The Construction of Cuba in The New York Times and The Washington
Post
William M. Kunz
Doctoral Student
and
Alan G. Stavitsky
Assistant Professor
School of Journalism and Communication
1275 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1275
(541) 346-5848
[log in to unmask]
A paper submitted for presentation to the International
Communication
Division, 1996 AEJMC Convention, Anaheim.
The Construction of Cuba in The New York Times and The Washington
Post
Abstract
This study examines the coverage of Cuba by The New York Times and
The Washington Post during sample periods in 1985 and 1992-1993. A content
analysis found Cuba was "constructed" from a U.S. perspective: a heavy reliance
on U.S.-based sources, especially government officials; and story subjects
dealing primarily with issues of interest to the United States. The findings
suggest the U.S. government has been successful in shaping the parameters of
debate involving policy toward Cuba.
The Construction of Cuba in The New York Times and The Washington Post
Introduction
Bill Clinton is the ninth United States president to confront Cuba
under the rule of Fidel Castro, and he has endorsed a basic framework for U.S.
policy that was constructed by the Kennedy Administration. The policy aims to
isolate Cuba from the international community and to undermine and destabilize
Castro's internal hold on power. What makes U.S. policy toward Cuba so
interesting is that it was built around the themes of the Cold War, but remains
frozen in time after that war was declared over. Another constant during
Castro's tenure has been criticism of American journalists for being "soft" on
the Cuban leader and his government. But how legitimate are these accusations?
Have American media indeed been sympathetic to Castro and his revolution, or
have they adopted the vision of the United States government? Moreover, have
the media created a "marketplace of ideas" that provides and challenges the
public to consider a diversity of views, ideas and opinions so that citizens can
hold their representatives accountable, which is, in theory, a cornerstone of
self-government and democracy?
The question for this research, then, becomes whether the American
media -- The New York Times and The Washington Post in particular, as newspapers
of record -- have thoroughly examined U.S. policy toward Cuba and questioned
whether the U.S. government should consider other policy alternatives, or
whether they have allowed official sources to reframe the confrontation between
Washington and Havana so that the antipathy continues long after the Cold War
has been declared over.
This study illuminates anew the subject of government influence upon
public communication, and its implications for policy making. As Schudson has
noted: "(T)he story of journalism, on a day-to-day basis, is the story of the
interaction of reporters and officials."[1] Scholars have written in numerous
contexts how reliance upon official sources is a journalistic routine that helps
newspeople produce the news efficiently.[2] Stavitsky and Gleason found that
even avowedly "alternative" news organizations (National Public Radio and
Pacifica Radio) relied heavily upon official sources.[3] However, by granting
government officials a "privileged voice in the news,"[4] to use Bennett's term,
it has been argued that journalists afford officials an opportunity to "manage
the news," to establish the parameters of debate about a given issue.[5] Looking
at The New York Times coverage of the U.S. invasion of Panama, Dickson argued
that the newspaper, while providing a forum for critics of the invasion, allowed
the government "to define and dominate the political debate."[6] The case of
United States-Cuba relations provides a fresh context, largely neglected by
scholars in recent years, within which to re-examine these assumptions.
Previous Studies of U.S. Media Coverage of Cuba
There has been a dearth of scholarly research into the portrayal of
Castro and Cuba in the U.S. media. Indeed much of the work dealt with the early
years of Castro's regime, from January 1959 when he assumed power, through the
Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961. For example, Francis examined coverage of
Castro in 17 U.S. newspapers during that period and concluded that journalists
emphasized Castro's anti-American statements while neglecting the impact of his
social and economic reforms.[7] Other studies reached similar conclusions.[8]
Though conservative commentators have criticized the U.S. media for
lauding Castro,[9] little academic research has been conducted during the past
three decades. Probably the most significant study was undertaken by Lenart and
Targ, who studied The New York Times coverage of Cuba between 1982 and 1990.
Their analysis found a distinct shift in the Times' portrayal of Cuba after
1985, when relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union warmed; Cold War
themes were replaced by an increase in stories about Cuban human rights
violations. Lenart and Targ concluded that "(t)he official U.S. position...is
relayed by the media to the public with disturbing fidelity."[10]
Methodology
Samples were drawn from The New York Times and The Washington Post to
determine which primary news frames (defined as general themes and topics of
stories) and which news sources were most prominent in the coverage of issues
and events related to Cuba. Samples were drawn from two 12-month periods:
January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985 and September 1, 1992 through August
31, 1993. These periods were selected because they encompassed significant
issues and events in the relationship between Cuba and the United States, as
will be discussed below.
The units of analysis for the Times were all articles, including
editorials and columns, listed under the heading of Cuba, or cross-referenced
under another heading, in The New York Times Index.[11] The units of analysis
for the Post were all articles, including editorials and columns, listed under
the heading of Cuba, or cross-referenced under another heading, in The Official
Washington Post Index (1985) and The Washington Post Index (1982 and 1993).[12]
Since the Post was not cross-referenced as thoroughly as the Times index,
however, additional articles from the Post identified through a search of the
Nexis database in which Cuba was a primary topic were included in the sample.
A series of items were coded in each unit in the sample. These
included the primary news frame and the specific news topic. The primary news
sources, defined as individuals quoted or cited, were also coded. The final item
that was coded in each article was the dateline.
The raw data derived from the content analysis were examined in
various ways. The primary news frame, specific news topics, sources and
datelines for the Times and Post were compared within each sample period. Those
items were also compared between the 1985 sample period and the 1992-93 sample
period to determine if there were any significant increases or decreases. A
chi-square goodness of fit test, with a probability level of .05, was calculated
for the comparisons between the two sample periods.
The empirical analysis of The New York Times and The Washington Post
produced a data set of 430 articles for the two sample periods combined: 247
articles for the January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985 sample period, and
183 articles for the September 1, 1992 through August 31, 1993 sample. The
first author coded all articles in the two sample periods, with 10 percent of
the total sample double-coded for primary news frame and specific news topics to
test intercoder reliability. The intercoder reliability was .90 for primary
news frame and .80 for specific news topics.
Results for January 1, 1985 - December 31, 1985
The primary news frame results for the 1985 sample are displayed in
Table 1, and they indicate a strong correlation between the issues being
stressed by the Reagan Administration and those being covered by the Times and
Post. This is most evident in the percentage of articles that related to Cuba's
military involvement in Central America and Africa, which accounted for 28.7% of
the total sample. The Times sample indicates an even stronger tendency to
emphasize Cuba's military involvement, accounting for 31.3% of the sample, more
than any other single category.
The 1985 sample also indicates a strong tendency to view Cuba from a
U.S. foreign policy perspective. For the total sample, 29.1% of the articles
addressed issues related to United States - Cuba relations, while another 17.3%
involved domestic issues in the United States that related to Cuba, including
deportation proceedings of Cubans who had arrived during the Mariel exodus in
1980 but were labeled by the United States government as "undesirables." But
what is most striking is the dearth of articles in either the Times or Post in
which domestic issues or events in Cuba were the primary focus. The four
categories that were designed to contain such stories--Cuba: Politics, Cuba:
Economics, Cuba: Social, and Cuba: Culture--combined accounted for only 13.0% of
the total sample.
==================================================================
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
==================================================================
Specific news topics stressed by the Reagan Administration were the
most prominent in the sample. Twice during 1985, first in February and then
again in December, the Reagan Administration requested that Congress allocate
millions of dollars in military aid to the Contras in Nicaragua on the grounds
that Cuban involvement had intensified. The Reagan Administration was also
seeking aid for the UNITA rebels in Angola, and once again Cuban involvement was
a central rationale. Based on the measurement for specific news topics in this
analysis, the Reagan Administration was quite successful in making the linkage
between Cuba and the conflicts in Nicaragua and Angola. Cuba's military
involvement in Central America (15.0%) was the most prominent specific news
topic in the total sample, followed by Cuba's military involvement in Africa
(13.0%). The next four specific news topics in the sample all related to some
aspect of U.S. policy toward Cuba, or a domestic issue or event in the United
States.
Individuals quoted or cited were coded for all articles in the
sample, with multiple sources being coded for an article when appropriate, which
resulted in a total population of 363. The results are displayed in Table 2.
The prominence of United States-based sources is most evident, accounting for
58.4% of the individuals quoted or cited in the total sample. And a majority of
those individuals were U.S. officials, including those from federal, state and
local governments, who accounted for 45.5% of the total sample, and 77.8% of the
United States-based sources.
Given the Reagan Administration's aggressive campaign to link Cuban
involvement in Central America and Africa with aid to the Contras and UNITA
rebels, respectively, it is important to note that President Reagan and members
of the executive branch of the federal government, including Secretary of
State George Shultz and officials of the Department of State, accounted for an
overwhelming percentage of the government officials quoted or cited. That was
particularly true in the Times, where Reagan and representatives of the
executive branch accounted for 69.7% of the 109 official sources quoted or
cited.
==================================================================
INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
==================================================================
The percentage of Cuba-based sources was quite low, only 24.2% of
the total sample. The percentage was even lower in the Times sample, just
17.0%. In fact, the Times was more likely to quote or cite non-United
States-based and non-Cuba-based sources (19.6%) about Cuba than it was
Cuba-based sources. The Post quoted or cited Cuba-based sources at a much
higher rate (36.0%) and non-United States-based and non-Cuba-based sources at a
lower rate (13.7%) than the Times. It should be noted that the U.S. government
controls the access of American journalists to travel to and within Cuba, which
limits their ability to utilize Cuba-based sources.
One group that was not quoted or cited in either the Times or Post
during this period was Cuban dissidents. That is significant since there were
dissidents in Cuba during the sample period, as well as human rights violations
occurring, but those issues were not being stressed by the United States
government. During the Reagan Administration, the primary conditions for a
normalization of relations between Cuba and the United States were the removal
of Cuban military personnel and advisors from Central American and Africa and a
disengagement of Cuba from the Soviet sphere. It was later, after these
conditions had been met, that human rights issues became a centerpiece of
Washington's stated policy.
Consistent with the results for sources quoted and cited were the
results for datelines. The majority of articles that carried a dateline were
written in the United States (62.4%), with only 19% of those articles written in
Cuba. Once again, the Times was more likely to print articles with a United
States dateline, and less likely to print articles with a Cuba dateline than was
the Post.
The results for the 1985 sample period suggests that Cuba was
represented in The New York Times and The Washington Post from an American
perspective. The articles tended to cover those issues being promoted by the
United States government, were heavily reliant on official sources in the United
States, and were more often than not written in the United States.
Results for September 1, 1992 - August 31, 1993
The very foundation of international politics changed dramatically
between the first and second sample periods, as the disintegration of the Soviet
Union brought a sudden end to the Cold War. That development left Cuba without
its staunchest economic supporter, but it also meant that Fidel Castro and the
Cuban government could no longer be considered a military or political threat in
the Western Hemisphere. Despite those changes, U.S. policy toward Cuba remained
intact. Following the passage of the so-called Cuban Democracy Act in 1992,
however, Cuba was not a priority in Washington. Five months after the Clinton
Administration assumed power, one American diplomat said, "I don't think Cuba
policy has even been considered yet. It's not a priority."[13]
The Times and Post continued to represent Cuba overwhelmingly from an
American perspective during the second sample period. That is evident in the
measurement of the primary news frame, displayed in Table 3. The majority of
the articles related to Cuba involved issues that to one degree or another
related to the United States as well: relations between the two countries, the
influx of Cuban refugees, and various domestic issues. Those three categories
accounted for 60% of the articles in the total sample, and an even larger
percentage (64.7%) in the Post sample.
There was coverage of internal developments in Cuba, but such
coverage was far outweighed by other topics. The four categories designed to
contain those articles -- Cuba: Politics, Cuba: Economics, Cuba: Social, and
Cuba: Culture -- accounted for 32.2% of the total sample. A significant portion
of those articles (20%) dealt with a mysterious illness in the spring and summer
of 1993 that left tens of thousands of Cubans temporarily blind. Those
articles, however, rarely dealt with the overall state of health care in Cuba or
discussed a possible link between the U.S. - imposed economic embargo and the
illness. The total also included a series of articles on Cuban athletes who
were participating in the World University Games in Buffalo, New York in the
summer of 1993.
==================================================================
INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
==================================================================
Once again, it is interesting to note what is missing. Those
articles in which Cuba's involvement in the international community, either
political and economic, was the primary news frame accounted for only 8.2% of
the total sample. Such coverage supports the picture that the United States
government presents of a Cuba isolated in the international arena, but it
ignores important developments both on the island and in the Western Hemisphere.
Cuba has reestablished diplomatic relations with a number of nations in Latin
America and the Caribbean that had distanced themselves from the Castro
government. For example, in July 1993 the Cuban government signed an accord
with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), a development that was not reported in
either the Times or Post at that time. Nor did the Time or Post report on
Castro's meeting with Colombia's president, Cesar Gaviria, and Spain's foreign
minister, Javier Solanas, a month later, although the Post did have a short
article on Castro being delayed at the airport in Cartagena, Colombia because
Esso, Mobil and Texaco refused to refuel his airplane because of the
U.S.-imposed economic embargo.[14]
The specific news topics that appeared most often in the Times and
Post also related to United States policy and domestic issues. The U.S.-imposed
economic embargo was the most common issue covered, as it was a primary topic in
24.0% of the sample. By contrast, the economic hardships that exist in Cuba was
a primary focus in only 7.7% of the sample, and the relationship between those
two was rarely broached. There was also considerable coverage of the influx of
Cuban refugees (16.4%).
What is most striking is the number of stories that addressed the
political activities of the Cuban-American community, which had become a
formidable political force. There were many more articles with a primary focus
on the political activities of the Cuban-American community (22) than there were
on political leadership in the Cuban government (6). Moreover, there were
also more articles on the political activities of the Cuban-American community
than there were on all topics related to politics in Cuba. The most common
specific topic that related to politics in Cuba addressed dissidents and human
rights, issues that the United States government has raised on a repeated basis
in the United Nations and elsewhere.
Sources based in the United States were most often quoted or cited in
the Times and Post during the second sample period, displayed in Table 4.
United States-based sources accounted for 67.6% of the total sample, compared to
27.9% for Cuba-based sources. But the breakdown within the United States-based
sources is interesting. U.S. officials, including those within federal, state,
and local governments, still accounted for the largest percentage of the total
sample (23.4%), but sources from within the Cuban-American community assumed a
significant role. The Cuban American community accounted for 20.4% of the total
sample, with Cuban refugees, those who were quoted or cited upon their arrival
in the United States, accounting for another 4.2%. The Post was more reliant on
this group than the Times, as members of the Cuban-American community were
quoted or cited more often than even U.S. officials, 23.9% compared to 23.3%.
==================================================================
INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE
==================================================================
The Cuban-Americans appear to have filled a void left by the
executive branch of the federal government, which was not as active in advancing
a Cuban agenda as it had been during the Reagan Administration. President
Clinton's only statement on Cuba that appeared during the sample period came
during a news conference where he simply stated that he continued to support
the so-called Cuban Democracy Act; that was reported within the printed
transcripts of the news conference, not in a news article. The executive branch
of the government, including the President, Secretary of State and officials
from the Department of State, accounted for only 12.9% of the total sample, and
virtually none of those individuals were of Assistant Secretary of State rank or
higher.
The academic community also assumed a prominent position during this
period. The category that included other U.S.-based sources, including
scholars, researchers, former government officials, journalists and others,
accounted for 19.8% of the total sample. Scholars alone accounted for 7.5% of
the total sample, significantly more than Fidel Castro himself (2.7%).
Consistent with previous measurements, the datelines of articles
related to Cuba indicated the dominance of those written in the United States.
Articles with United States datelines accounted for 66.1% of the total sample,
and 70.0% of the Post sample. The two most prominent datelines within the total
sample were, not surprisingly, Washington (25.1%) and Havana (22.8%), but Miami
and other cities in South Florida, the heart of the Cuban-American community,
accounted for 21.1% of the total sample. Those percentages shift dramatically
when measuring articles with datelines and bylines, eliminating stories from the
wire services which were, almost without exception, short articles that were
contained within the news briefs. The percentage of articles carrying a byline
and a Washington dateline accounted for 22.2% of the total sample, while Miami
accounted for 15.8%. Havana, however, drops from 22.8% to 8.2% of the total
sample when one includes only articles with bylines.
Comparison of Results
The balance of power in the international arena changed dramatically
between the first and second sample periods, changes that had a dramatic impact
on Cuba, both domestically and internationally. But it is interesting to note
that, in many respects, the coverage of Cuba remained as stagnant as the U.S.
government's policy toward Fidel Castro and his government.
Many of the trends found in the coverage of news related to Cuba in
The New York Times and The Washington Post in the first sample period were also
found in the second sample period, a comparison of which is displayed in Table
5. In each case, close to a third of all articles related to Cuba involved
United States-Cuba relations, which indicates that Cuba in consistently viewed
through the prism of U.S. foreign policy.
Statistically significant shifts in coverage can be found in the
percentage of articles that addressed Cuba's international military affairs,
and those that addressed the influx of Cuban refugees in the United States. One
could argue that the shift in articles on Cuba's military involvement in
Nicaragua and Angola simply mirrored a change in the environment the two
newspapers were reflecting, since the Sandinistas were voted out of power in
1990 and the last Cuban troops left Angola in 1991. But considerable
scholarship on the conflicts in those two regions suggests that Cuba's role
during the first sample period was overstated in a bid by the Reagan
Administration to garner support for military aide for the Contras and
UNITA.[15]
==================================================================
INSERT TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE
==================================================================
The decline in articles that addressed Cuba's involvement in the
international community -- "Cuba: International Diplomacy" -- is also
interesting because the Castro government has become less isolated
internationally since it dropped any pretense of exporting revolution. This has
been particularly true in the Western Hemisphere, where Cuba has reestablished
diplomatic ties with various countries and signed an accord with the Caribbean
Community. These developments, however, are in sharp contrast to statements by
the U.S. government that Cuba is almost totally isolated internationally without
its long-standing alliance with the Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern
Europe.
The measurement of sources quoted and cited over the two sample
periods, displayed in Table 6, indicates some important shifts. The most
significant shift was the decrease in the percentage of official U.S. sources,
from 45.5% to 23.4%. That decrease was offset, however, with a statistically
significant increase in the number of sources from within the Cuban-American
community, from 4.7% in the 1985 sample to 20.4% in the 1992-93 sample. One of
the objectives of the Cuban American National Foundation when it was formed in
the 1980s was to transform Cuba from a foreign policy concern to a domestic
issue, much as the Israel Public Affairs Committee has done with Israel. The
increase in sources from within the Cuban-American community indicates the
prominence which the group has assumed in the formation of U.S. policy towards
Cuba, particularly at a juncture when the White House is concentrating on other
issues.
==================================================================
INSERT TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE
==================================================================
It is also interesting to note that despite the increase between the
two sample periods in the number of articles that deal with Cuban domestic
issues, the percentage of sources from the Cuban government remained constant.
During the second sample period, however, the Times and Post relied more on
members of the Cuban-American community and, increasingly, U.S.-based scholars
to evaluate the current state of affairs in Cuba. What makes such a trend
questionable is that most of the individuals quoted or cited are, like
journalists, limited in their freedom to travel to Cuba. The measurement of
datelines remained relatively constant between the two sample periods.
Conclusions
This examination of the coverage of Cuba and U.S. policy toward Cuba
in The New York Times and The Washington Post brings to mind Cohen's oft-quoted
analysis of the press and foreign policy: "It may not be successful much of the
time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling
people what to think about."[16] Based on the results of this study, it
appears the issues and events that the Times and Post are telling people to
think about in regard to Cuba are, for the most part, those that the U.S.
government would like them to think about.
For example, press accounts reflect the view that the turmoil in
Central America and Africa resulted from Cuba's promotion of revolution, not
native insurgencies with deep historic roots and direct and indirect ties to the
United States. Or press accounts leave the impression that the economic crisis
confronting Cuba in the 1990s is the result of Castro's mismanagement, not the
U.S.-imposed economic embargo. In fact, these issues are the result of many
complex factors, including both Cuban and American complicity. But the United
States government doesn't want the American people to consider its role in these
developments, and, based on the results of this analysis, the Times and Post
don't challenge them to do so. In this instance, there is no "grappling"
between "Truth" and "Falsehood" in a "free and open encounter" as Milton
envisioned 350 years ago.[17]
Gans viewed news as "information which is transmitted from sources to
audiences, with journalists . . . summarizing, refining, and altering what
becomes available to them from sources in order to make the information suitable
for the audiences."[18] He concluded that the selection of sources was the most
significant news filter. This empirical analysis of the coverage of Cuba and
U.S. policy toward Cuba in The New York Times and The Washington Post supports
that argument.
The results from both sample periods indicate the degree to which the
Times and Post relied on U.S.-based sources, and the tendency of those two
newspapers to concentrate on issues that involved the United States in the
coverage of Cuba. But more revealing in this regard may be differences between
the two newspapers in a given period. In 1985, the Times quoted or cited
U.S.-based sources more often than did the Post, 63.4% to 50.4%, and was more
reliant on sources from within the executive branch, which accounted for 33.9%
of the total sample. The Times also devoted a higher percentage of articles to
Cuban involvement in Central America and Africa than did the Post, and, in fact,
Cuba's role in Nicaragua and Angola were the most common specific news topics in
the Times sample. This is significant since the Reagan Administration made a
concerted effort to link Cuba's involvement in those regions with economic aid
for the Contras and UNITA rebels.
It is clear from the 1985 sample that the Times placed a greater
emphasis on international news than did the Post, which appeared to concentrate
more on policy debates in Washington. While the Times published more articles
on Cuban involvement in Central America and Africa, the Post published more
articles related to the three most prominent issues in United States-Cuba
relations: immigration and repatriation, diplomacy, and Radio Mart!.
The Times, however, covered international news from an American
perspective, because the individuals it chose to quote or cite, deemed to be
legitimate sources, were primarily officials within the U.S. government.
Moreover, in its coverage of Angola, those individuals quoted or cited who were
not members of the U.S. government tended to be members of the South African
government, which, like the United States, was opposed to the Angolan
government, or the UNITA rebels that the United States and South Africa
supported.[19] The Times' reliance on official sources can be viewed as one of
the strategic rituals that the media have created in the pursuit of
objectivity.[20]
Entman argues that one of the ramifications of the quest for
objectivity is that "truth often has less impact on the slant of a news report
than skill at managing news."[21] The result, he argues, is that journalists
will give spokespersons who are considered important and respectable their say,
even when they offer "a feeble argument and flimsy facts."[22] The coverage of
Cuban military involvement in Nicaragua in December 1985 is a prime example of
this. Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams and Secretary of State George
Shultz were allowed to state, as fact, that Cuban military advisors were
involved in combat, even though the primary piece of "incontrovertible evidence"
was a Contra claim that a helicopter pilot heard over a radio had a Cuban
accent. Because of the status of Abrams and Shultz, their motives were not
questioned, nor was the evidence examined.
The results also seem to support the argument advanced by Lippmann,
and restated many times since then, that one of the primary failures of
democracy is its inability to develop a "machinery of knowledge" that will
present a "reliable picture of the world."[23] One must question whether the
picture of Cuba created in the Times and Post could be reliable when
approximately 80% of the articles on that nation were written from outside its
borders, and only 13% of the articles relating to it in a given year (1985)
dealt primarily with issues and events in Cuba.
The argument is not whether Castro should remain in power, or be
removed. The argument is not whether the United States should maintain the
economic embargo, or it should be terminated. The argument is whether the
American people are forced to evaluate Cuba and U.S. policy toward Cuba without
an accurate picture in their heads. The New York Times and The Washington Post
present an image that has been sketched largely by United States foreign policy
makers, with their inherent distortions and deletions. It is not a picture that
makes democratic self-government possible.
This study does little more than scratch the surface in a needed
examination of the nexus of the portrayal of Cuba in the U.S. media, and U.S.
policy toward Cuba. An examination of the national news magazines and
televisions networks is a logical next step. But also interesting would be an
analysis of The Miami Herald, which functions in the heart of the Cuban-American
community, to determine how its portrayal of Cuba and U.S. policy toward Cuba
differs from that of the Times and Post. It would also be interesting to
examine international wire services, such as Inter Press Service or Agence
France Press, to determine how their portrayal of Cuba differs from the Times
and Post, and, perhaps most important, which sources they utilize for
information about Cuba.
TABLE 1. Primary News Frame of Articles in The New York Times
and The Washington Post in 1985
=============================================================
NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON POST
COMBINED
N = 143
N = 104
N = 247
United States-Cuba: Int. Relations
35
37
72
24.5%
35.6%
29.1%
Cuba: International Military Affairs
45
26
71
31.5%
25%
28.7%
United States: Domestic Issues & Events
31
12
43
21.7%
11.5%
17.4%
Cuba: International Diplomacy
14
11
25
9.7%
10.6%
10.1%
Cuba: Politics
7
9
16
4.9%
8.7%
6.5%
Cuba: Economics
5
3
8
3.5%
2.9%
3.2%
Cuba: Social
2
5
7
1.4%
4.8%
2.8%
Cuba: Refugees
2
0
2
1.4%
0.0%
0.8%
Other
2
0
2
1.4%
0.0%
0.8%
Cuba: Culture
0
1
1
0.0%
1.0%
0.4%
Cuba: International: Trade
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
TABLE 2. Sources Quoted or Cited in The New York Times
and The Washington Post in 1985
=============================================================
NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON POST
COMBINED
N = 224
N = 139
N = 363
United States-Based Sources
U.S. Officials
109
56
165
48.6%
40.3%
45.5%
U.S.-Based: Others
21
7
28
8.4%
5.0%
7.7%
Cuban American Community
11
6
17
4.9%
4.3%
4.7%
Cuban Refugees
1
1
2
0.9%
0.7%
0.5%
TOTAL
142
70
212
63.4%
50.4%
58.4%
Cuba-Based Sources
Cuba Officials
27
30
57
11.6%
21.6%
15.7%
Cuban Community
11
20
31
4.9%
14.4%
8.5%
TOTAL
38
50
88
17.0%
36.0%
24.2%
Non-United States- or Cuba-Based Sources
Foreign Government Officials
39
18
57
17.4%
12.9%
15.7%
Foreign Investors & Citizens
4
1
5
1.8%
0.7%
1.4%
International Organizations
1
0
1
0.4%
0.0%
0.2%
TOTAL
44
19
63
19.6%
13.7%
17.4%
TABLE 3. Primary News Frame of Articles in The New York Times
and The Washington Post in 1992-93
=============================================================================
NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON POST
COMBINED
N = 115
N = 68
N = 183
United States-Cuba: Int. Relations
34
22
56
29.6%
32.4%
30.6%
Cuba: Refugees
17
13
30
14.8%
19.1%
16.4%
United States: Domestic Issues & Events
14
9
23
12.2%
13.2%
12.6%
Cuba: Social
15
6
21
13.0%
8.9%
11.5%
Cuba: Economics
14
5
19
12.2%
7.4%
10.4%
Cuba: Politics
12
5
17
10.4%
7.4%
9.3%
Cuba: International Diplomacy
2
4
6
1.7%
5.9%
3.3%
Cuba: International Military Affairs
2
1
3
1.7%
1.4%
1.6%
Cuba: International: Trade
1
2
3
0.9%
2.9%
1.6%
Other
3
0
3
2.6%
0.0%
1.6%
Cuba: Culture
1
1
2
0.9%
1.5%
1.1%
TABLE 4. Sources Quoted or Cited in The New York Times
and The Washington Post in 1992-93
==================================================================
NEW YORK
TIMES
WASHINGTONPOST
COMBINED
N = 178
N = 155
N = 333
United States-Based Sources
U.S. Officials
41
36
77
23.0%
23.2%
23.4%
Cuban American Community
31
37
68
17.4%
23.9%
20.4%
U.S.-Based: Others
32
34
66
18.0%
21.9%
19.8%
Cuban Refugees
9
5
14
5.1%
3.2%
4.2%
TOTAL
113
112
225
63.5%
72.3%
67.5%
Cuba-Based Sources
Cuba Officials
33
18
51
18.5%
11.6%
15.3%
Cuban Community
22
20
42
12.4%
12.9%
12.6%
TOTAL
55
38
93
30.1%
24.5%
27.9%
Non-United States-.
or Cuba-Based Sources
Foreign Government Officials
4
4
8
2.2%
2.6%
2.4%
Foreign Investors & Citizens
5
0
5
2.8%
0.0%
1.5%
International Organizations
1
1
2
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
TOTAL
9
5
14
5.1%
3.2%
4.2%
TABLE 5. Primary News Frame of Articles in The New York Times
and The Washington Post Compared Between 1985 and 1992-93
=============================================================================
1985
1992-93
N = 247
N = 183
X2
United States-Cuba: Int. Relations
72
56
.02
29.1%
30.6%
Cuba: Refugees
2
30
4.87 *
0.8%
16.4%
United States: Domestic Issues & Events
43
23
.44
17.3%
12.6%
Cuba: Social
7
21
1.51
2.8%
11.5%
Cuba: Economics
8
19
1.04
3.2%
10.4%
Cuba: Politics
16
17
.16
6.5%
9.3%
Cuba: International Diplomacy
25
6
.92
10.1%
3.3%
Cuba: International Military Affairs
71
3
14.58 * * *
28.6%
1.6%
Cuba: International Trade
0
3
.05
0.0%
1.6%
Other
2
3
.01
0.8%
1.6%
Cuba: Culture
1
2
.01
0.4%
1.1%
* Statistically significant at .05 with 1 d
* * Statistically significant at .01 with 1 d
* * * Statistically Significant at .001 with 1 d
TABLE 6. Sources Quoted or Cited in The New York Times and
The Washington Post Compared Between 1985 and 1992-93
=============================================================================
1985
1992-93
X2
N = 363
N = 333
United States-Based Sources
U.S. Officials
165
78
45.5%
23.4%
9.77 * *
Cuban American Community
17
68
4.7%
20.4%
4.93 *
Others
28
66
7.7%
19.8%
2.93
Cuban Refugees
2
14
0.5%
4.2%
.27
TOTAL
212
225
58.4%
67.6%
1.69
Cuba-Based Sources
Cuba Officials
57
51
15.7%
15.3%
0.00
Cuban Community
31
42
8.5%
12.6%
0.34
TOTAL
88
93
24.2%
27.9%
0.27
Non-United States- or Cuba-Based Sources
Foreign Government Officials
57
8
15.7%
2.4%
3.54
Foreign Investors & Citizens
5
5
1.4%
1.5%
0.00
International Organizations
1
2
0.2%
0.6%
0.00
TOTAL
63
14
17.4%
4.2%
3.48
* Statistically significant at .05 with 1 d
* * Statistically significant at .01 with 1 d
* * * Statistically Significant at .001 with 1 d
[1] Michael Schudson, "The Sociology of News Production," Media,
Culture and Society 11 (July 1989):271.
[2] Jane Delano Brown, Carl R. Bybee, Stanley T. Wearden and
Dulcie Murdock Straughan, "Invisible Power: Newspaper News Sources and the
Limits of Diversity," Journalism Quarterly 64 (Spring 1987): 45-54; Robert M.
Entman, Democracy Without Citizens: Media and the Decay of American Politics
(New York: Oxford Press, 1989); Oscar H. Gandy, Beyond Agenda Setting:
Information Subsidies and Public Policy (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.,
1982); Herbert J. Gans, Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC
Nightly News, Newsweek & Time (New York: Pantheon, 1979); Leon V. Sigal,
Reporters and Officials: The Organization and Politics of Newsmaking (Lexington,
MA: D.C. Heath , 1973); Guido H. Stempel III, and Hugh M. Culbertson, "The
Prominence and Dominance of News Sources in Newspaper Medical Coverage,"
Journalism Quarterly 61 (Autumn 1984): 671-676.
[3] Alan G. Stavitsky and Timothy W. Gleason, "Alternative Things
Considered: A Comparison of National Public Radio and Pacifica Radio News
Coverage," Journalism Quarterly 71 (Winter 1994): 775-786.
[4] W. Lance Bennett, "Toward a Theory of Press-State Relations in
the United States," Journal of Communication 40 (Spring 1990): 103.
[5] See, for example, Robert M. Entman, Democracy without
Citizens: Media and the Decay of American Politics (NY: Oxford University Press,
1989); and Daniel C. Hallin, The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).
[6] Sandra H. Dickson, "Understanding Media Bias: The Press and
the U.S. Invasion of Panama," Journalism Quarterly 71 (Winter 1994): 809-819.
[7] Michael J. Francis, "The U.S. Press and Castro: A Study in
Declining Relations," Journalism Quarterly 44 (Spring 1967): 257-266.
[8] Neal Houghton, "The Cuban Invasion of 1961 and the U.S. Press,
in Retrospect," Journalism Quarterly 42 (Summer 1965): 422-432; and Nicholas O.
Berry, Foreign Policy and the Press (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1990).
[9]
See, for example, commentators quoted in John P. Wallach, Fidel
Castro and the United States Press (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press, 1986).
[10]
Silvio Lenart and Harry R. Targ, "Framing the Enemy: New York
Times Coverage of Cuba in the 1980s," Peace & Change 17 (July 1992): 341-362.
[11]
The New York Times Index 1985 73 (New York: The New York Times
Company, 1976); The New York Times Index 1992 80 (New York: The New York Times
Company, 1993); The New York Times Quarterly Index January-March 1993 (New
York: New York Times Company, 1993); The New York Times Quarterly Index
April-June 1993 (New York: New York Times Company, 1993); The New York Times
Quarterly Index July-September 1993 (New York: New York Times Company, 1993).
[12] The Official Washington Post Index 1985 (Woodbridge, CT:
Research Publications, 1986); The Washington Post Index 4 (Ann Arbor, MI:
University Microfilms, Inc., 1993); The Washington Post Index January-March 1993
(Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, Inc., 1993); The Washington Post Index
April-June 1993 (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, Inc., 1993); The
Washington Post Index July-September 1993 (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms,
Inc., 1993);
[13] Quoted in Russell Warren Howe, "Fidel's Little Hell: Cuba
Without the Libre--or Coffee," The Washington Post, 27 June 1993, C3.
[14]
"Castro out of Gas," The Washington Post, 8 August 1993, A20.
[15]
See Wayne S. Smith, The Closest of Enemies (New York, W.W.
Norton & Company, 1987); Larry Hufford, The United States in Central America: An
Analysis of the Kissinger Commission Report, 2nd ed. (Lewiston, NY: The Edwin
Mellen Press, 1989).
[16]
Bernard C. Cohen, The Press and Foreign Policy (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1963): 13.
[17]
John Milton, Areopagitica (Folcroft, PA: The Folcroft Press,
Inc., 1969), 58-59.
[18]
Gans, "Deciding What's News," 80.
[19]
Savvy to the ways of American politics, UNITA had its own
spokesman based in Washington, Paulo Figueriredo.
[20]
See Gaye Tuchman, "Objectivity as Strategic Ritual: An
Examination of Newsmen's Notions of Objectivity," American Journal of Sociology
77 (1971/71): 660-679.
[21]
Entman, Democracy Without Citizens, 37-38.
[22]
Entman, 37-38.
[23]
Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York: Harcourt, Brace and
Company, 1922), 365.
|
