Media Framing of War in the 2004 Presidential Election

The 2004 presidential election offered the media a variety of issues on which to comment. As the election progressed, many media pundits believe the issue of the war in Iraq would take center stage, but America’s various media outlets proved these pundits wrong. Unlike other wartime elections, these media outlets took a long detour around framing the war in Iraq as a political issue. In fact, it seemed as if this particular war was avoided throughout the majority of the election. Through the process of agenda-setting, the various media outlets (mainly television news programs) reported on a selected group of political issues, along with a variety of issues that seemed to lack political undertones altogether. One issue lacking in this area is the war record of both major candidates. Although this issue received a great deal of coverage throughout the 2004 presidential election, the issue itself leads one to question the role of the media as a purveyor of relevant information.

Although the reasons for the media’s deference of a discussion on the war in Iraq to a discussion of the candidate’s war records are difficult to explain, some possibilities do present themselves in retrospect. One possibility is the lack of focus on the part of the presidential candidates themselves. Throughout the majority of the campaign, neither candidate seemed to designate a clear solution to the problem of war; while the debates did seem to draw some attention to the war itself, the candidates never discussed their solutions in detail. As the debates progressed, they seemed to offer a sense of clarification through the ways in which the candidates communicated to their audience, but this clarification diminished at the close of each debate, leaving the audience to question whether the each candidate’s proposed solution was any different than that of his opponent. Due to the lack of resolution between each candidate, the various media outlets attempted to bring the topic of war into their discussion by a different means. The focus on the war record of each candidate could possibly be the tactic that was chosen.

Another possibility could be the other topics discussed by the media along their detour away from the topic of the war in Iraq. Along this detour, the various media outlets discussed a variety of domestic issues including such topics as same sex marriage and social security. This focus on domestic issues, while directing the public’s attention away from the war, seems to work as a way of distinguishing between the opinions of the two dominant candidates. The two issues mentioned above are topics that were disagreed upon by these candidates. Unlike the solution to the war in Iraq, these domestic issues seem to be a simple way for the media outlets to discuss the differences between each candidate instead of their similarities or uncertainties.

Yet another possibility could be the effect television has had on campaigns since its introduction; television forces its viewers to focus on the candidate’s personality rather than his stance on the issues. Although the war in Iraq was perceived to be the dominant issue in the 2004 election, the focus on each candidates war record, and ultimately their (debatable) war hero persona leads the media’s audience to focus on the candidate as a personality rather than as a person with valid opinions on the issues at hand. The case of each candidate yielded a different result, but the effect of this news coverage eventually led to the same result: the voter was left questioning the candidates’ past indiscretions instead of their present political aspirations.

John Kerry’s wartime record was first discussed in his speech at the Democratic National Convention. In this speech he of his accomplishments during the Vietnam war, attempting to invoke a sense of heroism and honor. Shortly after this presentation, a group of Vietnam veterans gave a presentation of their own. In two short nationally presented television ads, these Swift Boat veterans denounced the heroism and honor that Kerry attempted to present in his convention speech. A series of ads developed by Kerry’s campaign group made an effort to combat these ads with scenes of Kerry at war and an undertone of patriotism.

The ad battle between the Swift Boat veterans and the Kerry team soon became a topic of discussion among the various media outlets. In an attempt to deliver a balanced presentation, television news programs discussed both sides of the controversy, leading to a negative view of both parties associated. This battle of opinion permeated news coverage for a substantial amount of time; once the first ad battle began to fade from news coverage, the Swift Boat crew introduced another spot denouncing Kerry’s heroic persona and the process began again.

George W. Bush’s war record was introduced in a very different manner. Due to the heightened interest in Kerry’s war efforts, CBS news delved into the records concerning Bush’s period in the National Guard. This research proved to be near fatal for the renowned anchor at CBS, Dan Rather. The documents presented by Rather on prime-time news questioned Bush’s sincerity in regards to his military service. When these documents proved to be false, the credibility of Dan Rather, as well as CBS, came into question.

The reports on John Kerry’s war record began with a cynical look at both parties involved. If the ads of both parties had not been discussed by the television media, the results would have probably worked in favor of the Swift Boat vets. The ads presented by this group of men questioned a politician (i.e. a man that was probably in question in the minds of television spectators to begin with). The consequence of the media’s intervention into the accusations of the Swift Boat veterans led to a questioning of the integrity of these men as well. When the reliability of both groups involved is examined, the opinions proposed by either group seem to become implausible to their audience. The result of this judgment on the part of the television audience was therefore a general untrustworthiness of the opinions of all parties involved regarding the issue at stake. The Bush example yielded similar results. The initial report by Dan Rather resulted in the questioning of Bush’s honesty; the falsity of Rather’s sources resulted in the questioning of Rather’s honesty.

Both instances discussed above illustrate the ways in which television media draws attention to the personality, or more precisely, moral character of each presidential candidate. Although the topic of each example rotates around the war efforts of each man, the underlying frame of each report revolves around his honesty. The Swift Boat ads, and later the news coverage of the resulting ad war, brings Kerry’s integrity into question, just as Dan Rather’s report attempted to do with George Bush. Although the intention of each story was to eventually lead the television audience to question the morality of each candidate, these reports led to very different results.

Although the media’s use of framing introduced controversy concerning the integrity of each candidate and their claim of heroism during wartime, the assumed effect of each report seemed to diminish as the stories unfolded. While it is difficult to predict the amount of impact these reports had on the results of the 2004 election, these examples exemplify the ways in which the media use framing to persuade their audience on various issues. The proposed reasons for the discussion of the candidates’ war records instead of the actual war discussed above introduce a small number of examples of the ways in which the media seems to skirt the issues involved in presidential campaigns. The way in which television media seemed to avoid the topic of war is an interesting example of the ability of the media to manipulate its audience into perceiving issues as important, when, in all actuality, some topics may be fairly trivial.