response

Its a common penomenon that in at time of National chaos, the press tend to back off of their investigative ways in favor of a more nationalistic approach. This, when combined with the fact that the president of the United States maintains a sort of celebrity status in our society can hint towards why the media lacked agressive curiosity at the time. Although journalists are expected to ask the "hard hitting questions," they are usually advised not to offend the person being interviewed. During this time of uncertainty they erred on the side of caution probably to maintain job security. To step to far into dissident territory would seemingly outrage if not the public, at least their superiors.

While this may explain their initial reaction, it doesnt explain why the media continued to obstain from objectivity and critical questioning as the war began. The media, as we have dicussed in the class, is flawed. Societies definition of objectivity and audience consenses is skewed, leaving many popular view points out of the relm of coverage as in the model discussed in class lats week. While they strive to be fair and balenced, in America, Democracy and patriotism are held in the highest regard and viewed as what is right and fair, to go against such ideals is risky and, as such avoided.

NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLES ABOUT MEDIA CENSORSHIP

http://www.globalissues.org/article/269/new-slogan-in-washington-watch-what-you-say
http://www.globalissues.org/article/325/patriotism-and-censorship

MEDIA TIME LINE
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB219/index.htm#timeline

It may go against everything jounalism and the media represent to stand by and passivly consume information provided by the government, but opposing such orders was deamed as threat to society; like those with oposing viewes during WWII were pegged at communists.