Manufacturing Consent_ The Political Economy of the Mass Media - Edward S. Herman [109]
NUMBER OF ARTICLES DEALING WITH TOPIC
PERCENTAGE OF ARTICLES DEALING WITH TOPIC
Those compatible with the U.S. government’s agenda for the Salvadoran election:
1. Democratic purpose and hopes
6
21.4
2. Rebel disruption
15
53.6
3. Turnout
7
25.0
4. Election mechanics
9
32.1
5. Personalities and political infighting
10
35.7
6. Official reflections on the election
10
35.7
7. The army as protector of the election
5
17.9
Those incompatible with the U.S. government’s agenda for the Salvadoran election:
8. The public-relations purpose
3
10.7
9. U.S. investment in the election
2
7.1
10. Fraud in the 1982 election
0
0
11. The existence of free speech and assembly—legal state of siege
1
3.6
12. Freedom of the press
0
0
13. Organizational freedom
0
0
14. Limits on the ability of candidates to qualify and campaign
0
0
15. Prior state terror and climate of fear
3
10.7
16. Power of armed forces, links to candidates and parties, as possible negative factor
1
3.6
17. Legal obligation to vote
4
14.3
18. Legal penalties for nonvoting
2
7.1
19. Marking of voters’ fingers
1
3.6
20. Stamping identification cards
2
7.1
21. Legal requirement that authorities check within 10 days, that voters have voted
0
0
22. Possible nonlegal threat to nonvoters from death squads and security forces
0
0
23. Use of transparent voting urns
1
3.6
24. Legal right of the security forces to an armed presence at voting stations
0
0
* Based on a study of the 28 articles on the El Salvador election that appeared in the New York Times between Feb. 1 and Mar. 30, 1984.
TABLE 3–2
Topics Included and Excluded in the New York Times’s Coverage of the Nicaraguan Election Planned for November 4, 1984*
TOPICS
NUMBER OF ARTICLES DEALING WITH TOPIC
PERCENTAGE OF ARTICLES DEALING WITH TOPIC
Those compatible with the U.S. government’s agenda for the Nicaraguan election: (Of the 7 items in table 3–1, all are blanks except one.)
1. Election mechanics
3
37.5
Those incompatible with the U.S. government’s agenda for the Nicaraguan election:**
2. The public-relations purpose
3
37.5
3. Free speech
2
25.0
4. Freedom of the press
6
75.0
5. Organizational freedom
4
50.0
6. Ability of candidates to qualify and run
5
62.5
7. Power of the armed forces, link to state, as negative factor
3
37.5
* Based on a study of the 8 articles on the forthcoming Nicaraguan election that appeared in the New York Times between Feb. 1 and Mar. 30, 1984.
** Many of the topics listed in Table 3–1 under this subheading are not relevant to the Nicaraguan election—all that are covered in the articles examined are listed here.
TABLE 3–3
Topics Included and Excluded in the New York Times ’s Coverage of the Nicaraguan Election of November 4, 1984*
TOPICS
NUMBER OF ARTICLES DEALING WITH TOPIC
PERCENTAGE OF ARTICLES DEALING WITH TOPIC
Those compatible with the U.S. government’s agenda for the Nicaraguan election:
1. Democratic purpose and hopes
1
4.8
2. Rebel disruption
0
0
3. Turnout
5
23.8
4. Election mechanics
0
0
5. Personalities and political infighting
3
14.3
6. Official reflections on the election
3
14.3
7. The army as protector of the election
0
0
8. The public-relations purpose
7
33.3
9. Sandinista investment in the election
2
9.5
10. Fraud in prior elections
NA
NA
11. Free speech and assembly
8
38.1
12. Freedom of the press
6
28.6
13. Organizational freedom
2
9.5
14. Limits on the ability of candidates to qualify and campaign
11
52.4
15. Prior state terror and climate of fear
3
14.3
16. Control of armed forces by government
3
14.3
17. Legal obligation to vote
NA
4.8
18. Legal penalties for nonvoting
NA
NA
19. Marking of voters’ fingers
1
NA
20. Stamping identification cards
NA
NA
21. Legal requirement to check voting
NA
NA
22. Nonlegal threat to nonvoters
1
4.8
23. Use of transparent voting urns