No Trailblazer Was Found During 9 / 11

September 11, 2001 forever impacted America and gave a new challenge to our government that went far beyond any challenges that a natural disaster had presented in decades. The terrorist attacks were definitely a wake up call to being more prepared for natural disasters and reevaluating our intelligence agency jobs and communication levels. In chapter 2, one of the key points that Kettl discuss is connecting the dots. We can see that in the midst of 9/11, America focused on the nation’s intelligence services for answers. As the American people we wanted to know, who were the hijackers, where was security and most importantly, and who do we hold accountable? Furthermore, that the intelligence agencies failed to piece together information that already had about terrorism speculations. In chapter 1, Kettl talks about the warnings and signs that the government has before catastrophes (such as September 11, Hurricane

Mass media is an ever-growing field where millions of people are connected at a constant basis. With that being said opinions and viewpoints are established on a daily basis through the media society reads. Many of these news media sources can be persuasive and have an influence on individual’s opinions. This concept is called framing. While it is related to the concept of agenda setting, framing focuses more on the issue at hand rather than on a particular topic. Framing is an important topic because of its major influence over the choices people make and how they process information. “Goffman stated that there are two distinctions within primary frameworks which are natural and social. Both play the role of helping individuals interpret

Human nature allows us to stereotype a situation in less than a minute, this reflex creates a void of knowledge and deep understanding. Stereotypes create a lack of understanding, they deplete the ability to listen and pay attention to all the facts. Tim O’Brien even after serving America for

causes them to see only one side of the story. As a result of the war on terror, the government has

Upon analyzing 9/11 it was clear to focus on the limitations that the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Central Intelligence Agency had faced. Security breaches and poor intelligence sharing were just some of the critical failures that were encountered. Moreover, the main focus is pointed towards the miscommunication between these two agencies. Evidently, the execution and tactical strategies went unnoticed despite the apparent red flags that presented themselves, in addition to the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Central Intelligence Agency failure to pursue threats and establish a baseline of security resulted in the disaster of 9/11. In conjunction to these mistakes, the restriction of shared information

In a recent study on conspiracy theories 9/11 became the most widely discussed. When asked, well over 50% of Americans believe that George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks. This survey goes to show how this is not a joking matter, and that people truly believe in this issue. With more people believing then not, it is clear the facts speak the truth (Ghose, 2016). Not only does the average U.S. citizen believe in the theory. Well respected, college graduates also speak their mind about how Bush is guilty in the 9/11 attacks. One physicist devotes his time to prove the original story wrong. He did many test, and found out that the story had no way of being true. This man’s profession is to focus on what physically could be true and what could not be. With the support of him, the 9/11 theory gains a lot of support (WorldNetDaily Staff, 2016). Lastly, the PPresident of The United States may very well be the strongest person to help people support the truth behind 9/11. It is clear that Bush did 9/11, and President Trump believes so too. One reporter describes how an a speech Trump mentions how he blames Bush and his brother Jeb for the attacks. With the President believing Bush was guilty, the people should have no other choice but to believe in the correct side (Glueck, 2016). Despite the evidence proving Bush and his administration are guilty, some people still refuse to see and accept the

     Many times we hear things through media and don’t actually listen to what they may say. When people hear something through mass media, they don’t realize that there is a person’s point of view stated in the story. And many times what people don’t see is that there is no such thing as an objective point of view. This is called Rhetoric; when someone states their point of view using words that either sway an audiences opinions one way or another. Rhetoric can be found in many places such as a T.V add or a commercial, magazine articles and advertisements, the news, and even radio commercials.

George Lakoff is a cognitive linguist and the author of The New York Times bestseller, The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant! Lakoff discusses the idea of framing and how it is used as a form of persuasion in political discourse. Politicians use frames as a manipulation tool in an attempt to change the way a person processes facts. Frames also persuade individuals to identify with a particular worldview. Lakoff makes a distinction between framing and spinning. However, I would argue that the terms cannot be separate under any circumstance, that is, framing is merely spinning whether politicians use it with good or manipulative intentions. With regards to framing as a form of “spin-doctoring”, I will discuss Canadian [and American] Liberal political discourse on the issue of immigration, specifically Syrian refugee resettlement.

Framing and public opinion are related to one another because they rely so heavily on one another for both ends of the spectrum. Entman puts it best when he states “public opinion does rest at the bottom of the cascade, the citizenry's perceived and anticipated pated reactions can significantly impinge on what leaders say and do.” Elites will frame an issue in a particular way to get the public on board, but if public opinion has a negative outlook on a frame or the frames attributes then elites will shy away and perhaps move on. Another view from Entman that I think is beneficial in terms of the reliance framing and public opinion have on each other is figure 1.2 from chapter one of his book. This figure shows how ideas trickle downward from the administration's first public expressions about an event. Frames go through stages, from the White House to other elites all the way through to the public. The question being asked within these stages have to do with language, social media and attitudes amongst other

First looking at the conservatism bias, because it is the most important one in this case, shown, in part, by being brought up in the film. “Who we are is who we were.” this quote of both John Quincy Adams and Cinque in the film, Amistad, implies that, in conjunction with this aforementioned cognitive bias, people favor prior evidence or information which they already have observed. Since this bias is also what, in part, led to people being slow to accept that the Earth was round, it is easy to see how, in the case of something which any evidence could be passed off as being mere opinion, this shows how a powerful bias such as this could have such a great effect in this

The term “Covert Action” brings with it a connotation of shadowy figures wrapped in secrecy and intrigue. It also brings with it a substantial amount of moral questions as to “what is right.” The use of covert action has been widely publicized since the early seventies, but trying to find out the truth to these events has been difficult to say the least. What is even more difficult, is historically recording these events into categories of successes or failures. These operations are difficult to dissect because of their secrecy and although events have been recorded, some facts simply aren’t apparent. This paper will seek to identify the complex issues associated with covert operations.

“Failure to thwart the attacks using available information has been interpreted as indicating a need for a more comprehensive and strategic coordination of intelligence” (Schaible, 2012, p. 761)

The way the media frame issues has a subtle yet significant effect on the general public. Studies have shown that frames can help determine which procedures we find medically necessary (Edwards, Elwyn, Covey, Matthews, & Pill, 2001), can influence our ability to recall critical details of a news story (Valkenburg, 2000), and can even subtly influence elections (Shah, Domke, & Wackman, 1996). Given the impact frames can have on the general public, it is important to have a clear way to conceptualize and measure their effects.

Another way media frames political issues is inserting media’s own position on the issue. The media’s position tends to be more liberal and promotes more democratic policies and issues. This bias coverage stems from a long growing relationship between the media and liberal forces (Ginsberg, Lowi & Weir, 1999). However, any bias can distort new coverage and influence audiences in that direction.

The research for this article was conducted within a framework of Framing theory. The theory was first put forward by a Canadian-American sociologist Erving Goffman. Media framing, to put it bluntly, is a term that points to a presence of a certain bias in any media outlets’ output. All choices made in a newsroom collectively form the frame through which media decides to show the world to the audiences. Everything matters: Covering one event and ignoring another, covering one event more than the other, deciding what words to use to cover an event, what photographs or video clips to include, whom to give a voice, etc. At the same time, framing theory goes far beyond newsroom policies. Framing is not necessarily a delibirate choice. Journalists themselves look at the world through frames: their education, upbringing, gender, ethnical background, knowledge of the issue, and so on. Audience members apply their own frames as well, not just to media content, but to everything they hear and see.