Summary of Cross-Sectional Individual-Level Public Opinion Analysis

press actors and torture attitudes. Specifically, at the individual level, torture attitudes generally reflect the frames used most frequently by the information sources consumed.

Not only is there a statistically significant effect for Fox News, MSNBC and the Times, the direction of effects is consistent with expectations from the content analysis: Fox News is the lone actor that aligns with pro-torture attitudes while MSNBC and the Times align with anti-torture attitudes. The strength of framing effects produced by Fox News vis-à-vis MSNBC from 2012 to 2016 also mirrors the content analysis: Fox News became less skewed in its coverage between those years, while MSNBC became more skewed. To the extent that the alignment is indicative of a top-down effect, the models consequently show Fox News’ framing effects moderate over time while MSNBC’s framing effects become more potent. Attention to CNN has no statistically significant effect, suggesting that it had a weaker framing effect on torture attitudes.

Previous framing effects research suggests that CNN’s mixed (and thus incoherent) coverage and ambiguity is the likely reason for its lack of effect. While exposure to political elite discourse cannot be entirely disentangled, the models at least demonstrate that “attention to politics” similarly has no statistically significant effect on torture attitudes, reflecting both the silencing among political elites as well as the mixed signals from different branches of government.

5.5 Conclusion

Building on the discourse analysis from the previous chapter, this chapter demonstrated how securitizing and desecuritizing frames manufactured by political elites were

employed by the press. An analysis of public opinion – both at the aggregate and individual level – illustrated the influence that both sets of actors may have had on (de)securitizing the threat of terrorism through the use of oppositional basic discourses on exceptional measures. This section presents a summary of results and select

theoretical and empirical implications of the torture debate within terrorism. A more comprehensive discussion of implications is relegated to the concluding chapter.

The content analysis demonstrated that press actors acted independently of political elites when framing the torture debate within terrorism discourse. Fox News, MSNBC and the New York Times stood out as especially interesting because of their preferences for specific frames. Fox News prioritized the securitizing frame throughout the sixteen years, but also was the only actor to increase its coverage of the securitizing frame between the two presidential administrations. MSNBC did the same for the

desecuritizing frame, covering it largely throughout the entire analysis. While the Times was fairly balanced and ambiguous in its coverage during the Bush administration, it privileged the desecuritizing frame when political elites (under Obama) became less engaged. CNN, on the other hand, remained ambiguous and balanced in its coverage throughout the entire sixteen years. Presidential and congressional elites showed conflicting results, but most importantly, both showed a significant disengagement from the torture debate under the Obama administration. These results from the content analysis led to some preliminary expectations: Fox News viewership should have a securitizing effect, while MSNBC viewership and the Times readership should have a desecuritizing effect. The effects of CNN viewership and attention to political elites were expected to be minimal, if present at all. Another significant finding in this

section was that, while the press frequently acted independently of political elites in its coverage of the torture debate, press actors also acted differently from each other.

The audience was introduced in the following section, first at the aggregate level, and next at the individual, cross-sectional level. The first set of data revealed that public tolerance of torture increased over time – particularly by 2009 (the first year of Obama’s presidency), a majority of Americans found torture to be justifiable.

Considering that Fox News commanded the largest audience among its competitor news organizations, aggregate public opinion appeared to follow Fox News. This relationship was made more explicit in the individual-level analysis, which showed that respondents’ attitudes towards torture reflected the frames that they were most exposed to. This was especially true for audiences of Fox News, MSNBC and the Times. Again, even though MSNBC and the Times aligned with desecuritizing effects at the

individual level, Fox News’ wide viewership appears to have sustained overall support for torture at the aggregate level. Attention to politics had no discernible relationship with torture attitudes, thus increasing confidence that news outlets were more

influential (de)securitizing actors than political elites in framing the torture debate to audiences. Certainly the models cannot fully account for causality, but theory-driven top-down assumptions suggest that elite frames likely influenced attitudes. From a variety of vantage points, then, the torture debate demonstrates that press actors not only played an independent role in (de)securitization, but that they may have exceeded political elites in producing framing effects.

By cataloging the gradual acceptance of such an extreme measure, this case study has demonstrated its analytical utility in understanding how language can legitimize even the illegal in security climates. The results generally demonstrate that terrorism remained a salient and highly securitized threat through 2016, and that the press has been an integral purveyor of pro- and anti-torture messaging. Importantly, the press has buoyed the torture debate even as political elites have disengaged from it, pointing to the pivotal role of the former in driving an important component of terrorism discourse.

At least in the case of torture, the press may have become more effective than political elites in shaping attitudes. Certainly, political elites played a role in the securitization process by setting the initial boundaries of permissible discourse – Bush administration officials gave meaning to the torture and interrogation frames – but as these

dichotomous frames became institutionalized in mainstream discourse, political elites

forfeited their framing effect advantage to the press. While this analysis has focused on one domain of overall terrorism discourse – namely, torture – the press may be having similar impacts in other areas, suggesting that any political effort to deescalate the threat of terrorism will necessitate cooperation with (or at least strategizing around) influential news actors.

The case study also contributes to framing effects research. Comparing different measures of frame effectiveness – volume, frame rate, and ratio of oppositional frames – in a real-world scenario over a sixteen-year period reveals what strategies matters in the long-term for news actors. CNN was unable to produce significant framing effects despite having the largest overall volume of coverage of either frame. In the torture debate, the ratio of coverage of oppositional frames determined which actor(s) would lead in a competitive framing environment. While magnitude may be important in framing effects, it is severely moderated by the strength and co-occurrence of

competing frames. In other words, relative magnitude matters most. Despite the Times, MSNBC and Fox News all having lower volumes of coverage than CNN, their relative coverage of preferred frames strengthened their framing effects; conversely, CNN’s more balanced coverage may have inspired its failure to produce framing effects.

Finally, the analysis of the securitization of terrorism has demonstrated how powerful the press is as an agent in international relations and international security. Press actors gained a competitive edge in shaping public opinion when political elites stepped away from the debate. In the specific case of torture, Jackson (2007) argues that the social legitimation of torture was not inevitable: “Discourses are never completely hegemonic or consistent, and must be continuously defended and reproduced in order to remain dominant” (368). While this point explains Fox News’ competitive edge at the aggregate level – Fox News consistently promoted the securitizing frame – it also points to a limitation of this case study. The individual-level analysis focused on two years, 2012 and 2016, during which political elites were less active. These results may still be generalizable – especially given that the 2014 Senate report on torture was produced in between these years and led to a spike in political elite messaging – but the comparison of vocal and less vocal actors clouds a complete understanding of what can occur in a more competitive context. The disengagement of political elites during the Obama administration created conditions under which Fox News could promote the securitizing frame with little opposition – but can the press command significant levels

of influence on issues actively debated by political elites? Having shown in this chapter one condition under which the press can lead in framing effects, the next case study explores how securitization unfolds in a more competitive discursive context.

Chapter 6: Some Are Evil: Mixed Political Elite Discourse