bailout blues 3.0

8/14/2019 Bailout Blues 3.0

1/55

SINGING THE BAILOUT BLUES: A Comparative Analysis of Coverage of the

Emergency Economic Stimulus Act of 2008

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble

for the safety of my country corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption

in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong

its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a

few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

--Abraham Lincoln

(Shaw 1950:40)

The Bubble Bursts!

The current financial crisis resonates in nearly every aspect of American life today. The

effect of such a tremendous social problem is one that social sciences cannot fail to

investigate at a multiplicity of empirical sites. This study investigates a particular set of

sites that attempt to articulate the nature and ramifications of one important aspect of the

crisis-- The Emergency Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, henceforth referred to as the

EESA, and commonly known as the Bailout Bill.

The EESA was forged in response to a sharp economic downturn that was earmarked by

the imminent collapse of several financial giants including AIG and Citigroup. The

central element in the current financial crisis, according to Dean Baker (2008:73) of the

Center for Economic Policy and Research, is the housing bubble. He continues, The

housing bubble in the United States grew up alongside the stock bubble in the mid-90s.

(Baker 2008:73) The consequent was a period between 1995 and 2002 in which housing

values, (which had remained steady from the 50s to the 90s) increased rapidly. According

to Baker (2008:74), The fact that rents had risen by less than 10 percent in real terms

should have provided more evidence to support the view that the country was

experiencing a housing bubble. If there were fundamental factors driving the run-up in

house sales prices they should be having a comparative effect on rents. However, the

increase in rents was far more modest and was trailing off already by 2002. Home

construction and consumption ran amok as interest rates continued to fall, up until late

2006, when the prices peaked out. The following two years saw the market decline at a

1


2/55

breathtaking pace. Baker (2008:75) cites the total losses at around 7 trillion-- from the

peak of the bubble to the trough-- nearly 50 percent of the GDP.

In addition to the expansion of the bubble, matters were made worse by the proliferationof adjustable rate mortgages. The initial rates on such mortgages were extremely

attractive to homebuyers that might have otherwise opted for more conventional fixed rate

loans. During this time period banks bought and bundled loans into mortgage bank

securities (MBS), as well as collaterized debt obligations (CDOs). (Baker 2008:77) In

turn, companies like Citigroup took these and bundled them into structured investment

vehicles (SIVs). (Baker 2008:78)

What primarily contributed to the catastrophe was the overprovision of subprime loans on

the part of profit-driven financiers. According to William R. Emmons (2008) of the

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, In 2001, fewer than ten percent of outstanding

mortgages were subprime. In a matter of two years, the subprime market had expanded

dramatically. Baker (2008:76) suggests, It is absurd to think that the number of credit-

worthy people in the subprime category had more than doubled from 2002 to 2004, even

as the labor market remained weak and wages lagged behind inflation.

However, rather than acknowledge the writing on the wall, political leaders and experts

on housing celebrated the record rates of homeownership. (Baker 2008:77) The catch

was that when home values plummeted (or more accurately when the bubble popped and

the value of homes reached equilibrium), the value of MBSs, CDOs, and SIVs

plummeted also. Companies that for a decade had been claiming untold profits on risky

bets suddenly went bust. On Wall Street, as is the case at any casino, the house eventually

won. Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and countless others suddenly found themselves

suffocated by bad debts. As a result, they were unwilling, or unable, to extend credit as

they had, and credit markets began to freeze upthe absence of liquidity.

In outlining the processes within corporate structures that contributed to the financial

meltdown, Baker posits:

Underlying the logic of this whole set of developments was an incentive structure that

placed an enormous premium on short-term profits, often at the expense of longer-term

profits or even-longer term corporate survival. (Baker 2008:78)

2


3/55


4/55

coverage, I chose two media outlets with very different organizational orientationsthe

New York Times (NYT), a hallmark among news organizations and Z Communications

(ZNet), a left leaning press collective that produces a magazine, and maintains an online

news repository. I carefully scrutinized texts from these organizations, keeping in mindthat similarities may be as consequential as differences.

David Altheide (1996:68) suggests:

The capacity to define the situation for self and others is a key dimension of social

power. One reason to study mass media documents is to understand the nature and

process by which a key defining aspect of our effective environment operates and to

attempt to gauge the consequences.

Studying the larger social problem that legislation such as the EESA attempts to

remediate by understanding the way in which media utilized their specific variant of

social power to define it is of great importanceparticularly as the term bailoutbecomes

more salient in the American lexicon. Implicit in this study is questions such as how

organizational contexts as well as journalistic practices intercede to structure media

content. If the health of a democracy is partly dependent upon the medias ability to

rationally critique political and economic institutions, then critical media studies are

useful in assessing the extent to which that is taking place. I hope that this study will

contribute to a better understanding of what socio-political conditions need to exist in

order for the media to be useful in facilitating a more vigorous and diffused public debate

regarding the key issues of our times. Specifically, the concept of rational-critical debate

permeates different aspects of this project. Media studies study the sphere that is, in its

most democratically desirable form, designated as that which would interrogate other

spheres of public life. Political economy arguments, such as those leveled by Herman and

Chomsky (2002), Habermas (1991), and McChesney (2004), claim that medias ability to

do so is greatly diminished as it is subjugated to markets. Newspapers are no exception,

as Habermas (1991:185) suggests:

The newspaper, as it developed into a capitalist undertaking, became enmeshed in a webof interests extraneous to business that sought to exercise influence upon it. The history

of big daily newspapers in the second half of the nineteenth century proves that the press

itself became manipulable to the extent that it became commercialized.

4


5/55

With this in mind, perhaps it is at this key juncture, when the solvency and supremacy of

markets come into question, that empirically testing medias potency in offering critical

analysis is most ideal. To do so requires a well-developed understanding of the history

the American media system, as well as thorough review of literature that articulatesrelevant media theories. This comparative analysis drinks deeply of such theories, and

seeks to understand how they may work to explain variances in coverage of an important

and far-reaching social problem.

5


6/55

LITERATURE REVIEW

The American Media Tradition

A rich analysis of news media artifacts must necessarily explore the cultural and historical

contexts in which modern media has evolved, as these contexts work to shape journalistic

traditions that influence modern practice. If, as Paul Starr (2004:19) suggests, the

political origins of modern communications ought to command our attention, then any

fruitful comparative media project should take into consideration such aspects.

Starr (2004:49) notes that, by the mid-eighteenth century, the growth of printing, postalservice, and particularly newspapers created the basis for the public sphere that was to

emerge in fully politicized form during the struggle with Britain. In the American case,

there was a well-networked partisan press that emerged in the form of newspapers. Given

an understanding of how newspapers were able to express and shape opinion during the

Revolutionary Era, it is unsurprising the extent to which they became an essential

commodity of American life throughout the following century. The 1800s saw

innovations in technology that dramatically changed the role media in American life--

Starr (2004:146) describes the political and economic landscape, and its effect on the

press, in this way:

The transformation of newspapers into large-scale enterprises shifted power and

influence in the press. The growth of commercial advertising gradually reduced and then

virtually eliminated the role of political patronage in the economics of daily newspapers.

The shift to advertising did not simply liberate the press to serve the public; it created

new commercial incentives and pressures.

In response to such shifts in technology, as well as an ever-evolving economic landscape,

American news media forged a distinct journalistic tradition whose thumbprint is readily

apparent in todays news media. Hallin and Mancini (2004:62) suggest that the historical

roots of a particular media system follow along a path determined by major social

transformations: the Protestant Reformation, the industrial revolution, the democratic

revolution, and the formation of the nation-state. They continue, The particular

patterns through which these transformations and the associated conflicts were played out

6


7/55

are thus crucial to understanding the relationships between media and political systems.

(Hallin and Mancini 2004:62)

The American system that Hallin and Mancini (2004:67) label the North Atlantic(Liberal) model has, as a result of such path dependent historical transformations,

particular features that are worth noting in this analysis of news content. Some the key

features are (1) early development of mass circulation commercial press (2) neutral

commercial press with information oriented journalism (3) strong professionalization (4)

and a market dominated business model. The North Atlantic model stands in contrast to

the Mediterranean (Polarized Pluralist) and North European (Democratic Corporatist)

models, and Hallin and Mancini (2004:69) suggest they hope these ideal types prove

useful as conceptual devices for organizing a discussion of media and political systems in

a comparative perspective, even if they are far from capturing the full complexity either

of the media systems of particular countries, or of the patterns of relationships among the

major variables we have identified.

I suggest that comparative analysis within these systems benefits from keeping such ideal

types in mind, as news organizations, through the structuring of guidelines and practices,

may reproduce or resistaspects of the system. Moreover, the development of such media

systems fundamentally affects the relationship between producers and consumers of

news. Starr (2004:146) elaborates upon the way in which this relationship is altered by

suggesting, Instead of viewing their readers as citizens and their function as engaging

their readers in politics, newspaper publishers tended to see their readers as consumers

and the provision of news as a means of supports for the advertising that was the

foundation of the business. The ramifications of this shift in perception of the audience

by the producers of news content should be questioned. How does the commercial nature

of news organizations intercede to structure content? Chomsky and Hermann (2002:23)

suggest that commercialization selects for particular kinds of analysis and that, in this

way, bias may be structured, and the supply of experts may be skewed in the direction

desired by the government and the market. Habermas (1991) suggests that it prompts

news organizations to select for content that they are certain will not conflict with the

interests of the private sector. The affect of this he claims is that, critical debatedisappears behind the veil of internal decisions concerning the selection and presentation

of the material. (Habermas 1991:169) The danger in the disappearance of critical

inquiry into aspects of social life, a function that news media should serve, is all too

obvious. If not generating critical debate over the pertinent issues of the times, the media

7


8/55

is reduced to, at best a passive spectator, and at worst, a complicit co-conspirator that

reproduces hegemonic ideology through its particular representations of social life. That

critical debate may be endangered is what prompts researchers to examine organizational

features and confront issues of political economy and their effects on news media content.

What role does the individual journalist working the beat play in all of this? On one

hand, as Eric Alterman (2003:21) rightly points out elite journalists working in places like

New York and Washington make a very comfortable living, when he suggests,

Journalists views on economic matters are generally consistent with their privileged

position on the socio-economic ladder.(2003:21) On the other hand, journalists are not

solely motivated by their own economic interests. Nor are they mere organizational

products generating content as is dictated by editors, who in turn take orders from the

commercial realm-- rather journalists, to the extent possible, imbue their stories with their

own vacillating motives and values, producing at times content that discursively

reconstitutes hegemonic ideology, and at other times agentically resist hegemony. As Epp

Lauk (2009:71) points out, the ideals and values of the liberal model, though

theoretically widely appreciated, do not fully function in journalism practice even in

Western countries.

Thus theoretical frameworks that only account for issues of political economy-- or only

compile ethnographic accounts of daily happenings within news organizations-- are

insufficient. A theoretical account that connects the macro- to the micro-level is

necessary as a means of bridging gaps between other theoretical constructs.

Field Theory

Field theory springs from Bourdieus desire to [understand] the media as an institution

within a wider social formation. (Hallin, in Benson and Neveu 2005:224) It theorizes

that these larger formations are made up groups of institutions, organizations, and

ultimately, individuals that constitute fields, but also are subject to the forces within them.

Field theory, positions itself precisely between those approaches (political economy or

cultural) that commit the short circuit fallacy and link news production directly to theinterests of broad social classes or the national society, and those (organizational) that

focus too narrowly on particular news producers. (Benson and Neveu 2005:12) They

suggest, the concept [of the field] helps avoid the excesses of either the internalist or

externalist readings of texts, and the meaning of autonomy. (Benson and Neveu

8


9/55

2005:13)

This project seeks to avoid such pitfalls by using field theory as a means of mediating the

gaps in other approaches, even as it incorporates aspects of them into its methods andanalysis. By conceptualizing the organizations (and the products they create) I examine

as objects embedded in the journalistic field (and potentially, embedded in varying

degrees in other fields such as the economic), I can treat the texts as part of an ongoing

discursive project of the organizations that is at once subjected to the power of the fields,

and also exerting power to shape those fields. As Bourdieu (1996:40) claims, a field is a

structure of social space, a field of forces, a force field. Within this field of forces,

constant, permanent relationships of inequality operate inside this space, which at the

same time becomes a space for the transformation or preservation of the field. (Bourdieu

1996:40) This study will be an organizational analysis as well as textual analysis, with

field theory bridging the gaps.

Variations between fields are partly accounted for through the concept of habitus, which

suggests that individuals predispositions, assumptions, judgments, and behaviors are the

result of a long-term process of socialization, most importantly in the family, and

secondly, via primary, secondary, and professional education. (Benson and Neveu 2005:

3) Though this study does not, by design, delve deeply into the ways in which habitus

structures the daily practices in each organization studied (this would require a more

intensive ethnographic observation), it does speculate on how organizational goals and

embeddedness in other fields may work to reshape journalistic habitus given that,

habitus is not unchangeable. In fact, it is constantly being modified. (Benson and

Neveu 2005:3) Keeping that in mind, an examination of organizational guidelines as well

as organizational products gives us the ability to speculate on how habitus in the field of

journalism may be transformed or at least influenced by other factors. As Benson

(2006:195) points out, Habitus intersecting with fields offers a probabilistic, not a

totalizing explanation.

The Ongoing Production of Difference

Though dominant forces within a field might determine the probability of actors

producing content in a particular way, that habitus is malleable, and that as such actors

may make choices that defy convention, is worth noting. Perhaps the most exciting

possibly offered by field theory is that it provides a means of explaining how structural

9


10/55

change can occur in ways not previously conceived. In regards to the journalistic field,

Benson and Neveu (2005:5) explain that prospect here:

Bourdieu posits that influxes of new agents into the field can serve either as forces fortransformation or conservation. At the managerial or elite professional level, new agents

can establish themselves by marking their difference with those already in the field, and

thus have the greatest incentive to found a new kind of press outlet or adopt a distinctive

editorial voice.

It follows then, that studies within a particular journalistic field focus on the tension, or

opposing forces, exerted by more and less established agents in that field. Adrienne

Russell (2007:286) suggests that, to understand journalism one must examine how it is

practiced and which power relationships are at play. She asserts that, it is worth

systematically describing emerging forms of news media and participation that shed light

on challenges to contemporary understandings and practices of journalism. (Russell

2007:287)

Benson (2006:189) poses the following question:

Within any given national journalistic field, how do we account for ongoing consistent

differencesto the extent that there really are such differencesamong specific news

organizations of types of news media?

He suggests that, Bourdieus understanding of field emphasizes the ongoing production

of difference. (Benson 2006:189) Thus, studying two different news organizations

within a given field is a search for an explanation for internal heterogeneity by

examining the ongoing production of difference. (Benson 2006:189)

What determines an organizations relative position within the field are its economic

capital, which is the money or assets that it possesses, and cultural capital, which,

encompasses such things as educational credentials, technical expertise, general

knowledge, verbal abilities, and artistic sensibilities. (Benson 2006:189) Benson andNeveu (2005:4) posit that it is along these axes that the ongoing production of difference

occurs when they suggest that the internal structure of a field is an arena of struggle in

which individuals and organizations compete, consciously and unconsciously, to valorize

those forms of capital which they possess. Benson (2006:190) suggests, Those news

10


11/55

organizations that are able to accumulate both forms of capital, such as the New York

Times and the Wall Street Journal, are precisely those which wield a symbolic power over

the entire field and play a crucial role in establishing or modifying the dominant rules of

journalistic practice.

There is evidence to suggest as Benson (2006:190) claims that, economic capital, on the

whole, is more powerful. Julien Duval (in Benson and Neveu 2005:135) points out that

after the privatization and conglomeration of a significant sector of French media in the

past two decades, it has often been suggested that the media unanimously repeated an

ideology, sometimes called la pense unique or market journalism, that suited the

interests of financial markets and business circles. Duval is worth citing at length in this

instance, as he (in Benson and Neveu 2005:135-136) posits that:

While in relatively autonomous fields, economic capital and capital specific to the field

tend to be concentrated in distinct agents or firms, the most influential media outlets in

this subdomain were tightly integrated into the economic order. For this reason, and

according to the mediations specified in this article, their economic pages tended to

represent the economic world in a way that contributed much more to its conservation and

legitimation than to its critique and transformation.

What this means is that content, as Hermann and Chomsky (2002) suggest, is filtered

using field theorys terminology--by the forces produced by the economic field. The

result is that commercial medias interests are amalgamated with corporate interests.

McChesney (2004:93) summarizes this when he suggests, The corporate news media

have a vested interest in the corporate system. He continues, The largest media firms

are members in good standing in the corporate community and are closely linked to it

through business relations, shared investors, interlocking directors, and common political

values. (McChesney 2004:93) Benson (2006:193) sees this as a specific instance of a

broad transformation of capitalism toward a more intensely profit-driven, anti-union,

anti-public sector model, which further isolates the journalistic field from everyday

concerns of working-class and poor citizens.

A comparative analysis such as this, which selects for news organizations that occupy

different spaces within the journalistic field, empirically tests for the potency of the force

exerted by the economic field upon journalistic production. In doing so, it potentially

challenges the hegemony of commercial news producing organizations whose presence

11


12/55

looms large and asks whether lesser agents working in the field, by structuring aspects of

their organizations in fundamentally different ways, may produce content which markedly

differs in its ability to critique social problems and policies. If so, does this offer a

challenge to the traditional journalistic evocation of the world [that] does not seek tomobilize or politicize? (Bourdieu 1996:8) As Russell (2007:290) suggests, The question

is what user-centered new-media forms of journalism and the proliferating meta-coverage

of new-media user-participants tell us about how the amateur variable variable be

shaping the field. Conducting comparative analysis of coverage by more established

news organizations such as the NYT to that of ZNet may begin to answer such questions,

in that ZNets model is more oriented to participation by non-professionals who are not

paid for their efforts.

This brings us to the research questions that this study hopes to address:

1) Did the NYT and ZNets coverage of the EESA differ? If so, how does field

theory, coupled with aspects of an organizational analysis, work to explain

differences in coverage?

2) Will the NYTs dependence on economic capital, which the literature suggests

overpowers its cultural capital, fundamentally structure its coverage of such a

pressing economic topic?

3) Does ZNets organizational structure, particularly its non-commercial nature, as

well as its orientation towards user-participation, afford its journalists more

freedom to analyze and critique this important news topic by partially mitigating

the force exerted by the economic sphere?

To begin answering such questions, let us first become more familiar with organizations.

12


13/55

ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS

The information presented for both organizations was acquired by a close examination of

their websites. For the NYT, there is a secondary site for their corporate entity located at

www.nytco.com. For ZNet, there is a site for the South End Press Collective, whose

founders established and help to operate ZNet. Looking at the sites allows for one to

better understand their business model, organizational guidelines, codes of ethics,

organizational goals, and so forth. Duval (in Benson 2006:190) outlines several ways in

which conducting an analysis of an organization can assist a researcher in determining

each organizations relative economic and cultural capital. Among these are, for economic

capital, form of ownership, size of audience, and percentage of revenues from advertising,and for cultural capital (which is admittedly more difficult to establish), attachment to a

particular journalistic tradition, direction of media outlet by a journalist or former

journalist, and proportion of journalists employed having graduated from one of the

prestigious journalism graduate schools. Benson (2006:190) claims, while no list of

quantitative indicators can explain the entire output of any given news organization, this

attempt to measure cultural (professional) capital as well as economic factors is a clear

advance on the all-too-common tendency to blame everything on concentration of

ownership or advertising. I suggest that another way to approximate cultural capital is

by profiling the key contributing personalities to the news organization. If for example,well known intellectuals, political figures, or other personalities regularly contribute, it is

likely that this may grant that news organization statues it would not otherwise possess.

With this in mind, I chose to analyze the two organizations by focusing on several

categories which bear in mind economic and cultural capital: 1) Ownership/Business

Model, 2) Circulation/Revenue, 3) Journalistic Goals/Practices, and 4) Key Contributors.

For the NYT, this information was fairly easy to access. For ZNet, it was more difficult

to establish measures of readership, circulation, and revenue streams. Some of those

items were covered in past article that have appeared in Z Magazine and are presented

here.

The New York Times

Ownership/ Business Model: According to the NYTs 2009 report to its shareholders,

13
http://www.nytco.com/http://www.nytco.com/


14/55

since the purchase of The New York Times newspaper by Adolph S. Ochs in 1896,

control of The News York Times and related properties has rested with his family. (NYT

2009) After the death of Iphinge Ochs Sulzberger, control was passed down to her

children in the form of a trust (referred to as the 1997 Trust). According to theshareholders report, The primary objective of the 1997 Trust is to maintain the editorial

independence and the integrity of The New York Times and to continue it as an

independent newspaper, entirely fearless, free of ulterior influence and unselfishly

devoted to the public welfare (the primary objective of the 1997 Trust). (NYT 2009)

The NYT is publicly traded, with stocks being divided into Class A and Class B.

According to the shareholders report (NYT 2009), current as of February 27, 2009, the

following groups/individuals owned roughly 5 percent or more of the outstanding Class A

or B stock, or a combination thereof: The 1997 Trust (4.5%), Daniel H. Cohen (4.6%),

James M. Cohen (4.7%), Lynn G. Dolnick (4.6%), Susan W. Dryfoos (4.8%), Michael

Golden (4.8%), Carolyn D. Greenspon (4.5%), Eric M. Lax (4.5%), Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

(5.2%), Harbinger Capital Partners Group (19.9%), Carlos Slim Helu (16.3%), T. Rowe

Price Associates, Inc. (9.5%), and Emigrant Bank Group (4.7%). Many of the

individuals on this list are managing directors of the NYT, and Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

occupies the positions of Chairman of the Board, Publisher, and Director.

Circulation/Revenue: According to a report published on the NYT website (NYT 2009),

and conducted by ABC Fas-Fax in September 2008, the NYT is ranked #1 in percentage

of individually paid print copies among the national newspapers. The report (NYT

2009) claims that the NYT is the largest 7-day newspaper in the U.S. [and] has extended

its lead with the next biggest 7-day paper, the L.A. Times, by more than 300,000 weekday

copies and over 375,000 Sunday copies.

In spite of the NYTs position among other nationally circulated papers, the industry has

declined in general, and the NYT is experiencing the effects of such hardship. According

to the shareholders report (NYT 2009):

[The NYTs] 2008 total revenues declined 8%. Revenues from advertising, our primarysource of revenue, fell 13%. Circulation revenues, which are derived from newsstand and

home-delivery sales, rose 2%. And while we did a good job of managing coststhey

were down 5%--it was not enough to overcome the total revenue decline. While we had

an operating loss of $41 million compared with operating profit of $227 million in 2007,

14


15/55

if you exclude depreciation and amortization and special items, operating profit for 2008

was $302 million compared with $457 million in 2007.

The report goes on to speculate on the presumed cause of the economic hardships withwhich the paper is confronted:

In past letters to [the shareholders] we have discussed the seismic changes taking place

in the media industry as consumers increasingly get news and information from the Web

and advertisers pay much lower rates online than they do in print. While all of using the

newspaper business are experiencing these changes, we believe that much of the decline

we saw in our business last year stemmed from the downturn in the U.S. economy.

The report continues, that [The NYT] clients value the brand association, the

customizable campaigns we can create and our strong reach. And we believe all this

particularly benefits The Times. Our newspapers and Websites are important tools in

their comprehensive campaign total their stories, restore confidence and respond

effectively to the ongoing global credit crisis.

This shows that the NYT has a clear awareness of how the changing media markets, and

the ongoing financial crisis affects its business. In another section of the website, are the

forward looking statements that the NYT provides prospective investors. The report

(NYT 2009), in a section that discusses potential investment risk factors claims:

Deteriorating economic conditions, including a recession, market disruptions, tightened

credit markets and significantly wider corporate borrowing spreads, may make it more

difficult for us to finance significant transactions or obtain replacement financing for our

existing debt.

Among other risk factors mentioned in the report are: increases in the price of newsprint,

unionization of employees, increasing employee benefit costs, protection of intellectual

property rights, and changing regulatory developments.

Journalistic Goals/Practices: The NYT considers itself a benchmark in journalistic

professionalism and authority. According toEthical Journalism: A Handbook of Values

and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments (NYT 2009), [The NYT]

greatest strength is the authority and reputation of The Times. We must do nothing that

15


16/55

would undermine or dilute it and everything possible to enhance it. This handbook

clearly lays out the methods by which the NYT attempts to maintain its aura of

professionalism and authority. I will quickly outline several of the primary sections in the

handbook citing directly in order to articulate some of the main themes:

Sec. 1-- Introduction and Purpose: The goal of The New York Times is to cover the

news as impartially as possiblewithout fear or favor, in the words of Adolph Ochs,

our patriarchand to treat readers, news sources, advertisers and others fairly and openly,

and to be seen doing so.

Sec. 2-- Our Duty to Our Readers: The Times treats its readers as fairly and openly as

possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best

we can learn it.

Sec. 3-- Pursuing the News: Relationships with sources require the utmost in sound

judgment and self discipline to prevent the fact or appearance of partiality.

Sec. 4-- Protecting the papers Neutrality: Staff members should be especially sensitive

to the appearance of partiality when they address groups that might figure in coverage

they provide, edit, package or supervise, especially if the setting might suggest a close

relationship to the sponsoring group.

Sec. 5Participation in Public Life: No newsroom or editorial employee may do

anything that damages The Times reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics

and government. Journalists have no place on the playing field of politics. Staff

members may appear from time to time on radio and television devoted to public affairs,

but they should avoid expressing views that go beyond what they would be allowed to say

in the paper. Op-ed columnists and editorial writers enjoy more leeway than others in

speaking publicly because their business is expressing opinions. The Times nevertheless

expects them to consider carefully the forums in which they appear and to protect the

standards and impartiality of the newspaper as a whole.

When taken in total, the handbook clearly outlines the methods and behaviors expected of

its journalists.

Key Contributors: Among the key NYT contributors to the coverage of the EESA were

16


17/55

the following individuals, whose background and professional training are worth noting:

1. David M. Herszenhorn-- Herszenhorn is a staff writer who contributed frequently

to the coverage of the EESA over the specified period. He contributes articles aswell as posting frequently on several of the NYT website blogs.

2. Paul KrugmanKrugman is a well known contributor who, according to the bio

provided by the website (NYT 2009), joined The New York Times in 1999 as a

columnist on the Op-ed page and continues as professor of Economic and

International Affairs at Princeton University.

3. Andrew Ross SorkinSorkin is described by the NYT website (NYT 2009) as,

The New York Timess chief mergers and acquisitions reporter and a columnist.

Mr. Sorkin, a leading voice about Wall Street and corporate America, is also the

editor of DealBook (nytimes.com/dealbook), an online daily financial report he

started in 2001. In addition, Mr. Sorkin is an assistant editor of business and

finance news, helping guide and shape the papers coverage.

4. Floyd Norris-- Norris, according to the website (NYT 2009), is the chief

financial correspondent of the New York Times and writes a weekly column.

5. Joe NoceraNocera, according to the website (NYT 2009), Joe Nocera writes

the Talking Business column for The New York Times each Saturday. Mr. Nocera

is also a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine. In addition to his work at

The Times, he serves as a regular business commentator for NPR's Weekend

Edition with Scott Simon.

Z Communications

Ownership/Business Model: Z Communications is a creation of the South End Press

Collective, described by its website (South End 2009) thusly: South End Press is an

independent, nonprofit, collectively-run book publisher with more than 250 titles in print.

Since our founding in 1977, we have met the needs of readers who are exploring, or

already committed to, the politics of radical social change. The site continues, To

expand access to information and critical analysis, South End Press has been instrumental

to the start of two on-going political media projectsSpeak Out and Z Magazine.

According to the website (ZNet 2009), Z Communications is the name for the

overarching institution composed of all Z Operations and Projects. Among these are Z

Magazine and ZNet.

17
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/


18/55

ZNet and Z Magazine both raise revenue for the organization. ZNet allows users to sign

up as either free members or Z Sustainers. Free members are allowed to read all sections

of the site. Z Sustainers gain access to more features by contributing at the anywherebetween $1-$100 monthly. Access increases with monthly contribution level with the

highest-level contributors receiving privileges such as their own ZSpace page, the ability

to upload their own content, and discounts at the ZStore, which sells videos and other

items. Z Magazine sells subscriptions at a rate of $33 for 12 months. It offers a discount

on that rate for low income subscribers at $28 for 12 months. The cost per issue

decreases for subscriptions that go beyond 12 months.

Circulation/Revenue: According to an article from Z Magazine (ZMag 2005) in January

2005 claims, Despite our financial ups and downs, including another funding crisis last

year, weve been able to improve and expand our efforts and projects, thanks to help from

readers and supporters. It continues:

Each month, we prepare Z at our offices in Woods Hole between the first and the 10th of

the month. It is shipped from our printer in Ohio to subscribers and distributors around

the country. Print subscriptions continue in the 8,000 to 10,000 range, with an estimated

pass along readership of 15,000. Another 3,000 (and growing) access Z Magazine in its

online format. Newsstand distribution ranges from between 7,500 and 9,000.

The article also offers a glimpse of the organizational commitment to remain free of

advertiser support:

By avoiding such corporate forms as a rigid hierarchy or a bloated bureaucracy devoted

to raising advertising or big-money donor revenues, we've attempted to maintain our

political ideals in everyday practice while continuing to offer an expanding variety of

media content.

Another article from January 2008 (ZMag 2008), reflects of Z Magazines future and its

current state of affairs:

First, it's important to realize that Z Magazine print has always lost money, partly

because we started it without investors or advertising income and without the start-up

budget of two to three million dollars many said was needed to start a magazine in 1988.

18


19/55

Plus, the cost of finding and keeping subscribers, of paying printers, and salaries and fees

to writers and cartoonists, with income generated solely from subscriptions and

newsstand sales, has required that we raise around $60-$100,000 every two or three years

since 1988.

The article continues by describing the organizations response to the financial problems

described above:

To address the financial losses, we initially created our website's Sustainer Program as a

way for Z supporters to contribute to the entire Z operation. A year ago, we decided that

we needed to upgrade our ZNet website to keep in tune website with people's preferences,

influenced by You-Tube, blogs, myspace, and other Internet developments.

Though it is difficult to determine Z Magazine and ZNets readership, it seems clear that

the organization may be forced to transition to a digital only format. Even without exact

readership and revenue statistics, it is unsurprising that it is minute compared to that of

the NYT.

Journalistic Goals/Practices: The ZNet website describes Z magazine as a radical print

and online periodical dedicated to resisting injustice, eliminating repression, and creating

liberty. ZNet collects Z Magazine articles as well as those from many other news

sources, making a large amount of content available to its readers.

An article from January 2008 (ZMag 2008) by Z Magazine founder Lydia Sargent claims:

Because a new left "totalist" politics had developed during that time [1960s-1970s], our

mission when we started Z Magazine (and South End Press, as well) was to create a

media institution that would not only critique existing society and institutions, but would

relate this new politics to existing movements, to those just becoming radical, and to a

larger public. Otherwise, it would be ignored, revised, or misrepresented by mainstream

media outlets. We also wanted to create a left media institution that was self-sustaining

and that reflected in its collective structure our valuesfor peace and justice and againstwhite supremacist capitalist patriarchy politics. We hoped that this non-hierarchical

structure would serve, eventually, as one possible model for activists in their vision and

strategy for a better society and the institutions that might foster more humane values.

19


20/55

It continues:

In the mid-1990s, at the urging of younger ZMI students, ZNet was created (with one

staff member, later twoplus volunteers). That's 20 years of work, thousands of articlesand graphics, hundreds of free ads for worthy movement organizations, projects, and

media productionsnot to mention many hours of worry about financial survival, the

state of the left and the state of the world.

Sargent reflects on the uses of Internet technology in this article, questioning whether it

will be a tool for oppression or liberation for the Left. She suggests:

To me, the answer for the left is that: if we develop infrastructure, which we don't

currently have: if we continue to create varied forms of mediatext, video, audio, games,

etc.produced by a more diverse set of people, on a global scale, for all ages; if we

prioritize the participatory democratic discussion of strategy and vision for a real

revolution; if we find a way to grow within the so-called Internet "democracy" touted by

pundits, using the web aggressively as our personal left distribution system, the kind

we've never before been able to achieve, then perhaps the Internet will be the greatest

media revolution since Gutenberg's Bible.

It seems clear that ZNet does not set specific guidelines for journalistic practices--rather,

it rejects the clear division between audience and consumer in favor of a more

participatory journalism that happens at a multiplicity of sites utilizing emergent

technologies freely. In this sense, ZNet stands in opposition to the professional practices

that the NYT espouses, and partly depends upon for its authority.

Key Contributors: ZNets participatory model allows contributors to post articles and

commentaries that appear in concert with more established journalists and intellectuals.

However, it is those more notable individuals with considerable credentials and

recognizable names that may ultimately raise the organizations profile. Among the key

contributors are Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, noted historian

Howard Zinn, and most recently Venezuelan President Hug Chavez, who posts a regularblog. Among those who contributed to the articles examined for this study are:

1. Dean Baker-- Baker is the Co-Founder of the Center for Economic Policy and

Research. He formerly worked as an analyst for the Economic Policy Institute in

20


21/55

Washington.

2. Naomi Klein-- Klein is a noted journalist and author of The Shock Doctrine.

According to her ZNet biography, Kleins regular column for The Nation and The

Guardian is distributed internationally by the New York Times Syndicate.3. William Greider-- Greider is a journalist and author, formerly a reporter and editor

from the Washington Post.

4. Paul Street-- Street is, according to his ZSpace page, an independent radical-

democratic policy researcher, journalist, historian, and speaker The site

continues, Streets writings, research findings, and commentary have been

featured and presented in a large number and wide variety of media venues

including The New York Times, CNN, Al Jazeera, the Chicago Tribune, The

Times of India, Morning Star (England), Al-Alkhbar (The News in Beirut,

Lebanon), WGN (Chicago/national), WLS (ABC-Chicago), Fox News, the

Chicago Sun Times, the Capital City Times (Madison, WI), and the Iowa City

Press Citizen.

5. James K. Galbraith-- Galbraith is an economist and son of John Kenneth

Galbraith. He is the former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee.

Similarities and Differences

There are clear differences between the organizations business models. The NYT

closely resembles the kind of organization one might expect to find in Hallin and

Mancinis (2004) liberal model. The NYT is a commercial entity whose primary revenue

source is from advertising. Advertisers post in the NYT because of its high circulation,

meaning maintaining that circulation is vital to the NYTs existence, as well as its

viability as a profit-oriented business. In contrast, ZNet strives to keep itself free from

corporate interference by electing not to solicit commercial advertising revenue. ZNet

generates the revenue necessary to maintain production through subscriptions and

contributions, meaning higher circulation is a means of sustaining the organization,

though not necessarily for the sake of profit, but survival.

In terms of journalistic practice, the NYT espouses the notion of journalistic neutralityand non-partisanship. The organization openly claims that its legitimate authority to

make news is based upon such practices and they clearly demarcate the line between

producers and consumers of news. ZNet openly admits its political agenda. As such it

bears at least some of the earmarks of organizations likely to be found in countries

21


22/55

described by Hallin and Mancinis (2004) polarized pluralist model. News organizations

within these countries are likely to be openly partisan in the coverage they offer and

insulated from commercial influence (though in many of these countries this is through

direct government subsidization).

Both organizations feature key contributors who have highly recognizable profiles, which

contributes to the cultural capital possessed by each organization. In the NYTs case,

nearly all of the key contributors will have a background in journalism. For ZNet, many

have either a background in journalism, or technical expertise in a particular academic

area. There is, at times, a cross pollination of contentone of the Op-eds that ran in the

NYT during the period examined ran several days later in ZNet. Sometimes, policy

analysts cited by one organization may be cited, or contribute to the other. This suggests,

that as varied as content may be because of organizational guidelines etc., that both news

organizations often argue issues in the same discursive sphere. The complexity of

coverage and the interconnectedness of information make an understanding of such a

realm challenging.

By conducting an organizational analysis, we can utilize the structure provided by field

theory to establish relative positions within the journalistic field for each organization.

The figure below (Figure 1) represents these positions within the field by locating each

organization based upon their proportion of particular forms of capital, either cultural

(CC) or economic (CE).

22

CE-

CC+

CE+

CC-

CE+

CC+

ZNet

NYT

Large Scale Journalism

Heternomous

Pole

Autonomus

Pole


23/55


24/55


25/55

(Altheide1996:9) From the organizational context we can recognize patterns of meaning.

These meanings and patterns seldom appear all at once, Altheide (1996:10) suggests,

rather, they emerge or become more clear through constant comparison and investigation

of documents over time.

The texts I examine provide insight beyond political or economic commentary-- they

provide a rich description of the discursive environments from which they come. Even

more, they provide empirical evidence as to the effect that the journalistic field (and other

fields as well) has upon the organizations, and how individual actors within the

organizations reinforce or undermine normative structures within the field. My research

design hopes to richly articulate the prevailing message system which is the relatively

coherent worldview one can abstract from the news by identifying how stories are framed

or put into context and the dominant reference points used, (Wittenbols 2001:346)-- of

each organization. My argument is that within the messages systems are frames, which

Altheide (1996:30) suggests are very broad thematic emphases or definitions of a

report. Frames help to shape the discursive borders of arguments. Closely related to

frames are themes that Altheide (1996:31) suggests are recurring typical theses that run

through a lot of reports. He continues, Theoretically, frames and themes are crucial in

defining situations and provide much of the rationale for document analysis. (Altheide

1996:31) I suggest that understanding the prevailing frames and themes utilized by the

two organizations is key to linking their content to their relative position within the

journalistic field. In understanding how the organizations utilized frames and themes in

conjunction with one another to construct intricate arguments about the EESA, I believe it

is possible to empirically assess the prevailing message systems at work.

It is important to note that not all of the texts were produced by the organizations

themselves. Though both organizations produced original texts during this period, they

both also disseminated content produced by other organizations. I suggests, that in

choosing to make this content available to readers, the organizations incorporate that

content into a larger discursive framework, thereby making it a part of their own message

system. Interceding to galvanize and contour these organizations message systems are

the gravitational effects within the journalistic field.

Data Management

The texts selected were articles, op-eds, editorials, and commentaries from the NYT

25


26/55

(articles accessed through the Times website NyTimes.com), and ZNet (articles accessed

at Zmag.org). I limited my search down to an approximately two week period from

September 19, 2008 to October 6, 2008, a time in which both organizations were

producing/disseminating content on the EESA at a high volume. To locate the texts, Iutilized the search function from each website. The NYT website allowed for a keyword

searchI used the two most common referents for the EESA during the period, which

were TARP and Bailout. Both of these terms hit upon a special area of the site

dedicated to the EESA and designated as a Times Topic. From that point I was able to

filter out articles outside of the designated timeframe.

ZNet provided a search engine with similar features. It allows for keyword searches, and

offers that user the opportunity to filter in or out articles, blogs, and multimedia on the

specific topic. I elected not to utilize blogs as they were not hit upon in the NYTs

search engine, nor are they necessarily available in a print format. The choice to

systematically sample for texts that are available to print readership was a strategic one, as

it is unclear whether the NYTs print readership would access the website to seek out

blogs. Therefore, incorporating those may mean analyzing texts that a large percentage of

the NYTs readership may not read. I also filtered out, from both the NYT and ZNet,

articles that were hit upon by the search engines, but only tangentially referenced the

EESA, rather than making it a substantial focus of the article. It became clear as I was

sorting through the data, that the NYT disseminated columns, Op-Eds, and editorials.

These varied greatly from one another in tone, but I decided to analyze each of them, as

doing so is consistent with deconstructive textual analysis emphasis on exploring

ideological limits. For ZNet differences between articles were not as pronounced, so I

settled on picking ZNet articles and commentaries, as these were available free to readers

at the website and presented in concert with one another. Moreover, its seemed by

looking at issues of the printed Z Magazine that ZNet articles and commentaries were

among the content available to be printed.

After collecting the articles, I engaged in what Altheide (1996:53) refers to as the double

loop of analysis. I first thumbed through articles from each source to get a sense of the

different frames and themes that made up the organizations message systems. I thenbegan taking detailed notes that summarized each article, and found that five common

frames emerged that explored the topic of the EESA in different ways. They are:

1. What Happened? (Analysis of Causes of the Crisis)-- Arguments that account

26


27/55

for the underlying causes of the problem including key regulation and de-

regulation that fomented the financial crisis.

2. Off With Their Heads! (Who is Responsible for the Problem)-- Arguments

which assign responsibility (for the financial crisis or lack of action to resolve thecrisis) to key leaders in the political and economic sector.

3. The Blank Check (How to Fix It)-- Arguments that analyze the need for/efficacy

of the proposed Bailout in addressing the crisis and/or other proposed solutions.

4. Wall Street/ Main Street (Who Does or Does not Benefit)-- Arguments which

specifically refer to who benefits from the Bailout.

5. What Comes Next(Looking to the Future)Arguments that speculate as to

how the Bailout and Financial Crisis will affect the nations future.

If the first loop of Altheides method is intuitive, than the next is analytic. Afterdeliberating upon the frames that make up each organizations message system, I read

back through the articles and refined my notes to include specific examples of how the

frames were articulated, and began making observations about similarities and

differences. These frames were not always easily visible and they often appeared in

concert with one another. At times, broad themes articulated arguments within frames.

As I conducted my analysis, I realized that the way in which frames were presented in

proximity to one another, and in concert with key themes often exposed important

components of the organizational message systems. I believe, when understood as a

totality, they represent a message system unique to each organization.

I will present my findings for each organization referring back to these frames and citing

from the texts where appropriate, and then move on to a more general discussion which

reflects upon how an understanding of the prevailing message system of each

organization can help to answer the previously stated research questions.

27


28/55

ANALYSIS

ZNet: The Social Justice/Systemic Responsibility Message System

ZNets coverage tended to present arguments that discussed the underlying causes of the

financial crisis (Frame 1) often and with great detail. Many of the articles referred to

specific key pieces of legislationmost notably, the Glass-Steagall Act. Steve Frasers

article (Wall Street and Washington 2008) provides a good example of the way in which

ZNets coverage emphasized the necessity of understanding historical events to critique

the present. Fraser traces the relationship between big business on Wall Street and

legislators in Washington, and suggests that bailouts are not unprecedented, and there wasa post Depression-era period in which regulatory mechanisms worked as intended. He

suggests, The Glass-Steagall Banking Act, the two laws of 1933 and 1934 regulating the

stock exchange, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other

similar measures subjected the financial sector to fairly rigorous public supervision. He

continues by recapping an era of gradual deregulation, culminating with Glass-Stegalls

repeal in 1999. He introduces terms in this article that are key to understanding ZNets

use of Frame 1the socialization of risk and the privatization of reward. Amy

Goodmans article (Wall Street Socialists 2008) emphasizes this ongoing problem

thusly, As these high-rolling gamblers are losing all their banks' money, it comes to the

taxpayer to bail them out.

In ZNet, Frame 1 arguments were often presented in conjunction with arguments that

assign responsibility to key members of the political and economic sector (Frame 2).

Goodmans article suggests:

The meltdown is a bipartisan affair. Presidential contenders John McCain and Barack

Obama each have received millions of dollars from these very companies that are

collapsing and are receiving the corporate welfare. President Clinton and his treasury

secretary, Robert Rubin (now an Obama economic adviser), presided over the repeal in

1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, passed after the 1929 start of the Great Depression to curb

speculation that caused that calamity. The repeal was pushed through by former

Republican Sen. Phil Gramm, one of McCain's former top advisers. Politicians are too

dependent on Wall Street to do anything.

28


29/55

We see here that Goodman assigns responsibility, but does so in the context of a broader

systemic inadequacy that is grounded in a historical chain of events that precipitated a

context in which the current crisis became possible. This positions political figures as atonce powerful actors and products of a culture of irresponsibility. Dean Bakers article

(The Financial Meltdown Continues 2008) from September 20th utilizes Frame 2 to

point out the way in which certain individuals could have played an instrumental role in

averting the current crisishere, he specifically criticizes former Federal Reserve

chairman Alan Greenspan:

While there is no simple path out of this crisis, it was a crisis that could have been easily

avoided. If the Federal Reserve Board had acted to stem the growth of the housing bubble

before it grew to such dangerous proportions, the country would not currently be facing a

recession and the prospect of a financial collapse. Alan Greenspan had the tools

necessary to rein in the bubble had he been so inclined. First, he could have imposed

tighter restrictions on mortgages, as the Fed has recently done. This would have prevented

many of the worst mortgages that led to the subprime crisis and helped inflate housing

prices.

Bakers criticism of Greenspan typifies much of ZNets coverage. It pair Frames 1 and 2

so that it does directly critique specific actors, but with an eye towards the historical roots

of the current crisis. ZNets analysis of the efficacy of the proposed Bailout (Frame 3)

often relied upon Frame 1 as well. Robert Weissmans article (The Financial Re-

Regulatory Agenda 2008) suggests, The current crisis is the culmination of a quarter

century's deregulation. Even as the Fed and Treasury scramble to contain the damage,

there must be a simultaneous effort to reconstruct a regulatory system to prevent future

disasters. Weissman goes on to outline several re-regulatory actions that the current

administration should take, including his suggestion to:

Revive competition policy. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, separating traditional

banks from investment banks, was the culmination of a progressive [sic] deregulation of

the banking sector. In the current environment, banks are gobbling up the investmentbanks. But this arrangement is paving the way for future problems.

Another common frame pairing in ZNets coverage was analysis of who benefits from the

proposed Bailout (Frame 4) with Frame 3-- ZNets coverage often articulated Frame 3 in

29


30/55

the context of Frame 4. As one might expect, ZNets organizational commitment to

social justice led articles to often analyze the efficacy of the Bailout by whether it

benefits only those Wall Street investors who receive funding, or Main Street Americans.

An article by Senator Bernie Sanders (Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays? 2008) suggests:

The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited most from

Bush's economic policies are the people who should provide the funds for the bailout. It

would be immoral to ask the middle class, the people whose standard of living has

declined under Bush, to pay for this bailout while the rich, once again, avoid their

responsibilities. Further, if the government is going to save companies from bankruptcy,

the taxpayers of this country should be rewarded for assuming the risk by sharing in the

gains that result from this government bailout.

This excerpt resonates with a common theme in ZNets coverage, which is, to the extent

possible, proposed legislation should be punitive. Dean Bakers article (No Blank

Check for Wall Street 2008) from Sept 24th suggests:

We cannot afford to give Paulson a blank check. Congress must first insist on some

serious accountability in the bailout process. That means a board that involves

congressional appointees and a high level of transparency, rather than just allowing

Paulson to spend the money as he pleases. Congress should also insist that the Wall

Street crew pays for its own incompetence. An absolute cap of $2m in annual

compensation for any executive of any firm taking part in the bailout seems fair. The

taxpayers should also be compensated for their support. The government should acquire

an ownership stake in the companies that it bails out. For example, for every $10bn in bad

debts it buys, the government should get $2bn in stock. That way, the taxpayers stand to

get back some of their money. There are more conditions that should be imposed as part

of the bailout, but the key point is that Congress has time to structure the bailout to serve

the country's interest. It should not allow itself it to be bullied into giving the Bush

administration a huge blank check. This is exactly what it did when it authorized the war

in Iraq, and we all know how that one turned out.

The blank check was a theme within Frame 3 that appeared often in both organizations

coverage. In ZNets coverage, it often came in conjunction with Frame 4, and with

arguments that speculate about how the Bailout would affect the nations future (Frame

5). Often, the need for punitive action in structuring the Bailout was presented as an

30
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=tJtedvGDsFH9ZpcxoRmOmkt%2F9o6iiHYVhttp://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=tJtedvGDsFH9ZpcxoRmOmkt%2F9o6iiHYVhttp://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=tJtedvGDsFH9ZpcxoRmOmkt%2F9o6iiHYVhttp://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=tJtedvGDsFH9ZpcxoRmOmkt%2F9o6iiHYV


31/55

argument that would ensure that, whatever investment was made, average Americans

would be protected moving forward.

The way in which ZNet presented the different frames of arguments, as well as how itpaired frames to construct criticisms and solutions in particular ways, leads me to suggest

that one could call ZNets message system the Social Justice/Systemic Responsibility

system. This system portrayed the current crisis as the consequent of a series of historical

shifts towards de-regulation, which specific individuals within the system allowed or even

encouraged, at the expense of the American middle- and lower-classes. ZNets emphasis

throughout the coverage was consistent in suggesting that the only solution acceptable

was one that reshaped broad systemic shortcomings that produce and reproduce structures

of inequality.

NYT: The Economic Stability/Personal Accountability Message System

The NYTs coverage tended to focus predominantly on Frame 3, with Frames 2 and 4

often utilized in conjunction. A stark difference in the NYTs coverage, particularly in

columns, is that it did not utilize Frame 1 often, or with great detail. Many columns were

richly descriptive of events occurring within the Bush administration or Congress at the

time. An article by David M. Herezenhorn (Administration is Seeking $700 Billion for

Wall Street 2008) provides such an example:

The Bush administration on Saturday formally proposed a vast bailout of financial

institutions in the United States, requesting unfettered authority for the Treasury

Department to buy up to $700 billion in distressed mortgage-related assets from the

private firms. The proposal, not quite three pages long, was stunning for its stark

simplicity. It would raise the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion. And it would place no

restrictions on the administration other than requiring semiannual reports to Congress,

granting the Treasury secretary unprecedented power to buy and resell mortgage debt.

The article goes on to describe how Democrats and Republicans differ on specifics of the

proposed legislation, suggesting that such differences, set the stage for a four-day brawlin Congress.

Op-Ed pieces, particularly those presented from September 21st through September 26th,

tended to be more critical of the proposed legislation, utilizing frame pairings in a way

31


32/55

similar to ZNets coverage. One example is William Kristols Op-Ed from September 21st

(A Fine Mess 2008), one of the few NYTs pieces to utilize Frame 1, that also utilizes

Frames 2 and 3. Kristol suggests:

A huge speculative housing bubble has collapsed. Were going to have a recession.

Unemployment will go up. Credit is going to be tighter. The challenge is to contain the

damage to a normal recession and to prevent a devastating series of bank runs, a

collapse of the credit markets and a full-bore depression. Everyone seems to agree on the

need for a big and comprehensive plan, and that the markets have to have some

confidence that help is on the way. Funds need to be supplied, trading markets need to be

stabilized, solvent institutions needs to be protected, and insolvent institutions need to be

put on the path to a deliberate liquidation or reorganization.

He continues:

But is the administrations proposal the right way to do this? It would enable the

Treasury, without Congressionally approved guidelines as to pricing or procedure, to

purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of financial assets, and hire private firms to

manage and sell them, presumably at their discretion. There are no provisions for or

even promises of disclosure, accountability or transparency. Surely Congress can at

least ask some hard questions about such an open-ended commitment. And Ive been

shocked by the number of (mostly conservative) experts Ive spoken with who arent at all

confident that the Bush administration has even the basics right or who think that the

plan, though it looks simple on paper, will prove to be a nightmare in practice.

Kristol expresses doubts about the efficacy of the plan, in two ways. First by reviewing

the root of the problem (albeit in much less detail than ZNet articles typically provided),

and second, by questioning whether the proposed plan can be effective when it is the

Bush administrations proposition.

Another example that is particularly useful is Paul Krugmans Op-Ed (Cash for Trash

2008) which appeared in the NYT on September 22nd, and was run in ZNet on September25th. Krugman sums up conditions that led to the crisis, and then questions whether the

proposed plan is one that will help or harm everyday Americans. Krugman suggests:

Everyone agrees that something major must be done. But Mr. Paulson is demanding

32


33/55

extraordinary power for himself and for his successor to deploy taxpayers money

on behalf of a plan that, as far as I can see, doesnt make sense.

He continues:

The Paulson plan calls for the federal government to buy up $700 billion worth of

troubled assets, mainly mortgage-backed securities. How does this resolve the crisis?

Well, it might might break the vicious circle of deleveraging, step 4 in my capsule

description. Even that isnt clear: the prices of many assets, not just those the Treasury

proposes to buy, are under pressure. And even if the vicious circle is limited, the financial

system will still be crippled by inadequate capital. Or rather, it will be crippled by

inadequate capital unless the federal government hugely overpays for the assets it buys,

giving financial firms and their stockholders and executives a giant windfall at

taxpayer expense. Did I mention that Im not happy with this plan?

Another piece that was critical of the proposed plan was Andrew Ross Sorkins article

(A Bailout Above the Law 2008) which suggests, It is the financial equivalent of the

Patriot Act. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.s $700 billion proposal to bail out

Wall Street is both the biggest rescue and the most amazing power grab in the history of

the American economy.

Krugmans, Kristols, and Sorkins pieces seem to, by utilizing aspects of Frames 1, 2,

and 3 in concert, fit fairly well within the Social Justice/Systemic Responsibility

message system. However, the NYTs coverage was by no means consistent throughout

the timeframe examined. As events unfolded, the NYT shifted its use of these frames,

and the nature of the arguments presented within them, dramatically.

Early coverage in the NYT tended to provide descriptions of events through the columns,

and criticism of aspects of the proposed plan through the Op-Eds or editorials, however

there was in much of the content, the presumption that the legislation would pass. An

example of such presumption, which comes within Frame 3, is in David M. Herzenhorns

article (Bailout Talks Advance, but Doubts Voiced in Congress 2008) from September23rd. He suggests:

While Congressional leaders in both chambers said they were confident that they could

reach a quick deal, it was also clear that Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke would face rough

33
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/usa_patriot_act/index.html?inline=nyt-classifierhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/usa_patriot_act/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier


34/55

questioning and that initial support for the bailout had begun to fray. Some Democrats

said they simply did not trust the president, and drew a parallel to Mr. Bushs request for

authority to wage war in Iraq.

The article continues by describing points of contention between the two parties, but

suggests that an agreement would be reached shortly:

Because the markets are eager for a final deal and because Congress is trying to adjourn

for the fall elections, lawmakers are bypassing the normal committee process and working

toward an agreement in hopes of votes in both chambers within days. And some

lawmakers said it could be done. We are convinced that inaction could be a disaster,

said Senator Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah. We dont believe that inaction is an

option, so therefore we are going to do whatever we can to make sure that the action that

is taken is as responsible and well thought-out as possible.

Even though the NYTs coverage seemed to presume the Bailout was inevitable, it did

often voice skepticism about particular aspects of the plan, such as the broad powers it

would give Paulson, and the lack of adequately capping executive pay structures.

However, when the initial vote failed in the House of Representatives on September 30th,

the NYTs coverage shifted. Whereas at first, Frame 3 arguments within the NYT were

critical of the plans shortcomings, after the initial vote failed, Frame 3 arguments tended

more often to suggest that whatever shortcomings the plan might have, they needed to be

ignored as failing to pass the plan quickly would do more damage to the economy in the

long run.

Here is an example two Frame 3 arguments, one before the initial vote failed, one after.

The first is an Op-Ed from Bob Herbert (A Second Opinion 2008) on September 23 rd in

which he states:

Mr. Paulson spoke on the Sunday morning talk shows about bad lending practices and

irresponsible borrowing and irresponsible lending and illiquid assets. The sky was

falling, he seemed to be saying, and if the taxpayers didnt pony up $700 billion in thenext few days, all would be lost. No time to look at the fine print. Hurry, hurry, said the

treasury secretary. His eyes, as he hopped from one network camera to another, said, as

salesmen have been saying since the dawn of time: Trust me. With all due respect to

Mr. Paulson, who is widely regarded as a smart and fine man, we need to slow this

34


35/55

process down. We got into this mess by handing out mortgages like lollipops to people

who paid too little attention to the fine print, who in many cases didnt understand it or

didnt care about it.

The contrast between that example and this Op-Ed by Paul Krugman (Edge of the

Abyss 2008) on October 3rd which suggests:

Theres growing evidence that the financial crunch is spreading to Main Street, with

small businesses having trouble raising money and seeing their credit lines cut. And

leading indicators for both employment and industrial production have turned sharply

worse, suggesting that even before Lehmans fall, the economy, which has been sagging

since last year, was falling off a cliff. How bad is it? Normally sober people are

sounding apocalyptic. On Thursday, the bond trader and blogger John Jansen declared

that current conditions are the financial equivalent of the Reign of Terror during the

French Revolution,while Joel Prakken of Macroeconomic Advisers says that the

economy seems to be on the edge of the abyss.

He continues:

For the fact is that the plan on offer is a stinker and inexcusably so. The financial

system has been under severe stress for more than a year, and there should have been

carefully thought-out contingency plans ready to roll out in case the markets melted

down. Obviously, there werent: the Paulson plan was clearly drawn up in haste and

confusion. And Treasury officials have yet to offer any clear explanation of how the plan

is supposed to work, probably because they themselves have no idea what theyre doing.

Despite this, as I said, I hope the plan passes, because otherwise well probably see even

worse panic in the markets. But at best, the plan will buy some time to seek a real

solution to the crisis.

The juxtaposition between Herberts suggestion to slow down the process and find an

appropriate solution, and Krugmans suggestion to pass admittedly inadequate legislation

to the tune of nearly $1 billion dollars is interesting. What is more interesting is thatKrugmans piece is joined by a chorus of others that all ran between September 30th and

October 3rd, immediately after the initial vote failed in the House. David Brooks Op-Ed

(Revolt of the Nihilists 2008) on September 30 th is critical of the failure of both

Democratic and Republican leadership when he suggests:

35
http://seekingalpha.com/article/98309-america-s-reign-of-terrorhttp://seekingalpha.com/article/98309-america-s-reign-of-terrorhttp://seekingalpha.com/article/98309-america-s-reign-of-terrorhttp://seekingalpha.com/article/98309-america-s-reign-of-terrorhttp://seekingalpha.com/article/98309-america-s-reign-of-terror


36/55

The only thing to do now is to try againto rescue the rescue. Theres no time to find a

brand-new package, so the Congressional plan should go up for another vote on Thursday,

this time with additions that would change its political prospects.

Thomas Friedmans Op-Ed (Rescue the Rescue 2008) on October 1st claims:

Ive been frightened for my country only a few times in my life: In 1962, when, even as

a boy of 9, I followed the tension of the Cuban missile crisis; in 1963, with the

assassination of JFK; on Sept. 11, 2001; and on Monday, when the House Republicans

brought down the bipartisan rescue package.

But it was not only Op-Eds that shifted their perspective. This column from September

1st by Jim Dwyer (The Crisis, as Seen by the Have-Nots) quotes a man working at a

barbecue stand who suggests in reference to those who voted against the Bailout, They

voted no, they dont have that right. The only way you can help the community is get it

passed.

After the initial vote failed, the dynamics of the frames shifted in the NYTs coverage. In

early coverage in the NYT, a theme within Frame 3 was that the Bailout should be

punitive this was similar to ZNets coverage, and Dean Baker, whose articles in ZNet

emphasized that theme, was actually quoted in a NYT article by Peter S. Goodman

(Experts See a Need for Punitive Action in Bailout 2008) that ran on September 23 rd.

Goodman quotes Baker who suggests:

This administration is asking for a $700 billion blank check to be put in the hands of

Henry Paulson, a guy who totally missed this, and has been wrong about almost

everything, said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy

Research in Washington. Its almost amazing they can do this with a straight face. There

is clearly skepticism and anger at the idea that wed give this money to these guys, no

questions asked.

While theme of punitive action was consistently articulated in Frame 3 arguments in ZNet

throughout the period examined, this theme was prevalent in the NYT in early Frame 3

arguments but almost disappeared altogether after the initial vote failed. What replaced

the punitive action theme in the NYTs coverage were themes such as rescue the

36


37/55

rescue and theres no time. Perhaps the best example of this is Joe Noceras article

(Market Cant Wait for Congress to Act 2008) in which he suggests, Congress is

fiddling while Rome is burning. This is a sharp contrast to an earlier article in which

Nocera compared the Bailout to a Hail Mary pass in football, which he suggested almostnever work.

As well as the shift in Frame 3 arguments, Frame 2 and 4 arguments shifted as well.

While many of the columns in the NYTs early coverage cited the populist outcry against

the Bailout, columns after the initial vote failed often expressed a growing popular

sentiment in favor of the Bailout. A good example is an article by David M. Herszenhorn

(Word Reaches Congress: As the Market Goes, So Goes the Electorate 2008) that

details how different actor in Congress were making decisions about the Bailout, and

what feedback they were getting from constituents. The author cites Rep. Jason Altmire

(D-Penn) who claims:

My calls are still running 10 to 1 against the Bailout, which sounds like a lot, but before

the vote, it was 30 to 1. After the vote, especially that afternoon as the market fell, our

calls were about 50-50.

The article next cites Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ken) who claims:

Before the vote on Monday, I think our count was 965 to 60. On Tuesday, after the

market dropped, the calls started out in the morning saying, why dont you do

something. Once the market came back, they started evening out again. Now they are

running 50-50.

This article utilizes different aspects of Frames 2, 3, and 4. It implicitly suggests that

which is in keeping with the NYTs overall shift, which is that the Bailout, however

flawed, is necessary, and leaders in the political realm would be irresponsible to vote

against it, because to do so would do more harm to Main Street than is reasonable. It

seems that the NYTs message system, which in some aspects at first seemed to parallel

that of ZNet, became something altogether different when the Bailout looked as if itmight fail, and the stock markets began to sour. At that point, the NYTs coverage

focused more on how specific individuals such as those in the current administration and

Congress were affecting events at the present, emphasizing that they were accountable for

whatever harm the economy may incur. Moreover, the NYTs coverage more frequently

37


38/55

espoused stabilizing the market in spite of how inadequate the proposed legislation might

befor that reason, I suggest that the NYT relies more upon the Economic

Stability/Personal Accountability message system.

38


39/55

DISCUSSION

Research Questions

Q1. Did the NYT and ZNets coverage of the EESA differ? If so, how does field theory,

coupled with aspects of an organizational analysis, work to explain differences in

coverage?

Though early coverage in both organizations emphasized social justice themes and

referred to larger systemic shortcomings, the shift in the NYTs coverage after the initial

rejection of the proposed plan in the House of Representatives was quite obvious. ZNetscoverage was more consistent throughout the timeframe studied in its openly political and

ideological message system. The NYT, likely because of its stated commitment to

political neutrality tended not to discuss specific ideologies in great detail, though there

were some exceptions, particularly in the more critical Op-Ed or editorial pieces.

Field theory works to explain the differences in the two organizations message systems

by providing a means to locate the organizations within Bourdieus theoretical

construct, the journalistic field, which lies embedded within the larger field of power, of

which the political and economic fields are a part. The NYT, because it generates the

majority of its revenue through commercial advertising and because of its large

circulation, is high in economic capital. However, as Bourdieu suggests, the economic

field tends to exert its dominance, making other fields subservient. I suggest this is

particularly so in what Hallin and Mancini label a liberal media model. Evidence that

the economic field is particularly dominant within this model is presented in Duvals

work, which examines coverage of news in France at a time in which the media system

was transforming into a liberal model, and news organizations were adapting to that new

framework. In this study, it seems that the differences in coverage between the two

organizations can be explained by understanding their relative spatial positions within the

journalistic field. I believe when w

bailout blues 3.0

Documents