trends in journalistic coverage of iran's killed scientists

8/12/2019 Trends in Journalistic Coverage of Iran's Killed Scientists

1/63

Trends in Journalistic Coverage of

Irans Killed Scientists

A Thesis

Submitted in Fulfillment of the

Bachelor of Arts degree

of

International Studies

at

Berry College

by

Daniel Rust

2012


2/63

Rust 2

Trends in Journalistic Coverage of Irans Killed Scientists

Daniel T. Rust

(Abstract)

This paper seeks to analyze the coverage of Irans murdered nuclear scientists fromthe last few years in five newspapers of record: the New York Times, the

Washington Post, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, and theWashington Times. The research question is: to what degree do Western

newspapers react favorably or unfavorably to assumed covert action againstIranian nuclear scientists, and are these trends caused by American opinion?

Research methods primarily rely on a quantitative analysis of the verbiage used ineach news outlet's coverage of each case.


3/63

Rust 3

Introduction

Recent polling has indicated that the American public generally holds an unfavorable view

towards Iran, particularly with regard to its nuclear program.

12

This paper seeks to find whether

major American newspapers hold similar views by analyzing their coverage of targeted killings

of Irans nuclear-affiliated scientists, and whether these views change before or after public

opinion polling changes. The newspapers included in this study are: the New York Times, the

Washington Post, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington

Times. Since 2010, there have been five attacks on scientists in particular, killing four and

wounding one. One scientist allegedly suffocated in 2007, but murder was not considered as a

reason for death until further attacks occurred.3 Therefore, since there are not any news articles

about a killing of Iranian an scientist until 2010, that particular instance was not counted.

The level of sophistication and targeted nature of the attacks has led to widespread

speculation of foul play at the nation-state level. While the shadow war between Israel and

Iran loom large, Iran is the sole focus of this paper.4 While the international community largely

implicates Israel in the attacks, it does not have a role as a variable of this paper.5 The attacks

themselves, however, are seen as an intervening variable within the context of this paper, causing

possible jumps in reactive journalism immediately after. What have been measured as variables

are fifteen keywords about the attacks, and the degree of their aggressiveness toward the subject,

across the span of 130 newspaper articles. Irrelevant to this study are the other separate

incidences (the suffocated scientist, explosions, computer viruses, kidnappings, and other

important figures showing up dead).6 This is because, simply, there is less evidence in these

events and therefore less room for the public (i.e. newspaper subscribers) to infer that an attack

had happened. The verbiage about the attacks (as well as article and total word counts,


4/63

Rust 4

presumably) directly relates to newspaper favorability bias towards Iran. Thus, for precision

purposes, the bulk of the research done for this paper focuses simply on the five targeted attacks

on scientists.

The literature review focuses on three main things: scholarly works analyzing newspapers in

particular, scholarly works analyzing media coverage in relation to foreign policy, and legality

issues involved with the attacks. Despite this emphasis of existing knowledge on media in a

broad sense, this paper is specifically about newspapers and should be read in that light. Frank

Luther Mott wrote in 1942: Occasional newspaper failures testify that mistakes are sometimes

made in this catering business, but the upward curve of aggregate circulations is evidence of the

skill of newspaper makers in answering faithfully to the wishes of the readers.7Circulation

trends have changed for the worse since his writing, but today the importance of retaining

subscribers could never be more important to major newspapers. Therein lays the unique

opportunity to find if they cater to readers, at least in the realm of foreign policy (while

maintaining best practices within journalistic ethics).

We know that there are mainstream sections of newspapers (front page, business), and then

there are sections which inform a smaller proportion of the American people (foreign policy). In

fact, Kegley and Wittkopf perhaps said it best with: American society is structured like a

pyramid, with a very small proportion of policy influentials(people who are knowledgeable

about foreign affairs and who have access to decision makers) and decision makers at the top,

followed by a larger component comprising the attentive public (those knowledgeable about

foreign affairs but not necessarily with access to decision makers), with the bulk of the

population making up the mass public.8We also know that newspapers can, at times, hold

biases and report more than just the news; at the same time, the lesser-read sections can allow for


5/63

Rust 5

such leeway without major criticism. Meanwhile, subscribers have become more picky, and

digital subscriptions are typically (although certainly not always) less expensive than that of

print, therefore newspapers have to do what they must in order to survive and stay on that

subscribers repertoire of chosen media. This excess of supply and lessening of demand leads to

the question: do newspapers care what readers think about specific issues? Do they cater to

those opinions in ways that reflect active trends in public opinion, or do such trends in opinion

simply stem from the news that subscribers read? This objective of this paper is to find hard,

factual indications of fluctuations in journalistic bias, which may infer a catering to subscribers

preexisting opinions.

Literature review

The basic methods of this paper were borrowed from Dr. John Hickman, who did a similar

study on article verbiage calledReporting a New Delhi Bias? A Content Analysis of AP Wire

Stories on the Conflicts in Sri Lanka and Kashmir. In this study, Dr. Hickman and Sarah Bartlett

analyzed things like total articles about each of the regions, word counts, etc. They also picked

11 anti-government words, asking a group of college faculty and a group of students to rank

order them from 1-11, with 1 being the most threatening and 11 being the least threatening

(opposite of the order in which this Iran paper was done).9They found that words like suicide

bomber, terrorist, and guerrillas ranked the most threatening, while words like freedom

fighters and separatists ranked least threatening. Hickman and Bartlett then analyzed which of

these words showed up in which articles, finding that while most of the articles used multiple

anti-government keywords, some dominated in most articles. This study concluded that a

strong bias in these wire articles exists, led by a presumed interaction between (U.S.) journalists

and (foreign) official elites, revealing the subordinate nature of commercial news media.10


6/63

Rust 6

The methods used in this paper on Iran go several steps further, mathematically applying the

keyword rankings to their corresponding count in articles (via a weighted point system), which

are then plotted on several time-series charts.

Second to that article, James M. McCormicks The Media, Public Opinion, and the Foreign

Policy Process chapter inAmerican Foreign Policy and Process is most relevant to this study.

He starts out by noting that there are three roles that the media can play in the foreign policy

process: as separate actors, accomplices of the government, and both the media and the

government in a mutually exploitative relationship.11

In describing the media as actors,

McCormick notes that what the media decide to portray (or not to portray) may have a powerful

influence on the direction of American foreign policy, noting particular cases like the Vietnam

War, with its vivid pictures provided on a nightly basis for the American public and policy

makers.12

As an example of the media highlighting attacks, McCormick discusses the Bush

administration accusing the media of highlighting the attacks and the problems of

reconstruction, without telling the full story, thereby leading to a decline in support forthe

administrations policy at home and abroad.13

One alternative McCormick gives to the three roles media can play in foreign policy making,

is that sometimes individual members of the media can play a part in real diplomacy, citing such

examples as John Scali aiding in the peaceful resolution during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and

Peter Arnet, taking at face value the Iraqi explanations of events during the Persian Gulf War.14

While these two cases are unique and involve individuals rather than entire editorial sections of

newspapers, they do relate significantly as a possible motive for newspaper bias. Assuming a

liberal bent in the American media, a possible motive for shining light on the killings of

scientists in Iran is that they want a peaceful resolution to the conflict, as in the example of


7/63

Rust 7

Vietnam. Taking the words of Iranian state officials at face value also has a consequence: it does

in fact lend a voice to their message, as indicated by word counts. Therefore, keywords used in

this study that are found in quotations of such officials were included, in some cases significantly

affecting the point range of a given newspaper.

Mr. McCormick also touches on this concept of a liberal media, including several

substantive points. He states that the American public often views the media as being elitist, as

possessing a liberal political bias, and as trying to foist such views on policy.15

He then lays out

several studies showing that the media are in fact largely liberal, noting one study as saying the

media elite largely came from the northeast and north-central part of the country, had urban and

ethnic roots, were highly educated, were mostly well off, highly educated members of the upper

middle class, and had primarily secular roots.1617

He noted which media segments tend to

the far ends of either spectrum as found by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo: that the CBS

Evening Newsand theNew York Timeshad the highest left of center scores; onlyFox News

Special Reportand the Washington Timeswere the exception to this liberal direction.1819

In

other words, these political scientists provided an after-the-fact confirmation that at least two

newspapers in this study balance each other out. McCormick also notes that for some of these

journalists, inevitably profits and professionalism will trump whichever direction their bias may

lean.

Perhaps the best explanation for the medias motive in shaping foreign policy is simply self-

interest, as McCormick discusses later in the chapter: the relationship (between the media and

the United States foreign policy community) is sometimes competitive and sometimes

cooperative, but that is only incidental to its central driving force: self-interest.2021

He also gets

into which entity may have the upper hand in influencing the foreign policy. For things like


8/63

Rust 8

human rights, or low politics, the media are more effective in influencing the process.22

However, on high politics, like arms control, the policy makers may have an advantage.23

This duality is particularly relevant and complex when it comes to the Iranian scientists. On the

one hand, it is a human rights and legal issue involving extrajudicial killings; while on the other

hand, it is certainly an arms control issue. Thus, the influence which even widely-read and

respected newspapers such as the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal is notably hard to

distinguish in this realm.

In The Iran Hostage Crisis, Richard Falk examined the bias of international law against

small nations and inadequate concern for outside intervention in them by powerful nations.24

His research found both a pro-imperial and a pro-governmental bias built into modern

international law.25

While noting that even Hitler respected the concept of diplomatic immunity,

this article emphasizes the rock and a hard place that some states found themselves between with

regards to subversive elements emanating from embassies seen by the local state as imperial

(read: U.S.). Ayatolla Khomeini was frustrated with the existing international law, and that the

U.S. would not extradite the Shah, and therefore saw no compunction with keeping Americans

with diplomatic immunity hostage. This study has relevance today in that it helps frame possible

bias within international law, favoring the backers of whoever is killing Irans scientists. This

assumption leads to the question of whether or not international law holds parallel biases to that

of major international newspapers. It could also describe the rational of Iran in targeting Israeli

diplomats in retaliatory attacks, despite there being little evidence that Israel was directly

involved in the killings. Ironically, the attacks against Israeli diplomats left significantly more

evidence that they originated from Iran, while simultaneously being less well-put-together.26

While it could be argued that the scientists are within-limits military targets involved in


9/63

Rust 9

proliferation, and therefore high politics, the targeting of official diplomats is nothing more

than a humanitarian issue of low politics.27

Model and Hypothesis

The question of public opinion polling affecting non op-ed newspaper articles is highly

subjective. There is plenty of data in this paper, yet there will be no statistically significant

correlation between polling percentages and changes in keyword usage. What can be examined

are: article counts, word counts (several types), and points for each newspaper against the

backdrop of that years change in American sentiment towards Iran (Gallup). What is expected

to be found is that similarities will exist between the two, but not a scientific proof of correlation.

For that to be possible there would need to be far more public opinion polls, all with the same

questions.

Methods

Finding the Articles:

The five newspapers were chosen mainly in order to provide a broad-based spectrum of

national newspapers of record from which to decide if newspapers cater to their readers

opinions. In addition, a small non-scientific effort was made to include newspapers from the

each side of the political spectrum: two professors as well as a survey on LinkedIn more or less

confirmed that five comprise a balanced sample of both liberal and conservative bias (Appendix

Change in yearly

sentiment towards

Iran public opinion as

indicated by Gallup

polling.

Corresponding

change of coverage

on scientist-killings

based on those

opinions.

i.e. American public

negativity towards Iran ,

leading to harsh news

coverage of killings ,

indicating sympathy

towards the attacks.


10/63

Rust 10

A). The Financial Times was chosen in addition to the other American newspapers in order to

bring in added international perspective, from another English-language newspaper of record.

The underlying assumption going in is that they range in order of liberal to conservative as

follows: New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times (mainly neutral), Wall Street

Journal, and Washington Times. McCormicksAmerican Foreign Policy was also used to

substantiate the balance of bias, at least in the case of the New York Times and the Washington

Times.28

ProQuest was the research tool of choice for discovering the 130 news articles which were

analyzed. Three types of search terms were used before being narrowed down: Iran +

Scientist in the text body, Iran in the title and Scientist in the text body (the final choice),

and Iran and Scientist both in the title.

Here is a chart of the outcome:

Wide

parameters(both in text)

Mid-range

parameters

Most-specific

parameters(both in title)

Mid-range

articlesmentioning the

attacks

New York

Times

242 93 9 47

Washington

Post

243 89 2 38

Financial Times 91 23 4 14

Wall Street

Journal

192 57 2 21

Washington

Times

76 30 2 10

Total 844 292 19 130

After the mid-range results were generated for each newspaper, from 2010-2012, the text

excerpt containing scientist was examined to see if it related to the scientist killings or


11/63

Rust 11

something unrelated, for example Pakistans Abdul Qadeer Khan, who was blamed for assisting

Iran with its weapons program but not attacked (or Iranian).29

If there was any question over the

articles relevance, it was opened to inquire further. The final tally came out to 130, which may

have included one or two irrelevant ones due to error involving the sheer magnitude (out of the

original 292 results), but if that is the case, the extras simply wont add anything to its

newspapers score (due to words only being tallied if they are about the scientists), thereby being

mostly irrelevant to the results. These articles were then dragged into a Google doc, and

eventually into a spreadsheet where they were easier to manipulate en masse.

Word Counting:

As for the word counts themselves, different kinds of data have been collected from each non-

op-ed article on the attacks from the newspapers. These data include individual counts of each

of the 15 keywords, a date, and a total word count. These data theoretically, once aggregated,

can show several things: the newspapers implicit consent or explicit dissent of the attacks as

contained by each article, how these biases relate to those of competing newspapers as well as

the attacks, and finally, whether or not they are influenced by recent public opinion polling.

Measuring depictions of attacks:

The crux of this paper is a point system for each word. As the data shows, total word counts

vary greatly depending on what type of article is called for, or the style of a given newspaper or

staff writer. Therefore, it seems the point system does a much better job of depicting real bias as

it occurs. Three groups at Berry College were polled to see as to how harsh they thought each

word describing the attacks was. They were asked to rank order five words describing agents of

violence: operative, agent, assassin, assailant, and terrorist, from 1 (least harsh) to 5

(most harsh). In order to keep the words individually spaced out after the results were tallied,


12/63

Rust 12

they could not assign the same value to any two words. Surveys received which did do this were

either returned to the respondent for edits or thrown out altogether if the respondent was

unavailable. They were then asked to rank order another ten words describing violence in

exactly the same way: "terrorism," "assassinate," "bombing," "attack," "kill," "explosion,"

"violent," "blast," "detonate," and "murder," with 1 being the least harsh and 10 being most.

The three groups polled were an underclassman comparative politics class (19 students), an

upperclassman senior thesis class (9 students), and professors (13), each with differing responses

and total respondents. For each group, the scores were tallied for each word multiplied by how

many respondents gave it that score (surprisingly easy to do with help from Google Forms,

which was also used to generate the survey). These averages were then divided by the total

amount surveyed to bring it back to a comparable level to the others. The score for each word,

for each group (total: 45 scores), was then used to give a weight to each word of each article (like

a grading scale with fifteen elements and 130 students, except with three separate grading

scales). Therefore, the point-system time-series charts may well have the most potential, as they

indicate bias better than simple word counts or numbers of articles can, as has been attempted in

the past.

Here is a chart showing results from the point-system polling using Google Forms:

Search

Term/Word Root

(Descriptors)

Underclassman

Points

Upperclassman

Points

Professor Points Average

blast 2.22 3.21 2.92 2.79detonat 3.11 4.42 2.15 3.23

explo 3.78 4.58 4.08 4.14

violent 4.56 3.89 4.23 4.23

attack 4.11 4.16 4.92 4.4

kill 5.67 5.32 6.69 5.89

bomb 6.11 6.11 5.46 5.89

murder 8 7.74 8.23 7.99


13/63

Rust 13

assassinat 8.89 6.95 8.38 8.07

terror 8.56 8.53 7.92 8.33

Word Root

(agents)

Underclassman

Points

Upperclassman

Points

Professor Points Average

agent 1.58 1.44 1.77 1.5975

operative 1.58 1.88 1.69 1.7201assailant 3.05 2.77 3 2.9435

assassin 4.05 4.11 4.15 4.1059

terrorist 4.74 4.77 4.38 4.6331

Particularly significant is the fact that the words were each counted from their article

individually, ensuring that they related to the attackers specifically rather than a blind robotic

auto-count of the keywords. While the search function was used, it was only the first tool used

in the process. Words such as bomb in the context of atom bomb, attack, as in the case of

attacks on Israeli diplomats in related cases, or assassination, as in the assassination plot against

the Saudi ambassador, and many other such cases were all excluded from the keyword counts. It

can therefore be said with much confidence that the words that the newspapers choose to

describe attacks on and attackers of Iranian scientists are the primary determinants of how their

newspapers fare in this study (except for the side-story of total word/article counts, which are

simply additional tools for conclusion verification due to availability of the data).

Choosing the variables:

The measures of journalistic displeasure with the attacks against Iran are simply a way of

taking note of the newspapers sympathy towards Iran, which can then be compared to American

sentiment against Iran. If it seems complicated that there is an apparent double-negative

(displeasurewith attacks against) against something that can seem negative (Iran), thats

because it is. But media biases of this sort are hardly unprecedented, as the brutal television

coverage of Vietnam showed.30

Despite this complexity, the central theme of attacks on


14/63

Rust 14

scientists was picked as a variable due to the regularity of the attacks, and therefore the wealth of

similar data which would inevitably emerge from newspapers, regardless of liberal or

conservative bias.

It would be easier to visualize American media bias against Irans actions, but this data is a

lot more sparse and diverse. The reason for an inverted variable of the potential newspaper bias

forIran (versus public opinion polling against) is because theres not a particularly simple way

to directly measure their bias against Iran after something specific thatIrandid. Iran does lots of

things that may drive public or journalistic sentiment, and for that reason, it is hard to rule out

what is merely reactive and what is long-standing bias. There are failed nuclear talks happening

left and right, but from a quantifiable word-counting perspective, theres no real demonization or

praise going on there. In addition, none of Irans actions occur with enough regularity to really

pick up much note in English newspapers. The small exception could be the similar bombing-

attacks against Israeli diplomats that occurred theoretically in retaliation for the scientist

victims.31

Those were both largely unsuccessful, and at the same time hard to attribute it to Iran

as an attacker. Part of the problem may be the American medias oft-critiqued obsession with

serial killers and the like. As Richard J. Lundman wrote, If it bleeds, it leads, continuing:

stories about murder are regular features of national and local television programs, and murder

stories frequently lead news broadcasts.32

The scientists assailants were all professionals who

pulled off very similar attacks (except the one shooting, rather than bombing), and who killed all

except one of their targets. In other words, by focusing on the attacks and the verbiage therein,

rather than verbiage about more ambiguous attacks, the spikes in specific rhetoric can more

accurately be used to describe bias specifically about Iran.


15/63

Rust 15

Public Polling

A search was done on several scholarly search tools as well as simply using Google to find

the best public polling data about American sentiment on Iran. This being a paper about media

bias, much of the polling done had to be thrown out, as it was done by a media organization

itself, rather than by a dedicated polling organization. That being the case, only Pew Research

Center data and Gallup returned anything useful for this time period. Their data both went back

for many years but unfortunately only had about one or two poll questions about Iran per year,

with perhaps two subsections apiece. Therefore, Gallups method of having two types of

unfavorability towards Iran is the most useful, as it shows fluctuations inside a majority of

Americans that oppose Iran.33

As for using Gallups favorable rating, instead of having

inverted variables: it wouldnt accurately describe the situation, as that percentage (on average

10.33%) represents a tiny fraction of Americans, and is therefore less likely to influence

newspapers.34

Intervening Variable

The case of the actual attacks is perhaps the most important intervening variable. This is

because, as news organizations, newspapers report the news as soon as they can after it happens,

(assuming newsworthiness). As the attacks accumulate, it would seem natural for the

newspapers to reiterate the recent history of similar events. Because of this intervening variable,

the time-series charts involving each articles amount of points (below) reflect both articles

published immediately after the attacks as well as those outside of a 48 hour window after the

attacks (each chart type having its own space).


16/63

Rust 16

Charting:

The majority of testing in this paper is done by charting. While the single standard deviation

number for each newspapers data set is perhaps useful for determining bias, it does not reveal

covariation between itself and public opinion. All of the word counts, totals, and applied points

allow for each respective newspapers views on the subject matter to be effectively plotted based

on date published.

The purpose of getting around this brief window of days immediately following the attacks is

because simply, everyone is reporting on it then. The spikes within the window remain to be

examined, but as a sharpening factor of the study, they are to be ignored to some degree.

Another tool to be used both separately and in conjunction with this immediately following

exclusion is finding one and two points of standard deviation to see if and how many spikes of

journalistic bias occur outside these lines. Therefore, so the theory goes, the more spikes that

occur further outside both of these blotted out segments, the more biased the target newspaper is

in favor of Iran, or at least against violence. These will also be used to help ignore the potential

intervening variable of Israel, which many of the articles attribute as the likely author of the

attacks. The American public largely supports Israel, and therefore the days immediately

following attacks may result in relative bursts of emotion (rhetorically speaking) from

newspapers.35

In theory, their rhetoric will simmer down when their regular international-

relations-oriented audience again becomes the majority of the articles readership, rather than

everyone in the country. While spikes immediately following attacks may indicate a bias all its

own, the effort will be made via these windows of exclusion to find data that is geared solely

towards Iran. That said, all of the charts and data is graphically-driven, and there is no simple


17/63

Rust 17

way to tie public opinion percentages into a formula with an abstract point-system; so all data

points and spikes are fair game in the results section.

These data were aggregated into time-series plots using each news article as an event or point.

The y-axis of these charts consist of things like total word counts per article, specific keyword

counts per article and weighted points per article. Also being considered is the percentage of

relevant killed-scientist articles published per year out of their whole article count for that year.

In this experiment, the results yielded from newspaper analysis are the dependent variable,

while American public opinion polls comprise the independent variables. Given the relative

infrequency of these polls, it may prove difficult to establish a statistically significant and causal

link between them and the respective mood of newspaper coverage. Nevertheless, such an

analysis provides a unique opportunity to analyze the behavior of major American newspapers

with respect to each other, their subscribers, and international events. It may even indicate that

American public opinion is largely held hostage by its own newspapers, a thought hardly outside

the realm of possibility. If there is some sort of reciprocal effect between the two variables, it is

not expected that either will show up as significantly more causal than the other in these models.

Results

Impressions:

While researching and using the search function within articles to determine whether or not

certain words met the criteria to be a keyword about an attack, notes were taken to ascertain

general impressions of the articles. This was done as a sort of qualitative replacement for any

real opposing variable to negativity on the attacks, such as negativity on Iranian actions or


18/63


19/63

Rust 19

blast at a missile base, killing the top missile program commander, or the creation of a nuclear

detonation device. Another recurring theme were the words assassinations, bombings,

cyberattacks, and defections, used in several articles but not necessarily in the same order.36

These serve to set the agenda and link the killings to the broader concept of this shadow war, as

many media sources call it. In doing so, it helps casts Israel as the perpetrator in the killings, as

it is almost certainly that with regards to the cyberattacks. In a more loose fashion it also links

the U.S. to this broader theme, as the cyberattacks (less so) and particularly the defections

(given plural connotation, despite just once occurring) are arguably attributable to the U.S. as

well.

While finding articles it was noted that the direr a newspaper painted the situation with

regards to Irans nuclear progress in these articles, the more it seemed to be inherently justifying

the attacks. The Washington Post Wall Street Journal and Washington Times seemed to have the

most emphasis on their looming nuclear capability (particularly in 2009, perhaps due to the

renewed negotiations between Iran and the P5+1).37

The Washington Post also had plenty of

extra details in terms of actors involved in the broader context of a nuclear Iran, from computer

scientists, to Russian and American scientists, to the (perhaps) defected Iranian scientist, the

Pakistani scientist, etc. As noted above, there was a distinct similarity in these articles, due

perhaps to the same staffers for the Washington Post writing them. While the New York Times

also had the same writers for many of its pieces, they were generally more diverse in word usage.

In both of these sources, it was curious that usually the more exotic words like assassin and

assailant were saved for the more exotic stories, which generally went into more detail.

Between the New York Times and Washington Post, the latter had more articles relevant to this


20/63

Rust 20

study occurring on the same day, though not by much. The other three newspapers rarely did

this, if ever.

The other three newspapers yielded little in the way of notes, due to significantly less relevant

articles being written over the period. The Financial Times wrote an outstanding 4200 word

cover piece called The Sabotaging Of Iran, encompassing most if not all of the surrounding

details about the attacks up until its publication date in February of 2011 (without any attacks

occurring in the relative timeframe).38

By contrast with several (but not all) New York Times

articles, the Financial Times did not assume the first scientist in 2007 was assassinated by similar

people, saying instead at least four scientists have been killed.39 The Financial Times articles

seemed like a breath of fresh air compared to the American newspapers, saying things that

seemed new, like Report says Obama ordered (Stuxnet) operation.40

The Wall Street Journal seemed at times to edit articles from the past, which isnt necessarily

a bad thing, just odd comparatively. One example being an article dated 7 December 2010

saying at least five scientists have been killed so far.41

While all of the newspapers covered the

killed scientists to some degree, a certain degree of restraint was shown by some. The Wall

Street Journal did in fact cover the attacks on Israeli diplomats, and in passing mentioned the

attacks on Iranian scientists, despite their specific relevance. On the other hand, they preferred to

use the term assassinate when describing the attacks on scientists, which is generally viewed by

this paper and survey respondents as quite harsh. Hence, the Wall Street Journal and

Washington Post both show some indications of both liberal and conservative bias, and so seem

to have been well-placed in the middle-range of bias ordering from the beginning of this paper.

Despite this semi-parity, the term terror was used much more in describing possible Iranian

acts in the Wall Street Journal, which is more in line with a conservative bias.


21/63

Rust 21

The Washington Times was a peculiar newspaper within this study. It was only three-

quarters finished when the total articles from 2010 to 2012 were counted among all of the

newspapers, finding that the Washington Times had a total number of articles ranging from one

quarter to one seventh of the totals of any of the rest (see top-left chart on page 23). That being

the case, its proportion of articles relevant to this study was actually significantly higher than the

rest, averaging about one third larger despite having the least relevant articles (10). Interestingly,

the Financial Times had the smallest proportion, despite also having by far the single largest

relevant article and therefore word count and standard deviation. The op-eds that were filtered

out from the Washington Times were many, and significantly more boisterous than any of the

others, coming from the likes of Ted Nugent (who is on their staff), among others. The only

other newspapers to have a significant number of op-eds which were filtered out were the New

York Times, and to a lesser extent the Washington Post. The Washington Times used the word

bomb freely, though only with respect to attacking Irans facilities or their obtaining of a

nuclear weapon, appearing in one instance 19 times.42

This newspaper did however bring to

light new information as well, such as five Russian scientists who had been assisting Irans

nuclear program dying in a plane crash.43

The Washington Times also, like the Wall Street

Journal, refrained from talking much on the attacks on Irans scientists when describing the

attacks on Israels diplomats, despite the many similarities and widespread speculation that they

were related.

Charts and Tables:


22/63

0

50

100

150

200

250

WaPo

WT

FT

NYT

WSJ

Average

The Point System:

This chart shows fluctuations in each newspapers points. Each point represents an article, published on the date shown on the x-

axis. How high-up it is on the y-axis is dictated by its total amount of points, effectively indicating how harsh its stance was

The orange, light blue, and light pink lines show

the average of all points, standard deviation

plus one, and standard deviation plus two,

respectively. The more a newspaper jumpsabove these lines, the more critical or harsh it

is against the attacks, based on averaged

polling results from professors, upperclassmen,

and underclassmen.


23/63

Article

Counts

Total amount of

relevant articlesfrom 2010-2012

Total amount of

articles from 2010-2012

Percentage of

articles from2010-2012

WT 10 30796 0.032472%

WaPo 38 154558 0.024586%

NYT 47 214180 0.021944%

WSJ 21 119656 0.017550%

FT 14 157420 0.008893%

WaPo WT FT NYT WSJ

Average

total wordcount of

relevantarticles

979.1

923

686.7778 944.785

7

1047.28

942.190476

Total

word

count:

standarddeviation

467.5085

381.8458 1146.841

551.293

408.846746

WaPo WT FT NYT WSJ

Average

Points/article

26.02 19.04 34.56 35.53 21.90

Standard

Deviationof

Points

21.23 12.79 56.54 42.71 33.22

Agents

of

Violence

Operative Agent Assassin Assailant Terrorist

WT 1 1 0 0 0

WaPo 3 6 1 3 9

NYT 1 10 3 4 7

WSJ 0 1 2 0 0

FT 2 2 0 0 2

Descriptors ofviolence

Terror Assassinat- Bomb- Attack- Kill- Explo- Violent Blast Detonat- Murder

WT 1 7 4 11 8 0 0 0 1 0

WaPo 2 29 11 15 35 4 0 1 0 0

NYT 12 60 43 49 69 3 2 0 4 3

WSJ 4 18 10 25 17 2 0 0 0 1

FT 5 16 3 5 21 4 0 1 0 10

The turquoise box above shows the average points per article, based on the weighting system as determined by polling of professors and students.

The individual standard deviations vary significantly, especially that of the Financial Times, which is why the average, +1 standard deviation, and +2

standard deviations used from this point on were averaged from all five newspapers. These averages comprise the lines shown on subsequent pages,

as a way of indicating how out there certain articles are in terms of harshness about the attacks on scientists.


24/63

Rust 24

The word count chart tells a somewhat different story than the initial point system shown a few pages back. While the

New York Times maintains its typical edge on average, it appears that the Wall Street Journal tends to have higher

highs, especially towards the end. Interestingly, the Washington post remains largely hidden behind and underneath

other newspapers high points, although the blue dots are a little more visible. Also, the Financial Times outlier of

February 12th, 2011 again shows its prominence in the standard deviation, this time in the word counts.

(including 48 hour window)


25/63

Rust 25

Washington Post Analysis

0

20

40

60

80

1-Jan-1

0

1-Mar-10

1-May-1

0

1-Jul-10

1-Sep-1

0

1-Nov-1

0

1-Jan-1

1

1-Mar-11

1-May-1

1

1-Jul-11

1-Sep-1

1

1-Nov-1

1

1-Jan-1

2

1-Mar-12

1-May-1

2

1-Jul-12

1-Sep-1

2

WaPo points (including 48 hour window)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1-Jan-10 1-Jan-11 1-Jan-12

Word Count (including 48 hour window)

Series1

Poly. (Series1)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Points

Average

+1 Standard Deviation


PolynomialTrendline

WaPo points, adjusted to

remove data points

immediately following the

attacks (48 hour period)

and showing average, +1

standard deviation, and +2

standard deviations(takenfrom all newspapers

sampled).

WaPo Points (excludingthe 48 hour window)


26/63

New York Times Analysis

050

100

150

200

250

1-Jan-1

0

1-Mar-10

1-May-1

0

1-Jul-10

1-Sep-1

0

1-Nov-1

0

1-Jan-1

1

1-Mar-11

1-May-1

1

1-Jul-11

1-Sep-1

1

1-Nov-1

1

1-Jan-1

2

1-Mar-12

1-May-1

2

1-Jul-12

1-Sep-1

2

1-Nov-1

2

NYT Points (including 48 hour window)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1-Jan-10 1-Jan-11 1-Jan-12


Series1

Poly. (Series1)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

12/3/2010

1/3/2011

2/3/2011

3/3/2011

4/3/2011

5/3/2011

6/3/2011

7/3/2011

8/3/2011

9/3/2011

10/3/2011

11/3/2011

12/3/2011

1/3/2012

2/3/2012

3/3/2012

4/3/2012

5/3/2012

6/3/2012

7/3/2012

8/3/2012

9/3/2012

10/3/2012

11/3/2012

12/3/2012

Points

Average



Polynomial

Trendline

NYT points, adjusted to

remove data points




standard deviation, and

+2 standard

deviations(taken from allnewspapers sampled).

NYT Points (excludingthe 48 hour window)


27/63

Wall Street Journal Analysis

0

20

40

60

80

100

120140

160

180

1-Jan-1

0

1-Mar-10

1-May-1

0

1-Jul-10

1-Sep-1

0

1-Nov-1

0

1-Jan-1

1

1-Mar-11

1-May-1

1

1-Jul-11

1-Sep-1

1

1-Nov-1

1

1-Jan-1

2

1-Mar-12

1-May-1

2

1-Jul-12

WSJ Points (including 48 hour window)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1-Jan-10 1-Jan-11 1-Jan-12


Series1

Poly. (Series1)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

5/10/2010

6/10/2010

7/10/2010

8/10/2010

9/10/2010

10/10/2010

11/10/2010

12/10/2010

1/10/2011

2/10/2011

3/10/2011

4/10/2011

5/10/2011

6/10/2011

7/10/2011

8/10/2011

9/10/2011

10/10/2011

11/10/2011

12/10/2011

1/10/2012

2/10/2012

3/10/2012

4/10/2012

5/10/2012

6/10/2012

7/10/2012

8/10/2012

Points

Average

"+1 Standard

Deviation"

Polynomial

Trendline

WSJ points, adjusted to remove

data points immediately

following the attacks (48 hourperiod) and showing average,

+1 standard deviation, and +2

standard deviations(taken from

all newspapers sampled).

WSJ Points (excludingthe 48 hour window)


28/63

Financial Times Analysis

0

50

100

150

200

250

1-Jan-1

0

1-Mar-10

1-May-1

0

1-Jul-10

1-Sep-1

0

1-Nov-1

0

1-Jan-1

1

1-Mar-11

1-May-1

1

1-Jul-11

1-Sep-1

1

1-Nov-1

1

1-Jan-1

2

1-Mar-12

1-May-1

2

1-Jul-12

1-Sep-1

2

FT Points (including 48 hour window)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1-Jan-10 1-Jan-11 1-Jan-12

Word Count

Series1

Poly. (Series1)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Points

Average

+1 Standard

Deviation

FT points, adjusted to

remove data points





standard deviations(taken

from all newspapers

sampled).

Polynomial

Trendline

FT Points (excludingthe 48 hour window)


29/63

Washington Times Analysis

0

10

20

30

40

50

1-Jan-1

0

1-Mar-10

1-May-1

0

1-Jul-10

1-Sep-1

0

1-Nov-1

0

1-Jan-1

1

1-Mar-11

1-May-1

1

1-Jul-11

1-Sep-1

1

1-Nov-1

1

1-Jan-1

2

1-Mar-12

WT Points (including 48 hour window)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1-Jan-10 1-Jan-11 1-Jan-12

Word Count

Series1

Poly. (Series1)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1/13/2010

2/13/2010

3/13/2010

4/13/2010

5/13/2010

6/13/2010

7/13/2010

8/13/2010

9/13/2010

10/13/20

11/13/20

12/13/20

1/13/2011

2/13/2011

3/13/2011

4/13/2011

5/13/2011

6/13/2011

7/13/2011

8/13/2011

9/13/2011

10/13/20

11/13/20

12/13/20

1/13/2012

2/13/2012

3/13/2012

4/13/2012

Points

Average

+1 Standard

Deviation

Polynomial

Trendline

WT points, adjusted to

remove data points





standard deviations (taken

from all newspapers

sampled).

WT Points (excludingthe 48 hour window)


30/63

Rust 30

As shown below, there simply is not enough data from dedicated polling organizations to

indicate significant fluctuations in American mood. Therefore, attempting to correlate such

fluctuations to measures of journalistic coverage and bias proved difficult.

Pew results for respondents agreeing to the use of military action against Iran if necessary to

prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons flat-lined similar to Pews unfavorable rating with

slightly more fluctuation, but in the end resulted in a 3% decrease.

While Pew results of unfavorability bumped up only one point in three years (from 67% in

2010 and 2011 to 68% in 2012), Gallup had slightly more fluctuation:44

Date Gallup: mostly unfavorable %change from prior year

Gallup: very unfavorable %change from prior year

Net total changefrom prior year

9-12 feb 2009 -5% +3% -2%

1-3 feb 2010 +1% +4% +5%

2-5 feb 2011 +3% -3% 0%

2-5 feb 2012 -7% +9% +2%

Gallup did something very smart here, and has been for many years (since at least 1989).45

Many more, in fact, than there have been attacks on scientists. Given that the American mood

towards Iran is generally unchanging in negativity towards Iran, they have an added indicator of

mood. Gallup allows American respondents to choose either mostly unfavorable (less negative)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10/14/091/22/10 5/2/10 8/10/1011/18/102/26/11 6/6/11 9/14/1112/23/114/1/12 7/10/12

Gallup Unfavorable

Pew Unfavorable

Military action if need be:

Pew2 per. Mov. Avg. (Gallup

Unfavorable)2 per. Mov. Avg. (Pew

Unfavorable)


31/63

Rust 31

or very unfavorable (more negative). So despite the fact that Americans are negative about

Iran, there is still a method of distinguishing fluctuations in that mood. As shown, there is a

distinct shift in American public mood towards the more negative column in 2012, coinciding

with a distinct increase in articles critical of the attacks on Iranian scientists (in particular

emanating from the New York Times and Washington Post).

While this coincidence is not nearly enough to indicate causation or even correlation, it is

interesting. As visualized on a chart, it is easier to find the tier three spikes above the pink line,

indicating an article with more points than two standard deviations. Tier two spikes, above one

standard deviations are also relatively easy to find, in between the light blue and pink lines. The

tier one field is a little more difficult, as it comprises the small slice between the orange

average line and blue +1 standard deviation line. The intervening variable of actual attacks

is negated by removing points within a 48 hour window after attacks, thus removing the

possibility of purely reactive/breaking news articles muddying the overall picture.

0

50

100

150

200

250

01/13/10

03/13/10

05/13/10

07/13/10

09/13/10

11/13/10

01/13/11

03/13/11

05/13/11

07/13/11

09/13/11

11/13/11

01/13/12

03/13/12

05/13/12

07/13/12

09/13/12

WaPo

WT

FT

NYT

WSJ

Average

"+1 Standard Deviation"

"+2 Standard Deviation"

Tier 3 points

Tier 2 points


32/63

Rust 32

On Spikesin Points

9-12

feb

2009

-5% 3% -2%

0

1-3

feb2010

1% 4% 5%

2 2 1 5

2-5

feb

2011

3% -3% 0% 2

2 1 1 6

2-5

feb

2012

-7% 9% 2% 1 3 3 2

1 1 1 1 13

Tier one: Number

of spikes above

average during

these green periods

Washington

Post

New York

Times

Wall Street

JournalFinancial Times Washington

Times

Tier two: Number of

spikes above +1

standard deviation

during these orange

eriods

Tier three: Number

of spikes above +2

standard deviations

during these red

periods

Gallup: mostly

unfavorable %

change from

prior year

Gallup: very

unfavorable

% changefrom prior

year

Gallup: Net change in

% unfavorability from

year prior

While there may not have been a huge percentage change in the net Gallup polling from 2011 to

2012, there was a 9 point shift from mostly unfavorable or better to very unfavorable (the most severe).

This coincided with an increase in spikes (in points) greater than the previous two years combined

(spikes being points above the average, standard deviation +1, or standard deviation +2 marks). Even

if only the spikes above standard deviation +1 and +2 marks are counted without the above average

spikes, 2012s lead in these spikes over 2010 and 2011 combined actually increases by one. Put

simply, the count of articles with a high number of points roughly doubled in 2012 compared to the

previous two years, all occurring after Gallups indicated worsening of public opinion towards Iran.

Sum


33/63

Rust 33

The lone datum: a 4200 word Financial

Times Cover story which wasnt published

immediately following an attack.

The y-axis here is

applicable only to

the points. With

no ceiling, it could

not be translated

to percentage

points, and

therefore the

Gallup polling

overlay is relative

only to the x-axis.

Both metrics are

on the same date

x-axis, as are the

four big red dots

indicating attack

dates (also

irrelevant on the

y-axis). The fact

that the attacks

(interveningvariable) and

polling largely

occurred in a

similar time frame

makes it difficult

to tell if a bump in

antipathy, or

accumulation of

regular attacks led

to increased

journalistic

review.

Article point scatterplot (including 48 hour window) with Gallup opinion polling overlay: This chart shows a scatterplot of the

article points, but excludes articles with published dates within 48 hours after an attack. It is overlaid with Gallup polling data indicating

Americans yearly unfavorable rating towards Iran, very unfavorable (in the red) being more severe, and mostly unfavorabl e (in the blue)

being less.


34/63

Rust 34

Discussion

The hypothesis was largely disproven. While there was the coincidence of a nine point shift

in public opinion from essentially negative to more negative on Iran prior to the increase in

points measuring newspaper outspokenness against the attacks, it was not statistically significant.

Within the scope of this study, public polling does not influence newspaper coverage, at least in

the realm of foreign policy. Perhaps if there were many more data points and more fluctuation,

such a conclusion could be reached, and in February of 2013 (presumably the next Gallup poll),

it can be better determined whether or not these journalistic trends in fact influence public

opinion (a reverse ordering of the hypothesis). Given that the public knows so little about

foreign policy though (as indicated by Kegley and Wittkopfs pyramid), it would perhaps be a

frightening concept if staff writers for such newspapers as influential as these were selling out

their foreign policy articles to the opinions of the general public (in other words, catering).46

The charts largely speak for themselves. The data show steadily increasing activist verbiage

against the attacks. The spikes in points above at least one standard deviation show that which

may be hard to discern from the line graphs: that the Washington Post and New York Times in

particular do not favor these attacks on scientists. It will certainly be interesting to see in the

future the opinions of Americans on Iran as nuclear talks continue, sabotage and a potential

shadow war continues, and media bias carries on.

In determining motives of newspaper bias, this study does not quite have the right variables,

though it is a good starting place. McCormick was probably closer to the mark when he

analyzed their relationship with policymakers themselves, rather than the American people. He

leaves three possible motives for the media bias which probably fit the case here: influencing


35/63

Rust 35

policy and/or public opinion (as in the case of Vietnam), the inherent beliefs of an elite, liberal

media, or the media as accomplices (perhaps as in the case of only the foreign Financial Times

being brash enough to report an American ordering of the Stuxnet program, as opposed to the

U.S. newspapers abstaining).47

Lastly, McCormick leaves the most likely possibility: that the

media, like the government, are simply driven completely by self-interest.48

As for how they

carry out these self-interests is fair game for the next study. For having made it this far, they

most likely know their audiences and subscribers well as it is, and go from there.

Possible avenues for further study are many. There are plenty of instances in this shadow

war that can be exploited for word count; the hard part is finding a way to word the survey so

that the rank order means something significant. As previously mentioned, the newspapers or

media sources could be rated on favorability or unfavorability to multiple entities or activities,

not simply attacks on Iranian scientists. This study would have been better served to have

ranked both agents and descriptors of violence on scales of 1-10, rather than one being

diminutive relative to the other (agents


36/63

Rust 36

Appendix A: a quick test of perceptions of newspaper bias

Timestamp

What, if any, is

a better

newspaper of

record than the

above?

the bias of each

of the following

newspapers.

[New York

Times]

the bias of each

of the following

newspapers.

[Washington

Post]

the bias of each

of the following

newspapers.

[Financial

Times]

the bias of each

of the following

newspapers.

[Wall Street

Journal]

the bias of each

of the following

newspapers.

[Washington

Times]

Please indicate

your level of

education.

How did you

find this

survey?

10/22/2012 7:23

news.google.co

m or another a

news

amalgamator Liberal Liberal Moderate Moderate right Conservative Master's LinkedIn

10/22/2012 8:49

newspaper.

Local news -

arguably the

future of a

viable news Moderate Moderate left Moderate Moderate Conservative Baccalaureate LinkedIn

10/22/2012 10:27

Christian

Science Monitor

is a moderate

replacement. Moderate left Moderate left Moderate Moderate right Conservative Master's LinkedIn

10/23/2012 8:26 Liberal Moderate right Liberal Liberal Conservative Baccalaureate LinkedIn

10/25/2012 13:33 N /A Moderate left Moderate Moderate right Moderate right Moderate Master's LinkedIn

10/25/2012 20:16 USA Today Liberal Liberal Moderate Moderate right Conservative Master's LinkedIn

10/27/2012 23:07 Liberal Moderate right Moderate Moderate Liberal Baccalaureate LinkedIn

10/29/2012 16:17 Liberal Liberal Moderate right Moderate right Conservative Doctor's LinkedIn


37/63

Rust 37

Appendix B: Data from the New York Times

Date word co terror assassinabomb attack kil l explo violen blast detonat murder SUM

4. Bombings Hit Atomic Experts In

Iran Streets: [Foreign Desk]30-Nov-10 1013 1 2 7 8 4 0 0 0 1 0 23

11. WORLD BRIEFING MIDDLE EAST;

Iran: Date Set for Nuclear Talks

With European Union: [Foreign

Desk 1-Dec-10 453 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 5

8. Iran: Arrests in Attacks on

Nuclear Scientists: [Brief]3-Dec-10 61 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

32. Iran Claims Advance With

Uranium From Its Own Mine:

[Foreign Desk] 6-Dec-10 733 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

15. Direct Talks Concerning Iran's

Nuclear Program Begin: [Foreign

Desk] 7-Dec-10 1304 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 9

6. Iran Concludes Talks With U.S.

and 5 Other Nations, and Agrees to

Hold More: [Foreign Desk] 8-Dec-10 794 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4

23. Iran Nuclear Capability Seen as

Delayed: [Brief]30-Dec-10 119 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

40. Israeli Ex-Spy Predicts Delay For

Iran's Nuclear Ambitions: [Foreign

Desk] 8-Jan-11 502 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

35. Israel Tests Called Crucial In Iran

Nuclear Setback: [Foreign Desk]16-Jan-11 2937 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

5. Survivor of Attack Accelerates

Iran's Effort to Produce Nuclear

Material: [Foreign Desk] 23-Jul-11 1112 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 6

47. Easing Stance, Iran Offers

Inspectors 'Supervision' of Nuclear

Program: [Foreign Desk] 6-Sep-11 903 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3


38/63


39/63

Rust 39



41. U.S. Challenged to Explain

Accusations of Iran Plot In the Face

of Skepticism: [Foreign Desk] 13-Oct-11 1219 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

34. To Isolate Iran, U.S. Presses

Inspectors on Nucle ar Data:

[Foreign Desk] 16-Oct-11 1241 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

10. America's Deadly Dynamics

With Iran: [News Analysis]6-Nov-11 2303 0 4 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 13

19. U.N. Agency Says I ran Data

Points to A-Bomb Work: [Foreign

Desk] 9-Nov-11 1457 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

36. U.S. Plans New Sanctions

Against Iran's Oil Industry: [Foreign

Desk] 19-Nov-11 1022 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

39. As Britain Closes Embassies,

Iran's Isolation Could Complicate

Nuclear Issue: [Foreign Desk] 1-Dec-11 1241 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

46. Explosion Seen As Big Setback

To Iran Missiles: [Foreign Desk]5-Dec-11 1360 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

31. Iran Sentences America to Die

On Spy Charges: [Foreign Desk]

10-Jan-12 1463 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

2. Iran Adversaries Said To Step Up

Covert Actions: [Foreign Desk]12-Jan-12 1670 1 6 6 8 10 1 1 0 0 1 34

1. Iran Signals Revenge Over Killing

Of Scientist: [Foreign Desk]13-Jan-12 648 1 3 4 1 10 0 0 0 0 1 20

14. Dangerous Tension With Iran:

[Editorial]13-Jan-12 562 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

18. Israel Says Sanctions Hurt Iran:

[Foreign Desk]14-Jan-12 596 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4


40/63

Rust 40


SUM operative agent assassin assailant terrorist

0 0 0 0 0 0

41. U.S. Challenged to Explain

Accusations of Iran Plot In the Face of

Skepticism: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

34. To Isolate Iran, U.S. Presses

Inspectors on Nuclear Data: [Foreign

Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

10. America's Deadly Dynamics With

Iran: [News Analysis]

0 0 0 0 0 0

19. U.N. Agency Says Iran Data Points

to A-Bomb Work: [Foreign Desk]

1 0 0 0 0 1

36. U.S. Plans New Sanctions Against

Iran's Oil Industry: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

39. As Britain Closes Embassies, Iran's

Isolation Could Complicate Nuclear

Issue: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

46. Explosion Seen As Big Setback To

Iran Missiles: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

31. Iran Sentences America to Die On

Spy Charges: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

2. Iran Adversaries Said To Step Up

Covert Actions: [Foreign Des k]

0 0 0 0 0 0

1. Iran Signals Revenge Over Killing Of

Scientist: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

14. Dangerous Tensi on With Iran:

[Editorial]

0 0 0 0 0 0

18. Israel Says Sanctions Hurt Iran:

[Foreign Desk]


41/63

Rust 41


Date word co terror assassinabomb attack kil l explo v iolen blast detonat murder SUM

16. Iran Face-Off Testing Obama

The Candidate: [Foreign Desk]17-Jan-12 1201 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

3. Iran Tightens Its Security For

Scientists After Killing: [Foreign

Desk] 18-Jan-12 593 1 5 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 11

22. Decision on Whether to Attack

Iran Is 'Far Off,' Israeli Defense

Minister Says: [Foreign Desk] 19-Jan-12 929 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

42. U.S. General Visits Israel For

Discussions on Iran: [Foreign Desk]20-Jan-12 685 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

9. Sanctions Against Iran Grow

Tighter, but What's the Next Step?:

[Foreign Desk] 25-Jan-12 1157 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

30. Israelis Assess Threats by Iran

As Partly Bluff: [Foreign Desk]27-Jan-12 1487 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

38. U.N. Nuclear Inspectors' Visit to

Iran Is a Failure, West Says:

[Foreign Desk] 4-Feb-12 1120 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

25. Israel Says Iran Is Behind

Bombs: [Foreign Desk]

14-Feb-12 1155 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 726. Iran Leader Is Expected To

Announce Atomic Steps: [Foreign

Desk] 15-Feb-12 661 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

37. Franctic Actions Hint At

Pressure On Iran Leaders: [Foreign

Desk] 16-Feb-12 1350 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

44. Suspected Anti-Israel Plot

Widens Scrutiny on Iran: [Foreign

Desk] 17-Feb-12 790 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

28. In Din Over Iran, Rattling Sabers

Echo: [News Analysis]22-Feb-12 1261 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4


42/63

Rust 42



0 0 0 0 0 0

16. Iran Face-Off Testing Obama The

Candidate: [Foreign Des k]

3 0 3 0 0 0

3. Iran Tig htens Its Security For

Scientists After Killing: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

22. Decision on Whether to Attack Iran

Is 'Far Off,' Israeli Defense Minister

Says: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

42. U.S. General Visits Israel For

Discussions on Iran: [Foreign Desk]

1 0 1 0 0 0

9. Sanctions Against Iran Grow Tighter,

but What's the Next Step?: [Foreign

Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

30. Israelis Assess Threats by Iran As

Partly Bluff: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

38. U.N. Nuclear Inspectors' Visit to

Iran Is a Failure, West Says: [Foreign

Desk]

3 0 1 0 0 2

25. Israel Says Iran Is Behind Bombs:

[Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

26. Iran Leader Is Expected To

Announce Atomic Steps: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

37. Franctic Actions Hint At Pressure On

Iran Leaders: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

44. Suspected Anti-Israel Plot Widens

Scrutiny on Iran: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

28. In Din Over Iran, Rattling Sabers

Echo: [News Analysis]


43/63

Rust 43


Date word co terror assassinabomb attack kil l explo v iolen blast detonat murder SUM

29. Nuclear Inspectors Say Their

Mission to Iran Has Failed: [Foreign

Desk] 22-Feb-12 638 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

17. Iran: 15 Accused in

Assassination Plot: [Foreign Desk]19-Apr-12 449 0 4 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 13

43. Iran: Nuclear Inspector Kille d in

Crash: [Foreign Desk]9-May-12 254 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3

7. Iran Executes Man Accused As

Israeli Spy And Assassin: [Foreign

Desk] 16-May-12 573 0 4 2 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 14

13. After Talks With West Falter,

Iran Says It Won't Halt Uranium

Work: [Foreign Desk] 28-May-12 1069 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

24. Iran: Intelligence Chief Expands

List of Suspects: [Brief]7-Jul-12 141 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

45. Bus Bomb Kills 6 in Bul garia;

Israel Blames Iran for the Bl ast:

[Foreign Desk] 19-Jul-12 1273 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

20. Plots Are Tied to Shadow War of

Israel and Iran: [Foreign Desk]

9-Aug-12 1673 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 8

12. Signs That Iran Is Speeding Up

Nuclear Work: [Foreign Desk]24-Aug-12 1153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

27. At Summit Meeting, Iran Has a

Message for the World: [Foreign

Desk] 27-Aug-12 949 3 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 8

33. Star Lobbyists Help Iran Group

Escape Shadow: [Foreign Desk]22-Sep-12 1216 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

. ran xpan s on a m o

Sabotage From Abroad of Nuclear

and Other Technology: [Foreign

Desk 26-Sep-12 638 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2


44/63

Rust 44



0 0 0 0 0 0

29. Nuclear Inspectors Say Their

Mission to Iran Has Failed: [Foreign

Desk]

1 0 0 0 0 1

17. Iran: 15 Accused in Assassination

Plot: [Foreign Des k]

1 0 0 0 1 0

43. Iran: Nuclear Inspector Killed in

Crash: [Foreign Desk]

2 0 2 0 0 0

7. Iran Executes Man Accused As Israeli

Spy And Assassin: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

13. After Talks With West Falter, Iran

Says It Won't Halt Uranium Work:

[Foreign Desk]

1 0 0 0 0 1

24. Iran: Intelligence Chief Expands List

of Suspects: [Brief]

2 0 1 0 0 1

45. Bus Bomb Kills 6 in Bulgaria; Israel

Blames Iran for the Blas t: [Foreign

Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

20. Plots Are Tied to Shadow War of

Israel and Iran: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

12. Signs That Iran Is Speeding Up

Nuclear Work: [Foreign Desk]

1 0 1 0 0 0

27. At Summit Meeting, Iran Has a

Message for the World: [Foreign Desk]

0 0 0 0 0 0

33. Star Lobbyists Help Iran Group

Escape Shadow: [Foreign Desk]

2 1 0 0 0 1

21. Iran Expands on Clai m of Sabotage

From Abroad of Nuclear and Other

Technology: [Foreign Des k]


45/63

Rust 45

Appendix C: Data from the Washington Post

Date word count terror assassinat bomb at tack kill explo violen blast det onat murder SUM

1. Iran lashes out after lethal blast;

Tehran vows revenge, blames U.S.

and Israel for scientist's death 13-Jan-10 686 0 1 2 2 5 1 0 1 0 0 12

2. In Arab states' fears, Israel sees

impetus for action agai nst Iran30-Nov-10 866 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4

3. Iran claim about uranium prefaces

multination talks6-Dec-10 760 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

4. Major powers and Iran hold

'constructive' talks7-Dec-10 624 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

5. Little progress seen as talks with

Iran come to end8-Dec-10 803 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

6. Iran Intelligence Ministry says it

arrested spies tied to Israel11-Jan-11 476 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5

8. Iran 'set back' on nuclear program

18-Oct-11 1161 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

10. Republican candidates embrace

covert action in Iran14-Nov-11 630 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

11. Mysterious explosi ons pose

dilemma for Iran26-Nov-11 796 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

12. Iran facing increased isolationafter embassy rampage

1-Dec-11 1123 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3

13. Iran displays plane identified as

downed U.S. surveillance drone9-Dec-11 645 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

15. Iran lashes out at West, but hints

at diplomacy14-Jan-12 1006 0 2 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 9

16. E.U. leaders agree to Iran oil

embargo14-Jan-12 871 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


46/63

Rust 46



3 0 3 0 0 0

1. Iran lashes out after lethal blas t;

Tehran vows revenge, blames U.S.

and Israel for scientist's death

1 0 1 0 0 0

2. In Arab states' fears, Israel sees

impetus for ac tion against Iran

0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Iran claim about uranium prefacesmultination talks

0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Major powers and Iran hold

'constructive' talks

0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Little progress seen as talks with

Iran come to end

5 0 2 0 0 3

6. Iran Intelligence Ministry says it

arrested spies tied to Israel

1 0 0 0 1 0

8. Iran 'set back' on nuclear program

0 0 0 0 0 0

10. Republican candidates embrace

covert action in Iran

0 0 0 0 0 0

11. Mysterious explosions pose

dilemma for Iran

0 0 0 0 0 0

12. Iran facing increased isolation

after embassy rampage

0 0 0 0 0 0

13. Iran displays plane identified as

downed U.S. surveillance drone

1 0 0 0 0 1

15. Iran lashes out at West, but

hints at diplomacy

0 0 0 0 0 0

16. E.U. leaders agree to Iran oil

embargo


47/63

Rust 47


Date word count terror assassinat bomb at tac k ki ll explo vi olen bl ast det onat murder SUM

18. U.S. spy agencies s ee new Iran

risk1-Feb-12 1068 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3

19. Israel accuses Iran in bomb plot

14-Feb-12 1006 0 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 8

21. Israel blames Iran for Bangkok

explosions 15-Feb-12 733 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

22. Iran warns West on nuclear issue

16-Feb-12 1084 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

23. Israel cites more links to Iran in

bombings16-Feb-12 618 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6

25. Iran orders retrial for American

sentenced to death6-Mar-12 831 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

26. Iran reports capture of 'terrorist

team'11-Apr-12 514 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 5

27. U.S. officials encouraged by talks

with Iran15-Apr-12 1046 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

28. U.S. diplomats among targets of

Iran-linked plot28-May-12 1860 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3

29. Blast kills at least six Israelis on a

bus in Bulgaria; Netanyahu blames

Iran 19-Jul-12 564 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

30. Escalation feared in Israel-Iran

struggle Fear of 'shadow war' rises in

Mideast 20-Jul-12 1076 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

31. Israel says it will retaliate against

Iran for Bulgaria bombing20-Jul-12 1042 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

33. Iran, Israel wage a silent war

2-Aug-12 796 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

34. In policy shift, Morsi to visit Iran

28-Aug-12 829 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

35. Iran says blast cut power lines to

nuclear site18-Sep-12 405 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

37. Azerbaijan relishes role as the

anti-Iran15-Oct-12 1540 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1


48/63

Rust 48



0 0 0 0 0 0

18. U.S. spy agencies see new Iran

risk

1 0 0 0 1 0

19. Israel accuses Iran in bomb plot

0 0 0 0 0 0

21. Israel blames Iran for Bangkok

explosions

0 0 0 0 0 0

22. Iran warns West on nuclear

issue

0 0 0 0 0 0

23. Israel cites more links to Iran in

bombings

0 0 0 0 0 0

25. Iran orders retrial for American

sentenced to death

8 3 0 0 0 5

26. Iran reports capture of 'terrorist

team'

0 0 0 0 0 0

27. U.S. officials encouraged by

talks with Iran

1 0 0 0 1 0

28. U.S. diplomats among targets of

Iran-linked plot

0 0 0 0 0 0

29. Blast kills at leas t six Israelis on

a bus in Bulgaria; Netanyahu blames

Iran

0 0 0 0 0 0

30. Escalation feared in Israel-Iran

struggle Fear of 'shadow war' risesin Mideast

0 0 0 0 0 0

31. Israel says it will retaliate

against Iran for Bulgaria bombing

0 0 0 0 0 0

33. Iran, Israel wage a s ilent war

0 0 0 0 0 0

34. In policy shift, Morsi to visit Iran

0 0 0 0 0 0

35. Iran says blast cut power lines to

nuclear site

1 0 0 1 0 0

37. Azerbaijan relishes role as the

anti-Iran


49/63

Rust 49

Appendix D: Financial Times

Date wor d co untter ro r assassin at bomb att ac k k il l exp lo v iol en bl ast d eton at mu rd er SUM

1. Iran blames Israel and US for scientist's killi ng 13-Jan-10 570 0 3 2 2 6 1 0 1 0 3 18

14. US fears faster Iran progress on nuclear

weapons30-Dec-10 602 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

6. The Iran dilemma: Sanctions hurt, but will

they change regime behaviour?10-Jan-11 402 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

7. A painful lack of progress wi th Iran:

Diplomacy still nee ded to curb Tehran's nuclear

activities 26-Jan-11 400 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

2. Cover Story: The Sabotaging Of Iran

12-Feb-11 4203 0 7 0 2 10 3 0 0 0 6 28

3. Iran's intelligence minister resigns

18-Apr-11 110 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

5. Oil groups begin to cut ties with Iran

12-Jan-12 444 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 34. Iran's nuclear programme: As the U an EU

impose sanctions on oil imports from the

Islamic Republic, the worry is that Tehran will

simply proceed to produce a bomb or act in a

way that provokes military conflict. By Roula

Khalaf and James Blitz 24-Jan-12 2264 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

13. Western standoff with Iran careers towards

conflict24-Jan-12 651 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12. Debate on Iran's nuclear programme is hot

ticket: Middle East27-Jan-12 742 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

11. Cyberattack clouds US-Iran talks

2-Jun-12 619 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

8. Iran uses gathering to recast its image as

victim: Tehran summit30-Aug-12 716 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

10. Iran claims sabotage of nuclear site

18-Sep-12 409 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

9. Iran reformists fear crackdown after US shif t

25-Sep-12 571 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


50/63

Rust 50

Appendix D: Financial Times


1 0 1 0 0 0 1. Iran blames Israel and US for scientist's killing

0 0 0 0 0 0

14. US fears faster Iran progress on nuclear weapons

0 0 0 0 0 0

6. The Iran dilemma: Sanctions hurt, but will they change

regime behaviour?

0 0 0 0 0 0

7. A painful lack of progress with Iran: Diplomacy still

needed to curb Tehran's nuclear activities

4 2 1 0 0 1

2. Cover Story: The Sabotaging Of Iran

0 0 0 0 0 0

3. Iran's intelligence minister resigns

0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Oil groups begin to cut ties with Iran

0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Iran's nuclear programme: As the US and EU impose

sanctions on oil imports from the Islamic Republic, the

worry is that Tehran will simply proceed to produce a

bomb or act in a way that provokes military conflict. By

Roula Khalaf and James Blitz

0 0 0 0 0 0

13. Western standoff with Iran careers towards conflict

0 0 0 0 0 0

12. Debate on Iran's nuclear programme is hot ticket:

Middle East

0 0 0 0 0 0

11. Cyberattack clouds US-Iran talks

0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Iran uses gathering to recast its image as victim: Tehran

summit

1 0 0 0 0 1

10. Iran claims sabotage of nuclear site

0 0 0 0 0 0

9. Iran reformists fear crackdown after US shift


51/63

Rust 51

Appendix E: Data from the Wall Street Journal


1. U.S. News: U.S.-Iran Feud Hits L.A. --- Tehran Seeks

Crackdown on Dissidents in City; 'We Are Not Soldiers,'

Group Says 10-May-10 990 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3

2. Iran Touts Nuke Gain Ahead of U.S. Talks

6-Dec-10 1143 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

3. World News: Iran Nuclear Talks Resume --- Reports on

Discussions Give Mixed Picture; Tuesday Seen as Critical

for Progress 7-Dec-10 752 0 1 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 8

4. World News: U.N. Atomic Chief Boosts Efforts to Inspect

Iran25-Nov-11 669 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

5. Scientist Killing Stokes U.S.-Iran Tensions

12-Jan-12 1031 4 3 3 11 6 1 0 0 0 0 28

6. World News: Iran to Let In U.N. Atomic Inspectors

13-Jan-12 691 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

7. World News: U.S. Warns Israel on Strike --- Officials

Lobby Against Attack on Iran as Military Leaders Bolster

Defenses 14-Jan-12 805 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

8. World News: Israel, U.S. Seek 'Common Ground' on Iran

21-Jan-12 490 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

9. Israel Says Iran Behind Attacks on Diplomats

14-Feb-12 909 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 5

10. Botched Thai Bombing Plot Ratchets Up Pressure on

Iran15-Feb-12 997 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

11. World News: Iran Cites Nuclear Gains, Offers Talks ---

Tehran, Facing Sanctions and Charges Of Terrorism, Claims

Landmark Advance 2/16/2012 949 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


52/63

Rust 52



0 0 0 0 0 0

1. U.S. News: U.S.-Iran Feud Hits L.A. --- Tehran

Seeks Crackdown on Dissidents in City; 'We Are Not

Soldiers,' Group Says

0 0 0 0 0 0

2. Iran Touts Nuke Gain Ahead of U.S. Talks

0 0 0 0 0 0

3. World News: Iran Nuclear Talks Resume ---

Reports on Discussions Give Mixed Picture; Tuesday

Seen as Critical for Progress

0 0 0 0 0 0

4. World News: U.N. Atomic Chief Boosts Efforts to

Inspect Iran

0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Scientist Killing Stokes U.S.-Iran Tensions

1 0 0 1 0 0

6. World News: Iran to Let In U.N. Atomic Inspectors

0 0 0 0 0 0

7. World News: U.S. Warns Israel on Strike -- -

Official s Lobby Against Attack on Iran as Military

Leaders Bolster Defenses

0 0 0 0 0 0

8. World News: Israel, U.S. Se ek 'Common Ground'

on Iran

0 0 0 0 0 0

9. Israel Says Iran Behind Attacks on Diplomats

0 0 0 0 0 0

10. Botched Thai Bombing P lot Ratchets Up Pressure

on Iran

0 0 0 0 0 0

11. World News: Iran Cites Nuclear Gains, Offe rs

Talks --- Tehran, Facing Sanctions and Charges Of

Terrorism, Claims Landmark Advance


53/63

Rust 53


Date word co terror assassinabomb attack kill explo violen blast detonat murder SUM

12. U.S. Bulks Up Iran Defenses -- - Pentagon Plans New

Sea, Land Measures to Counter Any Attempt to Close

Persian Gulf Oil Gateway25-Feb-12 1300 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

13. World News: Iran Tries for 'Democratic Energy' ---

Loyalists Embrace Regime Depiction of Ele ction as Message

of Defiance; Reformist Candidates Were Kept Off Ballot3-Mar-12 816 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

14. Iran's Spymaster Counters U.S. Moves in the Mideast

4-Apr-12 2266 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

15. U.S. News -- - CAPITAL JOURNAL: U.S., Israel Ne ed to

Stay in Sync on Iran Talks10-Apr-12 775 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

16. World News: Iran Hangs Alleged Is raeli Agent

16-May-12 138 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 7

17. Information Age: Warnings From 'Hitlerland' About Iran

5/25/2012 834 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

18. Israel Says Iran Behind Deadly Blast in Europe

19-Jul-12 836 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 219. World News: Bulgar a Blames Su c de Bomber ---

Suspect in Attack on Israeli Tourists Seen on Vide o,

Officials Say; Israel Rei terates Iran Link, as Tehran DeniesInvolvement 20-Jul-12 1066 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

20. Iran and the Human Rights Opening

8-Aug-12 862 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

21. A Nuclear Pioneer Resurfaces in Iran

30-Aug-12 1467 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2


54/63


55/63

Rust 55

Appendix F: Data from the Washington Times

Date w ord c

trends in journalistic coverage of iran's killed scientists

Documents