
Probably the most succinct definition was put forth by Tankard, Hendrickson,
Silberman, Bliss, and Ghanem (1991) when they described a media frame
as “the central organizing idea for news content that supplies
a context and suggests what the issue is through the use of selection,
emphasis, exclusion and collaboration” (as cited in Ghanem, 1997).
As media became a more powerful influence on public opinion, so did
the interest in “what” the media was trying to interest
the public in and more importantly “how” they were doing
it. Framing methodology in the 1980’s and 1990’s became
very popular because scholars saw this as the way to explore the process
behind media influence.
Iyengar (1991) describes framing as “how” a news organization
decides to cover an issue, relying on subtle differences in working,
placement, and choice of stories. In examining news coverage Iyengar
(1991) referenced the categories of thematic and episodic to explain
styles of media reporting. Episodic news coverage focuses on concrete
and specific events and the thematic focuses on the issue in a very
general context (Iyengar, 1991). For example, Iyengar notes that political
issues take on episodic framing with a focus on specific events, while
thematic framing places the political issues in a context (Iyengar,
1991). Typically, the networks frame episodically when depicting public
issues or specific events like a homeless person, unemployed worker
or a bombing of an airliner because episodic frames make for good pictures
(Iyengar & Simon, 1993). In contrast, the thematic news frame covers
abstract subjects such as government welfare costs and changes in federal
jobs programs in the form of expert talking heads or background reports
(Iyengar & Simon, 1993). Given the fast pace of news today, networks
tend to rely on episodic framework because it is visually appealing
and consists of live coverage (Iyengar & Simon, 1993).
Iyengar and Simon (1993) reviewed three types of media affects that
influenced public opinion during the Persian Gulf War, agenda setting,
priming and framing. For the purpose of this literature review, the
focus will be on framing. The examination of the Gulf crisis assessed
the degree to which the network news was episodic and the effects the
exposure to the news had on respondent policy preferences (Iyengar &
Simon, 1993). For six months after the invasion of Kuwait, television
and its viewers focused on the Iraqi occupation, the American buildup,
the launching of Desert Storm and the liberation of Kuwait (Iyengar
& Simon, 1993). The researchers found that one-third of all the
prime time newscasts between August 1990 and March 1991 were devoted
to the crisis (Iyengar & Simon, 1993).
Through the process of framing, embedded reporters select some aspects
of a perceived reality and make it more salient in a communication context,
covering an issue by relying on subtle differences in how the story
is developed and story or topic choice. Because the reporter is embedded
with troops who are integral to the completion of a mission, the reporter’s
choice of story topic emphasizes the concrete and specific events of
episodic news coverage.
Through the concepts of framing, we predict:
H2: Compared to non-embedded reporting, embedded
journalists produce more episodically-framed stories.
In explorations and development of our hypothesis, some other interesting
questions were raised and we took note on two in particular. We wondered
in fact, what is the perception of the military personnel on the strategy
of embedding media with combat units. This question led directly to
a follow on question on how the perceptions were being formed based
on where the military members were getting their news. Therefore we
have posited the following questions:
RQ1: What are military personnel’s perceptions of the tone
of news coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom, their sense of other military
member’s perceptions of the tone of coverage, and their sense
of the public’s perception of the tone of coverage.
RQ2: What is the contribution of specific communication media to military
personnel’s perception of the strategy of embedding?
|
