<%BANNER%>

Media Narcissism and Self-Reflexive Reporting: Metacommunication in Televised News Broadcasts and Web Coverage of Operat...

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110113_AAAADP INGEST_TIME 2011-01-13T20:29:06Z PACKAGE UFE0005601_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 77307 DFID F20110113_AACKQJ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH williams_a_Page_046.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
eb7ccb9b4cab4a429337fd95f6157c8a
SHA-1
da9ebe0480d960bc6e43a5119600cb00019b2a33
24342 F20110113_AACKPU williams_a_Page_022thm.jpg
1c1a93d18512e9b8fa64536583034c2e
8bc7d50997b37f5741918804bab4ce04e631ec6f
24171 F20110113_AACKQK williams_a_Page_049thm.jpg
67f8f1063a0cd65315acc962bb87e8bf
263852f1fecb68c05d3aeffd2299fd66a68a6eba
73645 F20110113_AACKPV williams_a_Page_024.QC.jpg
42ef1ae95db5e670660e7b2fc45cd346
55f513f18e83d4ae0e6aad83ce2ad9df81a99d76
81062 F20110113_AACKQL williams_a_Page_049.QC.jpg
4eae10e0101458fb9cb1082aa3ae6876
f02922e717de249389086f145bfd9f6d91a06bd1
23219 F20110113_AACKPW williams_a_Page_026thm.jpg
5e121142a7b58b695f8180fedd9dfb87
8d3e843de832abea43491fa6df258ec0b88def54
23571 F20110113_AACKQM williams_a_Page_050thm.jpg
287c53ec0a5caa2152d6f113ee531c16
82196b13c612522721d47358383b939d657ef270
78374 F20110113_AACKPX williams_a_Page_029.QC.jpg
3c1e013938ee23b92d65f28c044bb616
4856d51eef78c652cdfe721f7a740df37a2f70cd
19727 F20110113_AACKRA williams_a_Page_062thm.jpg
98f5d6201b22f809d45270883006d7c8
900218bdaeb050d03195ce535a63fb2d6a75f754
68203 F20110113_AACKQN williams_a_Page_050.QC.jpg
e8eecaec8fb6a2efe4cddd2ffdf1e654
3aded640db44539165b524693e9fc9b139f37d2b
73911 F20110113_AACKPY williams_a_Page_031.QC.jpg
2cd29e70770eae9e91581166c0bee86d
1922016dd2a17138e303eac9fa717f1628dae338
61429 F20110113_AACKRB williams_a_Page_062.QC.jpg
7758fd52e6dea642c00249d24bbff7cf
e447622627c826f89bcf3ae6aa5c061185313f1f
6349 F20110113_AACKQO williams_a_Page_051thm.jpg
4a8c31de1b981fc01ac1e6e0838c10bc
def94b7684e55ce35773cd8d94a6b7c4e1d66dd8
25707 F20110113_AACKPZ williams_a_Page_032thm.jpg
296db13e5f5ae85ba8f159048f85dcbe
356d5e1df6745d937af2d719366e7ed7ddf9719c
206001 F20110113_AACJOA williams_a_Page_094.jpg
50d0b183cbe7860b37af13525c0bd0f4
c8d2e7ab89e80b109aba625b03e0b7ef3e6aec5b
60766 F20110113_AACKRC williams_a_Page_065.QC.jpg
fec7ea35bfa848890858b6cfa2d21e23
cb94e24bb71c42bd73f95ce6e6eee0694a3d380f
19543 F20110113_AACKQP williams_a_Page_052thm.jpg
11e9224879d514e4466782c548dc9a4f
375db492af615355b516b331537eb4bb2db9c0b5
4077 F20110113_AACJOB williams_a_Page_011thm.jpg
bf8e333352e1063bf43b6470fd3c3765
17c0868c516cb8595301a10014fd74a011d47c17
62112 F20110113_AACKRD williams_a_Page_067.QC.jpg
4b12fced531c543ae7b225ea6bb1f0c5
a94e4ca735f4552f429a7958e837d5523de470a5
24343 F20110113_AACJOC williams_a_Page_094thm.jpg
559b2feed32de15b2ae3434c52f6782a
53ca174c3ee24f2f91fe2bc0969ff73563e4744c
65091 F20110113_AACKRE williams_a_Page_068.QC.jpg
669209d138dfe184e1f51fbb50ac7144
bd42ba12d5fbebc9253505ec7f494dc857345083
57466 F20110113_AACKQQ williams_a_Page_052.QC.jpg
7f6015de4f5cea4da2f91d7d1a07f25f
e1affebd9cd2f79bcd208001486acabb42f2548b
99582 F20110113_AACJOD williams_a_Page_027.jp2
5369fe7b140430274b73f88b7d373f4f
fd5fb232fa912662535f38bd648ef834676ff3e3
24595 F20110113_AACKRF williams_a_Page_069thm.jpg
285f682d912df69f33d455241161ba9b
a3387c961979f18c838bd603cda53bc738fc8bea
74511 F20110113_AACKQR williams_a_Page_053.QC.jpg
af5e8f03b2e902503b8f7344dcb2ac65
a2e183182a9fea6ad75b7c0b138660c1b1350e40
1053954 F20110113_AACJOE williams_a_Page_092.tif
b6de5edf46d5f42c7933e860cdc4892d
f270661db8533aac650d7a53a13407edc94824e0
23818 F20110113_AACKRG williams_a_Page_070thm.jpg
3d0c901c699ed3585e89fa5de1ee3db9
ba2ee29752ed8fb2e185828718df14ac9c95b476
21486 F20110113_AACKQS williams_a_Page_054thm.jpg
db7a7cd0fdc90726fb7e627451fc1981
2e739727e2aadf223fa41bfa52512203e4a9833a
75484 F20110113_AACJOF williams_a_Page_047.QC.jpg
f696bd4870cd6237b099fcf8aeb91daa
67a54623e05fdc764146efd6f7f06af4d306f33a
75751 F20110113_AACKRH williams_a_Page_070.QC.jpg
d07a0c1bfc4e5f7b1cc5d4a130c14d11
3a6d6bb49de1bbf2319428c987530bc94f9daa76
21625 F20110113_AACKQT williams_a_Page_055.QC.jpg
049e37e6118baffa16181b8167026509
9bce12add3218220510d8d158e72a343eb6f19ae
F20110113_AACJOG williams_a_Page_031.tif
1af68dbca643b7e4790ebc3b84339023
0e817dfbf96d0b12cc7012cbec3b4bf248ad47f2
25293 F20110113_AACKRI williams_a_Page_071thm.jpg
c50a3c943a96348c1bd9557bc1e9031a
b3cda3872ed722acea4b5eb86f46b969826ecde5
20175 F20110113_AACKQU williams_a_Page_056thm.jpg
5de815d9f0f824c67097023c528abcf5
bc5084a22016cd5aac4af2eb24709baded74039a
49259 F20110113_AACJOH williams_a_Page_046.pro
ac7077cae35242ba66af019fed87b102
5e7239cc0b42ac699e153b59d70d55ae09055dec
75397 F20110113_AACKRJ williams_a_Page_071.QC.jpg
c3e9388b8ff10e30621a24f9a642ceb5
8d663d43e721fa658af30ed0cafe46cf9f50f30b
25354 F20110113_AACKQV williams_a_Page_057thm.jpg
28b4d3b186fe31cb1b36f0d63f78fcd4
d0d4a90cd7bd92ba9512f9906080b2b846f1ced0
74235 F20110113_AACJOI williams_a_Page_083.jp2
34c098541db5fcdb7fdf8be1d1d23e0a
8f6382b237ed90d0e54d825cc81159bd86aff416
23823 F20110113_AACKRK williams_a_Page_072thm.jpg
7c2f5223abaaec7c795c3621697b6c5e
e8dac834cf4a93b3a42add00b058f4b5fd2600e6
51805 F20110113_AACJNU williams_a_Page_063.pro
adef3540d0049fd925427fdc18a4361b
b77c28f756e24b949d6249040f50cdc8e12fde0f
66504 F20110113_AACKQW williams_a_Page_058.QC.jpg
8dc00ebca807c57f1c129acd5e665315
bbb14605e4e4ef4328a6b02238ae619ca123ee42
236867 F20110113_AACJOJ williams_a_Page_106.jpg
894cfee8e38495f855ce45de6a4c6aa4
7b9769989b802b3f878112e4e7d276629c298cd8
73075 F20110113_AACKRL williams_a_Page_072.QC.jpg
bdd4e8c2b6e0c2a94cfe125a881c1b35
8b97900f6c3c0d52c5ad96648cd51565f8a234b7
24543 F20110113_AACKSA williams_a_Page_087thm.jpg
4e28f60d59acf3a59841482c8c795c7e
53a1eec236a1e3f1a0eea683f2440ce923f0614c
126355 F20110113_AACJNV williams_a_Page_107.jp2
3e010e8351bbbdca689c71aa930d2b55
934fe9337a09c8f8926dcaa6dc8356435f824883
11707 F20110113_AACKQX williams_a_Page_059thm.jpg
b70ae456ee86d9957559e5b88a7322bc
7e850f281aae95625654911cf96c6b1ce7ce3466
47642 F20110113_AACJOK williams_a_Page_005.pro
2d5043f56f878c3301370a8561e5e26a
c6a86fb48463742a213c0fc4db5654f01ea82369
23880 F20110113_AACKRM williams_a_Page_073thm.jpg
347c120a13b00a2e734432fbc44eef79
9ccb09c19d33de0c43ec1fb0653401196c10aada
77603 F20110113_AACKSB williams_a_Page_088.QC.jpg
57a410a0e4838fe4b04038131813ffe2
c52b0a5bb74fbdd6d7b9c3d5278615530639b7dc
F20110113_AACJNW williams_a_Page_057.tif
94ed0b11ffad0d0e250cfe5c1f0cf598
32fdf46faf36499cd902aa76f3f7986013f4dbe3
36403 F20110113_AACKQY williams_a_Page_059.QC.jpg
d465b8a6bd92f83b6b83a72347ba308f
898437f5aa631ce1b0fb447cc5e8658ab794d83b
F20110113_AACJOL williams_a_Page_106.tif
bca34854bbb9b8d16a4fb71d237a42ff
679557aa26f77b47c892ea197afe57c6cadf7a3a
74585 F20110113_AACKRN williams_a_Page_073.QC.jpg
6da05b26f77a7728423acb0e323a8808
9d3b67a2639994720489808a7211103475cd6f65
18311 F20110113_AACKSC williams_a_Page_089thm.jpg
dc04c359ec92c98621038635fc80b7de
04d481702ddc274c8fcc5dd106e02c1ec86cd80b
50942 F20110113_AACJNX williams_a_Page_019.pro
ab1aadc1247796af39e895ca1da6071a
4846ebe39dbb753a03989c56372a8bcb60120b18
56474 F20110113_AACKQZ williams_a_Page_060.QC.jpg
123a70320282922d7bcf7762685c6a7a
c1ef77272349d63883160f39cfaa47d25a592ba0
109659 F20110113_AACJPA williams_a_Page_038.jp2
7570e0b3e2386fb6b2ff642106a32682
d95f67e357861d36ae88b6f417e261e84acc9d4b
24500 F20110113_AACJOM williams_a_Page_088thm.jpg
9c56ecddb356b99d5f00a6dfa76ac46f
f3ba3328a13f25d8661398ec4a91b458b718e82a
23717 F20110113_AACKRO williams_a_Page_074thm.jpg
cb078f53a9d41996ee1471a3b22b71a8
4bf83b8f5695f4d138c9bf4ec4b411b75b22cf58
54093 F20110113_AACKSD williams_a_Page_089.QC.jpg
178a6e555171672a57b7ae2147f78408
3e542164eb349fccb91530ce6a5ceeeec6c36a28
25121 F20110113_AACJNY williams_a_Page_019thm.jpg
28315ae4bbf07c60a9ef0057d33de21c
957d5ff27245075c10ffb3d0df3efa0435815315
4350 F20110113_AACJPB williams_a_Page_059.txt
7865aaaf8cad97a0ac7882934e695d03
e97f1abafc8bbafbcb39fca6855e0c34f84bcf4a
F20110113_AACJON williams_a_Page_102.tif
48007c25a2cc9cc985a22a0e39a8ca2b
c38573747b6f2b02bbe09d6b8a6b8d4394be9dd7
23583 F20110113_AACKRP williams_a_Page_075thm.jpg
274f9346a46af73ab6cfe9b6e388c7b7
47f3ea2923ffd3a1504e552238b40d25deb18e29
16499 F20110113_AACKSE williams_a_Page_090thm.jpg
0c78c377f87e6a5bc0bb0ea7f8e15a2b
257f5047629286d764a32708fc664be2d3bd4845
92777 F20110113_AACJNZ williams_a_Page_004.jp2
3e1d8197b4f51a2537e7dd6259973ab5
f4b39c2554dfea36dc38286be3e91f6b7e7037f8
89282 F20110113_AACJPC williams_a_Page_054.jp2
e38acc43b1eb6b2213b1615c33ad18d1
1f6d42d8037d03cac315b71183676812ee146978
56022 F20110113_AACJOO williams_a_Page_103.pro
8537cc0b0b00a50b2df7820ec1a788e6
5dbf0718e1ea3afb1d0a602f6ed6f717c4ffe57a
74467 F20110113_AACKRQ williams_a_Page_075.QC.jpg
216506302c897c8cf733f176698c5951
9022b02f29cf26c5bd63611120f1442970daaba9
52580 F20110113_AACKSF williams_a_Page_090.QC.jpg
a61b69f138714331117951864a8fabf8
66c26c231ebde37ac9e6162b6ed217aa2e08498c
80323 F20110113_AACJPD williams_a_Page_035.QC.jpg
5ede2d9f697d0af3ce76bdce29da714e
ee2244a002c75a9827554d8b4e1eee3be931962c
24559 F20110113_AACKSG williams_a_Page_091thm.jpg
022802d1f0f14b7dbc7d809c2a99c3db
9fa992599b4a9bfe789f0b3100e76c6a6262c0b0
62938 F20110113_AACJPE williams_a_Page_097.QC.jpg
fedd329483b9c167ac6c89c88c2db7a0
5a549ee1a988932459a63517076cb938a3e21109
108730 F20110113_AACJOP williams_a_Page_093.jp2
687da123833c6f38c9fc5e3bcbdda781
e28cfb56b6b902a6cc7df63a70861385029637e3
77231 F20110113_AACKRR williams_a_Page_076.QC.jpg
d1ee9cc93f5d64a53fd973b8189d68b4
022c9a12ce744dd3c489985ec4162c14d797c30d
75631 F20110113_AACKSH williams_a_Page_091.QC.jpg
32aaa32e020d7dbc2c6076debd5d0391
9d439c59ef9973366b3c405a6ae136481dd6ed69
F20110113_AACJPF williams_a_Page_030.tif
e951aa40e8657ed2a30f3ee115936303
729c9473442e223b892685b1399683c9cfe8ae25
1883 F20110113_AACJOQ williams_a_Page_005.txt
b0c2846bfebbc75b83df174afda41d16
a1bb7449d1f5c2977873eeaef10782146e22813b
24076 F20110113_AACKRS williams_a_Page_077thm.jpg
93c318ca53ae6d8f973ac7356ee7a62b
283d82e79548c246f746cc864adb9e6436995fd8
24929 F20110113_AACKSI williams_a_Page_093thm.jpg
6031f146941fe335290d661eda04ba98
64a431a75245434c3253a47f32be8c858f6468bb
1795 F20110113_AACJPG williams_a_Page_026.txt
fe112a22565124f9bcd31f8661bfd950
69a77ecbbdcb81c6a0ced1c1f441d1ddb68e2e34
25292 F20110113_AACJOR williams_a_Page_092thm.jpg
b612f5e00832782bf9e5da27d4ffb5a7
5857234ec38f7f9f5d26b17df0530d65242e70f6
22305 F20110113_AACKRT williams_a_Page_081thm.jpg
59bac548ca3d9b4566178030c3a46361
9c66cfcb4f691ec3efb44b266310e355e9cea807
79378 F20110113_AACKSJ williams_a_Page_093.QC.jpg
98ad53e919cb82f248e71f1561fb08e2
dd93d627796432b6d9706e2ecbe04304647b6494
151792 F20110113_AACJPH williams_a_Page_064.jpg
3cbd1765c5d5e5cb93dc6d33ab865a87
385c53f517e64bd3769ac49cbe4351525e5681df
77183 F20110113_AACJOS williams_a_Page_106.QC.jpg
b825f207abd4e534d34ed91fbd8981a1
b4a52421631aa2a867e73fa55888cd172a8bb5ae
66929 F20110113_AACKRU williams_a_Page_081.QC.jpg
02c95713625c928bc98d27b051d98313
a08e1a68c0187521d3b83a1e09b97d25c4fec11f
77694 F20110113_AACKSK williams_a_Page_094.QC.jpg
53594913efa325b3051065aa2ea69ad5
879523da1b31459562802727b1cbefe05c74c8c4
F20110113_AACJPI williams_a_Page_101.tif
acb091c9e7a09578c28d9ee5750f0004
06daed09e72536c79ecc0df62e93f9a784f636ea
2090 F20110113_AACJOT williams_a_Page_032.txt
1bf61c38c17ed079e10fd1be88faf680
c6f68e0b07535fd8de9e8dc4016c5aca7b4c135d
17181 F20110113_AACKRV williams_a_Page_083thm.jpg
392b4e9fbe1b3d7c839c1430d7cc269c
863d8be5e40606443572bf2422e4de727ba1b857
12496 F20110113_AACKSL williams_a_Page_095thm.jpg
f6280aec14272faa37f439c7d367b314
a075f7a922f39c4b92aa33804e23c3b5495d7e1c
F20110113_AACJPJ williams_a_Page_054.tif
c006f7d0e10100265e49093423f4e9fc
e9e46275be92e0b665097437378fe33c5f38c9a1
52752 F20110113_AACJOU williams_a_Page_015.pro
90f43943fb1d31e443ab0b65898edad9
fe7da78b4333c7345d39a585da3d230cbf93ba27
53457 F20110113_AACKRW williams_a_Page_083.QC.jpg
2597d416d38631eaca8f34db59c18c01
e2166d16d1ceb949a781b652f8d8957eda1ee46c
86638 F20110113_AACKTA williams_a_Page_110.QC.jpg
eaed1bba3810d81123a0120e776030b4
c34ba7bd406ab1932e7d7ee73dd8b4e42b3a7064
35905 F20110113_AACKSM williams_a_Page_095.QC.jpg
f69364102ad6090e9ce66d1b52e4efca
085d1fe4739fd6c87ee8b40f06894ab515ff649c
79270 F20110113_AACJPK williams_a_Page_092.QC.jpg
b39e1434ca01a023627d5d321a74a492
dd197ed79668ed2df75e9420442ec08adbed64e5
1989 F20110113_AACJOV williams_a_Page_043.txt
4ccb48d988a855027f9eb01c7a6fd55b
245e9d3f0cc3ff7a2c3c699fa404e598d6c17177
17107 F20110113_AACKRX williams_a_Page_084thm.jpg
cc3b5e3a40f0c0fe74ae5e061c17d88f
8e23274ab1e3a9657f798177d5ef6ee99298ba6e
77909 F20110113_AACKTB williams_a_Page_111.QC.jpg
eeaa7ec3242672fd220fb549c3d028d2
8080fde79242794b475bbf467257baabd8f2f283
20829 F20110113_AACKSN williams_a_Page_097thm.jpg
aecc0a1df34dbe5b7b85230fd05d2b8c
fc5943082463bd4204fc44b41121b95ba15c8501
128054 F20110113_AACJPL williams_a_Page_113.jp2
de6b916b0085d5a2fe0676a3edf212b7
3f1b931b9d130f1d4a1845d695fa6039428ac7b1
61287 F20110113_AACJOW williams_a_Page_110.pro
358d0b8d0b2f62aca4e0f8f039c72902
050328a2dcccdaba5b4f0e3ad91846ff4a4c6de0
24337 F20110113_AACKRY williams_a_Page_085thm.jpg
aa99dfb9ae816a29a6b7566d65c9e873
9813e5c9b3f483cba9e5df9b0ba1f46daa1b684c
81072 F20110113_AACKTC williams_a_Page_112.QC.jpg
1f5634ac1ff71a4c6b7c1f50b8efed1e
153ac3bb12c692431341a5d966c92d9b7c1aeeb8
21676 F20110113_AACKSO williams_a_Page_098thm.jpg
7e13f30929151e9179d34d8e3b949baa
d9d0617a3f95787a592a073bde0c7dc0aaf6754d
21241 F20110113_AACJPM williams_a_Page_012thm.jpg
98474571cfb3f87715abda21acf8f5dd
77862f32f042968c7f99be95eebc9f24ecda468c
21616 F20110113_AACJOX williams_a_Page_044thm.jpg
35fe0f91ac74d14ace704e30999c69f3
0c3ef7d34e395bb1ab985bf0e2df8f17c19d1942
25976 F20110113_AACKRZ williams_a_Page_086thm.jpg
4af0105aaa1a1bef50671ed7eeaa78b3
faae4c517299048ace81f17c4b10355a0283bb1f
1973 F20110113_AACJQA williams_a_Page_092.txt
2f8f6ac92d1bf5f7aba7b9128ae36367
da347700431efbb060e28ba410d48dc9f7c56cef
81575 F20110113_AACKTD williams_a_Page_113.QC.jpg
9fa931ea54d7bf7ca2cdce28d61faeef
7e8a0bf39df9326ab5d17914a1bd48f7946b9aad
69785 F20110113_AACKSP williams_a_Page_098.QC.jpg
5402fc5472f22e5a53f1525bc5dfd231
ec51a2719f332aacda0efd2824f8ebb845c9a903
1819 F20110113_AACJPN williams_a_Page_065.txt
041a996a42e236ef20a1882616a14126
5df275258efa1ded211c6de0aca59aa06f6d7cdb
F20110113_AACJOY williams_a_Page_051.tif
6f0cb5f78c9424beb8e1d3aeab0d43de
8d53777a3e0d01efb47081609419a9fea8249b88
111977 F20110113_AACJQB williams_a_Page_043.jp2
49f48ef240096ffcda81128052cb66f3
1eb8115b243f76803801462f1b227616a60bc2fb
87001 F20110113_AACKTE williams_a_Page_114.QC.jpg
c5423e4289ec5cd73aecf074e70147e5
530dbbd292f40acbf11e9fe7472c8bdd2fca397c
19835 F20110113_AACKSQ williams_a_Page_101thm.jpg
18eb0a8f35a712e33290c164ac4d8a30
046147b78fc565a599056608c9f7ae61cdaa1051
209740 F20110113_AACJPO williams_a_Page_029.jpg
a4dceafedb9dc56af48b87bc29f16de5
ef0164c3bc64dde55f825cabf8a10cfda2e8c6b2
170570 F20110113_AACJOZ williams_a_Page_065.jpg
442664d53a513fc9006cd90eb756a6c8
0949aec3b8a2ac45605c0f3c9943cdef5a5d8117
23937 F20110113_AACJQC williams_a_Page_047thm.jpg
2357c4010c94d840b43f12998c2f800f
c5c4a0bb8924ac6f5feebb4da797f5e2fb838326
20747 F20110113_AACKSR williams_a_Page_102thm.jpg
f1fca267c5d259b470ae47a87424c04d
af773602c966571104e28e47b4bc4538f0442670
F20110113_AACJPP williams_a_Page_035.tif
5c0b4be24dcc65ee755ac8ee8647b952
4a6935f9723a678157251fad0158d597899c365e
184662 F20110113_AACJQD williams_a_Page_099.jpg
475e3e0a3e291fcb02e474584d486a85
4874899230895ec39445ec2b5d18210d8452b364
3201 F20110113_AACJQE williams_a_Page_007.txt
dda16639a455c3eba049b2ae7f1600f0
0a657e986b01a36b7fb53436edd81f2a8da92e0f
24614 F20110113_AACKSS williams_a_Page_103thm.jpg
5491216d6e266e17f61df4116c4f4944
c8ad9822d0ae4e713c2a526b234fa44923e89e8e
1051981 F20110113_AACJPQ williams_a_Page_008.jp2
0318001eae24989582a71f463e2f4363
51b22e28e46604dc3cfd62dcdcf949efb0174a01
F20110113_AACJQF williams_a_Page_113.tif
2eaa14e418afad69c816f68f5e469061
1987c4de7c8723e9a9465f29cb5c2107e3d6f2e4
83741 F20110113_AACKST williams_a_Page_104.QC.jpg
b4f9a1908f873b5b5e9c61fff69daeb3
d051300cecc52018b19198e282d87422bf78fcbb
F20110113_AACJPR williams_a_Page_050.tif
9a25377fa024f9fb0a1c46874c2f6c74
e1f156b90013afab32d554ec3b7e6690786b9e0e
48766 F20110113_AACJQG williams_a_Page_013.jp2
8fbe2a8b109cbb5e532c09cced62bf7c
04af58bf3d8e1ba735f43099760fa07bc4fe21d0
24250 F20110113_AACKSU williams_a_Page_105thm.jpg
08d5c78c39ed096094bd91c706b7fc8d
806a647197a987894eee2543e96bb66c67238c2e
108060 F20110113_AACJPS williams_a_Page_071.jp2
496ec98e0d0c2352fdedb4099c021ef0
b9d9e1256620e8b33f4295e802b48ba7d5467f10
80570 F20110113_AACJQH williams_a_Page_043.QC.jpg
5b16d5142ac22ba0e75b7e04b6bf38c3
fe528afaf2b11bc7e7e2e951ced0c97c61844a5f
83658 F20110113_AACKSV williams_a_Page_105.QC.jpg
f16151f8e9682592f008f0d19588928c
85badcbede7b3fdbe034165e344cb2f3096e2e68
24554 F20110113_AACJPT williams_a_Page_033thm.jpg
f9bdf9b71298519e32b18a748241d205
e00a62900a67a433e9c6127a306624487434ad5f
36591 F20110113_AACJQI williams_a_Page_064.pro
eb96cdfadf33ea2c0a8919b60f3a654a
1551440008f8ea264a9fa3683aa1dfe33a5f2507
24420 F20110113_AACKSW williams_a_Page_106thm.jpg
949268f120245937a03c41d5ec8daf61
78c814b7c1bf157261db90dd887eb89ed7cbd32c
48696 F20110113_AACJPU williams_a_Page_072.pro
c91a19d33ae471cbd9fed0f9e5514277
1ca2a470a6f8c29ce1172b7d627f6b6fb5627efb
51793 F20110113_AACJQJ williams_a_Page_100.pro
e422a74b5ec5e91fb7f0b84f8bf169ca
015c855560efd8426d022660883cf1d469fb2ada
24997 F20110113_AACKSX williams_a_Page_107thm.jpg
164aafd74e1ea7a2383b7ca7ccdf5171
bc758ebc8af566d4908251d89cc197187afe4f15
35497 F20110113_AACJPV williams_a_Page_013.QC.jpg
08e794825aad9cb4cfc709c431177f8c
e851405b32a597c163d0c6b92edb15396bcbdbcf
73901 F20110113_AACJQK williams_a_Page_005.QC.jpg
a9c5faeee100f56c7fff4652cff9ef46
312b3c1359b5af26ecd1cf24faab2b5832f0edfc
23449 F20110113_AACKSY williams_a_Page_108thm.jpg
b0b13f12a4ddd11b09ba6e20b0f4ce35
c06f05a0c00ba49906c38a4868c653568f948dc9
F20110113_AACJPW williams_a_Page_037.tif
069e75d42ac140b58f001488b36d5655
d5ada52c2bc6f2f62d191c5b65f1748ca41a2950
23450 F20110113_AACJQL williams_a_Page_053thm.jpg
63c5f6676d8ed1cf4f362b761095a31d
ac03daba2e62c1b08ef4ed587970803b3a01acab
77445 F20110113_AACKSZ williams_a_Page_109.QC.jpg
7df5e24e357d26a9d2db7006aa439e27
621688372f732f6fa783aea1dc6a829065514c02
190993 F20110113_AACJPX williams_a_Page_082.jpg
7e3770f8799d41f5704a720e9abdaaa7
14f54da1b18c933b2c39a9698a3f218457cb7467
108153 F20110113_AACJRA williams_a_Page_003.jpg
5d0646e7530f5f8e57ed332a0f1fc7d1
b0c7f2fd1276bf98385536a6343fc46f29343b43
17883 F20110113_AACJQM williams_a_Page_096thm.jpg
a4efe7d69b841e9e421d615163ec2707
e7a0b141adb99c30d53349537bbd11c2833b5d46
1938 F20110113_AACJPY williams_a_Page_046.txt
f01ae0bdf32d60b1ae9352b8c84152c2
dc4e200afd822f1bfd71869ebf1ed4e466b962b2
195973 F20110113_AACJRB williams_a_Page_005.jpg
e5c8dc36ab0f9a18344292e960a38ad1
4bab05ffc62fad80b74a8d6961352825f8b92be4
49666 F20110113_AACJQN williams_a_Page_077.pro
7f4872d624bcde207e5088637f86a6c6
ad5c08e694736c55e1d1235697c98a4191231ddb
31787 F20110113_AACJPZ williams_a_Page_084.pro
766a32b680601849237129c75b14ce96
0658c8bdc538fdb99c15eb804dda7be7c1297031
60312 F20110113_AACJRC williams_a_Page_006.jpg
44884f49519b73798124ddf05f64b27d
1f4ada5ff3767f2203f33c5b68b35cbee89c72cf
107513 F20110113_AACJQO williams_a_Page_088.jp2
b6c8b366da8ec24f4800487b86558844
38e70dd8c808786e87a8f66f5dbb6c05fad275d0
247073 F20110113_AACJRD williams_a_Page_007.jpg
da21b4735fa844a376d3e6465878649c
0b7b25fe4557d154656f20a33a117364baa81ead
57378 F20110113_AACJQP williams_a_Page_096.pro
089c6b351a137a6abb7fdfd8a790d2ad
89d73d9d85bff83652241b7bc26c343d3d8c4ce4
262169 F20110113_AACJRE williams_a_Page_008.jpg
742a68146c9faf693d6c284bb5e6bb32
ebffd8879a2e078db794ff890155385aaa4377cb
23871 F20110113_AACJQQ williams_a_Page_030thm.jpg
54569b637916bcdb169bf021f20b9721
bfe68a47c078ff5b4a4e9d0a70acd7079e279c84
166929 F20110113_AACJRF williams_a_Page_009.jpg
e11e594bb7b831b23614b46535c21d37
b4743d6b7c9d3a9d33fe8f5ee2ed76423b25c28d
171708 F20110113_AACJRG williams_a_Page_010.jpg
230de1100974ce86221e9d20a05a5660
101b20730a126e67265d96460eb4931ad7fe429d
92867 F20110113_AACJQR williams_a_Page_097.jp2
b48594551738b9cec7bf469e58196550
f7de908f9c262595eba7377c986cb25ede26603a
21597 F20110113_AACJRH williams_a_Page_011.jpg
23e7846398b5ad25cd16a0803d319ac2
2794fd8489bcd1109d70f294ea0a4392967433cf
46768 F20110113_AACJQS williams_a_Page_075.pro
a33d2f60f5f35289c05d8518828d4d4c
456989fdeb578e68c84eda51abef649d11c2702b
185369 F20110113_AACJRI williams_a_Page_012.jpg
6a44a5455cd822df821894c2d231a5e5
8cbecdbfb019253c07b8eedee8d2311655a18f14
24488 F20110113_AACJQT williams_a_Page_109thm.jpg
43860d1da21a7ee32a80958e8824248d
41125c3fe29936e7c9bcb29a6ef411456354f0b6
93081 F20110113_AACJRJ williams_a_Page_013.jpg
77502c9b88d0f0f5a7f2492055754095
dfe737e12b1bb4f296e607df80610b7d03f75d92
180360 F20110113_AACJQU williams_a_Page_004.jpg
cc5b0a5fffdb511664438861d976fbb1
e0c7d7c88a91d79b457f629edca20e049e1d0e2f
177713 F20110113_AACJRK williams_a_Page_014.jpg
a1cee3de549fa0228ea3c3942e79af69
11e5652c9975170deb3f15fcf9d7809e49428bc3
135819 F20110113_AACJQV UFE0005601_00001.mets FULL
270e0ea8fcf8141af8f5ed67cf622a95
ad1b27318f350a9694071e61d23195c0be099fa0
216481 F20110113_AACJRL williams_a_Page_015.jpg
6405554233d8f7d644d4aa2521eb2a31
cee7d174b83e70f8dcffb2fb288ae10cd26301a9
195037 F20110113_AACJSA williams_a_Page_031.jpg
04eab7d88019b4cdccf638f689da200c
3e5a2905bb9f7f7f3d990d05066fb891bcbf5f07
214097 F20110113_AACJRM williams_a_Page_016.jpg
f5a5e596d375fabbeb729b19f93b4ba6
a598e79f106965b266cb7113be1e8b5d468e32e3
221173 F20110113_AACJSB williams_a_Page_032.jpg
7160799fe989de3b46b906ee45300562
cbebace62f6f3cd5c7228c46412a355726626ed8
211026 F20110113_AACJRN williams_a_Page_017.jpg
0b74f470ae5965254a0897ac471e4ad6
4747186d73c7e7b62a93fa24db1913dd15ee75aa
68137 F20110113_AACJQY williams_a_Page_001.jpg
e6798cd6c7443204a6b3cba1d7f3b1a9
e79c455ffebadd0d744dda002bd6f429a98986f4
197995 F20110113_AACJSC williams_a_Page_033.jpg
3f95e02e8a9b0a8cea8b871f91925c7a
543c190f10bc52272af070a1da0259b63a2939c1
215388 F20110113_AACJRO williams_a_Page_018.jpg
0eef1559f475fd50f282ef24c3b754db
296e69a70f7f0057edd1c490a5cf446d5d3f1a71
15346 F20110113_AACJQZ williams_a_Page_002.jpg
dfe752a29dbddcc942e22dde81676bea
dd8839184af51ef2f0b44c370902ee516a1625dd
212334 F20110113_AACJSD williams_a_Page_034.jpg
393f4863e31c4c223e6dcaa77862a213
5da72304891db040ea7b2fd9ca2f9df07be6f614
210338 F20110113_AACJRP williams_a_Page_019.jpg
980cdf944361937c95722711df5decb6
00dab49af45e0cfdcb877e5358c2a3af383f38b3
217035 F20110113_AACJSE williams_a_Page_035.jpg
d150d3b03deddee86ddd1c182e600c41
3d3af68a784e9d9819c3945959caeae1a4bd518e
214089 F20110113_AACJRQ williams_a_Page_020.jpg
d107695ba9fd4c5724c21cb68f68a127
efc39e72f25f4f5dfe5155a9f249c1d4066757b8
208865 F20110113_AACJSF williams_a_Page_036.jpg
8b0365f185839a55c1ec3424b2f3ea5e
caaf9653ead58fe7a18e5550c22fe85f31817445
219276 F20110113_AACJRR williams_a_Page_021.jpg
114ae1f884b85804dae16e090a30a00d
5560a6ea11941776d7edf06116a70e8209735371
198061 F20110113_AACJSG williams_a_Page_037.jpg
63fb2cad873e3f426b99390f5f6e3919
d43324b45df01399f42c7e0eb71ea66b336e803b
208955 F20110113_AACJSH williams_a_Page_038.jpg
dff670bfa0ea826a8d15bb8623da333d
c0fef2be6165a11adc0c32b37fe0629b93a3c575
229673 F20110113_AACJRS williams_a_Page_022.jpg
27ac1e16e5a8f5dfed5e67ba3b48ea2b
248c36525ce8c617430fdc652ef6ff73720f5f29
204265 F20110113_AACJSI williams_a_Page_039.jpg
008947f428a1d28157cf550372d82049
62918bdd860a13f35cfb5e8b6a1ca65b15db05ec
209550 F20110113_AACJRT williams_a_Page_023.jpg
dc1faaed0b791b461528eedc041f0bc6
53ce214460dd379905945896a0f504ac88334e19
275781 F20110113_AACJSJ williams_a_Page_040.jpg
6727badabb895b2602306ca28c31aaf8
f05a977e3144c721248e2928c3fa9bdaa7175000
195488 F20110113_AACJRU williams_a_Page_024.jpg
38b7b28ccc3f4a7b943a8220b9c9d54d
f112690412d739b437b6e691544c56eba91abcd5
36818 F20110113_AACJSK williams_a_Page_041.jpg
b684a61cae815ed343bbd1f5f95d418f
00e63dc3ccf27a452291378ef87ceccea7e73a63
214363 F20110113_AACJRV williams_a_Page_025.jpg
123fe5a322eaa633b55c0bf4d448baf6
3effe32c0fbbe6e694e522f75550e426ce481c90
165614 F20110113_AACJSL williams_a_Page_042.jpg
746f37fce55e972fd37ae106a99e3ac1
91e31c09abd2675251f784524c890707baac6678
193454 F20110113_AACJRW williams_a_Page_026.jpg
2bbbcd3bba978055929a59f808ec7fee
7403290deed357caea9ef96f69a796ebc282d0b3
217485 F20110113_AACJSM williams_a_Page_043.jpg
ef9823f1e9f8f6b3da264f29f6b779da
779e5602f23be35801526f3614694d74ebaaca0a
188776 F20110113_AACJRX williams_a_Page_027.jpg
354d10791ea8aac86577da861665edba
539ba4d26c088a01db3e8f6d86fcf97aedd7ded9
207982 F20110113_AACJTA williams_a_Page_057.jpg
9d9ccaf3c1d38f136617a35f7ecfa159
f9fdc7f7908ce0f4a3bf3d1ff8c4b19354f91968
190068 F20110113_AACJSN williams_a_Page_044.jpg
99119a2a6eb2a508fc362cc5d10189d5
fd3b0275ce4a6d4a1696f200b9a3b863cc84dd20
194725 F20110113_AACJRY williams_a_Page_028.jpg
5f0deaca0f6b78a101372e634cff8517
b29ce2a8dda08c18b7d27ffb00a2d423151f2ff9
177535 F20110113_AACJTB williams_a_Page_058.jpg
6b1d090c5aeb40a74b5fa8ca42fe60bd
1771bd47a06e18b10e32c9b04c618efc50937ba6
208073 F20110113_AACJSO williams_a_Page_045.jpg
93f76605ace1cd887949002db1c0b1e1
271ef3de336e5907a4490229f21c2a680418770e
194791 F20110113_AACJRZ williams_a_Page_030.jpg
298fb7f75403839bf86de2d351a720e4
45350bf7ba30141fcacd2326fd671a8e6b5fc5a7
101676 F20110113_AACJTC williams_a_Page_059.jpg
da600df1557887c31f4b96ef49101b3e
c2167fcf97e2e0ae557151d8e4108759b42f844f
206720 F20110113_AACJSP williams_a_Page_046.jpg
d74d1bb7558c5e6aef11a198739e3343
4e2140730055a40b5c29c9d670b75c8b7a91118a
166655 F20110113_AACJTD williams_a_Page_060.jpg
0bbef5bf7eec9d16a514a8b1a19d925f
f5b399f56d036d8a4e1c9ca8c712a1fa3cdccdab
205936 F20110113_AACJSQ williams_a_Page_047.jpg
322f3f5ffa203c3debfc8675a74a8fc5
ef0f19308046574a70fc3d94b22e878bd40ed90b
197736 F20110113_AACJTE williams_a_Page_061.jpg
88ad2978ccd23e1dcdd55124a2891aed
1f92dbfde7f6151cf1c2ebf1b06b4e9c1036ec04
209595 F20110113_AACJSR williams_a_Page_048.jpg
e0fe9ec8a51036504b18da508aa463a4
0df0c4f16d2b42e269459c220fadee49773652ac
166912 F20110113_AACJTF williams_a_Page_062.jpg
d0daf8047c20a05f68fb9afd0fcd50ca
7cdb1e33052ea9cca844d3690e7f11a8d6de016c
212363 F20110113_AACJSS williams_a_Page_049.jpg
078969228a19d45d853790f34154adc9
30f8712b72228bc06741e85e2b5e435cc13335f2
216062 F20110113_AACJTG williams_a_Page_063.jpg
ccad3a0209c4ba18e5b389cd30e98be9
0f03bc76aee9fc381a5054b8fcf464eee723980a
102851 F20110113_AACJTH williams_a_Page_066.jpg
ae1a8fdb29cde40fca4d9f014cb3aee1
1f48ded80ead5237ae66e95e07b885b62a3139a9
185036 F20110113_AACJST williams_a_Page_050.jpg
cc50c15082041fb5192a82a6cb475a37
a3b0722693721dc0359518540dcb79c7ec71691c
172916 F20110113_AACJTI williams_a_Page_067.jpg
a0534ce3eb983773a48d0fc8c321a2fa
b958fb8aafac0a8a9a577904ca7b25b2b4c568f4
40509 F20110113_AACJSU williams_a_Page_051.jpg
71228906e142b43074359de743f4ad6c
2e38ce840e75a98983fa482b791ce810ef649a44
169521 F20110113_AACJTJ williams_a_Page_068.jpg
eb62290c1ef5728a756bfd484a6ce753
469fdefb063bc3c43d5b6b4bb2569f20d94acb02
159685 F20110113_AACJSV williams_a_Page_052.jpg
5ca940e5bd0ed86a54e2774a0bdd5776
85971864981b5a2540c662f5528871a8db6b349b
208787 F20110113_AACJTK williams_a_Page_069.jpg
a5ea7767eb4dd91135bfbb475e0fe3a1
0b4b4a1f07174531c91eb68233f7f7d4aa9ecda4
197889 F20110113_AACJSW williams_a_Page_053.jpg
39c1cd08291ec5eedf3fd8b8eb808db8
9270e58973d397106723218fb1a5226e118f336d
199991 F20110113_AACJTL williams_a_Page_070.jpg
2b06139c0017a06731796b96c1156500
7ca381199a9aab5881b590a583d19354083c548b
218759 F20110113_AACJUA williams_a_Page_086.jpg
69d023209ea1b66702a96a282d356ca4
95883106bec04ae38d3515c44931c050e246609f
204424 F20110113_AACJTM williams_a_Page_071.jpg
04078accc470bbf597459e86bcc48a2c
842c4cf06e52bff9f82e1ede760a7db1662fd5c7
168297 F20110113_AACJSX williams_a_Page_054.jpg
b5c3ffbd5621a463a0b7f1612f112391
10eb23a0e41d3b4973bc7adce7a46566bdd2aa52
205739 F20110113_AACJUB williams_a_Page_087.jpg
904508cd802d46995c62f610652142d6
f1054f76961a201da04f50c32bb12bf889d4b7ca
204452 F20110113_AACJTN williams_a_Page_072.jpg
d111b3ac3d8b1f78bafc670a8dfddfc3
d0cb78c6fa5f8f831541a1f6dfdce745a51dfbb2
57107 F20110113_AACJSY williams_a_Page_055.jpg
b844c59cc3bc2f3639336f417bdb2a88
72461245968adbfcd7f447f6b6d2439f5a0f26da
210856 F20110113_AACJUC williams_a_Page_088.jpg
7ca5a51dad935deacc98548b702e34f9
9c1af0efbb8062e9f77582aba6846daa66c44444
204212 F20110113_AACJTO williams_a_Page_073.jpg
2970edcb87e0da9e102273e4f8a69011
bf78711027bfc091a2cf51cf23864d5f53e4a917
174394 F20110113_AACJSZ williams_a_Page_056.jpg
857396345909ec1c8aedef0f01e90d46
dec33199a19e1b3b0c4547245b0dacac83f6e92b
137630 F20110113_AACJUD williams_a_Page_089.jpg
aa1409430d1e5c36537c524e4a5a8923
f4002016612ab5db9e7f1687423f5a8bea6a10b0
199019 F20110113_AACJTP williams_a_Page_074.jpg
a70861ae15f7c59432fc4c97bb3ad84c
e76184941686acf3cd89de9525132c1cc9ab2f47
133648 F20110113_AACJUE williams_a_Page_090.jpg
1b622d732cce03bd5c3b0251338ac530
a6ec8a96e696b87f6e39645b51150b18e6a97d67
194009 F20110113_AACJTQ williams_a_Page_075.jpg
521e65adef397a8c3409a4bcbce3f80f
6bc49fde8b15f48239ceef1709882ca3c9e7fa3d
201891 F20110113_AACJUF williams_a_Page_091.jpg
df025e8456d964f3831b08842ad2df0d
d829c2fbb996a96816e143d91443b3c41676e7b0
203397 F20110113_AACJTR williams_a_Page_076.jpg
c9d36fa0d31504b77c5f49ebd7a98d21
03e041776a2e90cc551d06c84bb38aad18000ab7
210329 F20110113_AACJUG williams_a_Page_092.jpg
31bcadeca3a939e7bd360aac6c0e2b09
f5c8bf1c5d402d5b5fffb56f2d345659230eb1cf
206224 F20110113_AACJTS williams_a_Page_077.jpg
1a11ac9a8c625fcfefe583757230597f
53d13140b04f839da3a83f0c77ca588d15ce9761
F20110113_AACKAA williams_a_Page_027.tif
169d75299e462b6e14ff46b42f7024b1
cf607457aadc09352b4ccf6a51c0f053fcbeadd4
212261 F20110113_AACJUH williams_a_Page_093.jpg
254abbba4580f255e71a67167e7cff50
080b26c2f4edc1886239f66968819eda71250170
209064 F20110113_AACJTT williams_a_Page_078.jpg
3bab34e6371aaca246ca2b1a8b9a682e
f0da70e59f3c19a7de092af6cf6b3e54d9ab45ba
F20110113_AACKAB williams_a_Page_028.tif
22b0823c8a32ebb0dd6482a9195de860
af3c4cfd40ab4f5c1fc0d2a55362a56a643c2465
92798 F20110113_AACJUI williams_a_Page_095.jpg
8f71d5222fe2b7eb5cd8e10a8a830f9c
2d4ad6bed9b03e06e1a8dccbc575953a1f73e0e6
F20110113_AACKAC williams_a_Page_029.tif
09fd11f62d4351976414c853439cebe5
2f916d17c55170129c2f02481e6510fda1e44a0e
187412 F20110113_AACJUJ williams_a_Page_096.jpg
5fc7434850b590bfe979bcb5f8934249
70f3100416721dfd2e8269f6f34437a90093d601
205109 F20110113_AACJTU williams_a_Page_079.jpg
9a935076bf0424d20c1ad9ba3b2c7dd7
aa3077dac204ab39543c8d0ebd5d1fecd18e58ec
F20110113_AACKAD williams_a_Page_032.tif
298b9158e4f07d851338aff94eae905b
78e753213e3c5d2daa66dc9a69069404cbbad556
174149 F20110113_AACJUK williams_a_Page_097.jpg
5f2adea4220092f6a0cf7e9d803d85f0
74dae14a0573ad3aa91751ac0103a9980620ee7b
201050 F20110113_AACJTV williams_a_Page_080.jpg
9ff5601edf8b910042caf48bf35a5eb5
57c69090ae1c571a15b519337c4e80f8ce08430f
F20110113_AACKAE williams_a_Page_033.tif
b2fda637b9c05ce845c39b737fba2114
87e2a2b5f2d4f54a662e922198f83ea0f6ba6bf5
202422 F20110113_AACJUL williams_a_Page_098.jpg
c72b655a629ba0cdd9ff8103fa158bcd
254e82c67149cc5c7a0da438c44d4c9d70ac77de
186280 F20110113_AACJTW williams_a_Page_081.jpg
582541f3b5f7d0e060b1610e2fefcf50
c4ff3e727bd5780efdaf9482a13de81db6c06fd0
F20110113_AACKAF williams_a_Page_034.tif
c2a8808c7e42030b5ef58645f877e124
65bb36c7dd5f670ede989b897cde9af706edbe85
182056 F20110113_AACJUM williams_a_Page_100.jpg
b5c010200552a83baddfc1bf6a07883c
4760a1aad8cf15376d1f0708f1a4212ccb2dbdfc
141045 F20110113_AACJTX williams_a_Page_083.jpg
bc16f5d85bb4fdea8c48f58bd5cc5abf
cb8134739ffafbad134d9cdf0175b224077af846
F20110113_AACKAG williams_a_Page_036.tif
463537b41a07424962b23af5cfe4408b
1fc61922531faf547419f70a8d1f2604a9cf1046
173903 F20110113_AACJVA williams_a_Page_115.jpg
e7788f1bbb829a57d0ec0c937ddea76e
dd4c8bdb338c8b491072ea1b9c52421f2d1cef8f
197196 F20110113_AACJUN williams_a_Page_101.jpg
2b3efde744a068bcbae83a26f4c1e04a
6fda50232bc2dbe5ae915390b7c6a0a21bf60eca
143656 F20110113_AACJTY williams_a_Page_084.jpg
7d452abceb33b33a8d4aa393c2272825
5a6bb45041ddb09063c8ed0982c1f80feff70a4d
F20110113_AACKAH williams_a_Page_038.tif
f404eb6477e315ba17e8b64be9d20867
c2058c68e982b48fb401a2dcf6173c02b86ee61e
85959 F20110113_AACJVB williams_a_Page_116.jpg
73080d64bf08ae005687d7fafd5501dc
8dd382719671c46f263d0e59b1a49e9a70df41bf
183745 F20110113_AACJUO williams_a_Page_102.jpg
609684280c51c4602dd4c728f4af82a5
95cc9fda5a6c3a08430ab185be9fbc51043ae562
200753 F20110113_AACJTZ williams_a_Page_085.jpg
0be5e383df8c9311132e3d393537d6b4
ce1cc1631b0562dc85822382221e0233bb9bf782
F20110113_AACKAI williams_a_Page_039.tif
dcf6cd7c5ed1f1e8e983f819b31f577f
c5dc6b845aaf59150a1006056cb5853122d9e528
29058 F20110113_AACJVC williams_a_Page_001.jp2
01efbb1382ed27b7e731b020cc9367cc
c53cc52f85bedcbff8aac2006a035955edc5fe62
225862 F20110113_AACJUP williams_a_Page_103.jpg
5e7158f0127745830b1c456259781b40
2e3734ad38b13c20f74c8be0f8db45386916cdc8
F20110113_AACKAJ williams_a_Page_040.tif
12f40032eba5cedbdc6de2ec6ad07e47
218274fcf6441801c0f9837a280b22bc167c7f18
5965 F20110113_AACJVD williams_a_Page_002.jp2
9c1201ecee22520e24fcdc22d3c0b235
a7254120e36079a3ff76c5bed421d310741a38cb
262460 F20110113_AACJUQ williams_a_Page_104.jpg
839f597cb5f19e19aea7cfac03eca4f1
2e2f5bd2fa99453f5649bc7f2c20378f5a66608d
F20110113_AACKAK williams_a_Page_041.tif
f437fa11d3df31eecf52885d7af7e8ad
ecf14a1b00d44f00fe8881bed4747b4f507481fb
53701 F20110113_AACJVE williams_a_Page_003.jp2
0a2498201c75b4f72a18c2ca181ae2f0
b081fbcf2fd39645fc4f509a2d111f8d01c36add
264174 F20110113_AACJUR williams_a_Page_105.jpg
89f040f0cecb8fd60af998477fbe18be
1a10c443f2ef051880c510ef06a09f7ac6dedc23
F20110113_AACKBA williams_a_Page_061.tif
14fe0228bf3293febd393ac425bfeee9
76e5a25df9c7e68a7f08a4154535da0794b831eb
F20110113_AACKAL williams_a_Page_042.tif
e44ae3867379943bdc61c76bd817e5c9
9520aee32bebd72f90f75cbd4762b933ef915c30
101942 F20110113_AACJVF williams_a_Page_005.jp2
7a078f11246c58db11f22a8a40a1963b
49719479f316521edc70134cdf17ffc14952a589
238088 F20110113_AACJUS williams_a_Page_107.jpg
215943595b979172ef1d8a85d521b02c
e80a5cccf5b0848b9a6f44eea4e36d721f531759
F20110113_AACKAM williams_a_Page_043.tif
2fc0ca79e24b205a525304153105e4ec
6c3a02a394f9fc7e46f0cf6fdfe12fdcc51dacd0
30174 F20110113_AACJVG williams_a_Page_006.jp2
792c98a7e276cf1f6a3dc03f1ac34f34
238c1ff802aca598b89b66aa4ea02a95edc6a7f0
257724 F20110113_AACJUT williams_a_Page_108.jpg
fb499bb60f5b193c6ddc3f7afe5db2fd
fd9726a1a3e8fbcc8f2e1f5d6084418d47910d71
F20110113_AACKBB williams_a_Page_062.tif
d5a960c4680b1b6ea81282737f3b7e9c
89318a01a32287f9a36ff5e37d5ddf0493753662
F20110113_AACKAN williams_a_Page_044.tif
fc5db7271dd05ea2df466b9de8dcd2c2
aa3ef9321ed3af4be6e1d6106df9ba020513a784
1051978 F20110113_AACJVH williams_a_Page_007.jp2
b7dd46d9b3dc9f2c3cdf16724cd17787
65ad4df95b9ce035be83edf5f230af10b03da6cf
235781 F20110113_AACJUU williams_a_Page_109.jpg
49951e0a1b821dca53cf771f60d208b0
d79e10ce0c0ee804b582c8bb72a3c886fff4d9e8
F20110113_AACKBC williams_a_Page_063.tif
e0dc30d4248b01dabb151caa97d83e3a
dcc647ad9e71b8b5ad6268d66c1857c0ca70c276
F20110113_AACKAO williams_a_Page_045.tif
b4fb0026f3ee9ac9dc42d43df50fda63
9e5d18058b4a57142aa5d7924221bcca2c35c757
F20110113_AACJVI williams_a_Page_009.jp2
098ce69b3656bb07206bc36fc913e49a
c59c0bc70d712550763441ef7a31f8e560ad4bd5
F20110113_AACKBD williams_a_Page_064.tif
fb627471f5cf5e1e63396196cbfcd970
d94c892075f748a5f75dc7ea7cc74b6d1e3c34aa
F20110113_AACKAP williams_a_Page_046.tif
a14c238fdbf4b12507e41b0cf6092891
6ab1d6dff51db3b297f34e68ee687bd77c7f9dfb
83764 F20110113_AACJVJ williams_a_Page_010.jp2
259cdcb1f94601c60f4b5768d05be3b4
88dc456ccdb0717b5370e36ee2f83a9a0af84561
259506 F20110113_AACJUV williams_a_Page_110.jpg
e174258977b497063fb126d066c6b378
615d47a054a19d9a23572e71a193d757d3b965cc
F20110113_AACKBE williams_a_Page_065.tif
756309f8e8a625bd7b150ec817157b92
404e098659bdff703e0ab81041c2574b038591e1
F20110113_AACKAQ williams_a_Page_047.tif
fc6d2eea62041f29d8428756ebb54f5a
6f50cf2e37ea3bfb711d7747cb0005d8feae5e0b
10629 F20110113_AACJVK williams_a_Page_011.jp2
467a84767a8177094e31accc09392e7e
b57014eceb4d0d76d041e1e3d28e3c5c67a5ff11
238712 F20110113_AACJUW williams_a_Page_111.jpg
eb05c7ec5e5382242b6d2079d22ea34f
494f5185b1764c312fa380288519339808025865
1054428 F20110113_AACKBF williams_a_Page_066.tif
4757756c3c062f0af86117d970eb9506
fe797a7367ed78d8084c38a00318df8a86016081
F20110113_AACKAR williams_a_Page_048.tif
b6e140afff9e4e7cb1c3a98bfd7e92e5
d8cf4fb15c9d1746161c45a6629a6ec177132fa5
96681 F20110113_AACJVL williams_a_Page_012.jp2
cd8f932dae8835ee73f880f3141f90a0
f0838ec58e5312adfb73b81a210f0a6fb35fc7ec
247039 F20110113_AACJUX williams_a_Page_112.jpg
4da42b4a27d45dc9a62aac88d73f7650
87de8368bb1ea525d76615edb4b546c54586114f
F20110113_AACKBG williams_a_Page_067.tif
543f6f5c9f3e944f071b58f669a8821f
668da7b38dda0aa8f3b2b1e761c876ff76897114
108929 F20110113_AACJWA williams_a_Page_029.jp2
9fa876e97b46a53bac9d256049d7d0d5
4bddcfb9c01889245126f625f417d3bc954e2b0e
F20110113_AACKAS williams_a_Page_049.tif
5158c15c68b43b01f25aba54e1748539
d27636a4b6167219b0edd8e3d3ec2061ae4dc2e2
92173 F20110113_AACJVM williams_a_Page_014.jp2
dffcbf994b354224523ad97bcf5752a8
2a25e7eaa313e3326e50062312cdd704abaf3ade
244608 F20110113_AACJUY williams_a_Page_113.jpg
079ddaa0c3eb072fb535e5409047600f
b87666d5851837e929e14322e9e3857dd9b2af13
F20110113_AACKBH williams_a_Page_068.tif
ee2c5ba2df71367b102d9e52683922bd
a14856e7e69e80c9836a2cab03e805ad152f9153
102675 F20110113_AACJWB williams_a_Page_030.jp2
e14f1245e8ab79a1e14e876f0e81f60b
675b62b1303e3c79d32bee9d65ece334f685e55a
F20110113_AACKAT williams_a_Page_052.tif
f786d00c045ae50c544add46ef9ccb7b
e5b55b188b6b3b370d5492db7aeebd935d2b0199
111090 F20110113_AACJVN williams_a_Page_015.jp2
e5f2aecde4efe608904f22cf50176af0
2f1b3f41a79784670c2aaa9c0a40b6259ed24a02
267567 F20110113_AACJUZ williams_a_Page_114.jpg
29a6d2b506b04c93cf89ef3125560ac1
aa1033026d00874b17cf814d713efea850af51cd
F20110113_AACKBI williams_a_Page_069.tif
a247d704cee3c357763d26d34069c90c
5a7847c8b17c8630677ee1de152fbbfa2b6154ac
102446 F20110113_AACJWC williams_a_Page_031.jp2
86d8b659b0a440cdf90a5f2ca6a69237
ddb8d853c5dd875506ee29b3a75113cba79f21bc
F20110113_AACKAU williams_a_Page_053.tif
6244a7b0541da5f1aadf3a5b77314ffb
2c13b38e226673c71e4f82ca9d78a08ccbb14c52
112804 F20110113_AACJVO williams_a_Page_016.jp2
3adb08dd56b0d7980d67773b5ada609a
57082baf4e78626b1536f481f555c127c13088d8
F20110113_AACKBJ williams_a_Page_070.tif
214e08645cc9fbb977ea83c09dd5a707
040f2e48e5f1b7b799a20081c847af55ddc7c817
114147 F20110113_AACJWD williams_a_Page_032.jp2
ad08436a245df3b7985d4d1957dda304
6891d5832a82814fd468e6c82a5b342939f08f1b
F20110113_AACKAV williams_a_Page_055.tif
ee4aa03a0ea5f80e6e13a89302f97c08
1a5402d85a665dedee26e781e47e1252e14643c7
110826 F20110113_AACJVP williams_a_Page_017.jp2
74a8ddee417038117a3c2665890bcd43
7f9eb2ad9d993866c8e56d3012fc6f9bf37f0c9d
F20110113_AACKBK williams_a_Page_071.tif
114a68ef513e171a905afca2c5167fa3
840626ca70c87f01f7a9087b6627c02497880d1d
105193 F20110113_AACJWE williams_a_Page_033.jp2
8dafa62f0c0467fad48f76ec66f3669f
25c0caf224b6e8bb7ac3547da62e028282fc6951
F20110113_AACKAW williams_a_Page_056.tif
79cd30bc048b73f2cbe4d212e3cde8bf
e82e798a814c9e151df3315d1e1ba2a0314f3349
111914 F20110113_AACJVQ williams_a_Page_018.jp2
7a5e2f3fe0f3ecaa835f358b40efecb8
d449fa04860604d60cd24917acd20193f832eafc
F20110113_AACKBL williams_a_Page_072.tif
2ac40763c1971575049c8b4e3299bdd5
fc12560ff004991752709ed696f632bcb08e6113
110401 F20110113_AACJWF williams_a_Page_034.jp2
0542533252d183c57108d39be418e298
ee45df181d4d7a53ceaf354e437fd74cadf1b94b
F20110113_AACKAX williams_a_Page_058.tif
129e9ea2de9b0608a1963aff7112531e
04a91dace8fd75fe1984c4271227f7c6f404c1f9
110326 F20110113_AACJVR williams_a_Page_019.jp2
ae5dae428d7507d931832670b6319823
aa82c8455fa79207bba56b9228f118bd6b324017
F20110113_AACKCA williams_a_Page_087.tif
4fb860b0333f7e29b3b58c559a841895
d90852dfad4fedab7b00cb5fbbfa2a1adecd252e
F20110113_AACKBM williams_a_Page_073.tif
e35ee5c1705c5a1e1ae4baa514f159b5
aa5ebe111c6b95d8084a9b8e26979fce62df82b2
110897 F20110113_AACJWG williams_a_Page_035.jp2
60fc792848afebd9c1bd9bed29107d22
e0e9dab796d32ba2d89e59e4902d970fd1b8d955
F20110113_AACKAY williams_a_Page_059.tif
8de32c1ef131b923c5756880ac83d299
cb13707550c191119854f566142515bd4b636b32
110071 F20110113_AACJVS williams_a_Page_020.jp2
7219af5dcee67a03749c0321f21fab04
32fcaeb583faa11ee181d557b6ae47ae471c524a
F20110113_AACKCB williams_a_Page_088.tif
ce2793703780b33e259089faa8610c8d
2b743e31b541e4a5bb84109c2cfb9109550adfc4
F20110113_AACKBN williams_a_Page_074.tif
51f0b3c61fec4005aa6b06edd02d74d7
9a71e0b43cd170e230b557b2a410ff73725c2bc3
108930 F20110113_AACJWH williams_a_Page_036.jp2
7a5544d47ee0a890390f4bdef74a844a
a17424cccdf7494c7dabecbcebd192c92d07d30d
F20110113_AACKAZ williams_a_Page_060.tif
4fedce70dfc4f20726dacdc618ffbdd2
00b44f8ce2803dc30633951e973d9dee4ad1b7cb
110350 F20110113_AACJVT williams_a_Page_021.jp2
9d1e8a44924a18b553b4bbf07872cc39
3a56df0a55e57daef74dd6c6e95f91a13a4b0e3a
F20110113_AACKBO williams_a_Page_075.tif
b8fec26b93c4b48ba2de0b7e7156e9cc
54a3deb3ec268b2786470bdd49df4e9295ae0687
105442 F20110113_AACJWI williams_a_Page_037.jp2
da6c665bd51297440aebc16b81296049
c92af388283af249cf08d2c17823edde2ca4a72a
117903 F20110113_AACJVU williams_a_Page_022.jp2
ebce3fbb575b41960a6dc71eae7cc107
32ca6c1f9e5bb57910e0dc9c86a2ea549b702872
F20110113_AACKCC williams_a_Page_089.tif
f4d4dfe0c87c9f174ccbab175e861077
12d43b9208166f5f87216fd6540c955ea4816fcd
F20110113_AACKBP williams_a_Page_076.tif
1839b70c5e4410e4392ff06b22316c27
161fa5fa4a8904169720b4346a8812404ea26448
107578 F20110113_AACJWJ williams_a_Page_039.jp2
26335c95fcefe75da7c5c95fa34d668f
989d204c0f0e650f20be91294a5ad30f7b2a134b
107437 F20110113_AACJVV williams_a_Page_023.jp2
b0202c2d4151a83f0222f60867a3f019
db95cc86c1fa3ae8cb8eb1b9510fcf1b6dfd6021
F20110113_AACKCD williams_a_Page_090.tif
fabdc7ab8d80643e569d99eaa4fb3c96
a3cf4c6055b4b06072051e1e770c26f8a191ece4
F20110113_AACKBQ williams_a_Page_077.tif
d026432521134bd13a5bde0939b9f90b
449ea782001be45fe33ea93be9a6a7dbe8e3448e
142955 F20110113_AACJWK williams_a_Page_040.jp2
756c0dccc7d08d0a7062ed858e823f9e
031f35ada794e38da46467f0d4611d42bf83d9ca
F20110113_AACKCE williams_a_Page_091.tif
9842ad8cff7a6afeb59a0dab2d4e19e0
a9683cb875ff90c9c6a87a49e2b04fe6bdf244ae
F20110113_AACKBR williams_a_Page_078.tif
9ebf0226769be34bbd95a120b7b0dd9f
21653fd3c1816634d71b2e2fa36c09a4982f6bbe
16687 F20110113_AACJWL williams_a_Page_041.jp2
b3229faf734d533624a8cf775c4b36c2
19a2cacfb967e7dc82bbe8e490f716290ed5e46d
100910 F20110113_AACJVW williams_a_Page_024.jp2
bf46315fc6ff121393b11737c2c8a090
61e4ba6f0ceac3edecbab30480aec8ca292e2807
F20110113_AACKCF williams_a_Page_093.tif
847c78d4dd2a877b5981caab01b5620a
5f52e68fa97ae3dee11551b8cd1f4165b77cf0fc
92870 F20110113_AACJXA williams_a_Page_058.jp2
c91a12caf9d85e701da2960369cb5208
fdf4a7ace8ce1413c62fa5c22a8f0541f8409260
F20110113_AACKBS williams_a_Page_079.tif
7b278776ad4c56a584e7c79e5ee67e1e
1c1c037e13412a2010af3690ed23b21ce9fe9436
86384 F20110113_AACJWM williams_a_Page_042.jp2
67e9b5b221d1968f37a16a1049ac785e
2ce85a9223eca64c50b911ca943441e851a34b3b
109629 F20110113_AACJVX williams_a_Page_025.jp2
0a45472a7da72546e00fa59fddd998eb
45169a6f0959c96457758ffb2adf89d2366846ef
F20110113_AACKCG williams_a_Page_094.tif
4e57f86618bb9d6baed06c0b73741a14
68d0418d87aa9fd54d8d8f1d7ae938aa575c57cb
82005 F20110113_AACJXB williams_a_Page_059.jp2
bb134ae3f5371d8fe19420c05c451718
46811ed104aff9b53fddfe92e2fff8dac6fc233b
F20110113_AACKBT williams_a_Page_080.tif
d49ba105779f8d89881fdd92b28090d3
abe27cff03a5ebfde1882c6c1cc7e594545b440a
100101 F20110113_AACJWN williams_a_Page_044.jp2
834c9ba07b911faca406e45737152372
bbbac40b87eb2c858d220b8a04e7034813aff05b
99282 F20110113_AACJVY williams_a_Page_026.jp2
7041024f83996d3ba738f378f7c5462c
16c038d804278997badfefdbe38733d82819c03c
F20110113_AACKCH williams_a_Page_095.tif
17090bea987e69e5141053d0bd14e3b7
8978c4b77f1370c66934f1f59b71742018638fb4
84737 F20110113_AACJXC williams_a_Page_060.jp2
53db27428c39887554dd7aa64d4054b4
615b43272ef61f9221e20aab117a75595335e883
F20110113_AACKBU williams_a_Page_081.tif
d6f2f56302929deb49234138aec03d11
b33aa93c64eb9d67c976ccfde319557cb1610df0
107586 F20110113_AACJWO williams_a_Page_045.jp2
793020ed5de52a2aaa55b7b766d32d6c
718fa8afbd3e331bcf0fc8fd5dc03e42b019288d
103546 F20110113_AACJVZ williams_a_Page_028.jp2
fd49a135e2c1109b720d7a38c23405b0
a42d3a6e69886104e7e4ce2a33bc82ab1a20f385
F20110113_AACKCI williams_a_Page_096.tif
4b5226aa8d226ba21a8fff107016cf39
5046b9f52d4342f47d5cc78ed4e02e7dd8b77a60
102908 F20110113_AACJXD williams_a_Page_061.jp2
21f10bdf73ae786fede7e11d2d08be2b
d2886b3e5597c391c856a91ee1574b336405178c
F20110113_AACKBV williams_a_Page_082.tif
27f528e50431603a87b541d9e21bcaa1
160ae8be2949007ed11837f99e6dc70fa509cf3f
106936 F20110113_AACJWP williams_a_Page_046.jp2
75cd2b084659272bf8204ec099177af6
ceca0fd1b9a3fd72d0f2d012defc42774c73c043
F20110113_AACKCJ williams_a_Page_097.tif
84d758626be27a16e00033c30f0b634f
d2ef717c0601f765a0f5c8c95f3d823395e8dab8
86187 F20110113_AACJXE williams_a_Page_062.jp2
5100d9c3dbded1b37a67871c0a30308e
ad9583b11323a1d7140ca1e3a5b9d3169d4dcdff
F20110113_AACKBW williams_a_Page_083.tif
4303e7d305e0a68054cb795892d1012e
8c89ba87636737d02ab6f1a1cfbc79cb096e2061
106800 F20110113_AACJWQ williams_a_Page_047.jp2
88156ec65d90c35b5109019d62218448
243896531c5b1b0dab28f65f48b610e810047e2e
F20110113_AACKCK williams_a_Page_098.tif
d73957a38b068560d28f1b31e4f9c8ff
89d57e83795ea2aa0a7599077b98864227299fc0
115033 F20110113_AACJXF williams_a_Page_063.jp2
14e923602fdd12be4e49ed34acf043bd
d0a1775febc720328ba7c429914b1e76ece604f3
F20110113_AACKBX williams_a_Page_084.tif
47760d5c6b43db97090bf11d7342170f
8959567e8844edae99b0d6ba6a46569ebb2824b1
109012 F20110113_AACJWR williams_a_Page_048.jp2
bb90af5ff8b3847967adadc4a69fd392
3690035839aa5d70ac142c2bde4cf52e7b7b8252
1306 F20110113_AACKDA williams_a_Page_002.pro
4286fc221cc742b6b0ce85b306bfcc80
38619efe758dc228f9b68d57adf3df64c3f3355a
F20110113_AACKCL williams_a_Page_099.tif
57d3333196f2d187b3b2cea494b60707
5a7f33c1d90f5531b5bafd9b967daf953b353874
80966 F20110113_AACJXG williams_a_Page_064.jp2
946e3cc4a79a78a3d5f8172053215c52
9ac64511bec21389a821182647961ff9e52dc6d2
F20110113_AACKBY williams_a_Page_085.tif
9b94b86dde2c9ae9bdd12ae55c0adea4
9aef6d8aafda31711ec28713966c8e598c52ff5f
111324 F20110113_AACJWS williams_a_Page_049.jp2
b094e0c398fb9dcf4ce437cf078e0a4f
b62a055eb2d498f3b778fac8d889f7d32a7d2a9a
26220 F20110113_AACKDB williams_a_Page_003.pro
62692c1ff48b7839b86a66eb3448d8d1
a14d368a7010f4909089fd1c16a1a81b7fad5e75
F20110113_AACKCM williams_a_Page_100.tif
2b940d5a30327a7e9fe4ea94c85f554b
08a768882b73b67a5ed87ebc1a3df98cb225f608
88096 F20110113_AACJXH williams_a_Page_065.jp2
848f6a99beb0c18abc8c79e8a2a600d9
565685a4136bfb6718d87ecbee1ff88e5855f37f
F20110113_AACKBZ williams_a_Page_086.tif
1ec546fe95e5bdb7c74166825d451c97
1c518739a8187c6a125dd365c389123cf0c59829
98855 F20110113_AACJWT williams_a_Page_050.jp2
afddbb9546dbb7b102be72d16feb8e9b
7c115dbcaf5e4ae9e604bc852a7be024b8088ade
42656 F20110113_AACKDC williams_a_Page_004.pro
c9b8d9d0e1360e78d7629a70b8cebc69
ea261e3fa8f4f42944dcaf33d11fd946a090cbca
F20110113_AACKCN williams_a_Page_103.tif
511af1818e0ea6b676bc3a9fd70d8b19
b9a2ae4d4e1b047ac4329b856c9cd0cac29b5497
79979 F20110113_AACJXI williams_a_Page_066.jp2
fa42b5c3515ab47d3d44b34424d26151
3e787ffd36e8d02c7314ff0a4ffcf5528c5aa843
21116 F20110113_AACJWU williams_a_Page_051.jp2
62263743f118782556655da550d6a4a1
3aaeea3f892ce9d656384f68e8af0188fba4e03a
F20110113_AACKCO williams_a_Page_104.tif
68ec84e36556d4848dd04d4d1fc532da
f7e3b3bc331a1e1acdb619bc0b982ed449125d61
89928 F20110113_AACJXJ williams_a_Page_067.jp2
38bcc308b0846032d3163c289a438336
80f782a996d55c591a47821a50e521a365fe336d
83013 F20110113_AACJWV williams_a_Page_052.jp2
6a18b4d74b85217376c8d41e7a6fa884
975543e6c36d515b324f9dcda60366b449ecba66
12687 F20110113_AACKDD williams_a_Page_006.pro
4df8b10a820172eeeda629f78753cce3
d3d43132577fbb4157d25c8da7c95dcafb3a4fc2
F20110113_AACKCP williams_a_Page_105.tif
8f573fcdb7c30be92a228b9a8400ce98
134dba65923f9f0b6fb3482640d4f4920aaadb6f
89592 F20110113_AACJXK williams_a_Page_068.jp2
2c1cf76da76125283b1569cb9dcff0d2
df58e96c6d81c561047e024a94fb32a5fbbf38ee
104654 F20110113_AACJWW williams_a_Page_053.jp2
9a1cd935d9ef5e910c5571ee4bbf49cd
c69f32c399d987adfc74ec889a68c9279d223de6
79118 F20110113_AACKDE williams_a_Page_007.pro
d69b0e9daa4fdfc18710f1c8ab8497a5
4deecf60e643fa0e15df36bb00b52c32f828a589
F20110113_AACKCQ williams_a_Page_107.tif
d4e310f14b86c9e2117a4454b420153a
baf253ce9c2f8d2a75b7dc6a89286c555a327321
108800 F20110113_AACJXL williams_a_Page_069.jp2
77c1fd7e608b002f6f18a8d351bbfffa
f1dd151929ddb759c8728a4b28f93eb96f934adf
64143 F20110113_AACKDF williams_a_Page_008.pro
6ef0191284b1b71ff644095b802021d8
555a4afa835705a91039024094f5c68d4f0563c5
F20110113_AACKCR williams_a_Page_108.tif
9ecdfa1ebe9170f68eff888925fd2792
087dca22806962e503ec20509c4c7dcdb51cf8cd
107247 F20110113_AACJXM williams_a_Page_070.jp2
19e8bce91e84a27e5be8a45e3cea62c7
a3c3e371c0a55cdb1d58614e48d8eba12faa9cc8
45442 F20110113_AACJWX williams_a_Page_055.jp2
60f1a4893d437bfa844c143d477cfd47
7c78635a90363fa3b12328c93ffeff07ad635fd8
31347 F20110113_AACKDG williams_a_Page_009.pro
988e8a6e225a583cede6a978f59116cd
97ef6a38e32ad66dc297068ec6f0b67ac5123c38
113778 F20110113_AACJYA williams_a_Page_086.jp2
ef28fe4391882e7d388399f3bdb0266d
4854513b236116e807db253a59fcf964a422637a
F20110113_AACKCS williams_a_Page_109.tif
15eee271e100ce4799b9402fe1e12b69
51b412bfa750a0bb2dfb9a3d42231ac9af123be9
106965 F20110113_AACJXN williams_a_Page_072.jp2
4d642f7168ed7378dc7967bc99634e5a
9c5cc3394ac3e6f80f238d1d7c86d0d8ca91e54a
90055 F20110113_AACJWY williams_a_Page_056.jp2
d86fcc1b0db98e14f09104a70e6670e6
d1d643c755f8d807708e0b14835057849010c29a
36845 F20110113_AACKDH williams_a_Page_010.pro
c91d624d6a35b99000870d3b971483a2
60dcbf6c32517c692dfafe47eeb71ac515184081
104713 F20110113_AACJYB williams_a_Page_087.jp2
b538a8da29781929c83f786fb65e5660
530ba355f1fd083b6d4d3c9131ffd7ccb9b33ae1
F20110113_AACKCT williams_a_Page_110.tif
49a115f7ca844c70823e00858cdeeb7d
2e57c5e5e86be1f53eaceb9c4be4685d41ea8494
104662 F20110113_AACJXO williams_a_Page_073.jp2
132c96d84d398df52ae9ca5d4fed9c78
ec9f9d20c70cb3ec79e136b0d67c54bad87da684
108381 F20110113_AACJWZ williams_a_Page_057.jp2
e159ff6f75e302d9c7d4991fcc874f85
45fdea03c9124427ce00550484430bd394d912cd
3345 F20110113_AACKDI williams_a_Page_011.pro
ee1c6bdc4f79c4fe303adf62a45baa1a
d846583e3b2682fdc698028bd3da1520f9648c14
71323 F20110113_AACJYC williams_a_Page_089.jp2
285d458a0e5a5899bc676e3389030104
fbf94ed1c913d65d8c50f4ca69b2f7401729d123
F20110113_AACKCU williams_a_Page_111.tif
b757f3241e819a959737f29e6cae2f8b
81cd3f604fdb4cc76b966491be8a560cacf4c2b2
105629 F20110113_AACJXP williams_a_Page_074.jp2
4e6d0f37f9fae486170eae2f4a9ac975
3f5a9305f556b6f2a68d549ee8184c16699450c8
44644 F20110113_AACKDJ williams_a_Page_012.pro
5518bcbbed6348180a5f4a803671c346
217aaeb089b7ba865602bed6e6d3a1530da49c5f
67474 F20110113_AACJYD williams_a_Page_090.jp2
26a2d2b88fe1ba4c218108504f6351fc
390973c2bfab9cf8bccf370b1817529b12ab3dd6
F20110113_AACKCV williams_a_Page_112.tif
9e3b8b27fc52ad2cc10d8962ae25ae39
ce3577dfa846689e89bb553be2c8163a5fccee07
102915 F20110113_AACJXQ williams_a_Page_075.jp2
68ed1a332f092802e03b954be0894e32
2c50de321da9978805dcb1bcc00504d24a4baf5d
20860 F20110113_AACKDK williams_a_Page_013.pro
70e86b07e9ce06b77fb25a5d377d8293
7d708677a96ab25c16836aac70355eafa4854375
103278 F20110113_AACJYE williams_a_Page_091.jp2
37a4ddd8bd3f058bc1bc1d616db3ce84
7f25a30e00cedde5d384669866cdeee35b0a5c69
F20110113_AACKCW williams_a_Page_114.tif
e32c4cf88e6d8e79effdd4bdc4542eca
d4e9e49aa0ce4d453408658023fea9f9ecbe4e41
106887 F20110113_AACJXR williams_a_Page_076.jp2
7fe153140246edde1edebf9eebb04cfe
2b01a9a0711b99c62f92b58777f3e5bb5368c001
47192 F20110113_AACKEA williams_a_Page_031.pro
1619c77a84b9d8b842919a8417d70b99
d263928f010fe18c515eae7b30dc7094e3addb3d
42155 F20110113_AACKDL williams_a_Page_014.pro
080b43230402f262183010457fd75e89
a16f6e1b26bfd63f85103c0a091ae56c6294dcdd
108172 F20110113_AACJYF williams_a_Page_092.jp2
857f9bdd698f8c7945484b13f877c159
49a5c1609336666789dcda5bf17df7129caaad01
F20110113_AACKCX williams_a_Page_115.tif
24a3c0384759b0ac0b51a5c61e8713aa
be8085a05a289493097b9dbbf3e9da508b0b4cf0
109216 F20110113_AACJXS williams_a_Page_077.jp2
561e92109efb07cfc7fb6e69c0f3fc4d
8a4b1f10b099d939988cc4b7065d9f9502b4b437
53163 F20110113_AACKEB williams_a_Page_032.pro
0da4f9166c44b93f1d4cee691adf47fd
9aa05d2b5ac2331ae840c2c134e26be3f75c2ec5
51057 F20110113_AACKDM williams_a_Page_016.pro
7a2efdf7559996b24b01a0abe99cea74
99befc689888d60cdf04ee5d6379b0546e7b7823
106429 F20110113_AACJYG williams_a_Page_094.jp2
d69035916612982a1d1b43dd660829ef
56fc2b6da948d37c7065a97b4e938f0f92f13349
F20110113_AACKCY williams_a_Page_116.tif
d13a204052957f09f910941abafa6000
1a446ab3b6d2bb3fd4037610d9e58568c5354ca8
109438 F20110113_AACJXT williams_a_Page_078.jp2
98b65ae30c3faf3854d288eaa8e92905
41175f68ec8d5bc1b55e997ba1b6485102da6446
48170 F20110113_AACKEC williams_a_Page_033.pro
830b9748ab0f418ddef20940a2335c06
2f81c064b232c3c928f1629b87c5c02db684b236
51415 F20110113_AACKDN williams_a_Page_017.pro
f98ec3d237bc2b9d0cc2721d22a85c40
59328bb60c01f8757c0116a8a901fe217beccaae
47426 F20110113_AACJYH williams_a_Page_095.jp2
7eb48663b51c02fa0ad5139e9c59f62e
9a42f28e65d3ad53960b55d659f2a9ce99a0e87c
9922 F20110113_AACKCZ williams_a_Page_001.pro
85becb61d3332802bc3a6bbb072e5949
99fe059a84c28eb6e0274244ee0e1ec072c6da52
109129 F20110113_AACJXU williams_a_Page_079.jp2
9da8e58b956771b825084e65b69f0a69
7e46a971ea0547db71fb01409e719b4abae3b60b
51576 F20110113_AACKED williams_a_Page_034.pro
08180cc4e0f956c0ea37e75b4a62a25a
6d763fd441b7ae4be15267237cdc6fb80ff86bde
52415 F20110113_AACKDO williams_a_Page_018.pro
2dc7f22e8cda533a7c9aea6f856968b0
6570c205882f0229b466b22c7f51ddcc5adbf1e5
99670 F20110113_AACJYI williams_a_Page_096.jp2
f1df1baab8bc9a4216b702f233e5cd8f
0a4a57d10a51bab59ea1a310de9cfd14e01e4b3e
51504 F20110113_AACKDP williams_a_Page_020.pro
065137f5d893351bbe48f1993329a018
64e57c94f6d62870c3c2114314e4a229d48ac927
110194 F20110113_AACJYJ williams_a_Page_098.jp2
4bff5e3ae068344231ee4a25431a2521
284c08cb437bafd5e4dc29975e85675c14429114
105325 F20110113_AACJXV williams_a_Page_080.jp2
d9f4bdab3dd5fa3089c0cccd0e14119a
a43b825a1b6a86f5f517be0c719db8477a96f589
51470 F20110113_AACKEE williams_a_Page_035.pro
5fc585635a350f70bb95b7c1e1aebbd3
6ee04bf21533edeee1061b38da1d57b64474cdbc
53003 F20110113_AACKDQ williams_a_Page_021.pro
b871a7da3b6a033e96ad04b7c0d1bbb3
67862b79f3723db3bb1fece6dad8aab12b011d4f
97804 F20110113_AACJYK williams_a_Page_099.jp2
f4b7bb7f263c9df7e7d84737b382fa21
af0eb816858a4da4b1e706da7fb7418b1d4d2cd9
94792 F20110113_AACJXW williams_a_Page_081.jp2
27699978b5e0bc9f5213b894610893c1
73e30211c9b2377720d07ffe3065c8a214cf17aa
49146 F20110113_AACKEF williams_a_Page_036.pro
1c873ef8444397b3bc282492941386c0
f60f99f4db4d61892e9cdf1138837c7bd2b6e130
55796 F20110113_AACKDR williams_a_Page_022.pro
02338c65a17b4074ac636a964d1f90b0
b88f0f237b732ec523a4fd318ba44bef432b600f
96583 F20110113_AACJYL williams_a_Page_100.jp2
43dcbf3292f29e7f4830e1f71da0c093
1625561dbb533807a60ffa1aff875be65409c28c
101856 F20110113_AACJXX williams_a_Page_082.jp2
f81d08ceb231600c749af5816e031491
7a772b417d56093e4a1650cbfbdfe48b4ea7cbde
46282 F20110113_AACKEG williams_a_Page_037.pro
1bb0f318b70dbfede600570fa2b1f3ce
ff55b70c4ba432de69095f84b3c228366351ccb4
F20110113_AACJZA williams_a_Page_001.tif
f10347141d6a75938cf0c5a0b13c794b
e9c2e0829fab010c52291031272afdd1562a62e7
49481 F20110113_AACKDS williams_a_Page_023.pro
6fea4c9694945cff352e89b12575d8a0
65465e0eadaa4c6990ea76df9b5d92ae03ac1903
105351 F20110113_AACJYM williams_a_Page_101.jp2
47dfec6bcf201a3f559ee82760ba87a9
3306b86df15d0e0fec59df23fad978e21ace058d
50283 F20110113_AACKEH williams_a_Page_038.pro
2733320e42ec3031f20b7728171bf8e9
0764a0a1dd7606ff6e557e1ce56853b938ad0fa6
F20110113_AACJZB williams_a_Page_002.tif
6650a9bcd6424e48a05525dd77bba8a6
b0e344fda0b1e330f43b0687c72a6cf1c5f8ebaf
46414 F20110113_AACKDT williams_a_Page_024.pro
fc4cd71f2584e5173595a3352d52bb28
50aa0e3ff8f736f164b5b2f0d1306c751df6eb7c
96188 F20110113_AACJYN williams_a_Page_102.jp2
94b888e3b477558472c89b93ebd5e133
9670f4d9ebd8a929c6af710d883635cc73926389
71996 F20110113_AACJXY williams_a_Page_084.jp2
ba44a29c13abd6c5b846332e4cf9bf4c
34038a8882bc7950c50499263680c827c51bfb66
49458 F20110113_AACKEI williams_a_Page_039.pro
80479c2077160a41b7b9f3b9ee7ebadf
85ff0168abc71d0c634344d38d750f191302cefe
F20110113_AACJZC williams_a_Page_003.tif
bcc7558881c2dab77882477d3d2d8e57
1b95c7fde50ca2137a4e2ad07c310b153533633e
51454 F20110113_AACKDU williams_a_Page_025.pro
2fdde11a47622db157446d02aefeeaba
59a3944292723567aeb15cdfa93bd83df1259eea
124450 F20110113_AACJYO williams_a_Page_103.jp2
76f112adf6540691f3e8a71cd8d6af56
744669def0d10dcc1f1b8d920b4d58f765b7258d
101884 F20110113_AACJXZ williams_a_Page_085.jp2
5ff5a392ace328760e1cb98418d50f89
3dc254a55fe382d7c874e19483848dd795a84c37
67886 F20110113_AACKEJ williams_a_Page_040.pro
42fc7524aeb108c3d70524e9e38b1051
5e5b4b3abe2c5283639c5cbdc1fb832edacb6320
F20110113_AACJZD williams_a_Page_004.tif
ebf0e7d7056c0e2cebb5671c66fb5eca
d79967b9248d4ce6795b3ac4c7687cc4926df659
44945 F20110113_AACKDV williams_a_Page_026.pro
128cb672efa396cf682e7a234561f85b
96bed857a1774442b5eefc7075e89c2949991113
134430 F20110113_AACJYP williams_a_Page_104.jp2
5e36cb9e9c450256123f34912b8ff589
acac6a1f6c388ccfe52aa511c0f0d95aa8852b50
6514 F20110113_AACKEK williams_a_Page_041.pro
8f11b92cb1c46ff56b96f6aed110960f
5aa0aa751a50623d7de7b4885e898c1be50910d9
F20110113_AACJZE williams_a_Page_005.tif
4ce322b9305506bbf4549f72425f7d02
7b6da10ffa09dd286f821f7a06597b457e7f322e
44889 F20110113_AACKDW williams_a_Page_027.pro
e495dbd7fbb4f8e57a3c96553de68164
51d2b9786a80e488fc190f52e180836eedc49575
133331 F20110113_AACJYQ williams_a_Page_105.jp2
a4eb0c97a979c8f77bae41cbecdc6e0c
b0e489848129c3b091bdf94c30f3b486f6212d74
37611 F20110113_AACKEL williams_a_Page_042.pro
9ae2aa70a1d75b96deae76cf913b74ea
675210a02923deb329df47a783f64293421755c7
F20110113_AACJZF williams_a_Page_006.tif
05904db9cf028a3add403ffadbd16ebb
147d4f26cfd182273994ab89b647386e0f296219
47015 F20110113_AACKDX williams_a_Page_028.pro
93320bf88688b2d2e6b2c4b009d574a1
09b92b7613031feb4a68afa83cc3d0b55ae032f2
125980 F20110113_AACJYR williams_a_Page_106.jp2
2002665e0f5d549dd810ea34243b004f
0e02b09d2cfb5dcf8949432aff167ad477ee93b0
41479 F20110113_AACKFA williams_a_Page_058.pro
dd65265305ebd5787d7433d7caf1855e
0e97416cb7bf2d66e05b6303a8ebd5d07ec01e64
50448 F20110113_AACKEM williams_a_Page_043.pro
ec34ec851432b343495cf812e8635c74
38e8a6a609c0598f99071f0d84d759a8a4040b0a
25271604 F20110113_AACJZG williams_a_Page_007.tif
b00b929c0e5ab7e43b245e2d2fdd8f3b
29cbb562e34ca903d0cffa500717305783c9f68d
49750 F20110113_AACKDY williams_a_Page_029.pro
713c88d142ed22ce77c5159ea09762d6
0266f3002c9cc93b59ec06ebae82376b4294b4c3
127306 F20110113_AACJYS williams_a_Page_108.jp2
bfb33560378a186bf58b5a044105ceee
6b20bf1ab4fa646ea195fd1adb7722547d83d1bf
78384 F20110113_AACKFB williams_a_Page_059.pro
e709728c95d2905a3244aa13d7dabbf3
d8fdb50b90f63029d514a90781fc4ba878284e16
45762 F20110113_AACKEN williams_a_Page_044.pro
333ba8b4935c54394507b6cc4e61dc9f
706952409459e1751da90c3825331635a19a8b69
F20110113_AACJZH williams_a_Page_008.tif
e7536c267e858b4205090d35386aabb4
4de34eed01a4090017093210036d738cf4be7cb0
46847 F20110113_AACKDZ williams_a_Page_030.pro
e52635ccbddd665f7117bfb4d711426a
f5481c9144c09310e2847ea189b83cf69f474acb
130579 F20110113_AACJYT williams_a_Page_109.jp2
3158202bd7edcfb6a30b384bff4c640e
d73f78d9e82bd9a13456bce8f745290522057643
41356 F20110113_AACKFC williams_a_Page_060.pro
449fdf2f8f4bd865dff94edc2070f2cf
587f3493533cdbc2466d3be467380051158e81c2
49009 F20110113_AACKEO williams_a_Page_045.pro
796d34caff1f341f879c4763b8dda84e
91d955e0a4090d1faec3bc51120dbbe7a6ab171f
F20110113_AACJZI williams_a_Page_009.tif
c72447965663d33e3167ea0bbe1d655a
ce5bb758e7f98c1ddcee1f37c9675137e18f07da
134304 F20110113_AACJYU williams_a_Page_110.jp2
f531e8eeda4b0815adae58252332889e
2a8d80609978938d949fcaa682c03f7c8cf5a48d
45727 F20110113_AACKFD williams_a_Page_061.pro
968874b45445514f661b06695dfcc66a
640daec2d38534c66386505396d25764f5b8f5f9
48597 F20110113_AACKEP williams_a_Page_047.pro
53e1aec26e2b2b21fedb081996efce33
50e06fe3a2c68ffffbd6603d0259388402bd4fa1
F20110113_AACJZJ williams_a_Page_010.tif
4d4823875de449021e4ca78980750073
237f7126dceec7d3b29c20f9328be8b8a732ca7e
123336 F20110113_AACJYV williams_a_Page_111.jp2
5cdc098b8ea60d50e39fc2a19e844342
ca5c23abf1b12f486197b7c5e28ed2f111b71ea9
41889 F20110113_AACKFE williams_a_Page_062.pro
16afff4bdb119462b2e5355e2b38b787
6fda0db3d21af928aeeaee9c40378e3da34779ba
49305 F20110113_AACKEQ williams_a_Page_048.pro
f847416e7346b068ecb54b05844016f1
93039861125253fa02a90bb522c588e6af1efc0a
F20110113_AACJZK williams_a_Page_011.tif
614390c03063700e48a6710324a58332
8236f930060973deeb9acfa014cb4c93b418d9e4
124630 F20110113_AACJYW williams_a_Page_112.jp2
c52fbf3231ff4765c1d9993726a5acab
66beff66bbb8dece3e19ba80bb2888e81ff1ad3b
50841 F20110113_AACKER williams_a_Page_049.pro
017e99a423e4509c7c8917d0e849fbda
51fe6d216523f872aa96275fc94edfa00b5b30d9
F20110113_AACJZL williams_a_Page_012.tif
ab07ea5b482939d5f1a0b92863701a8c
6bfbcc7075cb40b6b037cf88c102beea09247ac3
136918 F20110113_AACJYX williams_a_Page_114.jp2
10a7009727375a5eebb46105bdd4268c
611d2e6aef37fd1c1e595dfcb02a34de7725d950
41204 F20110113_AACKFF williams_a_Page_065.pro
ec299a591bb29dbbb90cef52e2e043bf
3f812ac34ba82772b28f4794dbc8d527dec94d23
F20110113_AACJZM williams_a_Page_013.tif
2cd080512fb96bdf2bbff9ffa3cfd4e8
78405e48a2f3f4d3209683a5ea5d970b3f900d85
92874 F20110113_AACJYY williams_a_Page_115.jp2
3cee145c5773916eb98f585e8a41761f
f4ac4051a70c740263e2582df07e87184438d7ae
67661 F20110113_AACKFG williams_a_Page_066.pro
6b4519042d1df883e7eac94a947e2a89
2c5e3353fdc4504096302066638fa1271306ec87
44205 F20110113_AACKES williams_a_Page_050.pro
70d3ab74ef465739f50486e7746a389e
7ed1b7eb74311b22b1f3ff17bf8bfaf3b7560f27
F20110113_AACJZN williams_a_Page_014.tif
0aebec1d19287b80df8bfde4c2ad777f
5f28a63dfd49b42523fa68d9fc6aac45ea7f8bc3
42218 F20110113_AACKFH williams_a_Page_067.pro
d3d26355e1ea482e20bd069ae339c415
574b30532bb64dee15c53218870b2420f481cb61
12123 F20110113_AACKET williams_a_Page_051.pro
6160eb3c4584ba75560c1e6eed6ae5f7
c3fcae2f1212e16aac16c97e8e067ee5b13ba197
F20110113_AACJZO williams_a_Page_015.tif
4f27e47fb74130ca0712827e0464f378
12bfd842275c9ca1061b0cc54abf6601246bf557
43341 F20110113_AACJYZ williams_a_Page_116.jp2
7982f87f9400b6c4d7fab296e231dc75
45c832c72e06bab2a0f604b506cef21db04c3a37
40661 F20110113_AACKFI williams_a_Page_068.pro
ce1873d419e7640dcef855b979cfc244
e31d2450756fed41958c41ee60b13b0ef32d1211
36404 F20110113_AACKEU williams_a_Page_052.pro
6e6b229fb706f14e2212073513ecc2b6
472291579ef2348d8422557d42fd74843d135a88
F20110113_AACJZP williams_a_Page_016.tif
58a68b4d1fd3052092da40b7d2c48a1b
e9ac87227efc77a3296890b0193d5fa426da6712
49969 F20110113_AACKFJ williams_a_Page_069.pro
15ca2426584d619124500f03bcdefa2a
a731f09df5154a6d1e7e0f716abbfdc2d0b76230
47261 F20110113_AACKEV williams_a_Page_053.pro
e93f22b48d4eeed5476c8abbf0622e18
3e388346452ae3ad8e7ca6703f13c40cc48a9b94
F20110113_AACJZQ williams_a_Page_017.tif
80b7acde8e0fd5604e4dd7b09dac0940
204f12278666811384a5c1ff8db79e3ba436319f
48847 F20110113_AACKFK williams_a_Page_070.pro
14e164c0a27868914e4796c653395c54
4bee3f739c4f2370b4209a075fb497cf38c2d0c8
39996 F20110113_AACKEW williams_a_Page_054.pro
af1129a862aa46c83b70329d433dc198
8e831cd2bacebdb13906c6902d8caaac798dac6a
F20110113_AACJZR williams_a_Page_018.tif
e90d023a7f800f648034e30ed715cbbd
a384d959da5a46d8fad6279bd053235b5bb106ce
29562 F20110113_AACKGA williams_a_Page_090.pro
12a56828ec7cb9d6850172e01eb7bf02
39f152f4c7274b4834fefecdb39513727d989f09
49765 F20110113_AACKFL williams_a_Page_071.pro
cfc4f3eed64a87b65a4e5efe4f94854c
4c1f0dd5d297112457af1714815cb4505882b264
21515 F20110113_AACKEX williams_a_Page_055.pro
f25ccffc682c989bd76a7f276a8709ce
6fe7fbc08d0dc702fb8aa9b2719639b0a3e9ae2a
F20110113_AACJZS williams_a_Page_019.tif
a128743910ab836a097190205a44c669
d85f692040e960b81aa70a510f6e6f09ce4c9029
47896 F20110113_AACKGB williams_a_Page_091.pro
0fb457f8f110dc2583a2254cf0f1a2fb
34e19a1dd94044539899745ce1710ce3d69a3e82
48609 F20110113_AACKFM williams_a_Page_073.pro
c40c439e26ba54190d7cbbb25d8c6b52
8fce3619ba4ebfb4ef150d5656ca2dd7ae1a5b82
45147 F20110113_AACKEY williams_a_Page_056.pro
a3a0e6d53aea1546493612157afe31a1
3b70e047b47532a61cf0f73858d1dbea5a6211f0
F20110113_AACJZT williams_a_Page_020.tif
30a4b077be80eef069b5e6979b2dad0d
af64ffb9b27ddfff4945a9e88e78048486d17e4e
49984 F20110113_AACKGC williams_a_Page_092.pro
2dca20ab2e4a62301540339e3a492dee
950f13b91dd4237334227407ddcd1d3290b80e27
47971 F20110113_AACKFN williams_a_Page_074.pro
398aedb01b9a36e4337522399158ea88
c000388b216058d6f7f8c9cebeb8043a0ec74a5a
50489 F20110113_AACKEZ williams_a_Page_057.pro
c4c8f69c506b5589c7fdc50be1ed9a39
7110d87d099314f6954105a23b2a81d0f79aae6a
F20110113_AACJZU williams_a_Page_021.tif
dfc2693a63be38dbc26df53f19894f78
c62e311d624abb9866e8787e9813f1235ef0f7b5
48761 F20110113_AACKGD williams_a_Page_093.pro
01eaac96beb1512221069a9d8762f53f
06241b43cba76f7d114b26a88c08471440af413b
48858 F20110113_AACKFO williams_a_Page_076.pro
92b4d6dbadc2c18cd6f13ab71d00cc70
71ff13e431d8fb8ed387a6c1f548c5e0a9c566a0
F20110113_AACJZV williams_a_Page_022.tif
7c99bac3633dce4ca2dadb39c5ba576b
062a25231925daec45908819d4f4a386656ec880
48299 F20110113_AACKGE williams_a_Page_094.pro
5611ed1a0d8ccad68c42a4120942fa81
e3328b331938a5baa6dac97b5bc5cdc15095b095
50555 F20110113_AACKFP williams_a_Page_078.pro
75654620b010eee79bddbc6c734f06a8
adb4fb334b4f11abbc0f69319b28400e4b93261a
F20110113_AACJZW williams_a_Page_023.tif
654f84b1da8b89ab4a92559102e1f7fa
0bd7a4bf1275cb51575e7d18952bfc71422cfda8
20678 F20110113_AACKGF williams_a_Page_095.pro
7d7b2e65392aa1d0d9fb6bd4a2fa902b
e3764c64e7c05e0c99eb3cb6e7ddf830270d7f7e
50168 F20110113_AACKFQ williams_a_Page_079.pro
f0a2c71a1507f3625bb1bd5c7d33e45c
b6b5ecd1f19da402004a768e7ded3cac87c0f547
F20110113_AACJZX williams_a_Page_024.tif
5f97a2688ed6f35865ea97c08dc875f0
b68970e5e99b4eae48c14068f976b40638710c28
47513 F20110113_AACKFR williams_a_Page_080.pro
162bf491d84a0511b61fbb506f19e6bf
df4bcf4f0d5596f2125ec3aef0587fca9388898e
F20110113_AACJZY williams_a_Page_025.tif
45a76a3c58dc00a14ba2837a6fefa281
6af3eb59da40bec483aea04d3b382b0beb82633f
49637 F20110113_AACKGG williams_a_Page_097.pro
39216106215f96b788843cfdcc4502dd
780150c0459053ae699fcaf5f44694329e08eb7c
43742 F20110113_AACKFS williams_a_Page_081.pro
92fbc733f5b3512dbe8b75ef76273997
a69e95065a07fb18247ec1047b21a80e5b8abdab
F20110113_AACJZZ williams_a_Page_026.tif
2e237f89e9b3283a7a5457e8122539dc
f79e142dedb9657031aa3450af3537046d977c74
58927 F20110113_AACKGH williams_a_Page_098.pro
3bc0b6c6936dbc672d51141c50ab4591
148bc9d4125d7da835e0094c1d8b324a1aa6c425
46714 F20110113_AACKFT williams_a_Page_082.pro
088371099dda3dbd5b23fb500250dfe3
7123c2a50e46e09f91ba043842cfbbede5e0cbcd
57135 F20110113_AACKGI williams_a_Page_099.pro
f98a234526dd2679f728e2ac2d9d8afa
a8e622dbfbcf73a871575e50395c3c53511dc4ee
33716 F20110113_AACKFU williams_a_Page_083.pro
16efbda7ada930ac2ddec60306b0ca19
e65cbeb147c45fe77df2a5db6cff43b2cc3f315b
55926 F20110113_AACKGJ williams_a_Page_101.pro
2dffc1a1c26060af768ea835a0f8dfe2
43e272fec22d10735f827d6484cc6e39876bcadf
47324 F20110113_AACKFV williams_a_Page_085.pro
ae9403b4051febadd56c92b4495cd8b8
dd77250ae113b1666966624c1dabb2e0ba463951
43702 F20110113_AACKGK williams_a_Page_102.pro
897019cc1bc184eb037b66289fd5e128
1ea25e6354ac441fb7dc923a02e98b0ae87a2a42
52922 F20110113_AACKFW williams_a_Page_086.pro
7203d1d0db1ab1f8d1a7275077556cb8
356184433c10b13e169d7e769152301d9f9b1025
61639 F20110113_AACKGL williams_a_Page_104.pro
176e883b5f2d870f365cb90a2120300b
cb5f635d245025da7bbabd5a78d14681a8d74476
47860 F20110113_AACKFX williams_a_Page_087.pro
39e6e67a1754c1981994b4705c23a448
3d09fe193a889de073a40e875f0e07c2212e35f6
1729 F20110113_AACKHA williams_a_Page_004.txt
7bf63fd8d1c46cbb2ab8b6a53ef1f4ad
19d5eb99c7e4e9dc566fbec35f291a3c4c3088da
61541 F20110113_AACKGM williams_a_Page_105.pro
9962dbf43d57609b53806fec50eaf720
cfff1cc9c3f25715b4681b0bf3ab15bc296f8e58
48479 F20110113_AACKFY williams_a_Page_088.pro
740ea176df5c133a108e6484b810e4c3
50c059c60b1e1b62d7327946edafa4f8feae80e1
511 F20110113_AACKHB williams_a_Page_006.txt
c2b505c98e30855a377b2efac1b43deb
4f7d7bdc2f661e3f4ef87f8ce69af78f67f2b34a
56279 F20110113_AACKGN williams_a_Page_106.pro
06e2dc0bcfb1aa06e06d8109147686c2
b7fc6d9f2630202c12a6e23406fd33598deee800
31766 F20110113_AACKFZ williams_a_Page_089.pro
10f06a4eb3e4da214076477599949998
979421998022f6428415e6c8948c424e376f0e23
2586 F20110113_AACKHC williams_a_Page_008.txt
34725aa2bb397d2ba79d19cad6e2889f
dedd88b8f8a744fe615ac1c9d548ca04f72d6b56
57430 F20110113_AACKGO williams_a_Page_107.pro
cd7928be5563d23e1a2e54a1c347cbc1
24c85b4e530a819f032976a8fd3df869f16d0467
1291 F20110113_AACKHD williams_a_Page_009.txt
d28800415b93232383933df412309841
dac202053eee2a8ca4bebb52bb817ebebbfc5777
58539 F20110113_AACKGP williams_a_Page_108.pro
75986305d11092e40217b3a695964285
4b73a58415af0b3566bc250a7d563fd48aab4fb6
1637 F20110113_AACKHE williams_a_Page_010.txt
2d92582fc3595ee4e16f3daf7ee30ff1
22703bcd8cc7800aded03010cd616fcc60761374
59439 F20110113_AACKGQ williams_a_Page_109.pro
0a9cdb064c891a3df6ab36633d3b0cde
061b57d8e91a1797a8ffe270c05fc98f1be25129
137 F20110113_AACKHF williams_a_Page_011.txt
d94ca82cb127016f26efd7e156e7d2ce
e025a475c52b985ed3250a4c748e035a171335d7
55556 F20110113_AACKGR williams_a_Page_111.pro
4764730ce29d246b7b60e505e8fbb071
e8b0d291079e3d5fd6b7aa467a52b9a330e2c2be
1839 F20110113_AACKHG williams_a_Page_012.txt
4729f995809d50cfdf48207b0f369701
f4a67787b939343e882a9dc48a4ad69fbf21c9a2
57883 F20110113_AACKGS williams_a_Page_112.pro
45be8a8c037b6c81d05f43b2935af1c4
6a3b103e9c715359b9c2a96766ed1c33ba2dc4f4
57797 F20110113_AACKGT williams_a_Page_113.pro
3d56aade80ce19925a8f8ac0d368c598
ae8b570456c269595de96fd0c1dce81e77a2dddc
836 F20110113_AACKHH williams_a_Page_013.txt
69a716d9a6890d5dd2e97922915631d7
ed8ec992763c7e48d1a120d564b10babce71baf0
63138 F20110113_AACKGU williams_a_Page_114.pro
71e5f1682f0a78642215e8bb2bb53340
43b246e2e1d0cbdab3cd4c4d655a68052cb248a4
1780 F20110113_AACKHI williams_a_Page_014.txt
8391b6f06949c7645061d8c42b3b59b8
539fb2b538cff44a4212ace074f5d7cb6d67c329
41335 F20110113_AACKGV williams_a_Page_115.pro
b98fa6fe27546fedd4325f84eadf0ba7
9bc2dcf07a00846449354500fcfdbe6557c01251
2074 F20110113_AACKHJ williams_a_Page_015.txt
708f42bca92fd523ccf2172833ad9891
584dbb6ce3ace9b722385970a489f05ddffe9232
18478 F20110113_AACKGW williams_a_Page_116.pro
9ed9d87e8b2320764ce45d064d4cbc17
b5956b8b7ad8f186c7e8dc7359e9ab085f25f0f4
2045 F20110113_AACKHK williams_a_Page_016.txt
a101480ad01f7bca5deed9689b0068fb
092e6f264307861649ffacdebedc575fdf3684a4
501 F20110113_AACKGX williams_a_Page_001.txt
c12fd04b355a96bf3976082e263642be
1aff799d13463c826cea4406a2b9e0a7a44afb4b
2029 F20110113_AACKIA williams_a_Page_034.txt
6ba582934c243100d759bd69e2464193
6a2fb7dd77cd15374549cbe48aea86723a9e4ef9
2022 F20110113_AACKHL williams_a_Page_017.txt
27575d4e64ef499b743c42c0f68c8bf9
3cb0030cd14047362713dec155077fef841c6891
120 F20110113_AACKGY williams_a_Page_002.txt
777efca2fe40a90b20ceac068f54db9f
d17e59640c758d2f239bfa0e9fddfe6581fb7766
2032 F20110113_AACKIB williams_a_Page_035.txt
dee77366ddc21449a963549bd10a5888
ad331560f9a470f4eac107cee093aae903010db9
2067 F20110113_AACKHM williams_a_Page_018.txt
eb7a61baad938729884f2a970bd25765
805d571c2067c96e8c81e8990f84cb02c4f45426
1057 F20110113_AACKGZ williams_a_Page_003.txt
636ae32bceb0a3880d02d0d61c54d1b3
1ec671b1c21c8aaabf30c1aba9456e8f5fbc9f88
1945 F20110113_AACKIC williams_a_Page_036.txt
43ccf9d0596bf85609b095c003d38339
c96c870b8d05c5bded646753f93198b46731c6b6
2004 F20110113_AACKHN williams_a_Page_019.txt
a0d240a9817d75ec8603bf7a5f96a680
9c6825d77a9a2b46507f47b1af9cd9393662f1b3
1831 F20110113_AACKID williams_a_Page_037.txt
53276221faa7e7987eca9009a891d74e
9e77a6c748210f6105dcc3b3021855886fc54f21
2028 F20110113_AACKHO williams_a_Page_020.txt
3a428cd63f73e8626e4e94bd0a3f7b00
c7b218bd2a17a0cd301c70e947678631d1fab94a
1990 F20110113_AACKIE williams_a_Page_038.txt
020e7c947a5e7e772a4798fa76a8def1
a3bc85ad8c998fdebcf1e3811c725da9109f428c
2178 F20110113_AACKHP williams_a_Page_021.txt
bf17f9214c28ef88eeebd319603dcc3f
a56f7651b280f72aa3657b75780c801d8a42601b
2018 F20110113_AACKIF williams_a_Page_039.txt
4bcbbd3a2faf013a8e6aaf5a45316ac8
ab4429eeea0378e09bce5f2b82245888e381a842
2249 F20110113_AACKHQ williams_a_Page_022.txt
982ebf2f3f50e87ec4e289c1328b184f
d0d2305cf0c6d97cc95cffe24930b17d78dad52a
2621 F20110113_AACKIG williams_a_Page_040.txt
b11d8265e875efe990aecf0efe2a2775
2ff74b09e13d89e1f74b0a643df823ae6ccaec5e
1953 F20110113_AACKHR williams_a_Page_023.txt
a098cca5faa4169d93c0d80dfc254995
5bfa070f47012887a17e9f19c18cae70fad96806
290 F20110113_AACKIH williams_a_Page_041.txt
e6ab48b47602ae0cb5e6b1fc86e31161
3647dd64c3a6eb9bfe19b30359a6c06a6e80ade6
1845 F20110113_AACKHS williams_a_Page_024.txt
4f96b89d9b74eff29ffce49626ea6eb6
d60ad5a51cd795629543773e5b4e553033fa40be
2058 F20110113_AACKHT williams_a_Page_025.txt
bb5b8bb604af3f0d58c37b7a2b912be4
f5e81d03f5a7ce2fbf7208b0fafacbe3a25ded46
1610 F20110113_AACKII williams_a_Page_042.txt
186ff3dea03f5886439064638209f64b
912aeab328522c80196601375290ece800ce0ea4
1829 F20110113_AACKHU williams_a_Page_027.txt
c498071ad9db71d2b2387b3e9e7c1a42
31ea858898951c5739571978b8027ff80ac6ecfe
1849 F20110113_AACKIJ williams_a_Page_044.txt
7255ddafad99d4a99e1299a6aeafa4f0
15d66df358608d69511f1d751b33bcbb2635543f
1868 F20110113_AACKHV williams_a_Page_028.txt
5aff20b1d2646089a32987b6c1a2c980
3d9179e17cfb3eac3c7c15848735e48c5ffd078b
1947 F20110113_AACKIK williams_a_Page_045.txt
17e9813fbed7c406530c6aff5cbd6182
b35d4bacda2a282a0f4625891151a4b2c19ce114
1971 F20110113_AACKHW williams_a_Page_029.txt
d2da0dcc70d06e11e835bc6e45d1ade8
695c61d94a67f5265ce50881617616b91a7ad627
2060 F20110113_AACKJA williams_a_Page_063.txt
11107ab8ea5c9e4f61578c3b893bde24
8a8b45edbd2e535730191c0d8347525f1112b272
1920 F20110113_AACKIL williams_a_Page_047.txt
b61857c78ac14a8f73b3e8c8101f5638
8a6dae5f383f0c007fabaddcfae62ac696f07af1
1893 F20110113_AACKHX williams_a_Page_030.txt
81ba7c89351cdf17934c31be70dd9c72
ee8517f05509eb301f4543b49516243bebb40a30
1614 F20110113_AACKJB williams_a_Page_064.txt
ea5dcc55a84227bb2753a0940dc7536a
06c6f2329acf37f3c06642aba1e485f7a4a56666
1949 F20110113_AACKIM williams_a_Page_048.txt
66cdb5d99062fda4c0749e1fe0a8c195
676f975e7cfb98e8f4e05dcc3670ba1d9b7664ff
1873 F20110113_AACKHY williams_a_Page_031.txt
1dc08f16017fb44e818bb1bcb825531d
6f24d5386be7c91469318e589ed36c208f70186e
3854 F20110113_AACKJC williams_a_Page_066.txt
aa2154e9f4ba1d001f8d54791e7a8c1d
3f775a8e2f896388d70cfee4837dbc02eeda2bd0
2031 F20110113_AACKIN williams_a_Page_049.txt
5e75ea46b54a74da25a71a6da1691c18
6c3198712375bc00e56d01d80c66cb8738421b0b
1910 F20110113_AACKHZ williams_a_Page_033.txt
994ffe32e5983235a66331a1c2447aa8
a67b5be9a8dd78104a2fdd85ab3360f6e38ae746
1864 F20110113_AACKJD williams_a_Page_067.txt
07b2d25c93639fb53fbc0b2c480448fa
6c10ff463a3597244662566d80d3f6640afb88d6
1790 F20110113_AACKIO williams_a_Page_050.txt
4e9502b2d46415e98fefa19df22f0f09
f38238d9b9a2e3c1400cc8e549913cfd53664548
1723 F20110113_AACKJE williams_a_Page_068.txt
cdc8caee6be54992cf6cb97d6d68f6ae
2cbf93e1e77cf0657f81a40f08e018ef28e04551
525 F20110113_AACKIP williams_a_Page_051.txt
22a81ae9bb7e3489238afc626ba8d6c5
cd540af9a77dd57e84c8ca68a9dfb91cd9e7a743
1977 F20110113_AACKJF williams_a_Page_069.txt
7e802d10f3a9c994a30d7a0cbcb43896
8129f237e2c01f3e98148db722c3d9ac8986bcbb
1582 F20110113_AACKIQ williams_a_Page_052.txt
b7515e173a47e87f5a7fc768aacfd2e7
e1deb39b6b010a636b2b1041009a2884ff881d16
1929 F20110113_AACKJG williams_a_Page_070.txt
e40368eb9622470da4261b47d3c7497f
9b7d8e6572dbe8192d4e6a9c251aaec11f9348fa
1917 F20110113_AACKIR williams_a_Page_053.txt
fabcc5a1c71e8ce85fa9c2b650fb4d8e
fde3ffb737954351c72e43c39e8fa54c756b4f4c
1961 F20110113_AACKJH williams_a_Page_071.txt
7fd1d9087da1831c860dde84a41db9a5
23575e2870b28e66f12cb2bd7f52c743d26496da
1643 F20110113_AACKIS williams_a_Page_054.txt
4cd0293a763a81158c07d9e831aabae6
dfeea9d9efd332d4762edbb4632127733c69970b
1931 F20110113_AACKJI williams_a_Page_072.txt
fdf2e2ce56ae4a8a9dacc7862931c24c
d40b68fa087d09b28c5f5f5fa4caf8430b95e9f6
1122 F20110113_AACKIT williams_a_Page_055.txt
61ae08293bc988ecbc848fce1c6b345c
c7d166acb8affac281b45facacc293f257a49eaa
2149 F20110113_AACKIU williams_a_Page_056.txt
68aa4435329d63c00b50ff8795e9664a
a76ccc54ee5e0c0bc36aceb870d2f2307ea2299a
1928 F20110113_AACKJJ williams_a_Page_073.txt
4984e8db14d5f297f7c87663df919bef
516cd9a4103ff2de224ea4eb625db5486d7a4c2c
F20110113_AACKIV williams_a_Page_057.txt
6979cb8702727ec6a0154346d1215ab4
c27ec94102e588e478c637dbc498178607c2bb09
1922 F20110113_AACKJK williams_a_Page_074.txt
355d7956499e6fc7ffffd260df56f980
5c4ce17f78aa4afa4bb3b821f13adfe30906de02
1814 F20110113_AACKIW williams_a_Page_058.txt
fb47674d167119317f16412e72870eb8
2520b7a5049a049db66b740fdc2fc765a6759d00
1881 F20110113_AACKJL williams_a_Page_075.txt
ffe373a91fcec9f068dafd5774b8df84
5f8a389062744960b02bb183910f9fcc04815d6c
1908 F20110113_AACKIX williams_a_Page_060.txt
5cb9482a62a0a1852db47b9a60fb4e33
5b4aab9775d234ccc1a62da645090e005c77eae3
1279 F20110113_AACKKA williams_a_Page_090.txt
7ba48bfad39b09971950fc3c64d0ffff
ea68e47e31ca9eabab1ccd5d9459a067d3cc973d
1934 F20110113_AACKJM williams_a_Page_076.txt
ab97169e6ff931224b1c2e43bc7df030
6e61f3831c64c5e715399c773d375e153c845113
1846 F20110113_AACKIY williams_a_Page_061.txt
ce5aa498faffb17747a8f11f374c6153
61b44ce6c92a5ac6130c50986ec97c7fdf6f043c
1911 F20110113_AACKKB williams_a_Page_091.txt
ecaf2dcbf6db7fb75bfd2c9ea5a53b7e
cb83a057f35558988b4b2d7946a75f911c790b14
1982 F20110113_AACKJN williams_a_Page_077.txt
5b6a9e5a60b29d14371301f9b7a3bf1d
922d85f60b4f74c7182911752d05950387684c7b
1936 F20110113_AACKIZ williams_a_Page_062.txt
d654f4be0811178d9db50d0bb5b3beae
341937e8093ee1b709cbf358273c86ff43025150
1939 F20110113_AACKKC williams_a_Page_093.txt
afd1528b8ba7c9bc48f700a65948518d
ed5394a722e8ed350766baf58b1f874f7e73c369
1991 F20110113_AACKJO williams_a_Page_078.txt
da9e347595f7b6b68525055d25fc1b8c
f9ca56964524812edfeb7c73e7a2ca6da8e20ed3
1916 F20110113_AACKKD williams_a_Page_094.txt
9ec4bdd925ac7f02ddaa3b966eff9362
b38617cbb97251d4e58a2aecd7a0bcf60bb792ea
829 F20110113_AACKKE williams_a_Page_095.txt
d7b1833c4bd76f328355acbab287ee12
2068d6f10c8a4a2cc89fc9db3f2792129c6d5f17
2011 F20110113_AACKJP williams_a_Page_079.txt
aabf219a703021a100369f5785965ae9
06b219b892bc97321f06dab0eb0a8856fe45f294
2431 F20110113_AACKKF williams_a_Page_096.txt
84410438001b08fc17d4ba85f6d61ffa
266214c4707ff21c4bc24cfbaac204c823449092
F20110113_AACKJQ williams_a_Page_080.txt
e01acf553e7a38d677e8adc03cb106a6
62320af002e525e69ac1a7ff2ae0458dd47c5828
2300 F20110113_AACKKG williams_a_Page_097.txt
693ea05ef02ba0091aa17878f4862196
87263481ff82574b0277649f8ba495b44c33283e
1772 F20110113_AACKJR williams_a_Page_081.txt
6a509647df62f41971f63568854817b5
beb4e8176cc0d1bbb07f9bdaa5bac3a7d8989be0
2406 F20110113_AACKKH williams_a_Page_098.txt
60a7923cc33c8ab137aefd331efdee57
19487f669bcfecae65bd4a1d989f0c65147b4f7b
1860 F20110113_AACKJS williams_a_Page_082.txt
55766c9cf4045cf8cf96562abb2021e5
b806adfef6e571df46f2e148450429cb5b88dc67
2479 F20110113_AACKKI williams_a_Page_099.txt
e624c7fb4fffbcd73ed807094edbffa1
91fc26d03e838da7a1e68ac6fe7527ddbe4c41a5
1351 F20110113_AACKJT williams_a_Page_083.txt
07dd4ff0aff5c5e4353b82fcd35bf109
cb9f21d375aa5bedf1de8ab2470a87d9e87d1590
2239 F20110113_AACKKJ williams_a_Page_100.txt
deb5c5bdbf00707be93852f04821054f
aa7705b463f6336aee5da1fe2753e09abd33de09
1311 F20110113_AACKJU williams_a_Page_084.txt
b7eaf4bd87e408c8b1e275c92698913b
0be1cf00cc19e374d1f2543fc8a22c872e9dd1fc
1862 F20110113_AACKJV williams_a_Page_085.txt
870aa1b9ef5a0b497486b42b3a621f07
3f6d2ed7d429640ff2ddfdc01431e8444ba804bd
2268 F20110113_AACKKK williams_a_Page_101.txt
536868faf5d4d5a8200345b3815b57c5
4219d5f60002932e2d6f904a4d57ca19221823c3
2069 F20110113_AACKJW williams_a_Page_086.txt
aebdcd35272971bf6446690508458420
8ca6ea57a40b50906a589575af972852db203c9a
671116 F20110113_AACKLA williams_a.pdf
3057086370ec6d2d7a5368773ffd86ff
394a4d872550e99a81bf733aefa97a1961ba9a0f
1784 F20110113_AACKKL williams_a_Page_102.txt
023ca90f7bd8dec1cda7fed5d20cb45d
4937381162cd3519c7c998bfd12b1522db5294cd
1876 F20110113_AACKJX williams_a_Page_087.txt
3c178e65515bcf1f5e9766d9e3a32fdf
0f57516ca92ca0cb0249e5edb08d88b34d058550
72168 F20110113_AACKLB williams_a_Page_026.QC.jpg
2c701c84e3fc50b5c4481a13b05600e3
916d904da9821b73dfcaf72bb2a28e11330af99e
2280 F20110113_AACKKM williams_a_Page_103.txt
03d62d0b30632ed8a5503535a00054e0
d134b43088c0408b84893c0eeadf27f32a974cfd
1897 F20110113_AACKJY williams_a_Page_088.txt
55023578c95871498eb14a6f52b1b26b
3534e944cc6520ba94664b79e89dc17c09cd88d2
23935 F20110113_AACKLC williams_a_Page_080thm.jpg
6047c48c9d5bc75fde4a74f97fe5b8d5
e485209a629fa0c1d0ac58d503847a4ff9fcf10c
2511 F20110113_AACKKN williams_a_Page_104.txt
f91d14e9a8c8400c9842dd073c74b69e
7670c837a2139d781765c456db1f0e0b03b2580d
1270 F20110113_AACKJZ williams_a_Page_089.txt
b78ddda18f6fec75ba11524a2856a2e6
60773427d38d31c5347b037c569df28a3bb5b453
4845 F20110113_AACKLD williams_a_Page_041thm.jpg
af4087c326937e928ec26f3f8d374787
7fd67f6b0589c52eba7a76da1091e18fe1966809
2490 F20110113_AACKKO williams_a_Page_105.txt
af595634c2196df824b38bc41446a37b
8fc2af1351a3b59744f431f06875ba3da9c10a23
73918 F20110113_AACKLE williams_a_Page_037.QC.jpg
46c0ce2c63bd8ec5db9c3e0fc2543b51
00d11efe695c4160473938a13eef219979a1b597
2279 F20110113_AACKKP williams_a_Page_106.txt
a80a558508eb6cfece4925ffd0f78661
d2ada1899fd1e609dad89a1e0c7eae138bacbc30
23802 F20110113_AACKLF williams_a_Page_113thm.jpg
d9de1bd4013b91da29e56608506cc460
b59dc8df49f907edc2a3f548e3511c3cb650417e
2342 F20110113_AACKKQ williams_a_Page_107.txt
b3a101e44c4cd3af2d99b5c7f27ab4c1
7d76765fe7f8f274b2648cc2dd1d74ee24dfa87a
59297 F20110113_AACKLG williams_a_Page_099.QC.jpg
08a7fbbc5d6e611388d64f8c3437e784
0c715c011f9f80342f1b243263907579acd73680
2361 F20110113_AACKKR williams_a_Page_108.txt
816ff85fd4052ace7b98c5d343017a71
e5cae323253d04192efc54684d3f890c9a7705ed
23215 F20110113_AACKLH williams_a_Page_037thm.jpg
140ae89bf465c444418343e4bdf60929
fb815c794f3844d041d58676f1f435ed621df03b
2417 F20110113_AACKKS williams_a_Page_109.txt
6c24de5980db5b3900402a5606c100a1
bf59bee343c37f9ad8a2a61af282640acdbea70c
80951 F20110113_AACKLI williams_a_Page_015.QC.jpg
16e7d3c5a9b22cd06edc88f11e113122
cb91ed178a814ffcd2fd85aadcd73e38b68357fa
2468 F20110113_AACKKT williams_a_Page_110.txt
7a88603e8fc910822cc49e615e63b9a7
ad7544476e333fefa3ee02e5065a3da4d4fe3c69
25062 F20110113_AACKLJ williams_a_Page_038thm.jpg
8c7b7ee1dfe80ea7ab718e6279d10eba
dec94893041bd1f44a1c85cf15522af996167736
2256 F20110113_AACKKU williams_a_Page_111.txt
a76cb1b42c152583cf8d1436f38ce7d1
e7cc6d72fd2564259c33e5312481751f3cd64a9c
24769 F20110113_AACKLK williams_a_Page_048thm.jpg
3ce273a3791453bd7475ded70985605d
9d92b9df2c1eb4368a8c2e579f140c454e223f78
2345 F20110113_AACKKV williams_a_Page_112.txt
301838436105147d03f3014f1c439492
b13610d5e03c6bd7562b0cc8036eff3d11275fb8
2322 F20110113_AACKKW williams_a_Page_113.txt
35aa2e856b3676c6f904cb1238f1e0ae
6baf6cc22140126b223b32ed5b5dcff3eff439a8
20914 F20110113_AACKLL williams_a_Page_067thm.jpg
5a376e2e72fd2d503809723f7b5d6f4d
fb8481263e30c23ce540cc711071c67bda0c4f3d
2550 F20110113_AACKKX williams_a_Page_114.txt
7b21793abc225120bb104115ac48be5f
057cbde83c7eb0fa4fc1dcf6291dd5b2c825a1ea
22561 F20110113_AACKMA williams_a_Page_082thm.jpg
44a648d5cd6127886413582c69e25817
2e2477497c502282afd3d6477087acef813939cc
72913 F20110113_AACKLM williams_a_Page_028.QC.jpg
0f3696fff96c617908f4b0cf368e7b4b
27563c88bf35118eceb7fe98e9beef9d2f694ec2
1694 F20110113_AACKKY williams_a_Page_115.txt
614b9bcc1cbab75aeaec400f2b1db7d3
60b42cc09828907d237e891bef9ca73f4935f951
32779 F20110113_AACKMB williams_a_Page_116.QC.jpg
1fae60e2241a64e5b52924336b5ddcb8
8745a1bb3b510772e507a3f4763acd238fcd695a
56569 F20110113_AACKLN williams_a_Page_064.QC.jpg
d153c04027173494707b8ce96dbc5840
e6be7950d7d306517e8fc9e9e0cee2d1db737b01
781 F20110113_AACKKZ williams_a_Page_116.txt
d27af50b6a7a18832b76bbbce8d1ec72
d2fe2141806b3b29178fa7f57c8557bb737458ed
25775 F20110113_AACKMC williams_a_Page_110thm.jpg
23b3d00a647b09027b816255c601b144
bddc229320fbe050f14a7f5a14c292c205da20f8
17262 F20110113_AACKLO williams_a_Page_115thm.jpg
bcf759f12c255da2885ce2669c627abf
a20d1976995c0c0fd28e6dbe9f99f4997b63e353
82342 F20110113_AACKMD williams_a_Page_032.QC.jpg
158f18a6e9af0bd8800afe421b321a76
a37a9a0ff8bc8a175dd03a22cda1a9d51f5b6edf
15248 F20110113_AACKLP williams_a_Page_051.QC.jpg
8d8b7ee73a277cc098d115ca8125846d
0afb608662229627594146450d7aa94fd18c4c1d
79323 F20110113_AACKME williams_a_Page_020.QC.jpg
097d0a744bc4d3f66b33564566d65876
6326171d356439b394100f1be648553dbf6487e3
65324 F20110113_AACKLQ williams_a_Page_102.QC.jpg
8127082233cc572a2a6a8ca59c0724d4
301639a37a1df379eeed4e9ffec76cf8eb6fe21a
23630 F20110113_AACKMF williams_a_Page_112thm.jpg
0dc054bd2437ac07753db517c6eb7de2
991556a1803f74023546c09c27d09135d508ba27
78005 F20110113_AACKLR williams_a_Page_038.QC.jpg
e405336310d4bb31eed3ccc50093e7d7
d5135b3a450b33751481c0361447ad44d900fe65
24592 F20110113_AACKMG williams_a_Page_023thm.jpg
14b0b16163052b8bda78fd8b4f0dde2d
af916b54dc0d83495aee0858fe1191d7a3a6e926
73912 F20110113_AACKLS williams_a_Page_080.QC.jpg
a8778762b094b26dbcff88a22cc1f16f
36692ba9521396ba0b4c28ae62ad7b87e5e4f7db
9290 F20110113_AACKMH williams_a_Page_011.QC.jpg
36d1c1ec7b51b2e6cdded8c569340725
827068f19eaf7d53077f58804181455643c6be2b
21921 F20110113_AACKLT williams_a_Page_014thm.jpg
f0ed3971c39a4817e08c5d86b4021580
26a2f9db928f3fa85bc90ef34649ba65d988a6da
22824 F20110113_AACKMI williams_a_Page_001.QC.jpg
6ad0defb11b2fe0232908fa4d2fbaf11
d0c78ac085ffcd06b83e5cd0dd039e9060ac80a2
22928 F20110113_AACKLU williams_a_Page_061thm.jpg
2aaa3c63f82854d84cb7519b26eeb737
d275533d9d3fd5b66e24844ebc6e7e3fdf94f258
20680 F20110113_AACKMJ williams_a_Page_058thm.jpg
9ed01f5571b2afc6816138f7ddc35b98
608bbb399ad99c63bbe05c6df77912c060861a66
24531 F20110113_AACKLV williams_a_Page_025thm.jpg
a24f4d0a6a5192ea1cd6afd24939de5f
61c4efd5d63c0f441e2aa3cf6de8621e027b5de5
82333 F20110113_AACKMK williams_a_Page_063.QC.jpg
9d0c26c6686b51770c9fcda2ea1cce64
e39ce564a06ea2ba62d7bf2068107af458d83f12
24461 F20110113_AACKLW williams_a_Page_104thm.jpg
deb603ac3a4ed03458ba15fa161bb707
2290a740818ac4638b2b183e0ac98966600d07a4
17392 F20110113_AACKML williams_a_Page_060thm.jpg
d94bd8090737ab41ed6e3ef288c77422
c573505993141e1ba89251735fa066efd8e976bc
68902 F20110113_AACKLX williams_a_Page_004.QC.jpg
ea4bed9df7ae5ae3bdf753ddef264e03
2da5689e27a74ef6e92bda81b7179e3c6f5bd714
22002 F20110113_AACKNA williams_a_Page_021thm.jpg
40966d0267944f2aa146d51cd419b77e
161b4b22c83b4e1dea21b5c4dc808d648e5e522b
6131 F20110113_AACKLY williams_a_Page_002.QC.jpg
bd04a7f249455b902caf5362247d6567
d7993b2d22490b85c16136c0886de3f7c1bd33a2
79054 F20110113_AACKNB williams_a_Page_107.QC.jpg
7d99e42557fa22809ee6dae69fd478e5
4e929b7b061288c3a6b49e7a52d3676fd87e1a5d
20522 F20110113_AACKMM williams_a_Page_065thm.jpg
e257b6b067f2bbbcf84bb9b0606d586b
2ab0bb00302cf62f20d7d6d1cf83244261182421
65020 F20110113_AACKLZ williams_a_Page_101.QC.jpg
0316f8c19a18dccbff4f7971149bc79c
8aedec7909a5ac0762e2d7cabd6d410b277a1cf4
25686 F20110113_AACKNC williams_a_Page_018thm.jpg
895da5e37d017fedf9a853da62c73d5b
71f9849b11faa0c497f4252d81ef64c6fe17b437
78553 F20110113_AACKMN williams_a_Page_078.QC.jpg
9887de9bcecb34729a919e67bf0fe385
50a6bf0a4e9ecc3d02cd25d7a4cd8b4954af3dea
75750 F20110113_AACKND williams_a_Page_085.QC.jpg
b4c7bc08a3ce213845b44c294dca605d
cf5be8165a3d866505ab6ce19c81086bf7ad18c7
72194 F20110113_AACKMO williams_a_Page_082.QC.jpg
83ea6e4535c5d66e7e57a26217ab29c1
805934d9e26f0f4b1c613440e4a60be2929c691c
74599 F20110113_AACKNE williams_a_Page_074.QC.jpg
60f4a20f3795956345cc822152c4f63e
da9cf90e508728d375f34aaaab45c62070c43ac3
77091 F20110113_AACKMP williams_a_Page_077.QC.jpg
217dcb2b5a9f3dd0f8c10f16f3cb5948
2af6b31d723dd3ae15c936b23cf5365ec8c35de4
55962 F20110113_AACKNF williams_a_Page_084.QC.jpg
be03c59a50588e8b353f0669e5b71ee2
13f1a8758b7ac23fefb758bcc42262ed479de99e
25220 F20110113_AACKMQ williams_a_Page_017thm.jpg
9217c9d1f134fa0b09f8829ce6c836e4
b77486ef67ecea1f767bce834a9ee8769580ca84
60758 F20110113_AACKNG williams_a_Page_056.QC.jpg
47941a1e4ed846bd85e2a0969f28c78f
9cc12d5b675d5610f034f3c7cf745a95e6d50927
81626 F20110113_AACKMR williams_a_Page_022.QC.jpg
7fbce768239b09269cd85e348ebb7f4d
c648c385a99502ccf55cd48df254913a3dd320d1
20563 F20110113_AACKNH williams_a_Page_100thm.jpg
3ef6572005fbc0d9155ca5fc43eec1bf
c95126321c85ef4ab753d890984664faff5816f7
21734 F20110113_AACKMS williams_a_Page_004thm.jpg
e6ae7d543290483896e3290d00d67cfb
020545a78242f3d58f212262a472d17b11f7bcc3
24478 F20110113_AACKNI williams_a_Page_079thm.jpg
0db1dadbf406c9698ce2858d910a4cb6
42d6a4da48829d931db5de40658c9ac970175e10
65482 F20110113_AACKMT williams_a_Page_100.QC.jpg
bd3a54572fa7e5e2e0f46923e45af4a5
2248106ca0c6ab7cd16348975e2eaa30f1cb1b27
76441 F20110113_AACKNJ williams_a_Page_009.QC.jpg
b6a2629586659060701d8fb0b835d0ca
1103628494bad762e64d46c15d2423ca141c94fd
58838 F20110113_AACKMU williams_a_Page_115.QC.jpg
67105011d487350119c3a18f1e3fa14c
194cd61ecf25f3376d22f23aaeeed839c3ad4320
12574 F20110113_AACKNK williams_a_Page_066thm.jpg
4e0fe730545549d73122abf93f6bf288
fce9c0282139e982389d320bfc08e5dc18f235db
24887 F20110113_AACKMV williams_a_Page_034thm.jpg
46b179f33771233d23f7e0941d648e76
5a71f3a9db6cbbd168716d5f1b3d95ef7349e88d
79526 F20110113_AACKNL williams_a_Page_048.QC.jpg
92267138596d1120d9b195d81525d82e
249198be75739b0ff3df37cf8784c9eee5f7c10d
25232 F20110113_AACKMW williams_a_Page_114thm.jpg
975627198f3f7f9df8322a06056ba6cf
9702899fe280baa391de6162898c8de0775e19f7
25295 F20110113_AACKOA williams_a_Page_015thm.jpg
afce1a0612f7676f9d6559af3eefaf24
804bbc90d09d51d9454197b92daa588e5f80ae7d
7498 F20110113_AACKNM williams_a_Page_001thm.jpg
a577f65fbdf744c99d52ec98179eef15
f17fbbd6523f7a5ff643f4bdc995273e00b9c45a
23870 F20110113_AACKMX williams_a_Page_031thm.jpg
078533db2671d502ee373f619afca52a
1ae25409381ce02aaf95016e4549ac665f48e2e7
83407 F20110113_AACKOB williams_a_Page_108.QC.jpg
5adfa16600819c465dabf2e050a1056f
10ce683b3864ee6e38d4b11cb8a4b477fc9c3999
76335 F20110113_AACKMY williams_a_Page_039.QC.jpg
8c8c503cb343eece57c5e65eb419587c
7f92ae12b3b8fb66232d084edcc0b001f9b27c9d
22994 F20110113_AACKOC williams_a_Page_024thm.jpg
4ef5430b592ffe7b1e3fa8e1fafb88f5
02c5cf7a2fe9b38a5051b22b02c199f5aee12911
71384 F20110113_AACKNN williams_a_Page_044.QC.jpg
aeb02797baab7a66517822b43ad075a8
41d1001d5bba3f5fa4a311f086e54b992426a351
23752 F20110113_AACKMZ williams_a_Page_045thm.jpg
de289dbdf4dcad594a0521b893171f25
297db7dee6600b8804bc1863817fa4d09a4bca5e
12414 F20110113_AACKOD williams_a_Page_041.QC.jpg
9d14cec9905eb2b2dacbce8eb8c0430c
963ce9d5aba1ac0e24692822a0830219213aa3c6
24767 F20110113_AACKNO williams_a_Page_111thm.jpg
2ee5aa460bb3c668ec2f791a476485b4
e04be32d838fd2f8462047e39c8292181be4727d
76960 F20110113_AACKOE williams_a_Page_087.QC.jpg
49084fc25e4bc192ae010f4cefaa58da
584f59b3e56fc0d67cd159ed1abbb8fae167fa33
25378 F20110113_AACKNP williams_a_Page_078thm.jpg
511bad9b5af165fdc40cf5c50a0989a9
eafc63196d234978e3fffef4618d15dce74681d0
87524 F20110113_AACKOF williams_a_Page_040.QC.jpg
fe60cc512c82cf8d1c171de483961105
4a1853791d11cd9ffbcebecd59e0fe3ebdcde9c5
34508 F20110113_AACKNQ williams_a_Page_066.QC.jpg
b5a9d8ec66a0bff81a452cd333083be1
2c677df987384c124c2f0b7024df749b5d8d0fad
82682 F20110113_AACKOG williams_a_Page_086.QC.jpg
50589adcdc696650bbe273c2b0b5442b
de918c274eaa686b5fc66a016554144d5099fefa
20024 F20110113_AACKNR williams_a_Page_042thm.jpg
15aab1b33b63de4a69e911c48e2e84db
bb3a30f0536a731ab55c9f44ca98f14b4785c20c
92592 F20110113_AACKOH williams_a_Page_008.QC.jpg
9f6f8bad13352ae861e9be302363a24c
226381eb1351984e4df7bdcc745a7a411bdd526a
25022 F20110113_AACKNS williams_a_Page_029thm.jpg
c5ff4f7531a2783b2eac78e01c8b39c0
3d833aecdd5900fb31ef50f663a3beb012a07bfd
60739 F20110113_AACKOI williams_a_Page_096.QC.jpg
8aa232954ccf1d834e8e8f4f8b91dedb
c0adaa90d6ba47301ab757053773a391470f7ebd
75952 F20110113_AACKNT williams_a_Page_079.QC.jpg
009cefd2305139e0284b732384aeda63
eb71a191960f2821e1cda4b0dd3c6c3a033ebdb7
78766 F20110113_AACKOJ williams_a_Page_016.QC.jpg
c6b18d8325503bbb25c506e30e921fd5
dcd6fb4de07287c356e39e9bc99abab1cd8a51b5
9575 F20110113_AACKNU williams_a_Page_003thm.jpg
12bb37704d843cb3bda993b976adc636
5412157aa5a485b2686f6e0b1757e226c7965fcf
22312 F20110113_AACKOK williams_a_Page_027thm.jpg
528612ebb80b9be9cda6c0bcfae6f9dd
bd51d55560403bb28c52696311b72ad27f0e350c
18127 F20110113_AACKNV williams_a_Page_064thm.jpg
147e3a7d053b8a445622d75dafd64ed8
affbdc1f17b4ef7c175d1b34c87491aa3a36e4c9
75350 F20110113_AACKOL williams_a_Page_033.QC.jpg
135f1eb8f3fceda586a2b2726b5be127
f20a9c46cf8766a075f762a5a5d1e627e0497bf6
76437 F20110113_AACKNW williams_a_Page_061.QC.jpg
2212748fb945c89c7d223453ed75a6ee
30cd20f6c96d8bbfe1bf3255f3900ad240ff7b4a
3193 F20110113_AACKOM williams_a_Page_002thm.jpg
0034edeb17efc776bea7b6258492ec9a
62be4c7dda92b6008bfc981b2be004646b8a8734
12025 F20110113_AACKNX williams_a_Page_013thm.jpg
9f66b693fa87fb9be5e6992fd62cfcb8
90e16e4ca393afaa8906aca737e3a83e124a34aa
24267 F20110113_AACKPA williams_a_Page_076thm.jpg
ca296af8e10378dbf3e73c4a425b9b5f
cb146dda8541c7162e32908904d8ff34bcd0ec20
77937 F20110113_AACKNY williams_a_Page_057.QC.jpg
fe6009ddcc2dfed3a58ea2a1455c77b5
22ad5e43b98810efc37da99b844d197f03091fae
78198 F20110113_AACKPB williams_a_Page_025.QC.jpg
4be446b92a1163e0a19d249c26657a06
2b99440ff49d827077f340a82d364213511e7a64
25091 F20110113_AACKON williams_a_Page_063thm.jpg
e076ff06815088fd76578aaae4471f9f
655de5c884abfc0a7c8983240d54350049ab76ea
24644 F20110113_AACKNZ williams_a_Page_036thm.jpg
22e605e802efa5361d9895b73f8874d4
1e1a6d45e109a9aeb9e64707681e3086ce30eba3
77743 F20110113_AACKPC williams_a_Page_069.QC.jpg
a2389ac5bc4512146015a1e141e2569c
1c47213ec225c899b1bca9b904ddde6ac3b24903
176182 F20110113_AACKPD UFE0005601_00001.xml
225e57d16ad40cb3c09d28ebfd982368
355384e9776b0e04c879c7e2a6ab89b6485f5e31
23140 F20110113_AACKOO williams_a_Page_028thm.jpg
4021bd19aecd0915c9e9ada179d15b3a
9dbb64159411389626ce4c1d00ec48c83e565bb5
31881 F20110113_AACKPE williams_a_Page_003.QC.jpg
2e99263c8e1eeb4af173ed6585b07f78
a098ac3648b6acb1e3e11f431f8e860a17988e06
17595 F20110113_AACKOP williams_a_Page_099thm.jpg
25db45363f8ef4dda049222a581e54af
9c92b503e5a6ebec2515d68ef6009e375a369235
23928 F20110113_AACKPF williams_a_Page_005thm.jpg
f81fae6ec160d14eac87a6d314612940
c7a0798064555a1885d8de80f208c1b7f5060cef
78735 F20110113_AACKOQ williams_a_Page_103.QC.jpg
6476fd1e983f4601de712822d45b48b4
c8b4b5a28c0171b563214253e51184bd709868d0
7790 F20110113_AACKPG williams_a_Page_006thm.jpg
7490f5d5759f873c590d36098396a35f
35ff736bff9cca5503519994c4d0300f1def80b9
76575 F20110113_AACKOR williams_a_Page_023.QC.jpg
b1602efb7f3396d700ed5f5867ef6466
6a3f4101e60a2d48afbc1ffac993c97343bcd7c5
24185 F20110113_AACKPH williams_a_Page_006.QC.jpg
65670ed5952b38a9efdf453503188c4e
4334eff51f209863042e6ad2ab963216b98b3bc2
68756 F20110113_AACKOS williams_a_Page_027.QC.jpg
985eeb9eef2ea0538af6f5302158259a
9cc62bfdeddb00f35311fa722f072d47d44b8d5a
46506 F20110113_AACKPI williams_a_Page_008thm.jpg
978101cd79ef5208a0382a4e867efedf
dcf7d527198e2b3850f33e7b48c32e36e55df3ba
64635 F20110113_AACKOT williams_a_Page_054.QC.jpg
6f8f46a1a041f1129ece97d036ecfd58
0f52f713f3d29a05aeb8df64de8aac1d0ce46d1c
F20110113_AACKPJ williams_a_Page_009thm.jpg
f650bb8e9931d6757425ff7c859d8db9
0f54302b41f3c79038ee8ed708c203b33802c2b3
20120 F20110113_AACKOU williams_a_Page_068thm.jpg
ff9a3fd415febfc4bdfceab10109cc86
ca375d92b5d2880e71c2d03fd73bcea35309dabd
19038 F20110113_AACKPK williams_a_Page_010thm.jpg
fda44520ded342d988daecedffcbbaa9
1adca413956bad232f4012bfcefdf3a886903d42
89897 F20110113_AACKOV williams_a_Page_007.QC.jpg
5fc2a0637c1b0bdebf69613293a912ff
349aed51566a80e3f376491db40ca5a44d23cc3d
59942 F20110113_AACKPL williams_a_Page_010.QC.jpg
fc275cf5c393653941454b88cd03bbe6
c268bbffe46c5e09e992f04348fc63ae97357477
74173 F20110113_AACKOW williams_a_Page_030.QC.jpg
c3d42015b4baa1156027d66845d2145f
0f82032f9658db99f7b86ec7d4cbb5ddf29d9c8f
79768 F20110113_AACKQA williams_a_Page_034.QC.jpg
a8d07140398dcc243f2b829f22aca722
3016ff65892eae89932b5466cbddc980e7c16b56
69100 F20110113_AACKPM williams_a_Page_012.QC.jpg
bc4f73643c02b0bc673f38b2b63980b6
1c61ce4427931e8b1626904e1d3d9b70099601ae
8604 F20110113_AACKOX williams_a_Page_055thm.jpg
07e185bd6147875f7829508aafd151fb
78d888851d29f0aca40e7e0d76de5df14aee4f60
25618 F20110113_AACKQB williams_a_Page_035thm.jpg
1e70efebb12dda0580853182d98ce278
c41b631c61211f07f6752574f302069cc60e64e8
65315 F20110113_AACKPN williams_a_Page_014.QC.jpg
1acf56065951aea066aa532bc1c79a4d
af62137bbfe6c0d202d372fe12b62eb5a366c8b8
44055 F20110113_AACKOY williams_a_Page_007thm.jpg
4de4830a17d803b85b203ce5eb894691
be83e8bc1cdff86b756de538cf0a064095f0246e
79003 F20110113_AACKQC williams_a_Page_036.QC.jpg
c203a845a73d061836b056650adc99c9
633a6cf8132636de06dcd270f2292291120f83e1
25468 F20110113_AACKPO williams_a_Page_016thm.jpg
4f30117395a399d81cdd74af1ff2e420
924568e04d022297f1619db601e9ff25a1121a81
10823 F20110113_AACKOZ williams_a_Page_116thm.jpg
abd5659151dfe7197b5a41909705fd31
0f687b3bc21e5ba0ef011373d8d8a3c8290584ed
23500 F20110113_AACKQD williams_a_Page_039thm.jpg
d01bbb87ac2367edfa36cae48e974ff2
5ecd3f6d974d8ca35bb94cb01de4d05a7870830a
24285 F20110113_AACKQE williams_a_Page_040thm.jpg
0a22502d5f4dd9731867a02baa667c5b
12ab0f686c8503d211d8d36c3f06295e02139628
79217 F20110113_AACKPP williams_a_Page_017.QC.jpg
03d1b369a52f51fd5d8629e231f6cb3a
488a1e3edc188b4b82d5b017f7050bdfeeac954f
60151 F20110113_AACKQF williams_a_Page_042.QC.jpg
94402361a682dbf5223dab5563fae82e
a0eab5552ccebd2e1ac155d9a21cd7220cccecc5
80995 F20110113_AACKPQ williams_a_Page_018.QC.jpg
1e1dee6d1851d1f72f28a83db60fce69
fe7533580e01ab35df1d645d44c36e785317dedc
25578 F20110113_AACKQG williams_a_Page_043thm.jpg
36e96caa8f650070622ebf87cc837c35
0ba7e8faf99e377e2401f4618aba067b13fde2d3
78501 F20110113_AACKPR williams_a_Page_019.QC.jpg
0a5571e23db42445fccab4c637270699
acab4ac8fe80df9256bc36612fa632f85e9b21e4
79094 F20110113_AACKQH williams_a_Page_045.QC.jpg
36b303dcda9d4d3592a2eae67f685b6d
55f96d1a828cee9c1f415e7a1cf62074367afafb
25040 F20110113_AACKPS williams_a_Page_020thm.jpg
7274085264476b9b3cf6d7a624c292bb
77289be7f7c80805ac33a91c7e3d784a998145b0
24177 F20110113_AACKQI williams_a_Page_046thm.jpg
8b88d4e29f10d080f3e13d74d03b0101
e094c16062bb2d27b805d3183429424261f58865
73755 F20110113_AACKPT williams_a_Page_021.QC.jpg
38e51a32afc224bbd4c9621f2072121d
e1b55b2efbbfc7b3d17ebf8cfca1065a6c79a5e6



PAGE 1

MEDIA NARCISSISM AND SELF-R EFLEXIVE REPORTING: METACOMMUNICATION IN TELEVISED NEWS BROADCASTS AND WEB COVERAGE OF OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM By ANDREW PAUL WILLIAMS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Andrew Paul Williams

PAGE 3

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents. I owe a great deal of gr atitude to my mother, Lois Virginia Strickland Williams, who has been extremely supportive and actively involved in helping me pursue my graduate e ducation. Equally important is the vital role my father, the late Reverend Grady H. Williams Sr. had in encouraging me to continue my formal education. I am thankful to these ro le models and friends for instilling in me a quest for knowledge, a desire for civic e ngagement, and sense of humor. They both encouraged me to view my life as a journey to be enjoyed, instead of just focusing on specific destinations and accomplishments. I am thankful for their generosity, their kindness, and their leadership, and perhaps mo st importantly, their helping me gain a feeling of resilience by deve loping in me an appreciation for the absurd, which has proved quite essential, es pecially at times when things in life have seemed dire. For all of this, and much more, I am grateful.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am very fortunate to have benefited from the mentorship of Dr. Lynda Lee Kaid. From my first contact with her, Dr. Kaid treated me with respect and encouraged a collaborative research relationship which over the past three years has developed into a close personal friendship as well. Dr. Kaid has helped me to develop a programmatic approach to my research, while at the same time encouraged me to explore new ideas that will serve to advance my own personal development and to contribute to the mass communication discipline. As an eminent scholar who has been at the helm of political communication scholarship for a little over three decades, this research luminary has never ceased to amaze me with her kindness, her respect for differing points of view, and her quest for advancing knowledge. Words cannot express the gratitude and admiration I have for this great scholar and teacher. Dr. Kaid leads by example and is so inclusive and generous to a point that is almost beyond belief. It is also with much appreciation that I thank Dr. Spiro K. Kiousis. I had the privilege of taking Dr. Kiousis graduate mass communications theory class and also developing an ongoing research and professional friendship with him. He is a top-rate scholar and rising star in the discipline of political communication whose collegiality and willingness to offer guidance is always above and beyond the call of duty. Also noteworthy is the interest that Dr. Justin Brown took in me as I constantly ran research ideas and questions about scholarship by him. Dr. Brown helped to encourage, iv

PAGE 5

guide, and inform my research as I sought ways to address my many issues and concerns about the mass media. Another stalwart supporter who never tired of my almost endless questions and need for guidance is Dr. David M. Hedge. Dr. Hedge met with me frequently to address how I could merge my research in mass and political communication with the developing scholarship in the field of political science and to stay focused in my efforts. His patience and own intellectual curiosity have helped to send me in new directions with my research projects. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the friendship, guidance, and support that Dr. Bernell E. Tripp has offered me over the last three and one-half years. At a time when I was very uncertain about my abilities, Dr. Tripp counseled, directed, and protected me. Without her help as a teacher and confidant, I would not have been able to have endured my first semester in this graduate program. Dr. Tripp was also selfless in her expectations of me and most supportive of my choice to focus on quantitative research in the area of political communication instead of historical media research which is her expertise. Last, but not least, Jody Hedge was the very first person I spoke with when I was considering applying to this graduate program, and since that first conversation, she is still the first person I turn to for help on matters of not only proper policies and procedures, but also for personal and professional guidance. Jody has been the stabilizing force in the graduate division of the College of Journalism and Communications on whom I and countless other students rely when we feel there is nowhere else to turn. And she never fails any of us, which is quite a feat, as there is almost always a rather long line v

PAGE 6

of students in need of her help. Jody has become a dependable friend to me, and I could never have made it through this experience without her. These are the primary people who have helped me through the hazing ritual of the doctoral program, but there are many others who helped along the way. For all of you who helped me on this arduous journey, you know who you are, and how much I am grateful for contributing to an experience that was both the best and worst of times. vi

PAGE 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..............................................................................3 Role of the Journalist....................................................................................................3 Gatekeeping Theory......................................................................................................5 War Coverage.............................................................................................................10 The Web as a News Source........................................................................................14 Framing.......................................................................................................................16 Metacommunication...................................................................................................19 Hypotheses and Research Questions..........................................................................28 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................31 Sample........................................................................................................................31 Categories and Definitions.........................................................................................33 Public Information Efforts..........................................................................................38 Coding Process...........................................................................................................39 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................41 Analysis of News Stories............................................................................................41 Televised News Broadcast Source Reliance...............................................................41 Web Coverage Source Reliance.................................................................................42 Episodic and Thematic Frame Prevalence..................................................................42 Frame Prevalence........................................................................................................43 Metacommunication Frame Prevalence.....................................................................45 Frame Prevalence over Time......................................................................................45 Metacommunication Frame Prevalence over Time....................................................47 Types of Metacommunication Frames.......................................................................47 vii

PAGE 8

Self-Reflexive Metacommunication Frames..............................................................49 Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frames...........................................................50 Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Categories..........................................51 Episodic and Thematic Frame Media Comparisons...................................................52 Bush Administration Public Information Assessments..............................................54 Iraq Government Public Information Assessments....................................................56 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................57 Findings and Implications...........................................................................................57 Source Reliance...................................................................................................57 Episodic and Thematic Frames...........................................................................59 Frame Prevalence................................................................................................61 Metacommunication Frames......................................................................................63 Self-Reflexive Metacommunication Frames..............................................................64 Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frames...........................................................66 Strategy/Process Metacommunication Categories.....................................................68 Public Information Assessment..................................................................................70 Limitations...........................................................................................................70 Future Research...................................................................................................71 APPENDIX A CODEBOOK FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF TELEVISED NEWS BROADCASTS..........................................................................................................73 B CODEBOOK FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF WEB COVERAGE......................79 C CODESHEET OF CONTENT ANALYSIS OF TELEVISED NEWS BROADCASTS..........................................................................................................85 D CODESHEET FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF WEB COVERAGE.....................88 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................91 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................105 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Episodic and Thematic Frames across Three Periods of Time................................44 4-2 Frame Prevalence in Stories by Media Channel......................................................45 4-3 Self-Reflexive and Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frames by Media.........47 4-4 Frames Relied on in Stories Covering Operation Iraqi Freedom across Three Periods of Time and by Media Channel...................................................................48 4-5 Self-Reflexive Metacommunication Types by Media Channel...............................49 4-6 Strategy/Process Metacommunication Types by Media Channel............................51 4-7 Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Categories by Media........................53 4-8 Bush Administration Public Information Efforts.....................................................54 4-9 Episodic and Thematic Frames across Three Periods of Time and by Media Channel.....................................................................................................................55 4-10 Iraqi Government Public Information Efforts..........................................................56 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy MEDIA NARCISSISM AND SELF-REFLEXIVE REPORTING: METACOMMUNICATION IN TELEVISED NEWS BROADCASTS AND WEB COVERAGE OF OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM By Andrew Paul Williams August 2004 Chair: Lynda Lee Kaid Major Department: Journalism and Communications This study examined the prevalence of metacommunication in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Prior scholarship on metacommunication, media narcissism, and self-reflexive reporting has primarily been conducted in analyzing the news coverage of political campaigns, through the content analysis of televised and print media. This study was a quantitative content analysis that explicated the metacommunication concept by applying it to a military conflict and comparing two electronic media channels. Building on the prior established metacommunication frames that examined the extent and type of self-reflexive media coverage and the medias evaluation of the strategy/process of public information efforts, the current studys findings indicated that metacommunication was a prevalent news frame in the coverage of the U.S. war with Iraq in 2003. Of the two types of metacommunication frames that were examined in this x

PAGE 11

study, findings indicate that the self-reflexive frame was relied on more frequently than the strategy/process frame. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION It is a given fact in todays highly mediated society that the public turns to the news mediaprint, radio, TV, and Internetfor vital information, especially pertaining to matters of national import, such as politics and homeland security. It is perhaps in no other arena than the political one in a democratic society, where according to classic democratic theories (Berelson, 1966), citizens rely on accuracy of information in order to govern themselves. The mass media play a vital role in keeping the public up-to-date on the facts about political figures, issues, and events. However, a review of literature from the discipline of political communication over the last four decades indicates that a number of scholars have identified five areas of concern regarding troubling problems with the medias providing sufficient objective information to the public: an emphasis on sensationalism and focus on clash; the shrinking soundbite; an emphasis on image over issues; an emphasis on horserace coverage in campaigns; and a focus on the negative. This dissertation seeks to focus on a fifth emerging area of concern: media narcissism and metacommunication. This dissertation largely builds on the research of Esser and DAngelo (2003, 2002) who view metacommunication to be a byproduct of an adversarial relationship between professional political public relations strategists and the media. Esser and DAngelos work has been greatly influenced by that of Kerbel (1995, 1997, 1998, & 2000) and Kerbel, Apee, and Ross (2000) who have identified the self-reflexive nature of media coverage, in which journalist have become apt to insert 1

PAGE 13

2 themselves into the stories on which they are reporting as problematic trend. The metacommunication concept has previously been limited to political campaigns. The purpose of this exploratory study is to advance the research on the electronic medias coverage of war, the framing thereof, and to examine the role metacommunication played in this reporting. Prior research has applied the theory of metacommunication almost exclusively to political campaign coverage, and this dissertation will explicate the metacommunication concept by applying it to a military operation. Additionally, this dissertation adds to the prior research on metacommunication in electronic news coverage, which has previously been limited to television news by adding Web coverage of the war to the analysis. 2

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This dissertation seeks to examine how the media covered the 2003 U.S. war with Iraq. A number of prior studies that explored assumptions and theoretical underpinnings of what the role of the media in a democratic society should be were drawn upon in this analysis of media coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom with the goal of advancing knowledge of how the media function during a time of crisis. Role of the Journalist The notion that the media have become increasingly self-reflexive or narcissistic in their coverage of politics, major public events, and even war has received serious attention and debate over the last few decades about just what the role of the journalist is in society as compared to what this role should be. Theoretically, such concerns of media self-reflexivity or metacommunication have been grounded in perspectives such as framing or second-level (attribute) agenda setting. This research attempts to examine expectations of established journalistic norms and practices and attempts to address key concerns based on these given expectations. A foundation for this exploration of media responsibility is the notion of classic democratic theories (Berelson, 1966). This perspective asserts that it is essential in a democratic society that citizens have access to information in order to make informed decisions that enable self-governance. Historically, in late 18th-century England, Edmund Burke is credited with labeling the media as the Fourth Estate. This concept was based on the idea that the press should 3

PAGE 15

4 have equal political power in relation to the other three estates of the British Empire: the Lords, the Church, and the Commons. Freedom of the media was a cornerstone of this concept, and these freedoms not only enabled the media to report, comment on, and critique the government, it also was considered a responsibility of the press to do so. Similarly, a concept called Social Responsibility Theory emerged in the United States in the 20th Century. This normative theory asserts that the media serve to inform, entertain, sell, and most importantly, raise conflict to the plane of public awareness. This concept was developed from the writings of W.E. Hocking, The Commission on the Free Press, and journalists practitioner codes. This theory asserts that everyone should have access to the media and that the media should respect privacy and not infringe on the rights of individuals. The concept is grounded in freedom of the press from governmental control, unless the government felt that there was a compelling need that justified its intervention. The Social Responsibility perspective differs from Siebert, Peterson, and Schramms other three theories of the pressAuthoritarian, Libertarian, and Soviet-Totalitarianin that it argues that the media must fulfill its obligation of providing information to the public, and if it does not do so, someone should ensure that it does. This notion of an obligation of journalistic social responsibility is largely based on the fact that the media are the only industry that was guaranteed protection and freedom in the Bill of Rights (Siebert, Peterson, & Schramm, 1963). Based on these historical underpinnings, the role of the journalist has been shaped and discussed by numerous scholars and practitioners. For example, it is argued that freedom of the press is essential in a democratic society (Baker, 2002). Additionally, with this freedom comes the journalistic responsibility to provide credible information to the

PAGE 16

5 public (Lule, 2001). It is noteworthy that two major media organizationsthe Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA)have developed codes of ethics and professional practice that overlap in three specific areas of responsibility: (1) truth; (2) independence; and (3) accountability. Gatekeeping Theory In terms of applying theory to actual practiceto these journalist ideals and normsgatekeeping theory has guided research that has helped to inform these concerns about the media fulfilling their public role. In both the seminal gatekeeping study (White, 1950) and in its subsequent replication (Schneider, 1967) researchers went into the newsroom to observe how editors actually fulfilled their gatekeeping roles. These initial studies defined gatekeeping as the way in which the editors, or gatekeepers, selected and shaped what messages, out of the myriad content available, actually garnered media coverage. These field reports indicate that gatekeeping decisions were primarily based on newsworthiness, organizational norms, and space constraints, and the gatekeepers had the power not only to select, but also to shape and present information. Newsworthiness and space constraints (also referred to as the limited news hole) are the two primary considerations that emerged from these studies of how newsroom decisions were made, in terms of how the media gatekeepers responsibly serve their public duties (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Dimmick (1974) views gatekeeping as a complex process that can be highly subjective, as the initial studies indicated. However, he views the standardized norms of media coverage and ethical concerns to be components of the gatekeeping process. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) assert that there are three essential aspects to gatekeeping that can help to reduce chance of irresponsible journalism and bias. These

PAGE 17

6 three governing aspects are news value, objectivity, and organizational structure. It is perhaps the notion of objectivity, in terms of evaluating true news value, that is at the center of this dissertations evaluation of self-reflexivity, narcissism, and metacommunication in news coverage. In contrast to Shoemaker and Reeses views of responsible gatekeeping practices, there are growing concerns about the lack of, or relinquishment of, gatekeeping. It is argued that the trends of infotainment, tabloidization, and sensationalism in the news media are evidence of a fundamental disregard, or breakdown of, gatekeeping in the press (e.g., Shaw, 1994; Kiousis, 2002a; Williams & Delli Carpini, 2004). Research on media bias seems particularly relevant to this exploration of the growing concerns about metacommunication and the role of the journalist. While prior research on the press has long-established categories of bias, such as partisan, structural, and situational, there appear to be new forms of bias emerging. Scholars and media critics as well have noted that there tends to be a negative news bias (Kurtz, 1995; Lichter, Noyes, & Kaid, 2000). Also, Williams (2002), for example, has argued that a synergy bias has emerged due to the significant amount of media consolidations, mergers, and strategic alliances in recent years. Williams posits that media coverage is now biased in favor of those organizations that the given media outlet is associated with. Similarly, Williams and Kiousis (2004) have explored the concept of corporate bias and have found evidence that suggests that media ownership and cross-promotion do, in fact, have a direct relationship with what does, and does not, get covered, by the media. The current dissertation seeks to investigate whether one of the most potent forms of media bias in not partisan, structural, or situational, but it is perhaps the medias bias towards itself.

PAGE 18

7 Based on the previously mentioned foundations that have shaped the role of the journalist, the free press, gatekeeping, and media bias, a major concern that is at the center of this dissertation is that of the media fulfilling the publics trust. For purposes of this dissertation, trust is defined as a three-part relationship: A expects B to do X (Hardin, 2001). Based on the freedom and responsibility that the media have, it would be a fair assessment to say that A, the public, expects B, the media, to do X, what it is obligated to do in a democratic society: provide timely, accurate, newsworthy, unbiased, and objective information. Work by media critics and scholars indicates that the media have violated such a reciprocal form of trust and are not fulfilling their role as objective, impartial observers who report to, and serve, the public. This possible violation of the social obligation of the media is evidenced in several ways. For example, scholars have noted that the actual amount of critical information needed by the public to make informed decisions, such as during the time of a political campaign, has dramatically decreased (e.g. Kiousis, 2002a). The media has been criticized for lack of substantive political coverage: The shrinking sound bite and shifting coverage emphasize the horserace aspects of a campaignfocusing on moments of clash and spectacleand even violates viewers expectations by ambushing and arguing with candidates or elected officials (Graber 1976; Kaid & Cryer, 1990; Morello, 1998). These problems, while noteworthy in their own right, are directly related to the concerns in this research, specifically because an issue of concern about such troubling journalistic practice is what type of coverage is offered as a result of these practices? Essentially, the byproducts of journalism run amuck are areas of growing concern. Often one byproduct that replaces substantive issue information by the media is instead

PAGE 19

8 coverage in which the journalists present themselves as participants of the process or information they are covering. For example, in a recent campaign cycle, it is reported that journalists were evaluating the election as boring and discussing why they felt it was so (Jamieson, 1998). Instead of providing the public with actual policy information, candidate issue stances, or other substantive facts, the journalists were instead acting as commentators and filling the news hole with their own inane chatter. Nimmo and Combs (1992) have similarly expressed concern about the excessive reliance of the media on the political pundits to fill valuable air time. Some mainstream publications (e.g., The New Yorker and Vanity Fair) have commented on this practice of filling news shows with these so-called talking heads and passing off their volatile, argumentative dialogue as informative television. Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz has also chimed in on this troubling practice and asserts that it has contributed to what he has labeled a media circus. The American Journalism Review and Columbia Journalism Review have also addressed the issues that arise when the media rely on the media as information sources as areas of concern. Those who are being interviewed and portrayed as so-called experts who provide insider reports often turn out to be either members of the media, partisan pundits, or quasi-scholars who are often pushing their latest book. What is particularly problematic about this practice of the media covering themselves instead of focusing on their traditional, established role is that the discourse is generally that of running subjective commentary and pontification, instead of objective reporting of information that could be provided if the media would offer it from readily available sources other than the media participants themselves. One might ask why the

PAGE 20

9 media are interviewing themselves instead of expert sources or actual participants in the events or issues they are covering. It appears that the answer is that the media tend to readily give up their vital function of serving as a watchdog for the public, because they are largely too busy watching themselvesenamored by the spectacle of the unfolding news process and their own involvement in it. Additionally, the media seem to have become wrapped up in what is now being labeled as spin, by the media players themselves as well as media critics. CNN even airs a news show that deals exclusively with spin: Spin Cycle. Isnt it a fair assumption, based on the underlying and clearly established principles of the press, that the professional journalists should rise above the so-called spin? Based on these established journalistic norms, it would seem that it is the medias job to sift through the public relations/public information materials they are provided, synthesize this, and provide objective information to the public. Instead, it appears that the media practitioners are so wrapped up in the process that they literally spin the spin and take up valuable time and space away from the business of providing actual news and factual data in the process of doing so. Could not this synthesis of public relations information or so-called spin be done behind the scenes, and does not this airing of the news process appear to violate the trust and considerable responsibility that has been bestowed upon the media? In a Canadian documentary, titled Truth Merchants, a picture is painted for the audience of the media players and the public relations professionals playing an ongoing, daily game of cat and mouse to see who can get the best of the other party. The contest for each to best the other is played out on a daily basis, and it appears that it is the public that pays the price for this game (McMahon, 1998).

PAGE 21

10 War Coverage From newsreels to radio to television to the Web, electronic news has been able to provide coverage to the public during these most dire of circumstances, and it is especially in a time of war when such coverage literally means life or death. Audiences tune in, watch, or log on, in order to get up-to-date information. Just as the media channels and the wars reported on have changed over time, so of course, has the content: Before the first civilian war correspondents in the middle of the nineteenth century, generals reported their own wars. Today, in the war on terrorism if we want a version of what is happening, we turn on CNN or BBC television and there is an American general at the Pentagon, or the British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon at the Ministry of Defense, telling us what they have decided we should know about the war. Unfortunately this flood of material, coupled with the insatiable appetite of the 24-hour rolling TV news and the demand of the foreign desks for scoops, made the temptation to invent stories difficult to resist. (Knightley, 2002, p. 170) Additionally, the reasons for the use of sensationalized content and graphic visuals can be attributed more to ratings than to helping the public interpret the complexities of warfare: Historical evidence shows that wars are generally good news for television networks; the global success of CNN in the wake of the Gulf War is a prominent case in point. Televising live conflict can be particularly profitable if it concerns a patriotic war (Thussu, 2002, p. 210). While a period of war might be a time of higher ratings and profits for televised news, it is also a period in which these broadcasts face greater criticism: In a society at war, the media are even more carefully scrutinizedboth by leaders and by scholarsfrom the point of view of content and control. Assumptions are made about the functions of the media in the maintenance of civilian morale, the bolstering of convictions about

PAGE 22

11 justice of the cause, the countering of rumors, the strengthening of solidarity, and so on (Peled & Katz, 1974, p. 50). One reason for this adversarial relationship between the press and the military is the issue of access to accurate information, or the lack thereof: Managing news and information about U.S. military interventions became more sophisticated in the 1990s with the full implantation of the pool system at the time of the 1991 Gulf War, when a select band of journalist were permitted access only to predetermined combat locations during Operation Desert Storm. This strategy, devised by the Pentagon, helped the U.S. to monitor and censor information about the war before it was broadcast. The militarys definition of sensitive: information also included anything that might undermine public support for military action. (Thussu, 2002, p. 204) Prior research has focused on objectivity and reporting techniques during war and how to balance journalistic practices with public needs (Fishman, 1980; Gans, 1979; Gitlin, 1980; Tuchman, 1978). For example, Hallin (1986) conducted a study on the news practices of journalists in the Vietnam War and argued that there was an emphasis in news coverage on specific events, and newsworthiness was dictated by official sources and the importance of reporting on the war itself, instead of interpreting it. Conversely, Arno (1984) critiqued the medias coverage of the Vietnam War and asserted that personal interpretation and framing information was in fact what the reporters did engage in, instead of merely functioning as objective communication professionals. The Vietnam War was a turning point in the medias coverage of military conflict and was the first modern war in which television actually brought visual images of combat into homes. Despite the impact these still images and footage had on the public, they were not close-up, live reports like we see today. Then the 1991 Gulf War took televised war coverage to a new level, one in which viewers could actually watch missiles being launched, and the coverage of this war is

PAGE 23

12 credited for making CNN: Televisions coverage of the Gulf War [1991], for the first time in history, brought military conflict into living rooms across the globe, thanks to networks like CNN. In the high-tech, bloodless, almost surreal visualizations of war, cockpit videos of precision bombings. . (Thussu, 2002, p. 204). This view of war and destruction was at a distance, and viewing it on television, it appeared as a painless Nintendo exercise (Said, 1993, p. 3). Kaid et al. (1994) content analyzed CNNs nightly reporting during the 45-day Gulf War in 1991 from a dramatistic perspective, examining the dominant ways in which CNN framed the war: The primary conclusions of this analysis suggest that CNN presented an American view which often focused on the media players and offered disproportionate coverage to telecommunications and military technology (p. 148). The authors argue that the emphasis on the dramatic and the spectacle in this reporting created an alternate, mediated reality for viewers. Though not expressly labeled as media narcissism or metacommunication, the findings of Kaid et al. indicate a turning point in war coverage in which the journalists inserted themselves into the story at an unprecedented level, thus becoming participants in the military conflict that they themselves were reporting on. Similarly, much scholarly research about the medias coverage of the 1991 Gulf War indicates a general consensus that the reporting was biased in favor of an American point of view. Additionally these studies conclude that a reason for this bias was that the media were favorably influenced by the advanced technology used by the United States against Iraq (Carrier & Swanson, 1991; Liebes, 1992; Zelizer, 1992; Zorn, 1991). Kaid et al. (1993), however, compared how five international newspapers covered the war and

PAGE 24

13 found that the international press was not as supportive and influenced by the high-tech visuals and did not find uniformity in the prevalent themes of the war coverage. The 2003 war with Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom, was an even more unique military conflictone in which journalists were given unprecedented access to the military, and for the first time visuals of combat were filmed close-up and electronically broadcast in real-time for viewers across the globe. This coverage was not bloodless and was sometimes shockingly violent and gritty, as compared to the images seen only a decade earlier in the prior U.S. war with Iraq. Embedded journalists actually traveled in tanks with soldiers, and ill-fated, star celebrities such as Peter Arnett and Geraldo Rivera made spectacles of themselves as they broadcast live from battle scenes, even pointing out actual troop movements and critiquing the U.S. war effort as it was playing out behind them. In many ways, the electronic media coverage of the 2003 war made it look like the ultimate reality TV show. While the nature of showing such coverage is a controversial topic, Bennett argues that people cannot interpret what they dont see (Bennett, 2001, p. 145). Whether the embedded trend can is open for debate; the ubiquity of embedded journalism raised this concept to national salience, and embedded was selected by yourdictionary.com as its word of the year for 2003 (yourdictionary.com, 2003). The current dissertation will add to the body of literature about electronic media war coverage as it examines the content during a period of time when both journalists and the public had unprecedented, almost-immediate access to information about and images of actual military action.

PAGE 25

14 The Web as a News Source Not only was this an unprecedented war, in terms of journalistic access to military action in general, it was also the first official U.S. Web war. The Web was still in its very infantile stages when the first Gulf War occurred, but it has developed into a significant news source since. Therefore, not only were reports being broadcast electronically through the medium of television as they occurred, they were also being reported in real time and in multimedia on the Web. Overall, the use of the Web as a news information seeking tool has seen a dramatic increase during the last decade. This was specifically noteworthy in the 2000 presidential election, when unlike the 1996 American general election cycle, politicians turned to the Web to communicate directly with voters, and citizens turned to the Web to seek the most up-to-date and accurate election results. In fact, the Pew Internet and American Life Project and the Pew Center for People and the press are offering regular reports now on the volume of online information gathering.These organizations have offered reports over the past decade that cite a rise in using the Internet to fulfill the publics political information and news gathering needs. This increasing use of the Web for information seeking proved to be evident during the 2003 U.S. war with Iraq. According to a survey conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project (2003), the online news audience increased significantly from the time before the war began. This study indicated that 77% of U.S. Internet users reported seeking information on the Web about the war. The survey also indicates that 56% percent of American Web users accessed a Web site with the express purpose of getting news or other information about the war in Iraq. This study also reports that 20% of American Internet users relied on the Web in order to form opinions about the war.

PAGE 26

15 In an initial study of international coverage of the first few hours following the U.S. attack on Iraq, Dimitrova, Kaid, Williams, and Trammell (2003) found that most news Web sites had immediately updated their homepages and were offering breaking news of the onset of this new war. Since the proliferation of the Internet as a major source of news, numerous studies have examined how effectively news Web sites function. Such studies have examined how national breaking news is covered (Dimitrova, Connolly-Ahern, Williams, Kaid, & Reid, 2003). There are numerous studies on the effectiveness and use of online newspapers, magazines, and television news Web sites. Such studies examine the work of online reporters (Deuze, 1998), the use of the Web for information gathering (Garrison, 2001), and the pragmatics of news Web sites organizational operations and journalistic practice (Singer 2001, 2003). Another advantage of accessing news on the Web is that control of information is in the hands of the user. While the media gatekeepers control what is linked to in articles on their Web sites, the user maintains control of which hyperlinks to use and what information they want to be exposed to (Eveland & Dunwoody, 2001; Peng et al., 1999). Kiousis (2002b) argues that users are drawn to Web sites, especially ones that offer multimedia and interactive elements. The current dissertation will add to the body of literature about electronic media war coverage by examining how for the first time in history, a U.S. war literally unfolded on the Web. Additionally, the immediacy of Web site news coverage of the war provides a unique new medium to apply the metacommunication concept.

PAGE 27

16 Framing Framing theory posits that media not only set the agenda but also transfer the salience of specific attributes to issues, events, or candidates. A media frame is the central organizing idea for news content that supplies context and suggests what the issue is using selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration (Tankard, 2001; Tankard et al, 1991). Framing theory suggests that the media place a frame of reference around its audiences thought process. Tuchman (1978) considers the organization of everyday reality to be the most important function of media frames. According to Gitlin (1980), media frames organize the world both for journalists who report it and, in some important degree, for consumers who rely on their reports. Gamson and Modigliani (1997) suggest that journalists framing of the news is due to professional norms and the influence of special interest groups. Similarly, Edelman (1997, 1993) views the act of framing as being clearly impacted by authorities and groups. In a study on the 1991 Gulf War, Kelman (1995) offers 10 dominant frames that the U.S. administration used to shape public discourse: (1) no negotiations; (2) fear of reward for aggression; (3) blinkmanship; (4) unbalanced cost-benefit analysis; (5) human costs for the enemy; (6) self-glorification; (7) stigmatization of dissent; (8) rallying around the flag; (9) overcoming the Vietnam Syndrome; and (10) a New World Order. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) and Tuchman (1978) identified at least five key factors that may potentially influence how journalists frame a given issue: (1) social norms and values; (2) ownership and organizational pressures and constraints; (3)

PAGE 28

17 Pressures of interest groups; (4) journalistic routines; and (5) ideological or political orientations of journalists. Iyengar and Simon (1993) purport that network news frames can be classified as being either episodic or thematic: Episodic frames focus on specific events and incidents, and thematic frames emphasize abstract ideas and general, broad information. Scheufele (1999) argues that the way the mass media frame an issue affects audience perceptions and suggests the consideration of two dominant frames. First, at the media level, journalists' framing of an issue might be influenced by several social-structural or organizational variables. Second, at the audience level, frames as the dependent variable are examined mostly as direct outcomes of the way mass media frame an issue. Price, Tewksbury, and Powers (1997) have studied framing from an effects perspective and argue that how the media frames the news influences audiences perceptions. Pan and Kosicki (1991, 2001) view framing and the structuring of news as a strategic practice and have identified four specific aspects of information that shape the framing process: (1) syntactic structurespatterns in the arrangements of words, phrases; (2) script structuresnewsworthiness of an issue or event; (3) thematic structuresjournalists reliance on linking news with preexisting information; and (4) rhetorical structuresjournalistic voice and style of packaging news. In an analysis of framing European politics in print and broadcast news, Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) identify five main frames that they believe broadly categorize the media content: (1) conflict frame; (2) human interest frame; (3) economic consequences frame; (4) morality frame; and (5) responsibility frame.

PAGE 29

18 In a study that focused on the analysis of visual framing, Messaris and Abraham (2001) investigated how African Americans were represented in television news. Based on this analysis, the researchers found evidence of subtle racism largely due to the selection of the types of photographic images of African Americans used, the settings of these photographs, and the racial cues that were provides within news stories, through visual juxtapositions and associations [that] provide a picture of those who occupy [urban] space (p. 223). Framing theory also suggests that the media have the power not only to select what is covered, but also how items are covered. The implications of how items are covered are that positive or negative framing could influence public opinion. For example, De Vreese, Peter, and Semetko (2001) assert that while frames may indeed be issue-specific or generic in nature, that framing often focuses on conflict and consequences of events, issues, and policies (p. 109). De Vreese (2003) argues that frames have inherent valence by suggesting, for example, positive or negative aspects, solutions, or treatments. Given this valence, news frames can be expected to influence public support for various policy measures (p. 4). In 1993, McCombs and Shaw expanded their original definition of agenda setting to include the concept of framing, stating that, Both the selection of objects for attention and the selection of frames for thinking about these objects are powerful agenda-setting roles . [that may] direct attention toward certain attributes and away from others (p.62). A number of scholars since then have attempted to extend the boundaries of agenda setting theory to include the concept of framing as second-level/attribute agenda setting (Ghanem, 1997; Golan, & Wanta, 2001; Kiousis, Bantimaroudis, & Ban 1999).

PAGE 30

19 While framing or attaching attributes to issues may be viewed as a component of the transfer of salience that is essential to the agenda-setting model, framing theory does not need to be examined as such a subcomponent of agenda setting, and can be tested by the use of content analysis, without comparing rank-ordered issues or attributes. The use of framing as a theoretical underpinning provides the researcher with an excellent approach to analyzing the manifest content of media coverage. Simply put, Entman (1993) states that to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text. . . The current dissertation will add to the existing literature on framing theory by building on what Holloway (2001) points out are two key components of Entmans definition of framing: selection and salience. Metacommunication Media narcissism, self-reflexive reporting, and metacommunication are three terms that are being used to describe how the media have shifted their focus more and more to their favorite subject: themselves. While the terms are different and moving towards a theory of metacommunication is relatively new, the concept of media self-coverage and the concerns of the impact of such reporting are decades old. The study of metacommunication has mostly emphasized the role which the media have begun to play in the political process. Instead of reporting the news of a political campaign, the media have increasingly begun to appear more like a self-aware and participatory institution, and this trend of mediated politics is an area of noted concern as to its impact on the democratic process (Bennett, & Entman, 2001;Graber, 1997; Mazzoleni, & Shulz, 1999; Swanson, & Mancini, 1996).

PAGE 31

20 Instead of sitting on the sidelines and reporting the facts, The news media no longer simply report; they interpret. Journalists are quick to insert their own construction of events and issues between candidates and voters (Lichter, Noyes, & Kaid, 2000, p. 363-364). One major problem in the coverage of politics on network news is the decrease in actual attention to the content of candidates campaign messages. Studies now indicate that the amount of airtime dedicated to presenting substantive information from respective candidates is shrinkingliterally. Overall, there is less coverage of political events in general. From 1992 to 1996, the cut in political coverage is staggering. In the past, conventions were covered from beginning to end. Now, they are only highlighted in most news coverage. The media are just not covering the process of political races as much as they once did. In fact, the average amount of time now allotted to air candidates sound-bites has shrunk to mere secondsinstead of minutesin which it is utterly impossible to ascertain the true essence of the civic dialogue the candidate is attempting to have with the public (Hallin, 1992; Lichter, Noyes, & Kaid, 2000). For example, Lichter et al. (2000, p. 4) found that the average amount of airtime given to candidate statements on the evening news shrank from 42 seconds in 1968 to a mere 10 seconds in 1988 and an even lover 7 to 8 seconds in 1992. It can be argued that this dumbing down or abbreviating of the candidates messages is irresponsible and ethically questionable since a brief quote might notand usually cannotbe representative of a candidates true message. In fact, this type of compression potentially misrepresents the real nature of candidates communications.

PAGE 32

21 Another troublesome aspect of political campaign coverage by the news media is the emphasis on what is referred to as horserace journalism and the overall political spectacle. Many scholars and media critics have noted the trend in both print and broadcast media of coverage predominately focusing on the political campaign as a contest, instead of a legitimate, substantive political process (Lichter, Noyes, & Kaid, 2000). This image-driven type of coverage does little to inform and educate voters about domestic or foreign issues or policy issues that might directly affect the voters, but instead focuses on the candidates as if they were celebrities, sports figures, or game-show participants who are in a type of race or contest instead of a political campaign to hold public office and serve a constituency (Colford, 1998; Graber, 1976; Patterson, 1997). These troubling practices take up valuable space in the limited news hole by focusing airtime on the medias talking heads, instead of the political candidates and their issues. This focus of the media was noted in a study of the 1996 presidential campaign that indicate[s] that questions posed by the audience members in call-in programs often focused more on issues than those asked by journalists, who tended to focus on the strategy of the candidates (Johnson et al., 1999). The trend of the media not to just objectively report a given news story, but instead to put themselves in the given news content and to emphasize the negative, are areas of journalistic practice that is of growing concern and has received a fair amount of criticism, both in the scholarly and the popular press. This trend is particularly alarming in a democracy where the public relies on the media to provide substantive information on political and policy issues. Researchers have noted this practice and even measured the amount of time the media spend talking to and about themselves, versus actual coverage during presidential campaigns, finding

PAGE 33

22 significant decreases in the amounts of substantive coverage of issues (Lichter, Noyes, & Kaid, 2000). Alarmingly, it has been found that the amount of coverage has drastically decreased, while the amounts of media participants discussions have increased. Scholars in the field of political communication note that this trend is part of a bigger pattern of campaign coverage that focuses on the spectacle of a political race, and have even deemed this horserace journalism (Lichter, Noyes, & Kaid, 2000). This image-driven reporting favors the short sound bite and is often followed by an instant analysis from a media personality. Similarly, Lichter and Noyes (1995) argue that the three main networks function as intermediaries between the candidates and the public (p. 234). Another problematic trend is the medias tendency to focus the emphasis of campaign coverage on itself, as media commentators report and comment on sensationalistic stories instead of ones that focus on policy. In addition to this tabloidization of news, the media also direct more attention to argumentative discussions between candidateseither from debates or the daily spin. This attention on argumentation is often driven by the need to boost ratings and may not accurately present the true nature of the complexity of the opposing views candidates hold on varying issues (Morello, 1998; Paletz, & Vinegar, 2001). Again, the attention is focused not just on the sensational or the unusual, but it is also focused on the medias talking heads who are often making subjective judgments, which shifts emphasis to the unique and the commentators themselves. In addition this type of focus could also be considered to be a media bias. From early studies on partisan bias, a number of other biases have emerged. Scholars have

PAGE 34

23 acknowledged that there are unintended forms of bias, such as situational (e.g., an incumbent having more command of the media) and structural (e.g. programming time limits or print news hole), but as society and the media system have become more complex, so have the types of biases evident in the media. One such bias is the negative bias. Scholars note that not only is there a tendency for television reporters to have more airtime than the actual candidates or public servants but also tend to cover negative news much more than positive (Kaid et al., 1996; Lichter, Noyes, & Kaid, 2000). Not only are journalists focused on negative aspects of the election, they also seem to be negative about the process in general: Jamieson notes that as early as August 1996, media commentators were characterizing the U.S. presidential election as boring (Jamieson et al., 1998, p 232). It is noteworthy that the media personalities are not only biased towards negative content, but also that they are inclined assert their own personal views and characterizations of the political process into what one would hope would be substantive, informative coverage. In The Political Pundits (Nimmo, & Combs, 1992), the authors agree that the pundits mediate reality for viewers, creating a less informed public that is a detriment to democracy, and they also argue that punditry traces its roots as far back as Biblical times and to the time of Aristotle and that the trend of having sages and oracles has become big business, especially on television where chattering is apparently revered. A major problem with narrators dominating television news is that the public may be likely to buy into what these journalists are selling: To the media conscious viewer, the television news format establishes journalistic credibility (Snow, 149, 1983). This format influence is perhaps largely due to the visual emphasis and editing techniques

PAGE 35

24 used in this electronic medium: Packaging such emphases within formats that are visual, brief, action oriented and dramatic produces an exciting and familiar tempo to news audiences (Altheide et al., 2001, p. 307). In addition to the packaging and format, the authoritative manner in which television personalities state opinions as facts lend a sense of credibility to what is often subjective commentary. There are two principal problems with political commentary on television (1) todays political talk shows contribute little, and sometimes even detract, from the robust debate needed to sustain a healthy democracy; and (2) television leads top commentators astray, making them celebrities or converting them into cartoon figures while diverting them from their finest and most socially useful pursuits (Hirsch, 1991, 211). It is of concern that, the media become part of the dialectic process of the production of consent, shaping the consensus while reflecting it (Jensen, 1992, p. 2). This insertion of the media into the process of events was exemplified in a study of the Susan Smith murder trial in South Carolina in which Zoch (2001) argues, The impact of the media presence on the town of Union and the trial itself was also framed through the use of exemplars that highlighted how the media were becoming part of the stories. These exemplars are identified as events occurring because of the media presence and came in two forms: those which were representative of how the media affected the trial, and those which represented the medias effect on the town (p. 201). Similarly, Johnson, Boudreau, and Glowaki (1996) explored the issue of media self coverage in political campaigns using a quantitative methodology. Their study examined both amount and tone of coverage devoted to different themes of media coverage during the 1992 presidential election in the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune and on

PAGE 36

25 ABC, CBS, and NBC. The researchers identified four types of stories about the media in the campaign: (1) media performance/impact; (2) media coverage of policy issues and campaign issues; (3) candidate media strategy/candidate media performance; and (4) general media stories. They found only 8 percent of all story themes coded focused on the media in the media coverage of the 1992 election cycle, with the most prevalent theme being general media stories. While this might seem like an insignificant percentage of stories, this study of media self-coverage from the early nineties, points towards an alarming trend. Broadly, metacommunication is defined as the news medias response to a new, third force in news making: professional political PR. Metacommunication is defined as the news medias self referential reflections on the nature of the interplay between political public relations and political journalism (Esser & DAngelo 2001a). Esser and DAngelo and their colleagues have done extensive work on the role of both print and electronic media reporting during domestic and international political campaigns and have identified what they refer to as a postmodern metacommunication frame. This postmodern metacommunication frame, they argue, is one in which reporters increasingly report the role journalists play in the political process. They argue that, The main focus of modern campaigns centers around publicity generated in television studios. They are TV-dominated, nationally coordinated and advised by (mostly external) professional consultants specializing in communications, marketing, polling and campaign management (Esser & DAngelo, 2001b, p. 3). This postmodern metacommunication frame is broken down into two categories: (1) self-reflexive news and (2) strategy/process news. Self-reflexive reporting refers to

PAGE 37

26 coverage that describes the role the media is playing in political campaigns. Strategy/process news refers to stories that describe how political candidates and their professional communications strategists (often negatively labeled as Spin Doctors) attempt to use the media to communicate crafted messages to the public. Much of this work emphasizes an adversarial relationship between the media and the political players (DAngelo, 1999, 2002; DAngelo & Esser, 2003; Esser, 2000, 2001a, 2001b; Esser & DAngelo, 2002, 2003; Esser, Reinemann, & Fan 1999, 2000, 2001; Esser & Spanier, 2003). Three key components to this theoretical argument of an existence of a postmodern political communication age are (1) viewing the news media as a political institution (Cook, 1998, 2001; Esser & DAngelo, 2001b); (2) viewing political public relations as a strategic communication endeavor (Bennett, & Manheim, 2000; Esser, & DAngelo, 2001b; Manheim, 1998); and (3) viewing the news medias response to these prior two developments as metacommunication (DAngelo, 1999; Esser & DAngelo, 2001b; Esser, Reinemann, & Fan, 2001). This emphasis on the strategy/process news is troubling to a number of media critics, but there are mixed interpretations of its impact on society. On the negative side, researchers argue that one type of strategy/process news is adversarial and is detrimental to the democratic process (Blumer, 1997; Kerbel, 1997, 1998, 1999). However, other scholars identify a second category of strategy/process newseducational strategy/process news, and this second category is heralded as a new type of reporting that serves to inform the electorate and enhance the democratic public sphere (DAngelo, 1999; McNair, 2000).

PAGE 38

27 Stebenne (1993) argues that this trend in media self coverage is a logical outgrowth of the new emphasis on the political process and the growing sense of the medias central place within it (p. 87-88), and indeed research indicates that the metacoverage frame has become increasingly prevalent in political campaign reporting. Studies of the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns found use of this frame accounted for 20 percent of the coverage in the 1992 election cycle and increased to 25 percent in the 1996 coverage (Kerbel, 1998; Kerbel, Apee, & Ross, 2000). This current dissertation aims to examine the level of media self coverage in the reporting of the media campaign, in order to see if this trend appears beyond the political process of campaigning and elections and into the realm of war and national security. Kerbel (1994) posits that this increase in self-reflexive reporting has grown out of the increase in political public relations attempting to control media content through the use of somewhat questionable tacticstactics that always put their candidate in the best light and do not necessarily accurately represent reality. Kerbel asserts that through this process of being manipulated by campaign strategists, the media has become more self aware of the importance of its role in the political dialogue or a campaign and has therefore considered the topic of how they cover a campaign, and the relationship between candidates and the media, as content worthy of substantive coverage (86-90). The current dissertation examines whether or not this apparent cycle of strategist manipulation and media self awareness of the role it plays in the civic dialogue of a military conflict are apparent. A study that explicated and applied the research of metacommunication to a crisis situation, specifically, the first four hours of televised news coverage following the

PAGE 39

28 terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Connolly-Ahern, et al. (2002) found that both categories of metacommunication were prevalent in that reporting. The researchers found that self-reflexive reporting accounted for 43 percent of the stories. This is one of the rare cases in which the concept of metacommunication was applied to non political campaign coverage, and even though it only focuses on initial coverage, the study indicates that metacommunication in news content is not limited to an election cycle but is also prevalent during a crisis situation. The current dissertation will add to the existing research on metacommunication by explicating a theoretical perspective that has primarily focused on political campaign reporting and applying it to the extended coverage of a military campaign. It will additionally add the component of Internet coverage, an area that has not previously been explored in terms of a war or the metacommunication concept in general. Hypotheses and Research Questions Based on the prior literature on framing theory, evidence of metacommunication frames and self-reflexive reporting in political campaigns, this study suggests the following hypotheses about televised new broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom: H1: Televised news broadcasts will rely more on media sources than on independent sources in the coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. H2. Web coverage will rely more on media sources than on independent sources in the coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. H3. Overall, the episodic media frame will be most prevalent during the initial stages of the war, and the thematic media frame will be become more prevalent as the war progresses. This dissertation seeks to answer the following research questions about televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom:

PAGE 40

29 R1: What were the prevalent frames relied on in the media coverage of the war, and were there significant differences in the prevalence of these frames in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom? R2: How prevalent is the metacommunication frame in comparison to the other frames in the media coverage of the war, and is this comparison significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom? R3: Did the prevalence of certain frames change over time in the media coverage of the war, and were there significant difference in the prevalence of these frames in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom? R4: Did the prevalence of the metacommunication frame, in comparison to the other frames, change over time in the media coverage of the war, and was this change significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom? R5: Where there more cases of self-reflexive or strategy/process types of metacommunication frames in the media coverage of the war, and was the amount of these cases significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom? R6: What were the types of self-reflexive metacommunication frames relied on in the media coverage of the war, and was the reliance on these self-reflexive metacommunication frames significantly different in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom? R7. What were the types of strategy/process metacommunication frames relied on in the media coverage of the war, and was the reliance on these strategy/process metacommunication frames significantly different in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom? R8: Which category of the strategy/process metacommunication frame was most prevalentthe adversarial, educational or neutral in the media coverage of the war, and was the prevalence of these three categories of the strategy/process metacommunication frames significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom? R9: Was the pattern of episodic and thematic frames over time as the war progressed different between televised news broadcast and Web coverage? R10: How were the Bush administrations public information efforts assessed in the media coverage of the war, and were these assessments significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

PAGE 41

30 R11: How were the Iraqi governments public information efforts assessed in media coverage of the war, and are were these assessments significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

PAGE 42

CHAPTER 3 METHODS This study uses quantitative content analysis as the method to measure the presence or absence of metacommunication frames, the categories thereof, and to make comparisons between TV news broadcasts and Web coverage about Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sample The study used content from United States television news and Web coverage from March 20, 2003the first official day of news coverage about the U.S. military strikes on Iraq, through May 1, 2003when President Bush made a declaration of victory. For purposes of this study, the story was the unit of analysis, and all war-related stories collected during this time period were used. Television news coverage consisted of evening broadcasts from the ABC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News. Television news coverage from the prime-time evening newscasts recorded on videotape was examined. Thirty minutes of news coverage from each networks news broadcast was the amount of coverage from each day that was analyzed. These times for ABC and CBS were from 6:30 7:00 p.m. (EST), and for CNN and Fox the 7:00 7:30 p.m. (EST) time period was used. Viewership of these networks news broadcasts during the Iraqi war are reported as follows: ABC's World News Tonightaverage of 9.9 million viewers; CBS evening newsaverage of 7.5 million viewers; CNNaverage of 2.7 million viewers; and Fox newsaverage of 3.3 million viewers (Johnson, 2003). 31

PAGE 43

32 The Web sites data that were analyzed were systematically downloaded dailymanual, saving each Web page as a separate file. This data collection captured both the text and the graphics, but not the multimedia, such as audio or video clips. The Web news coverage sample consisted of the four sites: ABCNews.com, CBSNews.com, CNN.com, and FOXNews.com, which newsknife.com rated in their list of the top Iraq war news sites, and in their rating of the overall top U.S. news sites of 2003 (newsknife.com, 2003). A constraint that affected the sample size and prevented using the entire universe of televised news broadcasts and the compatible Web site coverage for these networks was the problem faced by NBCs TV and Web formats. The initial goal of this study was to include NBC and MSNBC in the televised news broadcasts sample and their Web sites in the Web coverage sample. The barrier to doing so was that they do not have separate Web sites, but instead during the time of this data collection, NBC had a Web site that merged its multiple media products including NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and Newsweek. This hybrid Web site often did not distinguish which original media channel its content is attributed to, and made it impossible to do a balanced and accurate comparison with the other TV and Web coverage being analyzed for this study and would have potentially skewed the data when comparing the two media channels of the Web coverage and the Televised news broadcasts. This TV news and Web coverage sample was limited in that it focused only on leading U.S. media outlets coverage of the war. Additionally, the material from the stories were coded and compared in this analysis was the verbal/textual content onlynot the graphic elements. Since the TV coverage was obviously moving video, and the Web coverage collected only provided still images, a comparison of the visuals would not

PAGE 44

33 be compatible, given the differences in the manifest content of these visual elements. However, while not officially coded this constraint of comparing two differing media channels does not prohibit using examples of noteworthy visual content to help clarify examples of stories that exemplify certain types of coverage in the discussion section of this study. The visuals were used in an illustrative way to enhance understanding of the context of a given metacommunication frame. Categories and Definitions This study was designed to analyze the types of sources used during the electronic medias coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Therefore, each individual story was coded with a number of variables, including: television broadcast news network, Web site, length of the story (in seconds and words), main reporter or interviewer, and sources. Unit of Analysis For purposes of this study, the news story was the unit of analysis. For TV coverage a story was marked by a distinct beginning and ending of a central topic area (i.e., public information, White House communications strategy, Removal of Saddam/Regime change, etc.). A story might contain numerous sources and information related to the central topic; and until there was a distinct shift in topic area, the coders considered a unit of time devoted to one central topic a single story. In order to determine this, coders watched videotaped televised news broadcasts of the war coverage, identified the beginning and ending of a story, watched it again and timed it using a stop watch to determine the length of the story. The coders then watched the story for a third time in order to determine the manifest verbal content of the story before coding it.

PAGE 45

34 For Web coverage, a story consisted of the use of a headline and subsequent text. Story length was determined by a word count, and the coders coded for the manifest textual content of each Web story. Only the Web stories for each given day were codednot the archived coverage that was linked to from a given story, but instead just the current story with a byline and date for each day in the time-period analyzed. Source Attribution Coders identified the presence or absence of sources attributed in each story from a predetermined list based on prior research: (1) Anchor (for televised news broadcasts) or Author (for Web coverage); (2) Reporter; (3) Anonymous; (4) Special Interest/Lobbying Group; (5) Military Expert; (6) Republican Political Pundit; (7) Democratic Political Pundit; (8) Non-Partisan Political Pundit; (9) Media Personality from Same Network; (10) Media Personality from Other Organization; (11) Scholar/Media Critic; (12) Embedded Journalist; (13) Associated Press or other Wire Service; (14) Citizens; (15) Bush Administration, Aides, or Advisors; (16) Iraqi Government Official Spokesperson; (17) Report/Document/Poling Data; (18) U.S. Military Official(s); (19) Iraqi Dissidents; (20) Other. The option of selecting other provided coders with the opportunity to identify this source in an open-ended area on the codesheet. Coders were then asked to determine the number of Independent and Media Sources relied on in each story. An independent source was an individual or group that was not clearly identified as being a part of the media. A media source was identified as an individual or group that was clearly a member of the media. Frames Coders determined the presence or absence of the following list of frames, based on prior research. The list of frames to be coded were: (1) Military Conflictframes that

PAGE 46

35 emphasize the military battle itself on macro or micro levels; (2) American Patriotismframes that emphasize citizens rallying around the flag and a resurgence of American patriotism in various manifestations; (3) Protestframes that show individuals or groups, in the U.S. or abroad protesting or the discussion of protest of the war; (4) Human Interestframes that emphasize the human element of the war, including soldiers, their families, and any citizens; (5) Responsibilityframes that assign responsibility for the military conflict to a given individual, government, or regime; (6) Economic Consequencesframes that focus on the either short or long-term economic consequences that the war will have domestically, in the Middle East, or internationally; (7) Diagnosticframes that emphasize an assessment of how and why this military conflict developed; (8) Prognosticframes that emphasize what outcome of the military conflict will be, including the removal of Saddam/regime change, regional stability, loss of U.S. soldiers, etc.; (9) Rebuilding of Iraqframes that specifically deal with the rebuilding of Iraqi and the future of the country and its people after the war is finished; and (10) Metacommunicationa frame that emphasizes either the medias self-reflexivity or the communication process between sources and the news media. Coders then indicated if each frame that was coded as present was best characterized as being episodic or thematic. Episodic frames were ones that dealt with specific events and incidents, individuals, and more micro-level news coverage, and thematic frames were those that dealt with general, broad topic areas of information, concepts and abstract ideas, and more macro-level news coverage. Additionally, coders indicated which of the sources from the above list discussed the content associated with

PAGE 47

36 these frames by writing the identification number of the source(s) in the space provided on the codesheet. Additionally, coders were asked to determine the association of the metacommunication frame to the other above-listed frames. If the metacommunication frame was coded as being present, coders were instructed to indicate which of the above source and subject frames areas the metacommunication directly related to by filling in the identification number of the frame(s) in the spaces provided. However, coders were also instructed that the metacommunication frame may, at given times, be treated as a stand-alone frame. These cases would be when the frame was not clearly associated with any of the other established frames, and the story this was about a non-issue or topic but was, instead purely media-narcissistic babble and self-talk. Metacommunication Frames The study was designed primarily to determine the extent, or level, of metacommunication by the media during the reporting of a military campaign. For purposes of this study, metacommunication was defined as the news medias self-reflexive coverage of itself, in a general sense and as the interplay between the Bush administrations or the Iraqi governments public information efforts about Operation Iraqi Freedom and the news medias assessments thereof in resulting televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of the war. The concept of metacommunication was further broken down into two distinct areas: self-reflexive reporting and strategy/process news. While, it is acknowledged that, The two dimensions of meta-coveragepress and publicitycan at times overlap within news stories (Esser & DAngelo, 2003, p. 620), for purposes of this study the two differing types of metacommunication were treated as mutually exclusive categories, and

PAGE 48

37 coders characterized each instance of metacommunication frame presence as being characterized as either one or the other type of metacommunication, not both. Coders based these decisions on the following definitions and examples of self-reflexive and strategy/process metacommunication frames. The self-reflexive metacommunication frame was defined as any coverage that referred directly or indirectly to the medias role in bringing news about the U.S. military effort against Iraq to the public. Incidents of self-reflexive reporting include: information about the impact the coverage of the military campaign was having on the public; references to the work of the television news network or Web sites own reporters (such as embedded journalists); referrals to the electronic medias other news products for more information; members of the media used as news sources; and mentions of the work of other news media outlets. If the self reflexive metacommunication frame was coded as being present, the coders identified which of the following types of coverage best characterized this frame: (1) Role of Technology in Attaining Coverage; (2) Anchors or Media Personalities Discussing their Opinions; (3) Reporters Discussing Personal Experience of Covering the War; (4) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from their News Organization, Network, or Publication; (5) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from another News; Organization, Network, or Publications; (6) The News Media Emphasizing their Role as a Participant in the Event; (7) Cross Promotion and Cross Referencing of Media; or (8) Insider Views of the War or War Strategizing. The strategy/process metacommunication frame referred to any coverage that refers directly or indirectly to the relationship between the media and the leaders of the

PAGE 49

38 Operation Iraqi Freedom. Strategy/process news is defined as information about how government, official agencies, and other groups rely on the media to relay important information during the U.S. military campaign against Iraq. Examples of strategy/process news include: officials using the media to make public announcements; obvious staged events; live coverage of press conferences; visuals of reporters attending press conferences; and direct interviews with public officials. This study additionally evaluated strategy/process metacommunication frames on another sub-level distinction. Coders determined if the strategy/process metacommunication was characterized as being adversarial, educational, or neutral. Adversarial types of strategy/process metacommunication frames included stories that used negative labels that implied manipulation or the use of ploys in the communication process as spin or called source information a sound bite. The educational type of strategy/process metacommunication frame was one in which the viewer would actually learn something about the communication process between the source and the media but was without any negative connotations and was, instead, unbiased and clearly informative about the news gathering or dissemination process. The neutral type of strategy/process metacommunication frame was one in which there is no negative or positive slant to the communication process, but instead just states the occurrence of a communication from source to the media without providing any substantive information about the transferal of said information or the news process. Public Information Efforts Bush administrations public information efforts were defined as follows: Coders indicated the Storys Assessment/Overall Tone of the Bush Administrations Public Information Efforts from the following list: (1) Positive; (2) Negative; (3) Neutral; or (4)

PAGE 50

39 Not Applicable. Additionally, coders were asked to list key words, terms, or phrases that were used to describe the administration and its communication strategies as open-ended information in the space provided. Iraqi Governments public information efforts were also coded. Coders indicated the Storys Assessment/Overall Tone of the Iraqi governments Public Information Efforts from the following list: (1) Positive; (2) Negative; (3) Neutral; or (4) Not Applicable. Additionally, coders were asked to list key words, terms, or phrases that were used to describe the administration and its communication strategies as open-ended information in the space provided. Coding Process Based on prior research addressed in the literature review, and the above-listed hypotheses and research questions, codesheets and codebooks were developed. In order to make the coding process as expeditious and clear as possible for coders who were assisting in the coding of the content for this study, two codesheets and codebooks were developed: one for televised news stories and another for Web coverage. These coding instruments were identical in all ways, except for areas that dealt directly with the specific medium (such as author or anchor). Two undergraduate and two graduate students (one of whom was this researcher) were trained in a series of separate coding sessions for both televised news broadcasts and Web coverage coding, and the coding process was implemented. Intercoder reliability across all categories for both codesheets ranged from an average of .75 to 1.00 per item and was established for the televised news broadcasts at an average of .97 and

PAGE 51

40 for the Web coverage at an average of .95, using Holstis formula.1 The item by item (category) reliability is reported in the sample codesheets, which are Appendices C and D. 1 Intercoder reliability will be calculated based on Holstis formula: IR=2M/(N1+N2), where M is the number of agreements between the coders, N1 is the total number of coding decisions made by Coder 1 and N2 is the total number of coding decisions made by Coder 2.

PAGE 52

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This study employed a quantitative content analysis of televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi freedom. The overall goal was to determine the level and assessment of metacommunication in the media coverage about the 2003 war with Iraq. Analysis of News Stories All stories from March 20, 2003 through May 1, 2000 (N = 1,733) were coded and analyzed. This sample of media stories about the war consisted of taped evening televised news broadcasts (n = 751) and downloads of Web site coverage (n = 982). Televised News Broadcast Source Reliance Hypothesis one posited that televised news broadcasts would rely more on media sources than on independent sources in the coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The results indicate this was not the case. Overall, 3,875 sources were coded as being present in the televised news broadcasts during this study of the war coverage. Of these sources, 2,084 (54%) sources were listed as independent sources, and only 1,791 (46%) sources were listed as media sources for the televised news broadcasts about Operation Iraqi freedom. This means that the average number of independent sources in each newscast was 2.77, and the average number of media sources was only 2.38. This difference is statistically significant, t = 4.97, df = 750, p < .001. Thus hypothesis one was not supported. 41

PAGE 53

42 Web Coverage Source Reliance Hypothesis two posited that Web coverage would rely more on media sources than on independent sources in the coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As with hypothesis one, the results indicate that this was not so. Overall, 7,005 sources were coded as being present in the Web coverage during this study of the war coverage. Of these sources, there were 5,100 (73%) sources listed as independent sources and only 1,905 (37%) sources listed as media sources for the Web coverage about Operation Iraqi freedom. This means that the average number of independent sources in each newscast was 5.19, and the average number of media sources was only 1.94. This difference is statistically significant, t = 25.83, df = 981, p < .001. Thus hypothesis two was not supported. Episodic and Thematic Frame Prevalence Hypothesis three posited that overall, the episodic media frame would be most prevalent during the initial stages of the war, and the thematic media frame would become more prevalent as the war progressed. In order to test this, all news stories from March 20 through May 1, were broken into three equal time periods: time one, March 20 through April 2; time two, April 3 through April 17; and time three, April 18 through May 1. Frequencies of the stories that were coded as having the presence of episodic and thematic frames were computed for each time period. The results indicate that across each of the three times, respectively, there were considerably more episodic frames present than thematic ones. At time one 96.6% of the frames were episodic and 0.04% were thematic; at time two 94.3% of the frames were episodic and 5.7% were thematic; and at time three 91.1% were episodic and 9.09% thematic. Thus hypothesis three was

PAGE 54

43 not supported. See Table 4-1 for a total of the episodic and thematic frames and a breakdown by time and frame/category relationship. Frame Prevalence Research question one asked what were the prevalent frames relied on in the media coverage of the war and if there were significant differences in the prevalence of these frames in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In order to answer this question a crosstabulation was computed to determine frequencies of the presence of the ten frames overall and by media channel. See Table 4-2. Overall, the most prevalent frames, from highest to lowest presence, were military conflict, metacommunication, human interest, diagnostic, prognostic, rebuilding of Iraq, protest, economic consequences, American patriotism, and responsibility. The patterns of prevalence for the two media channels compared in this study follow closely in order with slight deviations, but these differences were not significant. For televised news broadcasts, the most prevalent frames, from highest to lowest presence, were military conflict, metacommunication, human interest, diagnostic, rebuilding of Iraq, prognostic, protest, American patriotism, economic consequences, and responsibility. For Web coverage, the most prevalent frames, from highest to lowest presence, were military conflict, metacommunication, human interest, rebuilding of Iraq, diagnostic, economic consequences, protest, prognostic, American patriotism, and responsibility.

PAGE 55

Table 4-1. Episodic and Thematic Frames across Three Periods of Time All Items Time One Time Two Time Three (n = 4,186) (n = 1,729) (n = 1,789) (n = 668) Frames Episodic Thematic Episodic Thematic Episodic Thematic Military Conflict 1,357 597 16 519 29 172 24 American Patriotism 124 48 4 52 3 15 2 Protest 181 76 11 55 4 33 2 Human Interest 589 199 11 248 20 99 12 Responsibility 65 23 2 23 5 8 4 Economic Consequences 126 61 4 38 2 16 5 Diagnostic 274 112 2 98 10 44 8 Prognostic 206 42 5 96 10 36 17 Rebuilding of Iraq 254 32 4 120 6 81 11 Metacommunication 1,104 466 10 436 15 169 8 44 Total 4,186 1,656 73 1,685 104 585 83 (96%) (4%) (94%) (6%) (88%) (12%)

PAGE 56

45 Metacommunication Frame Prevalence Research question two asked how prevalent was the metacommunication frame in comparison to the other frames in the media coverage of the war and if this comparison was significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As Table 4-2 also shows, the Metacommunication frame was a very prevalent frame in both the media channels. In fact 63% of the televised news broadcasts and 65% of the Web stories include some type of metacommunication frame. However, there was no statistically significant difference in amount of metacommunication frames relied on between the Web and television news coverage. Table 4-2. Frame Prevalence in Stories by Media Channel Television News Web All Broadcasts Coverage Items 2 (n = 2,290) (n = 2,030) (n = 4,320) Military Conflict 79% 78% 1,361 .29 American Patriotism 8 7 125 .28 Protest 12 10 183 1.49 Human Interest 41 30 599 20.64** Responsibility 4 4 66 .37 Economic Consequences 4 10 130 21.69** Diagnostic 22 11 277 38.71** Prognostic 15 10 208 12.80 Rebuilding of Iraq 17 14 259 3.60 Metacommunication 63 65 1,112 .32 **p < .001 Frame Prevalence over Time Research question three asked if the prevalence of certain frames changed over time in the media coverage of the war and if there were significant differences in the prevalence of these frames in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

PAGE 57

46 In terms of frame prevalence over time one, time two, and time three, there is a slight increase in overall frames relied on in time two, as compared with time one, and then there is a dramatic decrease in frame presence in time three. Most frames stayed consistent, in terms of their prevalence over time, as compared with their prevalence overall. There were, however, a several noteworthy differences in specific shifts in frame prevalence over time. Both the protest and economic consequences frames dropped to the least two prevalent frames in time two, as compared to their respectively higher positions during time one, but they leveled out to a moderate position during time three. The most significant pattern of change over time was the steadily increasing presence of the rebuilding of Iraq frame. In terms of media channel comparisons of frame prevalence by time, most of the 10 frames were fairly evenly distributed among the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage across time one, time two, and time three and in keeping with the overall pattern. Overall, the most prevalent frames across the three time periods were military conflict and metacommunication, which remained at high percentages across all three times. However, two frames that were different at statistically significant levels of p < .05 among the media channels across time were the prognostic and rebuilding of Iraq frames. An interesting difference was the pattern of the presence of the prognostic frame, which was relatively low at 23% during time one, rising to 51% at time two, and then dropped to 26% at time three. Another noteworthy deviation was the rebuilding of Iraq frame which similarly was also low at 14% for time one, 50% at time two, and then also dropped to 36% at time three. See Table 4-4 for a total of the frames over three time periods and a comparison of these totals by media channel.

PAGE 58

47 Metacommunication Frame Prevalence over Time Research question four asked if the prevalence of the metacommunication frame, in comparison to the other frames, changed over time in the media coverage of the war and if this change was significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As table 4-4 also shows, the metacommunication frame remained the second most prevalent frame during all three time periods, and there was no statistically significant difference in its prevalence between the media channels. Types of Metacommunication Frames Research question five asked if there were more cases of self-reflexive or strategy/process types of metacommunication frames in the media coverage of the war and if the amount of these cases was significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. To consider these issues a crosstabulation was calculated between the two types of metacommunication frames and the two media channels analyzed in this study of the war. The results indicate that the self-reflexive metacommunication frame was more prevalent than the strategy/process metacommunication frame for both the televised news broadcasts and the Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. See Table 4-3. Table 4-3. Self-Reflexive and Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frames by Media Televised News Web Coverage All Items Broadcasts (n = 472) (n = 635) (n = 1,107) ________________________________________________________________________ Self-Reflexive 62% 60% 61% Strategy/Process 38 40 39

PAGE 59

Table 4-4. Frames Relied on in Stories Covering Operation Iraqi Freedom across Three Periods of Time and by Media Channel Frames Time One Time Two Time Three 2 (N = 4,320) (n = 1,642) (n = 1,858) (n = 820) Military Conflict (n = 1,361) 45% 41% 14% 223.36** Televised News Broadcasts 46 40 14 Web Coverage 44 41 15 .81 American Patriotism (n = 125) 42 45 13 22.10** Televised News Broadcasts 39 46 15 Web Coverage 44 44 12 .61 Protest (n = 183) 48 33 19 22.16** Televised News Broadcasts 48 30 22 Web Coverage 47 36 17 1.25 Human Interest (n = 599) 36 46 18 66.45** Televised News Broadcasts 34 46 20 Web Coverage 38 45 17 1.52 Responsibility (n = 66) 38 44 18 7.18** Televised News Broadcasts 35 42 23 Web Coverage 40 46 14 .76 Economic Consequences (n = 130) 52 32 16 25.68** 48 Televised News Broadcasts 51 26 23 Web Coverage 53 43 13 1.47 Diagnostic (n = 277) 42 39 19 26.69** Televised News Broadcasts 40 47 23 Web Coverage 44 44 12 5.86 Prognostic (n = 208) 23 51 26 31.05** Televised News Broadcasts 16 53 31 Web Coverage 31 49 20 7.57* Rebuilding of Iraq (n = 259) 14 50 36 48.91** Televised News Broadcasts 7 52 41 Web Coverage 21 47 32 10.38* Metacommunication (n = 1,112) 43 41 16 151.28** Televised News Broadcasts 42 40 18 Web Coverage 42 42 16 3.20 *Chi square test indicate differences among time one, time two, and time three for the frame at p < .05. **Chi square test indicate that the difference between television and Web coverage is different for time one, time two, and time three at = p < .05.

PAGE 60

49 Self-Reflexive Metacommunication Frames Research question six asked what types of self-reflexive metacommunication frames were relied on in the media coverage of the war and if reliance on these types of self-reflexive metacommunication frames was significantly different in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In order to answer this question, a crosstabulation was calculated between the self-reflexive metacommunication frame types and the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of the war. Table 4-5. Self-Reflexive Metacommunication Types by Media Channel Televised News Broadcasts Web Coverage Total (n = 295) (n = 383) (n = 678) Role of Technology in Attaining Coverage .3% .8% .6% Anchors or Media Personalities Discussing their Opinions 7 2 4 Reporters Discussing Personal Experience of Covering the War 14 8 11 Reporters Reporting about Journalists from their Organization or Network 46 25 34 Reporters Reporting about Journalist from other Organizations or Networks 14 17 15 News Media Emphasizing their Role as Participant in Event 6 7 6 Cross Promotion and Cross Referencing of Media 8 37 24 Insider Views of the War or War Strategizing 5 4 5 2 = 93.74, df = 7, p < .001. However, this chi square calculation should be interpreted with caution since some cells have values of less than 5.

PAGE 61

50 Table 4-5 shows, the most frequently used self-reflexive frame involved "reporters reporting about journalists from their own organization or network," which made up 34% of the total self-reflexive frames. The frame in which the media engaged in "cross promotion and cross referencing of media" also occurred frequently (24%). An interesting outlier here is the low prevalence of the "role of technology," which showed up much more frequently in the Kaid et al. (1994) study of CNN coverage of the 1991 Gulf War. However, the chi square test indicates that the pattern of self-reflexive frames was not the same between media (see Table 4-5). For instance, whereas the most frequently used self-reflexive frame in television news broadcasts was the "reporters reporting about journalists from their own organization or network" (46%), Web coverage used the "cross promotion and cross refereeing of media" (37%) more often. Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frames Research question seven asked what types of strategy/process metacommunication frames were relied on in the media coverage of the war and if reliance on these types of strategy/process metacommunication frames was significantly different in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In order to answer this question, a crosstabulation was calculated between the strategy/process metacommunication frame types and the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of the war. Chi square tests indicate the strategy/process metacommunication frames were not highly similar between the media channels, and the reliance on these frames was significantly different in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi

PAGE 62

51 Freedom. See Table 4-6 for a comparison of the prevalence of the strategy/process metacommunication frames by televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of the war. Table 4-6. Strategy/Process Metacommunication Types by Media Channel Televised News Broadcasts Web Coverage All Items (n = 177) (n = 252) (n = 429) Pentagon Information Strategy 9% 7% 8% White House/ Bush Administration Information Strategy 26 26 26 Military Officials/Troops Information Strategy 24 25 26 Partisan Information Source Strategy 4 11 8 Bush Administration and News Media Relationships and Interactions 6 18 13 Journalists Participation in Military Events or Press Briefings 6 9 11 Standards of the Quality of the News Coverage 12 2 6 Influence of PR/News Management Strategies on Journalists 14 9 11 2 = 41.98, df = 7, p < .001. However, this chi square calculation should be interpreted with caution since some cells have values of less than 5. Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Categories Research question eight asked which category of the strategy/process metacommunication frame was most prevalentthe adversarial, educational or neutral in the media coverage of the war and if the prevalence of these three categories of the strategy/process metacommunication frames was significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

PAGE 63

52 Overall, the educational category of the strategy/process metacommunication frame was most prevalent (46%), the neutral category of the strategy/process metacommunication frame was second-most prevalent (36%), and the adversarial category of the strategy process metacommunication frame was least prevalent (18%). For the televised news broadcasts of the war, the neutral category of the strategy/process metacommunication frame was most prevalent, with the educational category being second-most prevalent, and the adversarial category being the least prevalent. For the Web coverage of the war, the educational category of the strategy/process metacommunication frame was most prevalent, with the neutral category being second-most prevalent, and the adversarial category being the least prevalent. In comparing the prevalence of these three categories of the strategy/process metacommunication frame by media channel, the most striking difference is the much larger number of educational strategy/process metacommunication frames present in the Web coverage as compared to a much smaller number being present in the televised news coverage. When calculating a chi square statistical analysis, the results indicate that these three categories of the strategy/process metacommunication frames were significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. See Table 4-7 for a comparison of this category by media. Episodic and Thematic Frame Media Comparisons Nonetheless, Table 4-9 presents the results of analysis of the difference in the episodic/thematic pattern between media over time. Table 4-9 shows that, overall, the prevalence of episodic and thematic frames across all three time spans (as broken down in the testing of Hypothesis 3) was similar for both television news and Web coverage of the war. As shown before, the pattern clearly illustrates a dominance of episodic frames

PAGE 64

53 over thematic frames at the beginning, middle, and end of the war. Only one frame shows a departure from this pattern, the "responsibility" frame. This frame was covered by television news through all three time periods as an episodic theme, but Web coverage, which followed television's lead in the beginning and middle time periods, focused its responsibility frame coverage on a more thematic level in the ending (third) time period. Table 4-7. Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Categories by Media Televised News Web Coverage Total Broadcasts (n = 172) (n = 257) (n = 429) ________________________________________________________________________ Adversarial 26% 14% 18% Educational 30 56 46 Neutral 44 30 36 2 = 27.77, df = 2, p < .01 The ninth research question concerned whether the pattern of episodic and thematic frames over time as the war progressed was different between television news broadcasts and Web coverage. This question was originally posed in line with the assumption that the third hypothesis would prove true--that is, that episodic frames would be more prevalent in the beginning of the war, progressing toward greater prevalence of thematic coverage as the war progressed. However, this hypothesis was not substantiated, since episodic coverage remained the overwhelmingly dominant frame type throughout all three war coverage time periods tested.

PAGE 65

54 Bush Administration Public Information Assessments Research question 10 asked how were the Bush administration's public information efforts assessed in the media coverage of the war and if these assessments were significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and the Web coverage. Over half (57%) of the total stories did not discuss the Bush Administration public information efforts; these stories were omitted from analysis for this question. The remaining 263 stories were rated as positive, negative, or neutral in regard to their coverage of the Bush Administration efforts. As Table 4-8 shows, the overall percentage of these stories portrayed the Bush Administration information efforts as neutral (50%), and the remainder were categorized as 45% positive and 5% negative. However, again looking at Table 4-8, it is clear that there is a difference in how the Bush information efforts fared in the television versus Web media. While television gave the Bush efforts a positive score in 45% of such stories, the Web only registered a positive evaluation in 27%. Likewise, the Web coverage was more likely to be negative toward the Bush Administration information efforts, casting a negative view in 9% of its stories with this frame. Table 4-8. Bush Administration Public Information Efforts Televised News Broadcasts Web Coverage Total n = 351) (n = 389) (n = 740) Positive 45% 27% 36% Negative 5 9 7 Neutral 50 64 57 = 30.18, df = 2, p < .001

PAGE 66

Table 4-9. Episodic and Thematic Frames across Three Periods of Time and by Media Channel Frames All Items Time One Time Two Time Three (N = 4,186) Episodic Thematic Episodic Thematic Episodic Thematic 2 Military Conflict (n = 1,357) 97% 3% 95% 5% 88% 12% Television News Broadcast 92 2 95 5 92 8 Web Coverage 96 4 94 6 88 12 .04 American Patriotism (n = 124) 92 8 94 6 88 12 Television News Broadcast 100 0 92 8 89 11 Web Coverage 87 13 97 3 88 12 .62 Protest (n = 181) 87 13 93 7 94 6 Television News Broadcast 93 7 100 0 89 11 Web Coverage 82 18 88 12 100 0 2.62 Human Interest (n = 589) 95 5 93 7 89 11 Television News Broadcast 98 2 94 6 90 10 Web Coverage 92 8 91 9 88 12 3.67 Responsibility (n = 65) 92 8 82 18 67 33 Television News Broadcast 100 0 92 8 100 0 Web Coverage 86 14 73 17 20 80 7.91* 55 Economic Consequences (n = 126) 94 6 95 5 76 24 Television News Broadcast 100 0 88 12 86 14 Web Coverage 92 8 94 6 71 29 .52 Diagnostic (n = 274) 98 2 91 9 85 15 Television News Broadcast 100 0 95 5 85 15 Web Coverage 96 4 85 15 85 15 2.19 Prognostic (n = 206) 89 11 89 11 68 32 Television News Broadcast 89 11 90 10 74 26 Web Coverage 90 10 88 12 56 44 2.54 Rebuilding of Iraq (n = 254) 89 11 94 6 87 13 Television News Broadcast 78 22 94 6 90 10 Web Coverage 93 7 93 7 83 17 .84 Metacommunication (n = 1,104) 98 2 97 3 94 6 Television News Broadcast 98 2 97 3 97 3 Web Coverage 92 2 97 3 94 6 .19 *Chi square = p < .05

PAGE 67

56 Iraq Government Public Information Assessments Research question 11 asked how were the Iraqi government's public information efforts assessed in the media coverage of the war and if these assessments were significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and the Web coverage. Over half (73%) of the total stories did not discuss the Iraqi government public information efforts; these stories were omitted from analysis for this question. The remaining 442 stories were rated as positive, negative, or neutral in regard to their coverage of the Iraqi government efforts. As Table 4-10 shows, the overall percentage of these stories portrayed the Iraqi government information efforts as negative (63%), and the remainder were categorized as 33% neutral and 4% positive. However, again looking at Table 4.11, it is clear that there is a difference in how the Iraqi government fared in the television versus Web media. While television gave the Iraqi government efforts a negative evaluation in 61% of such stories, the Web registered a negative evaluation in 66%. However, the Web coverage was more likely to be more positive toward the Iraqi government information efforts, casting a negative view in 7% of its stories with this frame, as compared to television coverage of only 2%. Table 4-10. Iraqi Government Public Information Efforts Televised News Broadcasts Web Coverage Total n = 278) (n = 164) (n = 442) Positive 2% 7% 4% Negative 61 66 63 Neutral 37 27 33 = 11.51, df = 2 p < .05

PAGE 68

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This exploratory study sought to extend the metacommunication concept that has been previously used almost exclusively for the analyses of political campaign coverage to the media coverage of a war. The current study advanced the research in the area of metacommunication not only by examining this communications practice in a different context, but also by analyzing both televised news broadcasts and Web coverage which have largely been overlooked in prior research in this area. Findings and Implications Chapter fours reporting of the results directly addressed each hypothesis and research question. This chapter elaborates on these results categorically, through the use of examples to illustrate the findings and to discuss the implications thereof. Additionally, this chapter examines how these findings may be linked to the bigger picture of the theoretical underpinnings and prior research that were detailed in chapter twos review of the literature and to see how this studys findings build on an understanding of these perspectives. Finally, limitations of this study are acknowledged and goals for future research set. Source Reliance Despite the fact that overall both media relied on independent sources more than media ones, it is important to note that the percentages do point to a substantial tendency on the part of the media to rely on media sources. Whereas the numbers indicating independent sources in the lead may be looked at as a somewhat encouraging finding in 57

PAGE 69

58 terms of the role of the journalist, especially in terms of the key concept of independence and objectivity, the extent to which the media sources are used is still a troubling finding in both media channels examined in this study. While the finding that out of the 3,875 sources relied on in the televised news broadcasts during this study of the war coverage consisted of 2,084 (54%) independent sources and 1,791 (46%) media sources might show statistical significance, it is still not something that points to a lack of media narcissism or self-reflexivity. Reliance on such a large number of media sources in the televised news broadcasts during Operation Iraqi Freedom is a noteworthy finding that indicates that the TV news media do become participants in the stories they are covering and to a rather alarming extent. However, the finding that out of the 7,005 sources relied on in the Web coverage during this study of the war coverage consisted of 5,100 (73%) independent sources 1,905 (37%) media sources is not only statistically significant, it is also something that does point toward a decrease in the medias preoccupation with itself. The large amount of independent sources, which is almost double the amount of media sources being relied on in the Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom, is an important finding that indicates that the Web as a media channel is less likely to insert media practitioners into the stories they are reporting. The difference between source reliance by media channel was not a comparison that was an explicit goal of this study, as evidenced by the fact that the study hypothesized that both televised news broadcasts and Web coverage would rely on media sources to a greater degree than on independent sources. These assumptions were not supported, and the differences in the source reliance by these two media channels is

PAGE 70

59 important and deserves further analysis with the data collected for this study and in future research efforts. Episodic and Thematic Frames The results regarding the presence of episodic and thematic frames and their shifting over time from episodic frames being prevalent initially and thematic frames becoming dominant over time was an assumption this study made based on prior research. The results of this study indicate that this assumption was largely erroneous and was a surprising finding. The results of the comparison of the episodic and thematic frame prevalence over the three time periods yielded drastically differing results than were expected. The sheer volume and amount of difference in the percentages are staggering: with time one having 96.6% episodic frames and only a negligible 0.04% thematic frames; time two having 94.3% episodic frames and a slight increase to 5.7% thematic frames; and time three having 91.1% episodic frames and another minimal increase to 9.09% thematic frames. While the episodic frame slightly decreased during each time period and the thematic frame rose minimally, these results are a paradoxical finding that bears further exploration. However, one possible explanation of this finding is the fact that Web coverage is closer to print coverage than televised news and that print sources possibly tend to be more thematic than episodic. The finding that the prevalence of episodic and thematic frames by media channel indicated similar patterns of frame dominance across time in both the televised news broadcasts and the Web coverage indicate that these results cannot be attributed to channel variance. With the only one instance of a statistically significant difference (the responsibility frame) reported during the all three time periods analyzed, these findings of

PAGE 71

60 episodic frame dominance can be seen as overwhelmingly similar across both time and media. The implications of these findings of episodic prevalence and only a slight thematic increase bear further scrutiny. While this was a short official war, the patterns of coverage are so extremely variant that the compressed period of time overall and the context seem like overly simplistic explanations for this finding. It is possible that the reason for this outcome has to do more with changes in media coverage overall. Since the media systems are far more complex and increasingly becoming more so, it is perhaps a change in media coverage style in general that explains why the episodic to thematic dominance over time was not supported in this study. With so many media options available to the news consumer, media outlets may be leaning to shorter, episodic coverage that focuses more on specific events and individuals (which is more evocative and perhaps easily digested) instead of broader, thematic coverage that focuses more on issues and implications (which is less sensational and requires more processing) in attempts to keep the publics tuned in to their given station or remaining on their given Web site. With the shorter sound bite and a generation used to fast-paced MTV-style editing, and many Web users who can fairly be characterized as having short attention spans to the point of being ADD, the media outlets are well aware that keeping individuals engaged can often be accomplished by providing more simplistic, dramatic, and event-driven news stories than complex, analytical, and thoughtful ones. This finding is open to different interpretations, but it clearly deserves more analysis with the coverage of this war and in other contexts, in order to continue to test assumption that episodic frames will give way to thematic ones over time.

PAGE 72

61 Frame Prevalence In terms of establishing the prevalent frames in the media coverage of the war, and if there were significant differences in the prevalence of these frames in war coverage, the rank order of frame prevalence from highest to lowest were military conflict, metacommunication, human interest, diagnostic, prognostic, rebuilding of Iraq, protest, economic consequences, American patriotism, and responsibility. As reported earlier, the patterns of prevalence for the two media channels compared in this study follow closely in order but with slight deviations, but these differences were not significant. While the military conflict frame was the most prevalent frame overall and in both the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage, the metacommunication frame was the second-most prevalent frame overall and in both the media channels, with 63% of the televised news broadcasts and 65% of the Web stories include some type of metacommunication frame. The sheer volume of metacommunication frame presence in both media channels is a finding that is striking for several reasons. While military conflict was the most prevalent frame, it was a frame that included a broad number of scenarios that dealt with actual conflict and events in the war in general. The other eight frames ranged from very specific, such as American patriotism, human interest, diagnostic, and prognostic to broad, such as economic consequences, protest, responsibility, and rebuilding of Iraq. The military conflict frame was present at 79% for televised news broadcasts and at 78% for Web coverage followed by the metacommunication frame which was present at 63% for televised news broadcasts and at 65% for Web coverage. These were the two highest types of frames that were followed by human interest which was present at 43%

PAGE 73

62 for televised news broadcasts and at 30% for Web coverage. The remaining frames were present in both media channels from a high of 22% to a low of 4%. The high level of metacommunication prevalence is a key finding of this study. It indicates that other than broad military conflict information the media are indeed relying on providing coverage that is self-reflexive and emphasizing the strategy/process nature of the media and the public information efforts much more than they are the events, issues, and people involved in the military conflict. It is also significant to note that the level of metacommunication frame prevalence was extremely close in both the TV and Web coverage, and this is not a finding that was limited to just one of the media channels. Examples of episodic frames where abundant in stories from both media, and certainly the use of embedded reporters during Operation Iraqi Freedom is a reason that could have led to such coverage. From the Jessica Lynch rescue, to the toppling of the Statue of Saddam Hussein, to the day-to-day activities of the U.S. military personnel, to President Bushs parachute landing and official declaration of the end of the war, embedded reporters were right there telling this unfolding story. This unprecedented access given to the media created a situation in which reporters were not only more like participants, the also became daily storytellers who would tend to focus on incidents and events, rather than broader issues. Additionally, the finding that the metacommunication frame remained the second most prevalent frame during all three time periods, and there was not a statistically significant difference in its prevalence between the media channels during time one, time two, or time three further underscores the indication that metacommunication frames

PAGE 74

63 have become a standby in media coverage, even from the onset to the resolution of a war and at every stage of the conflict. Metacommunication Frames This study additionally sought to determine which types of metacommunication frames were more prevalent: if there we more cases of self-reflexive metacommunication or strategy/process frames present in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The results of this indicate that the self-reflexive type of metacommunication frame, in which media frequently insert themselves into the coverage and evaluate their role in the news process was largely the dominant type of metacommunication frame as compared to the strategy/process metacommunication frame, in which the media often report on the interplay between public information efforts and the resulting media coverage. It is a significant finding that the self-reflexive metacommunication frame, which is in many ways the epitome of media narcissism, is the dominant metacommunication frame for both media channels. The self reflexive frame is often characterized by coverage that is inane and vacuous as television news anchors, Web story authors, and other media players chatter about their opinions and roles in the news, instead of actually even conveying any substantive news at all. It is perhaps surprising that the strategy/process frame was present at a statistically significantly lower amount for both the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of the war. The strategy/process news frame can often contain information that actually informs the news consumer about events, even though it does commonly emphasize the negative relationship between political public relations practitioners and the press in the news gathering and reporting process.

PAGE 75

64 Examples of stories that were coded as having the strategy/process frame varied in content and in type of strategy/process category, but perhaps one of the most blatant of such frames was the coverage of President Bushs landing on the USS Lincoln. All media analyzed in this study covered that specific, orchestrated public-information event. Other such coverage ranged from reporters commenting on rallies and how the administration responded to them to the White House/Bush administration indicating frustration with the UN weapons inspectors. An interesting aspect of this finding is that prior literature in the area of political communication has often shown the strategy/process frame to be the prevalent form of metacommunication during election cycles. This exploratory study, however, found that conversely, during a time of wareven a controversial warthat strategy/process took second place to self-reflexivity. This finding helps advance understanding of metacommunication frames in contexts other than political campaigns, and while this should be explored in different contexts, this finding does indicate that the medias own favorite subject is in fact itself and reinforces the idea of media bias towards the media as the bias that one can expect to find in times of peace or conflict. Self-Reflexive Metacommunication Frames Another goal of this study was to assess what types of self-reflexive metacommunication frames were relied on in the media coverage of the war and if reliance on these types of self-reflexive metacommunication frames was significantly different in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Based on prior research, the eight types of self-reflexive metacommunication were coded for.

PAGE 76

65 Self-reflexive metacommunication frames were not similar between the media channels and the reliance on these frames was significantly different in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As reported earlier, an interesting outlier in this finding was low prevalence of role of technology in attaining coverage. This is of note, as prior war coverage scholarship conducted by Kaid, et al. about the 1991 Gulf War and CNNs frequent mentions of its technology, which was a breakthrough study in metacommunication research, though not explicitly labeled as such at the time. There are several other results in comparison of media channels and the analysis of the self-reflexive metacommunication frame prevalence that deserve mention. For example, the most dominant self-reflexive frame for the Web coverage was cross promotion and cross referencing of the media, but this was a very low ranked item in the televised news broadcasts. However, reporters reporting about journalists from their organization or network came in first place for televised news broadcasts and second place for Web coverage. The other items differed widely in rank order, but were not largely different in the amounts of coverage per item. Examples of reporters interviewing embedded reporters in the field were frequently occurring types of self-reflexive coverage and a mainstay of the electronic war coverage analyzed in this study. Additionally, the televised broadcasts frequently included anchors and/or media personalities discussing their own opinions about the war, which ranged from commenting on protests to foreign policy to the future of Iraq. In addition to interviewing media celebrities and personalities within their own news organizations, the media also frequently interviewed media sources from other news

PAGE 77

66 organizations about both specific incidents and implications of the war. Again, this is not largely surprising, as certain major media outlets had access to more data and the actual troops, and the media sources offered perspectives that were not available through other independent sources that were not on the front line. The finding that cross promotion and cross referencing of the media was much higher in the Web coverage than TV news could be attributed to the structural differences between these media channels. Since the televised news broadcasts are highly structured in format and time constraints, as compared to the Web coverage that offer a practically infinite news hole and more coverage possibilities. Another items however, that is difficult to find explanations for its differences by media channel is the frame of reporters discussing their personal experiences of covering the war is more prevalent in TV than Web coverage, but it is unclear why this would be so. Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frames Another goal of this study was to assess what types of strategy/process metacommunication frames were relied on in the media coverage of the war and if reliance on these types of strategy/process metacommunication frames was significantly different in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Based on prior research, the eight types of strategy/process metacommunication were coded for. Overall, the strategy/process metacommunication frames were not highly correlated between the media channels and the reliance on these frames was significantly different in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. However there are two exceptions: both the White House/Bush administration information strategy and Military officials/troops information strategy were ranked as the

PAGE 78

67 top two most prevalent frames for the televised news broadcasts and the Web coverage the war. These were the only two strategy/process metacommunication frames that were correlated. There are several other results in comparison of media channels and the analysis of the strategy/process metacommunication frame prevalence that deserve mention. For example, the presence of the Bush administration and news media relationships and interactions frame was present twice as much in the Web coverage as compared to the TV news. While the results of this can be attributed to reasons discussed earlier about the channel differences, which could be one possible explanation for this and other differences, that is an almost counter intuitive finding and one that seems at odds with the results from prior research in the context of political campaigns. Once could actually have predicted the opposite would have been the case, that the Bush administration and news media relationships and interactions would have played out to a greater degree in the televised news broadcasts than in the stories about the war in the Web coverage. Another perplexing finding is that of the standards of the quality of the news coverage frame, which was present six times more in the televised news broadcasts than in the Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Given the time and structural constraints of the TV coverage as compared with the Webs, this finding is difficult to explain, as it is the exact opposite of what would have been expected. However, a possible explanation for this finding is that this one strategy/process frame is very closely associated with some of the self-reflexive types of coverage, and while this frame does assess the quality and standards of the news coverage, the substantive nature of such assessments is not evaluated in this study, and these frames can include incidents when

PAGE 79

68 anchors or reporters are discussing live and on the air the issues they are facing when trying to bring the viewer accurate and up-to-date information. For example, it was common in the televised news broadcasts for anchors or reporters to allude to domestic and international coverage while reporting the days events. Such media-assessment coverage included commenting on coverage from the controversial Al Jazeera to the traditional news sources, such as the BBC. Often televised media was self-referential, its anchors and reporters filled the news hole with chatter about themselves and their own networks quality of news gathering and dissemination during a time of war. Strategy/Process Metacommunication Categories Another layer to the analysis of the strategy/process metacommunication frames for this study was to categorize the presence of each type as being adversarial, educational, or neutral and to compare these findings by media channel. The results of this specific inquiry are central to the implications of this study of metacommunication prevalence in the media coverage of the war. Overall, the educational category was most prevalent, the neutral second, and the adversarial the least. This is a somewhat promising finding, and one that differs from a number of the prior studies in political campaigns when these categories were evaluated. For the televised broadcasts, the neutral category was most prevalent, the educational second, and the adversarial the least. In terms of Web coverage, the educational category was most prevalent, the neutral second, and the adversarial the least. The most typical example of such neutral coverage, for both media, was straight-forward and informative reporting of U.S. public information efforts, such as the release of reports, interviews, and press conferences. The negative coverage, which was the least

PAGE 80

69 offered of the these assessment categories tended to be humorous and critical of the Iraqi information officer referred to as Baghdad Bob and his denial of the serious nature of the U.S. assault on Iraq. The educational coverage tended to focus on U.S. public information efforts and to be objective and very direct in explaining how the government agencies and/or the White House gathered and released its data to both the media and the public. It is encouraging that the educational category of the strategy/process metacommunication frame emerged as a prevalent frame and the adversarial category was the least, both overall and by media channel. This implies that the strategy/process metacommunication frame can potentially be beneficial and enhance the news consumer and possible contribute to the public sphere (Habermas 1962/1989). In terms of channel comparisons, it is also worth noting that while the adversarial category of the strategy/process metacommunication frame was least present in both media, it was only four percent less prevalent than the educational category in the TV news, as compared to the Web coverage in which the adversarial category was 28 percent less prevalent than the educational category. Also, in comparing the amount of educational strategy/process metacommunication category presence between these two media channels it is significant that this category was much more prevalent in the Web coverage (56%) as compared with the (30%) prevalence in the televised news broadcasts. These findings are congruent with prior scholarship that indicates the Web may be a medium that is able to enhance the public sphere than other media; in terms of the range of voices and variety of sources it offers (Strommer-Galley, 2002; Williams & Martin, 2004).

PAGE 81

70 Public Information Assessment The study also sought to evaluate directly how the media were assessing the public information efforts of both the Bush administration and the Iraqi government. Not surprisingly, the findings indicate that the Bush administrations efforts were rated far more favorably than the Iraqi governments. It is interesting however that the Bush administrations communication efforts were mostly rated as neutral, as were a limited number of the Iraqi governments efforts. These findings, perhaps more than any of the others, can be attributed to the context of the media coverage. Unlike a political campaign, when one would expect more negative assessments, the context of this particular military campaign and its associations with the larger War on Terror that President Bush declared after the September 11 terrorist attacks would create an environment when being overly critical could be viewed as unpatriotic. In fact, prior research on this war has indicated that media personalities had to walk a fine line in critiquing the president or the military efforts, and that those who spoke out faced harsh censure (Williams, Martin, Trammell, Landreville, & Ellis, 2004). Limitations As with any study there are limitations, and the current study has several. By its very nature, this exploratory analysis that attempts to explicate the metacommunication concept and examine media narcissism and self-reflexivity in a war instead of a political campaign meant that prior assumptions and findings could only be considered benchmarks for assessments and not strict guidelines as the contextual issues were so great.

PAGE 82

71 This study is also limited in that it only analyzes two media: the Web and TV news. Additionally, visuals for both of these media were not coded and analyzed, and only the textual, verbal content was addressed. Future Research There are multiple directions in which this current study can lead, and as an exploratory analysis of metacommunication in a context other than a political campaign, this study will prove to be a springboard for a number of other studies. These studies will begin with the existing data that have been collected. Future work with these data will include conducting comparative analyses within the media channels compared here. For example, it ma be a worthwhile to further break out the data and see if there are statistically significant differences between the traditional and cable televised news broadcasts and similarly if there are differences between their coverage on their respective Web sites. Additional work with the existing data collected during Operation Iraqi Freedom include examining which sources were most frequently associated with given frames to see what patterns emerge, and to examine if and how these patterns are related to the media channels, the time periods, and the episodic and/or thematic frame characterizations, as well as other categories and subcategories of metacommunication frames. Beyond the work with the existing data, research on metacommunication should be extended to other types of media coverage. Such coverage can include the terror alerts that have been put in place over the past few years in the United States, coverage of religious/political issues, coverage of international crisis events such as the recent bombings in Spain, and coverage of political scandals.

PAGE 83

72 The opportunities to address metacommunication, media narcissism, and self-reflexive reporting are seemingly myriad, not only in terms of differing contexts but also in differing media outlets and areas of the world. Also, after considerably more work has been done with content analysis, experimental studies to measure the effects of metacommunication on respondents will provide further chances to advance understanding of this media practice. The findings of this study are, overall, troublesome and especially so in regard to journalistic objectivity. As the public does indeed rely on the media for factual information on a regular basis, the need for facts from the media during a time of crisis, such as war or terrorist attacks is paramount. The media have rights and responsibilities to the public are more vital than narcissistic and self-reflexive. The issues and events are much more important to the public than being educated about the news gathering process, and the relationship, and assessments thereof, between the media and political public relations consultants and/or public information officers is not one that serves the public interest. The media have been given a great deal of latitude and protection, and it is the medias duty to live up to these.

PAGE 84

APPENDIX A CODEBOOK FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF TELEVISED NEWS BROADCASTS Coder ID: Coders will input their three initials for identification purposes. Story Number: Each story will be given a unique four-digit number. Story Date: The date on which the story ran. Story Headline or Title: For TV News Stories, coders will indicate if there is a stated headline or title for the news segment or will give the story a title for the purpose of further referencing and locating the story. Type of Story: (1) TV News Broadcast TV News Story Origin: (1) ABC (2) CBS (3) CNN (4) FOX TV News Story Source(s): Coders are asked to identify the presence or absence of a number of sources from a predetermined listed based on prior research: (1) Storys Author; (2) Reporter; (3) Anonymous; (4) Special Interest/Lobbying Group; (5) Military Expert; (6) Republican Political Pundit; (7) Democratic Political Pundit; (8) Non-Partisan Political Pundit; (7) Media Personality from Same Network; (8) Media Personality from Other Organization; (9) Scholar/Media Critic; (10) Embedded Journalist; (11) Associated Press or other Wire Service; (12) Citizens; (13) Bush Administration, Aides, or Advisors; 73

PAGE 85

74 (14) Iraqi Government Official Spokesperson; (15) Report/Document/Poling Data; (16) U.S. Military Officialsincluding any branch of the armed services; (17) Iraqi Dissidents; and (18) Other. If other and identifying this source in an open-ended area on the codesheet. TV News Story Length (Minutes and Seconds): For TV coverage a story is marked by a distinct beginning and ending of a central topic area (i.e., public information, White House communications strategy, Removal of Saddam/Regime change, etc.). A story may contain numerous sources and information related to the central topic, and until there is a distinct shift in topic area, the coders will consider a unit of time devoted to one central topic a single story. In order to determine this, coders will watch videotaped TV news coverage, identify the beginning and ending of a story, watch it again and time it using a stop watch to determine the length of the story. The coders will then watch the story for a third time in order to focus on the manifest verbal content of the story before coding it. Total Speakers/Sources Relied on for the Story: Coders will write in the total number of sources relied on for the story based on a total the above coded categories. This number should equal the totaled speakers/sources noted in the previous question. Number of Independent and Media Sources: Coders are then asked to determine the number of Independent and Media Sources relied on in the story. An independent source is an individual or group that is not clearly identified as being a part of the media. A media source is identified as an individual or group that is clearly a member of the media. Anchor Direction of Content: For TV News Stories with an Anchor present, who does the Anchor Direct the Viewer To?

PAGE 86

75 Media Cross Promotion: Do the TV News Stores direct viewers to their Web sites or other media coverage? If yes, coders will indicate where viewers are being directed. Frames: Coders are asked to determine the presence or absence of the following list of frames, based on prior research, and to indicate if this frame is best characterized as being episodic or thematic. Additionally, coders are asked to indicate which of the sources from the above list discussed the content associated with these frames by writing the identification number of the source(s) in the space provided. The list of frames coded for are: The list of frames coded for are: (1) Military Conflictframes that emphasize the military battle itself on macro or micro levels; (2) American Patriotismframes that emphasize citizens rallying around the flag and a resurgence of American patriotism in various manifestations; (3) Protestframes that show individuals our groups, in the U.S. or abroad protesting or the discussion of protest of the war; (4) Human Interestframes that emphasize the human element of the war, including soldiers and any citizens; (5) Responsibilityframes that assign responsibility for the military conflict to a given individual, government, or regime; (6) Economic Consequencesframes that focus on the either short or long-term economic consequences that the war will have domestically, in the Middle East, or internationally; (7) Diagnosticframes that emphasize an assessment of how and why this military conflict developed; (8) Prognosticframes that emphasize what outcome of the military conflict will be, including the removal of Saddam/regime change, regional stability, loss of U.S. soldiers, etc.; (9) Rebuilding of Iraqframes that specifically deal with the rebuilding of Iraqi and the future of the country and its people after the war is finished; and (10) Metacommunicationa frame that emphasizes either the medias self-reflexivity or the communication process between

PAGE 87

76 sources and the news media. (In addition to listing the source of the metacommunication, coders are also asked to indicate the subject of the metacommunication, e.g., the Bush Administration.) Metacommunication Frame Presence: If the metacommunication frame is present, coders are instructed to indicate which of the above frames areas the metacommunication directly relate to by filling in the identification number of the frame(s) in the space provided. Metacommunication Frames: The dissertation is designed to determine the extent to which metacommunication frames were relied upon by the media during the reporting of a military campaign. For purposes of this dissertation, metacommunication is defined as the news medias self-reflexive coverage of itself in a general sense and of the interplay between the Bush administrations or Iraqi governments public information about Operation Iraqi Freedom and the TV News and Web sites resulting coverage. Metacommunication Frame Type: The concept of metacommunication is further is broken down into two distinct areas: self-reflexive reporting and strategy/process news. For purposes of this dissertation the two differing types of metacommunication will be treated as mutually exclusive categories stories will be coded as being characterized either one or the other type of metacommunication, not both If the metacommunication frame is coded as being present, indicate which one of the following best characterizes the type of metacommunication present: (1) Self Reflexive or (2) Strategy/Process. Self Reflexive Metacommunication Frame Characteristics: If the Self Reflexive Metacommunication Frame is present, indicate which one of the following best characterizes it: (1) Role of Technology in Attaining Coverage; (2) Anchors or Media

PAGE 88

77 Personalities Discussing their Opinions; (3) Reporters Discussing Personal Experience of Covering the War; (4) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from their News Organization, Network, or Publication; (5) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from another News Organization, Network, or Publications; (6) The News Media Emphasizing their Role as a Participant in the Event; (7) Cross Promotion and Cross Referencing of Media; or (8) Insider Views of the War or War Strategizing. Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Characteristics: If, Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame is present, indicate which one of the following best characterizes it: (1) Pentagon Information Strategy; (2) White House/Bush Administration Information Strategy; (3) Military Official/ Troops Information Strategy; (4) Partisan Information Source Strategy; (5) Bush Administration-News Media Relationship and/or Interactions; (6) Journalists Participation in Military Events or Press Briefings; (7) Standards of the Quality of the News Coverage; and (8) Influence of PR/News Management Strategies on Journalists Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Classification: If, Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame is present, indicate which one of the following best characterizes it: (1) Adversarial; (2) Educational; or (3) Neutral.. Adversarial types of strategy/process frames would include stories that negative label that implies manipulation or the use of ploys in the communication process as spin or call source information a sound bite. The neutral type of strategy/process frame is one in which there is no negative or positive slant to the communication process but instead just states the occurrence of a transferal of information from source to the media. The educational type

PAGE 89

78 of strategy/process frame is one in which the viewer would actually learn something about the communication process between the source and the media but is without any negative connotations and is, instead, unbiased and is clearly informative about the process. Assessment of the Bush Administrations Public Information Efforts: Coders will indicate the Storys Assessment/Overall Tone of the Bush Administrations Public Information Efforts from the following list: (1) Positive; (2) Negative; (3) Neutral; or (4) Not Applicable. Additionally, coders are asked to list key words, terms, or phrases that are used to describe the administration and its communication strategies as open-ended information in the space provided. Assessment of the Iraqi governments Administrations Public Information Efforts: Coders will indicate the Storys Assessment/Overall Tone of the Iraqi governments Public Information Efforts from the following list: (1) Positive; (2) Negative; (3) Neutral; or (4) Not Applicable. Additionally, coders are asked to list key words, terms, or phrases that are used to describe the administration and its communication strategies as open-ended information in the space provided.

PAGE 90

APPENDIX B CODEBOOK FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF WEB COVERAGE Coder ID: Coders will input their three initials for identification purposes. Story Number: Coders will give each story will be a unique four-digit number. Story Date: Coders will indicate the original date on which the story ran using a six-digit number (e.g., 040203 for April, 2, 2003) Story Headline: Coders will either write the exact headline that was associated with each story. Type of Story: (2) Web Coverage Web site News Story Origin: (1) ABC (2) CBS (3) CNN (4) FOX Web News Story Length: Coders will list the length of the story based on a word count, including the headline and sub-head. Web site Story Source Attribution: Coders are asked to identify the presence or absence of a number of sources from a predetermined listed based on prior research: (1) Storys Author; (2) Reporter; (3) Anonymous; (4) Special Interest/Lobbying Group; (5) Military Expertnot current personnel; (6) Republican Political Pundit; (7) Democratic Political Pundit; (8) Non-Partisan Political Pundit; (7) Media Personality from Same 79

PAGE 91

80 Network; (8) Media Personality from Other Organization; (9) Scholar/Media Critic; (10) Embedded Journalist; (11) Associated Press or other Wire Service; (12) Citizens; (13) Bush Administration, Aides, or Advisors; (14) Iraqi Government Official Spokesperson; (15) Report/Document/Poling Data; (16) U.S. Military Officialsincluding any branch of the armed services; (17) Iraqi Dissidents; and (18) Other. If other and identifying this source in an open-ended area on the codesheet. Total Sources Relied on for the Story: Coders will write in the total number of sources relied on for the story based on a total the above coded categories. This number should equal the totaled sources noted in the previous question. Hyperlinks: Coders will indicate how many subject hyperlinks that relate to Operation Iraqi freedom are present. Internal Hyperlinks: Coders will indicate how many of these are subject hyperlinks are internal hyperlinks that keep the user within the site. External Hyperlinks: Coders will indicate how many of these are subject hyperlinks are external hyperlinks that send the user outside the site. External Hyperlink Destinations: The URLs for the external subject hyperlinks will be noted in order to determine where the site sending the user. Frames: Coders are asked to determine the presence or absence of the following list of frames, based on prior research, and to indicate if this frame is best characterized as being episodic or thematic. Additionally, coders are asked to indicate which of the sources from the above list discussed the content associated with these frames by writing the identification number of the source(s) in the space provided. The list of frames coded for are: (1) Military Conflictframes that emphasize the military battle itself on macro

PAGE 92

81 or micro levels; (2) American Patriotismframes that emphasize citizens rallying around the flag and a resurgence of American patriotism in various manifestations; (3) Protestframes that show individuals our groups, in the U.S. or abroad protesting or the discussion of protest of the war; (4) Human Interestframes that emphasize the human element of the war, including soldiers and any citizens; (5) Responsibilityframes that assign responsibility for the military conflict to a given individual, government, or regime; (6) Economic Consequencesframes that focus on the either short or long-term economic consequences that the war will have domestically, in the Middle East, or internationally; (7) Diagnosticframes that emphasize an assessment of how and why this military conflict developed; (8) Prognosticframes that emphasize what outcome of the military conflict will be, including the removal of Saddam/regime change, regional stability, loss of U.S. soldiers, etc.; (9) Rebuilding of Iraqframes that specifically deal with the rebuilding of Iraqi and the future of the country and its people after the war is finished; and (10) Metacommunicationa frame that emphasizes either the medias self-reflexivity or the communication process between sources and the news media (In addition to listing the source of the metacommunication, coders are also asked to indicate the subject of the metacommunication, e.g., the Bush Administration.) Metacommunication Frame Presence: If the metacommunication frame is present, coders are instructed to indicate which of the above frames areas the metacommunication directly relate to by filling in the identification number of the frame(s) in the space provided. Metacommunication Frames: The dissertation is designed to determine the extent to which metacommunication frames were relied upon by the media during the reporting

PAGE 93

82 of a military campaign. For purposes of this dissertation, metacommunication is defined as the news medias self-reflexive coverage of itself in a general sense and of the interplay between the Bush administrations or Iraqi governments public information about Operation Iraqi Freedom and the TV News and Web sites resulting coverage. Metacommunication Frame Type: The concept of metacommunication is further is broken down into two distinct areas: self-reflexive reporting and strategy/process news. For purposes of this dissertation the two differing types of metacommunication will be treated as mutually exclusive categories stories will be coded as being characterized either one or the other type of metacommunication, not both If the metacommunication frame is coded as being present, indicate which one of the following best characterizes the type of metacommunication present: (1) Self Reflexive or (2) Strategy/Process. Self Reflexive Metacommunication Frame Characteristics: If the Self Reflexive Metacommunication Frame is present, indicate which one of the following best characterizes it: (1) Role of Technology in Attaining Coverage; (2) Anchors or Media Personalities Discussing their Opinions; (3) Reporters Discussing Personal Experience of Covering the War; (4) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from their News Organization, Network, or Publication; (5) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from another News Organization, Network, or Publications; (6) The News Media Emphasizing their Role as a Participant in the Event; (7) Cross Promotion and Cross Referencing of Media; or (8) Insider Views of the War or War Strategizing. Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Characteristics: If, Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame is present, indicate which one of the

PAGE 94

83 following best characterizes it: (1) Pentagon Information Strategy; (2) White House/Bush Administration Information Strategy; (3) Military Official/ Troops Information Strategy; (4) Partisan Information Source Strategy; (5) Bush Administration-News Media Relationship and/or Interactions; (6) Journalists Participation in Military Events or Press Briefings; (7) Standards of the Quality of the News Coverage; and (8) Influence of PR/News Management Strategies on Journalists. Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Classification: If, Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame is present, indicate which one of the following best characterizes it: (1) Adversarial; (2) Educational; or (3) Neutral. Types of strategy/process metacommunication news frames: This dissertation will additionally evaluate strategy/process news on another sub-level distinctionthis characterization is either adversarial or educational strategy/process news. Adversarial types of strategy/process frames would include stories that negative label that implies manipulation or the use of ploys in the communication process as spin or call source information a sound bite. The neutral type of strategy/process frame is one in which there is no negative or positive slant to the communication process but instead just states the occurrence of a transferal of information from source to the media. The educational type of strategy/process frame is one in which the viewer would actually learn something about the communication process between the source and the media but is without any negative connotations and is, instead, unbiased and is clearly informative about the process. Assessment of the Bush Administrations Public Information Efforts: Coders will indicate the Storys Assessment/Overall Tone of the Bush Administrations Public

PAGE 95

84 Information Efforts from the following list: (1) Positive; (2) Negative; (3) Neutral; or (4) Not Applicable. Additionally, coders are asked to list key words, terms, or phrases that are used to describe the administration and its communication strategies as open-ended information in the space provided. Assessment of the Iraqi governments Administrations Public Information Efforts: Coders will indicate the Storys Assessment/Overall Tone of the Iraqi governments Public Information Efforts from the following list: (1) Positive; (2) Negative; (3) Neutral; or (4) Not Applicable. Additionally, coders are asked to list key words, terms, or phrases that are used to describe the administration and its communication strategies as open-ended information in the space provided.

PAGE 96

APPENDIX C CODESHEET OF CONTENT ANALYSIS OF TELEVISED NEWS BROADCASTS Coder: __ __ __ Story Number __ __ __ __ Story Date: __ __ __ __ __ __ (Reliability 1.00) Story Headline or Title: (Reliability 1.00) Type of Story: (1) TV News Broadcast TV News Story/Segment Origin: (Reliability 1.00) (1) ABC (2) CBS (3) CNN (4) FOX TV News Story Length (Minutes and Seconds) (Reliability .75) TV News Story Speaker(s)/Source(s): (1) Anchor Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (2) Reporter Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (3) Anonymous Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (4) Special Interest/Lobbying Group Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (5) Military Expert (Not Current Personnel) Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (6) Republican Political Pundit Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (7) Democratic Political Pundit Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (8) Non-Partisan Political Pundit Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (9) Media Personality from Same Network Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (10) Media Personality from Other Organization Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (11) Scholar/Media Critic Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (12) Embedded Journalist Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (13) Associated Press or other Wire Service Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (14) Citizens Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (15) Bush Administration, Aides, or Advisors Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (16) Iraqi Government Official Spokesperson Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability .75) (17) Report/Document/Poling Data Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (18) U.S. Military Official(s) Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (19) Iraqi Dissidents Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (20) Other Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) If other, what individual(s) or group(s) were relied on as a source? (Reliability 1.00) 85

PAGE 97

86 How Many Total Speakers/Sources Were Relied on for the Story? (Reliability 1.00) How many of these are Independent Sources? (Reliability 1.00) How many of these are Media Sources? (Reliability 1.00) For TV News Stories with an Anchor present, who does the Anchor Direct the Viewer To? (Reliability 1.00) Do the TV News Stores direct viewers to their Web sites or other media coverage? (Reliability 1.00) If yes, where? (Reliability 1.00) Frames: Episodic or Thematic (1) Military Conflict Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability .75) (2) American Patriotism Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (3) Protest Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (4) Human Interest Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability .75) (5) Responsibility Frame Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (6) Economic Consequences Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (7) Diagnostic Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (8) Prognostic Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (9) Rebuilding of Iraq Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (10) Metacommunication Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) Subject(s): (Reliability .75) If Metacommunication frame is present, which of the above frames areas does the metacommunication directly relate to? (Reliability 1.00)

PAGE 98

87 If the Metacommunication Frame is Present, which one of the following best characterizes it? (1) Self Reflexive (2) Strategy/Process (Reliability 1.00) If Self Reflexive Metacommunication Frame is present, which one of the following best characterizes it? (1) Role of Technology in Attaining Coverage (2) Anchors or Media Personalities Discussing their Opinions (3) Reporters Discussing Personal Experience of Covering the War (4) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from their News Organization, Network, or Publication (5) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from another News Organization, Network, or Publications (6) The News Media Emphasizing their Role as a Participant in the Event (7) Cross Promotion and Cross Referencing of Media (8) Insider Views of the War or War Strategizing (Reliability 1.00) If, Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame is present, which one of the following best characterizes it? (1) Pentagon Information Strategy (2) White House/Bush Administration Information Strategy (3) Military Official/ Troops Information Strategy (4) Partisan Information Source Strategy (5) Bush Administration-News Media Relationship and/or Interactions (6) Journalists Participation in Military Events or Press Briefings (7) Standards of the Quality of the News Coverage (8) Influence of PR/News Management Strategies on Journalists (Reliability .75) If, Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame is present, which one of the following best characterizes it? (1) Adversarial (2) Educational (3) Neutral (Reliability .75) Storys Assessment/Overall Tone of the Bush Administrations Public Information Efforts: (1) Positive (2) Negative (3) Neutral (4) Not Applicable (Reliability .75) Key words, terms, or phrases used to describe these public information efforts: (Reliability 1.00) Storys Assessment/Overall Tone of the Iraqi governments Public Information Efforts: (1) Positive (2) Negative (3) Neutral (Reliability 1.00) (4) Not Applicable Key words, terms, or phrases used to describe these public information efforts: (Reliability 1.00)

PAGE 99

APPENDIX D CODESHEET FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF WEB COVERAGE Coder: __ __ __ Story Number __ __ __ __ Story Date: __ __ __ __ __ __ (Reliability 1.00) Story Headline or Title: (Reliability 1.00) Type of Story: (2) Web Coverage (Reliability 1.00) Web News Story Origin: (1) ABC (2) CBS (3) CNN (4) FOX (Reliability 1.00) Web News Story Length: (Word Count) (Reliability 1.00) Source Attribution: (1) Story Author Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability .75) (2) Reporter Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (3) Anonymous Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (4) Special Interest/Lobbying Group Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (5) Military Expert (Not Current Personnel) Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (6) Republican Political Pundit Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (7) Democratic Political Pundit Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (8) Non-Partisan Political Pundit Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (9) Media Personality from Same Network Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (10) Media Personality from Other Organization Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (11) Scholar/Media Critic Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (12) Embedded Journalist Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (13) Associated Press or other Wire Service Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (14) Citizens Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (15) Bush Administration, Aides, or Advisors Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (16) Iraqi Government Official Spokesperson Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (17) Report/Document/Poling Data Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (18) U.S. Military Official(s) Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (19) Iraqi Dissidents Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (20) Other Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) If other, what individual(s) or group(s) were relied on as a source? (Reliability 1.00) 88

PAGE 100

89 How Many Total Sources Were Relied on for the Story? (Reliability .75) How many of these are Independent Sources? (Reliability 1.00) How many of these are Media Sources? (Reliability 1.00) How many subject hyperlinks are present? (Reliability 1.00) How many of these are internal hyperlinks? (Reliability 1.00) How many of these are external? (Reliability 1.00) If external, where are they sending the user? (Reliability 1.00) Frames: Episodic or Thematic (1) Military Conflict Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (2) American Patriotism Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (3) Protest Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (4) Human Interest Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (5) Responsibility Frame Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (6) Economic Consequences Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (7) Diagnostic Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (8) Prognostic Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (9) Rebuilding of Iraq Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) (10) Metacommunication Present (1) Absent (0) (Reliability 1.00) (Reliability 1.00) Source(s): (Reliability 1.00) Subject(s): (Reliability 1.00) If Metacommunication frame is present, which of the above frames areas does the metacommunication directly relate to? (Reliability 1.00) If Metacommunication Frame is Present, which one of the following best characterizes it?

PAGE 101

90 (1) Self Reflexive (2) Strategy/Process (Reliability 1.00) If Self Reflexive Metacommunication Frame is present, which one of the following best characterizes it? (1) Role of Technology in Attaining Coverage (2) Anchors or Media Personalities Discussing their Opinions (3) Reporters Discussing Personal Experience of Covering the War (4) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from their News Organization, Network, or Publication (5) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from another News Organization, Network, or Publications (6) The News Media Emphasizing their Role as a Participant in the Event (7) Cross Promotion and Cross Referencing of Media (8) Insider Views of the War or War Strategizing (Reliability 1.00) If, Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame is present, which one of the following best characterizes it? (1) Pentagon Information Strategy (2) White House/Bush Administration Information Strategy (3) Military Official/ Troops Information Strategy (4) Partisan Information Source Strategy (5) Bush Administration-News Media Relationship and/or Interactions (6) Journalists Participation in Military Events or Press Briefings (7) Standards of the Quality of the News Coverage (8) Influence of PR/News Management Strategies on Journalists (Reliability 1.00) If, Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame is present, which one of the following best characterizes it? (1) Adversarial (2) Educational (3) Neutral (Reliability 1.00) Storys Assessment/Overall Tone of the Bush Administrations Public Information Efforts: (1) Positive (2) Negative (3) Neutral (4) Not Applicable (Reliability 1.00) Key words, terms, or phrases used to describe these public information efforts: (Reliability 1.00) Storys Assessment/Overall Tone of the Iraqi governments Public Information Efforts: (1) Positive (2) Negative (3) Neutral (4) Not Applicable (Reliability 1.00) Key words, terms, or phrases used to describe these public information efforts: (Reliability 1.00)

PAGE 102

LIST OF REFERENCES Altheide, D.L. (1976). Creating reality: How TV news distorts events. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Altheide, D.L. (1985). Media power. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Altheide, D.L., Gray, B., Janisch, R., Korbin, L., Maratea, R., Neill, D., Reaves, J., & Deman, F.V. (2001). News constructions of fear and victim: An exploration through triangulated qualitative document analysis. Qualitative Inquar, 7(3), 304-322. Altheide, D.L., & Johnson, J.M. (1980). Bureaucratic propaganda. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Altheide, D.L., & Snow, R.P. (1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Altheide, D.L., & Snow, R. (1991). Media worlds in the post-journalism era. New York, NY: DeGruyter. Ansolabehere, S., Behr, R., & Iyengar, S. (1993). The media game. New York: Macmillan. Arlen, M.J. (1967). Living room war. New York: Viking Press. Arno, A. (1984). Communication, conflict, and storylines: The news media as actors in a cultural context. In A. Arno, & W. Dissanayake (Eds.), The news media in national and international conflict. Boulder, CO: Westview. Baker, C.E. (2002). Media, markets, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J., Moyer, A., Beauvais, J., & Epel, E. (1995). The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14, 178-184. Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization (pp. 1-55). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bennett, W.L. (1988). News, the politics of illusion. New York: Longman. 91

PAGE 103

92 Bennett, W.L. (1992). The governing crisis. Media, money, and marketing in American elections. New York: St. Martins Press. Bennett, W. L. (1993). Constructing public and their opinions. Political Communication, 10: 101-120. Bennett, W.L. (2001). News, the politics of illusion. New York: Longman. Bennett, W.L., & Entman, R.M. (2001a). The big spin. Strategic communication and the transformation of pluralist democracy. In W.L. Bennett &, R.M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 279-298). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bennett, W.L., & Entman, R.M. (2001b) Mediated politics: Communication and the future of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bennett, L.W., & Paletz, D.L. (1994). Taken by storm: The media, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Berelson, B. (1966), Democratic theory and public opinion. In Reader in public opinion and communication (pp. 489-504). B. Berelson & M. Janowitz (Eds.). New York: The Free Press. Blummer, J.G. (1997). Origins of the crisis of communication for citizenship. Political Communication, 14, 395-404 Blummer, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication, 16(3), 209-30. Brody, R.A. (1991, September). Crisis, war and public opinion. The media and support for the president in two phases of the confrontation in the Persian Gulf. Paper presented at the Social Science Councils Conference, Media and Foreign Policy, Seattle, WA. Caldwell, J. T. (1995). Televisuality: style, crisis, and authority in American television. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Carrier, R., & Swanson, D. (1991). International television coverage of the Gulf War: Some preliminary observations. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Atlanta, GA. Cohen, A.A., Adoni, H., & Bantz, C.R. (1990). Social conflict and television news. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Colford, P. (1998). Media on media: Does the public really care? Media Week, 8(42), 38-43.

PAGE 104

93 Connolly-Ahern, C., Williams, A.P., Flowers, K., Floyd, S., Khang, H., & Mills, L. (2002). Look Whos Talking: The Role of Media Narcissism in the News Coverage of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. Paper presented to the annual convention of the International Communication Association, Seoul, Korea. Conrad, P. (2001). Genetic optimism: Framing genes and medical illness in the news. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 25, 225-247. Cook, T. (1998). Governing with the news. The news media as a political institution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cook, T. (2001). The future of institutional media. In W.L. Bennett & R.M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics. Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 182-200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DAngelo, P. (1999). Framing the press: A new approach to assessing the cynical nature of press self-coverage and its implications for information processing in the political campaign context. Paper presented to the Mass Communication Division at the 49th Annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. DAngelo, P. (2002). Framing the press: A new model for observing press frames in presidential campaign news. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Temple University, Philadelphia. DAngelo, P., & Esser, F. (2003). Metacoverage of the press and publicity in campaign 2000 network news. In L. Kaid, J.C. Tedesco, D. Bystrom, & M.S. McKinney (Eds.), The millennium election: Communication and the 2000 campaign (pp. 89-103). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Williams, B. A. (2001). Let us infotain you: Politics in the new media environment. In W. L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 160-181). New York: Cambridge University Press. Deuze, M. (1998). The Web communicators: Issues in research into online journalism and journalists [online]. First Monday 3 (12). Available: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_12/deuze/index.html. De Vreese, C. H. (2003). Valence news frames and public support for the EU. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Convention, San Diego, CA. De Vreese, C. H. (2004). Framing Europe: Television news and European integration. Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers.

PAGE 105

94 De Vreese, C. H., Peter, J., & Semetko, H. A. (2001). Framing politics at the launch of the Euro: A cross-national comparative study of frames in the news. Political Communication, 18(2), 107-122. Dimitrova, D.V., Connolly-Ahern, C., Williams, A.P., Reid A., & Kaid, L.L. (2003). Hyperlinking as gatekeeping: Online newspaper coverage of the execution of an American terrorist. Journalism Studies, 4(3), pp. 401-414. Dimitrova, D.V., Kaid, L.L., Williams, A.P., & Trammell, K.D. (2003, August). War on the Web: The first hours of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Paper presented at the Entertainment Studies Special Interest Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, Missouri. Dimmick, J. (1974). The gatekeeper: An uncertainty theory. Journalism Monographs, 37. Edelman, M.J. (1997). Political language, New York: Academic Press. Edelman, M.J. (1993). Contestable categories and public opinion. Political Communication, 43(4), 51-58. Elshtain, J.B. (1992). Just war as politics: What the Gulf War told us about contemporary American life. In E.E. Decosse (Ed.), But was it just? Reflections on the morality of the Persian Gulf War (pp. 43-60). New York: Doubleday. Entman, R. (1991). Framing US coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran air accidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication. 43 (4), 51-58. Esser, F. (2000). Tabloidization of news. A comparative analysis of Anglo-American and German press journalism. European Journal of Communication, 14(3), 291-324. Esser, F. (2001a). A news stage in political reporting: Metacommunication in election coverage. Paper presented to the Political Communications Division, International Communication Association, Washington, DC. Esser, F. (2001b). Reflexive reporting on political journalism and political PR in the 2000 presidential campaign: Toward a theory of metacommunication. Paper presented to the Political Communications Division, International Communication Association, Washington, DC. Esser, F., & DAngelo, P. (2002). Framing the press and the publicity process: A content analysis of meta-coverage in campaign 2000 network news. American Behavioural Scientist, 46(5), 617-641.

PAGE 106

95 Esser, F., & DAngelo, P. (2003). Framing the press and publicity process in German, British and U.S. general election campaigns: A comparative study of metacoverage. Paper Presented to the Political Communications Division, International Communication Association, San Diego, CA. Esser, F., Reinemann, C., & Fan, D. (1999). Spin Doctoring im deutschen Wahlkampf. Medin Tenor, 86, 40-43. Esser, F., Reinemann. C., & Fan, D. (2000). Spin doctoring in British and German election campaigns: How the press is becoming confronted with a new quality of political PR. European Journal of Communication, 15(2), 209-39. Esser, F., Reinemann, C., & Fan, D. (2001). Spin doctors in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany: Metacommunication about media manipulation. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6(1), 16-45. Esser, F., & Spanier, B. (2003). Media politics and media self-coverage in the British press. Paper presented to the Political Communications Division, International Communication Association, San Diego, CA. Evelend, W.P., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from the Web versus print. Communication Research, 28, 48-78. Fallows, J. (1997). Breaking the news: How media undermine American democracy. New York: Vintage. Fishman, M. (1980). Manufacturing the news. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Franklin, B. (1998). Tough on soundbites, tough on the causes of soundbites: New labor and news management. London: Catalyst Trust. Friedenberg, R.V. (1997). Ballot box warriors. Communication consultants in political campaigns, Westport, CT: Praeger. Gamson, W.A. (1989). News as framing. American Behavior Scientist, 33, 157-161. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gamson, W.A., & Modigliani, A. (1997). The changing culture of affirmative action. Research in Political Sociology, 95, 1-37. Gans, H. (1979). Deciding whats news. New York: Vintage Books. Garrison, B. (2001). Computer-assisted reporting near complete adoption. Newspaper Research Journal, 22(1), 65-80.

PAGE 107

96 Giddens, A. (1994). Living in a post-traditional society. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization (pp. 56-109). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Golan, G., & Wanta, W. (2001). Second-level agenda setting in the New Hampshire primary: A comparison of coverage in three newspapers and public perceptions of candidates. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(2), 247-259. Graber, D.A. (1976). Press and TV as Opinion Resources in Presidential Campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 285-303. Graber, D.A. (1997). Mass media and American politics. (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. Greenberg, B.S. & Gantz, W. (1993). Desert Storm and the mass media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Habermas, J. (1962/1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hardin, R. (2001). Conceptions and explanations of trust. In K.S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 3-39). New York: Russell Sage. Hallin, D.C. (1992). Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections, 1968-1988. Journal of Communication, 42, 5-24. Hallin, D.C. (1986). The uncensored war: The media and Vietnam. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hertog, J. K., & McLeod, D. M. (2001). A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A field guide. In S. D. Reese, O.H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life (pp. 139-162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hirsch, A. (1991). Talking heads: Political talk shows and their pundits. New York: St. Martins Press. Holloway, R. (2001). One nation, after all: Convention frames and political culture. In R. E. Denton (Ed.), The 2000 presidential campaign: A communication perspective (pp. 117-134). Westport, CT: Praeger. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

PAGE 108

97 Holtz-Bacha, C. (2002). Professionalization of political communication: The case of the 1998 SPD campaign. Journal of Political Marketing, 1(4), 23-37. Hybel, A.R. (1993). Power over rationality: The Bush administration and the Gulf crisis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Iyengar, S., & Kinder (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1993). News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion. Communications Research, 20(3), 365-384. Jamieson, K.H. (1998). Mapping the discourse of the 1996 U.S. presidential general election. Journal of Communication, 42, 5-24. Jensen, R. (1992). Fighting objectivity: The illusion of journalistic neutrality in coverage of the Persian Gulf War. Journal of Communication, 16, (1), 20-32. Johnson, P. (2003). For cable news, Iraq war is a clear victory. USA Today, available online: http://www.usatoday.com/life/world/iraq/2003-04-08-cable-news-main_x.htm. Johnson, T.J. Boudreau, T., & Glowaki, C. (1996). Turning the spotlight inward: How five leading news organizations covered the media in the 1992 presidential election. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(3), 657-671. Jurkowitz, M. (1996). Did media kiss off the election? Nieman Reports, 50, 53-58. Kaatz, W., Gurevitch, M., & Haas, H. (1973, April). The use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38, 164-181. Kaid, L.L., Ballotti, J., & Wawrzyniak, M. (1993). Telling the Gulf War story: Coverage in five papers. In B. Greener & W. Ganz (Eds.), Desert Storm and the Mass Media (pp. 86-98). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Kaid, L.L., & Bystrom, D.G. (1999). The electronic election. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Kaid, L.L., & Creer, V. (1990). Political argumentation and violations of audience expectations: An analysis of the Bush-Rather encounter. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34(1), 1-16. Kaid, L.L., & Holtz-Bacha, C. (1995). Political advertising in western democracies: Parties and candidates on television. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

PAGE 109

98 Kaid, L.L., Myrick, M., Chanslor, M., Roper, C., Hoviland, M., & Trivoulidis, N. (1994). CNNs Americanization of the Gulf War: An analysis of media, technology, and storytelling. In T. McCain & L. Shyles (Eds.), The 1,000 Hour War: Communication in the Gulf (pp. 147-160).Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Kaid, L.L., & Tedesco, J.C. (1996). Presidential ads as nightly news: A content analysis of 1988 and 1992 televised adwatches. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(3), 292-309. Kalichman, S. C., & Coley, B. (1995). Context framing to enhance HIV-antibody-testing messages Targeted to African American women. Health Psychology, 14(3), 247-254. Kanjirathinkal, M., & Hickey, J.V. (1992). Media framing and myth: The media's portrayal of the Gulf War. Critical Sociology, 19(1), 103-112. Kelmann, H.C. (1993). The reaction of mass publics to the Gulf War. In S.A. Renshon (Ed.), The political psychology of the Gulf War: Leaders, publics, and the process of conflict (pp. 251-265). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press Kelmann, H.C. (1995). Decision making and public discourse in the Gulf War: An assessment of underlying psychological and moral assumptions. Journal of Peace Psychology, 1(2), 117-130. Kerbel, M.R. (1995). Remote & Controlled: Media politics in a cynical age. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Kerbel, M.R. (1997). The media: Viewing the campaign through a strategic haze. In M. Nelson (Ed.), The election of 1996. Washington: CQ Press. Kerbel, M.R. (1998). Edited for television: CNN, ABC, and American presidential elections. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Kerbel, M.R., Apee, S., & Ross, M.H. (2000). PBS aint so different: Public broadcasting, election frames, and democratic empowerment. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 5(4), 8-32 Kiousis, S. (2002a). Killing the Messenger: an exploration of presidential newspaper coverage and public confidence in the press. Journalism Studies, 3(4), 557-572. Kiousis, S. (2002b). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media & Society 4(3), 355-384. Kiousis, S., Bantimaroudis, P., & Ban, H. (1999). Candidate Image Attributes: Experiments on the substantive dimension of second-level agenda setting. Communication Research, (26), 414-428.

PAGE 110

99 Knightley, P. (2002). Journalism, conflict and war: an introduction. Journalism Studies, 3(2), 167-171. Kosicki, G.M., Becker, L.B., & Fredin, E.S. (1994). Busses and ballots: The role of media images in a local election. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, (71), 76-89. Kurtz, H. (1995, August 21-27), Inside the media spin machine. Washington Post National Weekly. Lichter, R.S., & Noyes, R.E. (1995). Good intentions make bad news: Why Americans hate campaign journalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Lichter, R.S., Noyes, R.E., & Kaid, L.L. (2000). No News or Negative News: How the Networks nixed the Campaign, In L.L. Kaid & D. Bystrom (Eds.), The Electronic Election (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Liebes, T. (1992). Comparing the Intifadeh and the Gulf War on U.W. and Israeli television. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, (9), 44-55. Lule, J. (2001). Daily news, eternal stories: The mythological role of journalism. New York: Guilford Press. Manheim, J. (1998). The news shapers. Strategic communication as a third force in news making. In D. Graber, D. McQuail, & P. Norris (Eds.), The politics of news, the news of politics (pp. 94-109). Washington, DC: CQ Press. Martin, C. R., & Oshagan, H. (1997). Disciplining the workforce: The news media frame a General Motors plant closing. Communication Research, (24), 669-697. Mancini, P. (1999). New frontiers in political professionalism. Political Communication, 16(3), 234-245. Mancini, P., & Swanson, D.L. (1996). Politics media and modern democracy: Introduction. In D.L. Swanson & P. Mancini (Eds.), Politics media and modern democracy. An international study of innovations in electoral campaigning and their consequences (pp. 1-26). Westport: Praeger. Mazzoleni, G. (1987). Media logic and party logic in campaign coverage: the Italian general election of 1983. European Journal of Communication, 2(1), 55-80. Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999) Mediatization of Politics: A Challenge of Democracy? Political Communication, 16(3), 247-261. McCain, T., & Shyles, L. (1994). The 1,000 hour war. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 58-67.

PAGE 111

100 McKinnon, L. M., Kaid, L. L, Murphy, J., & Acree, C. K. (1996). Policing Political Ads: An Analysis of Five Leading Newspapers Responses to 1992 Political Advertisements. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 66-76. McLeod, D. M., & Detenber, B. H. (1999). Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of Communication, 49, 3-23. McMahon, K. (1998). Truth merchants. Montreal: National Film Board of Canada. McNair, B. (2000). Journalism and democracy. An evaluation of the political public sphere. London: Routledge. Morello, J. T. (1998). Argument and visual structuring in the 1984 Mondale-Reagan debates: The mediums influence on the perception of clash. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, 277-290. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberty conflict and its effects on tolerance. American Political Science Review, (91), 567-583. Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61, 1040-1061. Nimmo, D., & Combs, J.E. (1992). The political pundits. New York: Praeger. Norris, P. (1995). The restless searchlight: Network news framing of the post-cold war world. Political Communication, 12, 357-370. Norris, P. (1997). Politics and the press: The news media and their influence. Boulder, CO: Rienner. Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle. Political communications in postindustrial societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norris, P. (2002). Campaign communication. In L. LeDuc, R.G. Niemi, & P. Norris (Eds.), Comparing democracies 2: New Challenges in the study of elections and voting (pp. 126-147). London: Sage. North, R.C., Holsti, O., Zaninovicch, M.G., & Zines, D.A. (1963). Content analysis: A handbook with applications for the study of international crisis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Owen, D. (1991). Media messages in American presidential campaigns. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press Paletz, D.L. (1999). The media in American politics: Contents and consequences. New York: Longman.

PAGE 112

101 Paletz, D. L., & Vinegar, R. J. (2001). Presidents on television: The effects of instant analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(4), 488-497. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G.M. (1993). Framing analysis: an approach to new discourse. Political Communication, 10, 55-75. Pan, Z. & Kosicki, G.M. (2001). Framing as Strategic Action in Public Deliberation. In S.D. Reese, O.H. Gandy, Jr., & A.E. Grant, (Eds.). Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 35-66). Mawhaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Patterson, T.E. (1994). Out of order. New York: Vintage. Patterson, T. E. (1997). The news media: An effective political actor? Political Communication, 14, 445-455. Patterson, T. E., & Donsbach, W. (1996). News decisions: Journalists as partisan actors. Political Communication, 13, 455-468. Peled, T., & Katz, E. (1974). Media functions in wartime: The Israel home front in October 1973. In J.G. Blummer & E. Katz, (Eds.). The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 49-70). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Peng, F.Y., Tham, N.I, & Xiaoming, J. (1999). Trends in online newspapers: A look at the U.S. Web. Newspaper Research Journal, 20(2), 52-64. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2003). The Internet and the Iraq war: How online Americans have used the Internet to learn war news, understand events, and promote their views. http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=87. Pfetsch, B. (1998) God in the news. In D. Graber, D. McQuail, & P. Norris (Eds.) The politics of news: The news of politics (pp. 70-93). Washington, DC: CQ Press. Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought. The impact of news frames on readers cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24, 481-506. Ranney, A. (1985). The American elections of 1984. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Rhee, J. W. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: A social cognitive account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 47(3), 26-48. Rice, R.E., & Atkin, C. K. (1989). Public communication campaigns (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.

PAGE 113

102 Robinson, M.J. (1976). Public affairs television and the growth of political malaise: The case of the selling of the Pentagon. The American Political Science Review, 70, 409-432. Rssler, P. (2001). Between online heaven and cyberhell. The framing of the internet by traditional media coverage in Germany. New Media and Society, 3(1), 49-66. Sabato, L. (1991). Feeding frenzy. New York: Free Press Said, E. (1993). Culture and imperialism, London: Chotto & Windus. Scheufele, D.A. (1999, Winter). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication Research, pp. 103-122. Schultz, W. (1997). Changes of the mass media and the public sphere. Javnost The Public, 4(1), 57-69. Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93-109. Shaw, D. (1994). Surrender of the gatekeepers. Nieman Reports, 48(1), 3-5. Shoemaker P.J., & Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content. New York: Longman. Siebert, F.S. Peterson, T. & Schramm, W. (1963). Four theories of the press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and Soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do. Urbana: University of Illinois Press Singer, J. (2001). The metro wide web: Changes in newspapers gatekeeeping role online. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(1), 65-73. Singer, J. (2003). Campaign contributions: Online newspaper coverage of election 2000. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(1), 39-57. Snider, P. B. (1967). Mr. Gates revisited: A 1966 version of the 1949 case study. Journalism Quarterly, 43, 419-427. Snow, R. P. (1983). Creating media culture Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Sotirovic, M. (2000). Effects of media use on audience framing and support for welfare. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 269-296. Stebenne, D. (1993). Media coverage of American presidential elections. A historical perspective. In M. Fitzsimon (Ed.), The finish line: Covering the campaigns final days, the freedom forum (pp. 79-91), New York, NY: The Freedom Forum Media Studies Center.

PAGE 114

103 Stromer-Galley, J., (2002). New voices in the public sphere: political conversation in the internet age. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Swanson, D.L., & Mancini, P. (1996). Politics, media, and modern democracy: An international study of innovations in electoral campaigning and their consequences. Westport, CT: Praeger. Tankard, J. W. Jr. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In S.D. Reese, O.H. Gandy, Jr., & A.E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on the media and our understandings of the social world (pp. 95-106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Tankard, J., Hendrickson, L., Silberman, J,. Bliss, K., & Ghanem, S. (1991). Media frames: Approaches to conceptualization and measurement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston. Tedesco, J. C., Kaid, L. L., & McKinnon, L.M. (2000). Network adwatches: Policing the 1996 primary and general election presidential ads. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 541-555. Tewksbury, D., Jones, J., Peske, M. W., Raymond, A., & Vig, W. (2000). The interaction of news and advocate frames: Manipulating audience perceptions of a local public policy issue. Journalism and Mass Communication, 77(4), 804-829. Thimmech, N. (1985). The editorial endorsement game. In The Mass Media in Campaign : Articles from Public Opinion Magazine. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Thurber, J.A. (2000). Campaign warriors. Political consultants in elections. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Thussu, D.K. (2002). Managing the media in an era of round-the-clock news: Notes from Indias first tele-war. Journalism Studies, 3(2), 203-212. Tuchman, G. 1978. Making news. New York: Free Press. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458. Valkenburg, P. M., Semetko, H. A., & de Vreese, C. H. (1999). The effect of news frames on readers thoughts and recall. Communication Research, 26(5), 550-569. Wanta, W. (1997). The public and the national agenda: How people learn about important issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. White, D. M. (1950) The gatekeeper: A case-study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383-90.

PAGE 115

104 Williams, A.P., & Kiousis, S. (2004). Corporate Bias: Time Magazine and the Coverage of America Online. Paper presented at the Mass Communication Division, International Communication Association, Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA. Williams, A.P., Martin, J.D., Trammell, M.R, Jr. (2004). Google News, the Web Sphere, Hyperlinking, and Gatekeeping: An Exploratory Analysis of an Online News Source. Paper presented at the Communication and Technology Division, International Communication Association, Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA. Williams, A.P., Martin, J.D., Trammell, K.D., Landreville, K., & Ellis, C. (2004). Late night talk shows and war: Entertaining and informing through humor in R.D. Berenger (Ed.), Global Media Go to War, (pp. 131-138). Spokane, WA: Marquette Books. Williams, D. (2002). Synergy bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 453-472. yourDictionairy.com (2003). Top ten word lists of 2003 announced by yourDictionary.com. http://www.yourdictionary.com/about/topten2003.html. Zelizer, B. (1992). Covering the body: The Kennedy assassination, the media, and the shaping of collective memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Zoch, L.M. (2001) Whats really important here?: Media self-coverage in the Susan Smith murder trial. In S.D. Reese, O.H. Gandy, Jr., & A.E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 207-214) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Zorn, J. (2001). Demonizing in the Gulf War: Reading the archetypes. English Journal, 80, 44-46.

PAGE 116

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Andrew Paul Williams was born and raised in the once small and charming town of Orange Park, Florida. Williams has extensive professional communications experience as a consultant, writer, public relations practitioner, and photographer. He joins the faculty of the Department of Communication at Virginia Tech University in fall 2004. His research interests are political communication and media studies. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree with a double major in communications and English and a minor in political science from the University of North Florida in Jacksonville. Williams earned his Master of Arts degree in English at University of North Florida as well. 105


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0005601/00001

Material Information

Title: Media Narcissism and Self-Reflexive Reporting: Metacommunication in Televised News Broadcasts and Web Coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0005601:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0005601/00001

Material Information

Title: Media Narcissism and Self-Reflexive Reporting: Metacommunication in Televised News Broadcasts and Web Coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0005601:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












MEDIA NARCISSISM AND SELF-REFLEXIVE REPORTING:
METACOMMUNICATION IN TELEVISED NEWS BROADCASTS
AND WEB COVERAGE OF OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM















By

ANDREW PAUL WILLIAMS


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004

































Copyright 2004

by

Andrew Paul Williams




























This dissertation is dedicated to my parents. I owe a great deal of gratitude to my mother,
Lois Virginia Strickland Williams, who has been extremely supportive and actively
involved in helping me pursue my graduate education. Equally important is the vital role
my father, the late Reverend Grady H. Williams, Sr. had in encouraging me to continue
my formal education. I am thankful to these role models and friends for instilling in me a
quest for knowledge, a desire for civic engagement, and sense of humor. They both
encouraged me to view my life as a journey to be enjoyed, instead of just focusing on
specific destinations and accomplishments. I am thankful for their generosity, their
kindness, and their leadership, and perhaps most importantly, their helping me gain a
feeling of resilience by developing in me an appreciation for the absurd, which has
proved quite essential, especially at times when things in life have seemed dire. For all of
this, and much more, I am grateful.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am very fortunate to have benefited from the mentorship of Dr. Lynda Lee Kaid.

From my first contact with her, Dr. Kaid treated me with respect and encouraged a

collaborative research relationship which over the past three years has developed into a

close personal friendship as well. Dr. Kaid has helped me to develop a programmatic

approach to my research, while at the same time encouraged me to explore new ideas that

will serve to advance my own personal development and to contribute to the mass

communication discipline. As an eminent scholar who has been at the helm of political

communication scholarship for a little over three decades, this research luminary has

never ceased to amaze me with her kindness, her respect for differing points of view, and

her quest for advancing knowledge. Words cannot express the gratitude and admiration I

have for this great scholar and teacher. Dr. Kaid leads by example and is so inclusive and

generous to a point that is almost beyond belief.

It is also with much appreciation that I thank Dr. Spiro K. Kiousis. I had the

privilege of taking Dr. Kiousis' graduate mass communications theory class and also

developing an ongoing research and professional friendship with him. He is a top-rate

scholar and rising star in the discipline of political communication whose collegiality and

willingness to offer guidance is always above and beyond the call of duty.

Also noteworthy is the interest that Dr. Justin Brown took in me as I constantly ran

research ideas and questions about scholarship by him. Dr. Brown helped to encourage,









guide, and inform my research as I sought ways to address my many issues and concerns

about the mass media.

Another stalwart supporter who never tired of my almost endless questions and

need for guidance is Dr. David M. Hedge. Dr. Hedge met with me frequently to address

how I could merge my research in mass and political communication with the developing

scholarship in the field of political science and to stay focused in my efforts. His patience

and own intellectual curiosity have helped to send me in new directions with my research

projects.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the friendship, guidance, and support

that Dr. Bernell E. Tripp has offered me over the last three and one-half years. At a time

when I was very uncertain about my abilities, Dr. Tripp counseled, directed, and

protected me. Without her help as a teacher and confidant, I would not have been able to

have endured my first semester in this graduate program. Dr. Tripp was also selfless in

her expectations of me and most supportive of my choice to focus on quantitative

research in the area of political communication instead of historical media research which

is her expertise.

Last, but not least, Jody Hedge was the very first person I spoke with when I was

considering applying to this graduate program, and since that first conversation, she is

still the first person I turn to for help on matters of not only proper policies and

procedures, but also for personal and professional guidance. Jody has been the stabilizing

force in the graduate division of the College of Journalism and Communications on

whom I and countless other students rely when we feel there is nowhere else to turn. And

she never fails any of us, which is quite a feat, as there is almost always a rather long line









of students in need of her help. Jody has become a dependable friend to me, and I could

never have made it through this experience without her.

These are the primary people who have helped me through the hazing ritual of the

doctoral program, but there are many others who helped along the way. For all of you

who helped me on this arduous journey, you know who you are, and how much I am

grateful for contributing to an experience that was both the best and worst of times.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .......................... .... .............. ....... ....... ix

A B ST R A C T ................. .......................................................................................... x

CHAPTER

1 IN TRODU CTION ................................................. ...... .................

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................ ......................... 3

Role of the Journalist ............... ..................................................3
G atek keeping T h eory ........... ..... ........................................ .................. .......... .. .. ....
W ar Coverage ..................................... ................................ ......... 10
The W eb as a N ew s Source ............................................... ............................. 14
F ra m in g ................................................................................................................. 1 6
M etacom m u nication ...................................................................................... 19
Hypotheses and Research Questions ........................................ ....................... 28

3 METHODS ................... ....................................31

S a m p le ............................................................................. 3 1
C categories and D definition s .............................................................. .....................33
P public Inform ation E efforts ........................................... .. .......................................38
C o d in g P ro c e ss ..................................................................................................... 3 9

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................4 1

A analysis of N ew s Stories...................................................... .......................... 4 1
Televised News Broadcast Source Reliance.................................... ...............41
W eb Coverage Source R eliance ........................................ ........................... 42
Episodic and Them atic Fram e Prevalence.............................. ............................42
Fram e Prevalence........................................................... .... ...... .43
M etacom m unication Fram e Prevalence .....................................................................45
Frame Prevalence over Time .....................................................................45
Metacommunication Frame Prevalence over Time ................................................47
Types of M etacom m unication Fram es ...................................................................47









Self-Reflexive M etacommunication Frames ................................... .................49
Strategy/Process M etacommunication Frames................................ ............... 50
Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Categories .......................................51
Episodic and Thematic Frame Media Comparisons .............................................52
Bush Administration Public Information Assessments...........................................54
Iraq Government Public Information Assessments............................................ 56

5 D ISC U S SIO N ............................................................................... 57

Findings and Im plications................................................. .............................. 57
Source Reliance ................................. ........................... .... ....... 57
Episodic and Them atic Fram es ........................................ ....................... 59
Fram e Prevalence .......................... ............ ............... .... ..... .. 61
M etacom m unication F ram es ........................................................... .....................63
Self-Reflexive M etacommunication Frames ................................... .................64
Strategy/Process M etacommunication Frames................................ ............... 66
Strategy/Process Metacommunication Categories ............................................. 68
Public Inform action Assessm ent ............................................................................ 70
L im itatio n s ................................ ................................... ................ 7 0
F utu re R research ...................................... ........................ ................ 7 1

APPENDIX

A CODEBOOK FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF TELEVISED NEWS
BROADCASTS ........................... .. ... .... ................... 73

B CODEBOOK FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF WEB COVERAGE...................79

C CODESHEET OF CONTENT ANALYSIS OF TELEVISED NEWS
BROADCASTS ........................... .. ... .... .................. 85

D CODESHEET FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF WEB COVERAGE .....................88

LIST OF REFEREN CES ............................................................................. 91

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ............... 105
















LIST OF TABLES


Table pge

4-1 Episodic and Thematic Frames across Three Periods of Time .............................44

4-2 Frame Prevalence in Stories by Media Channel ............................................... 45

4-3 Self-Reflexive and Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frames by Media.........47

4-4 Frames Relied on in Stories Covering Operation Iraqi Freedom across Three
Periods of Time and by M edia Channel........ ......... ............ ..................... 48

4-5 Self-Reflexive Metacommunication Types by Media Channel ............................49

4-6 Strategy/Process Metacommunication Types by Media Channel..........................51

4-7 Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Categories by Media......................53

4-8 Bush Administration Public Information Efforts...............................................54

4-9 Episodic and Thematic Frames across Three Periods of Time and by Media
C h a n n e l ................................. ........... .... ..................... ................ 5 5

4-10 Iraqi Government Public Information Efforts ....................................... ....... 56















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

MEDIA NARCISSISM AND SELF-REFLEXIVE REPORTING:
METACOMMUNICATION IN TELEVISED NEWS BROADCASTS
AND WEB COVERAGE OF OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

By

Andrew Paul Williams

August 2004

Chair: Lynda Lee Kaid
Major Department: Journalism and Communications

This study examined the prevalence of metacommunication in televised news

broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Prior scholarship on

metacommunication, media narcissism, and self-reflexive reporting has primarily been

conducted in analyzing the news coverage of political campaigns, through the content

analysis of televised and print media. This study was a quantitative content analysis that

explicated the metacommunication concept by applying it to a military conflict and

comparing two electronic media channels.

Building on the prior established metacommunication frames that examined the

extent and type of self-reflexive media coverage and the media's evaluation of the

strategy/process of public information efforts, the current study's findings indicated that

metacommunication was a prevalent news frame in the coverage of the U.S. war with

Iraq in 2003. Of the two types of metacommunication frames that were examined in this









study, findings indicate that the self-reflexive frame was relied on more frequently than

the strategy/process frame.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

It is a given fact in today's highly mediated society that the public turns to the news

media-print, radio, TV, and Internet-for vital information, especially pertaining to

matters of national import, such as politics and homeland security. It is perhaps in no

other arena than the political one in a democratic society, where according to classic

democratic theories (Berelson, 1966), citizens rely on accuracy of information in order to

govern themselves. The mass media play a vital role in keeping the public up-to-date on

the facts about political figures, issues, and events.

However, a review of literature from the discipline of political communication over

the last four decades indicates that a number of scholars have identified five areas of

concern regarding troubling problems with the media's providing sufficient objective

information to the public: an emphasis on sensationalism and focus on clash; the

shrinking soundbite; an emphasis on image over issues; an emphasis on horserace

coverage in campaigns; and a focus on the negative.

This dissertation seeks to focus on a fifth emerging area of concern: media

narcissism and metacommunication. This dissertation largely builds on the research of

Esser and D'Angelo (2003, 2002) who view metacommunication to be a byproduct of an

adversarial relationship between professional political public relations strategists and the

media. Esser and D'Angelo's work has been greatly influenced by that of Kerbel (1995,

1997, 1998, & 2000) and Kerbel, Apee, and Ross (2000) who have identified the self-

reflexive nature of media coverage, in which journalist have become apt to insert









themselves into the stories on which they are reporting as problematic trend. The

metacommunication concept has previously been limited to political campaigns.

The purpose of this exploratory study is to advance the research on the electronic

media's coverage of war, the framing thereof, and to examine the role

metacommunication played in this reporting. Prior research has applied the theory of

metacommunication almost exclusively to political campaign coverage, and this

dissertation will explicate the metacommunication concept by applying it to a military

operation. Additionally, this dissertation adds to the prior research on

metacommunication in electronic news coverage, which has previously been limited to

television news by adding Web coverage of the war to the analysis.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This dissertation seeks to examine how the media covered the 2003 U.S. war with

Iraq. A number of prior studies that explored assumptions and theoretical underpinnings

of what the role of the media in a democratic society should be were drawn upon in this

analysis of media coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom with the goal of advancing

knowledge of how the media function during a time of crisis.

Role of the Journalist

The notion that the media have become increasingly self-reflexive or narcissistic in

their coverage of politics, major public events, and even war has received serious

attention and debate over the last few decades about just what the role of the journalist is

in society as compared to what this role should be. Theoretically, such concerns of media

self-reflexivity or metacommunication have been grounded in perspectives such as

framing or second-level (attribute) agenda setting. This research attempts to examine

expectations of established journalistic norms and practices and attempts to address key

concerns based on these given expectations.

A foundation for this exploration of media responsibility is the notion of classic

democratic theories (Berelson, 1966). This perspective asserts that it is essential in a

democratic society that citizens have access to information in order to make informed

decisions that enable self-governance.

Historically, in late 18th-century England, Edmund Burke is credited with labeling

the media as the Fourth Estate. This concept was based on the idea that the press should









have equal political power in relation to the other three estates of the British Empire: the

Lords, the Church, and the Commons. Freedom of the media was a cornerstone of this

concept, and these freedoms not only enabled the media to report, comment on, and

critique the government, it also was considered a responsibility of the press to do so.

Similarly, a concept called Social Responsibility Theory emerged in the United

States in the 20th Century. This normative theory asserts that the media serve to inform,

entertain, sell, and most importantly, raise conflict to the plane of public awareness. This

concept was developed from the writings of W.E. Hocking, The Commission on the Free

Press, and journalists' practitioner codes. This theory asserts that everyone should have

access to the media and that the media should respect privacy and not infringe on the

rights of individuals. The concept is grounded in freedom of the press from governmental

control, unless the government felt that there was a compelling need that justified its

intervention. The Social Responsibility perspective differs from Siebert, Peterson, and

Schramm's other three theories of the press-Authoritarian, Libertarian, and Soviet-

Totalitarian-in that it argues that the media must fulfill its obligation of providing

information to the public, and if it does not do so, someone should ensure that it does.

This notion of an obligation of journalistic social responsibility is largely based on the

fact that the media are the only industry that was guaranteed protection and freedom in

the Bill of Rights (Siebert, Peterson, & Schramm, 1963).

Based on these historical underpinnings, the role of the journalist has been shaped

and discussed by numerous scholars and practitioners. For example, it is argued that

freedom of the press is essential in a democratic society (Baker, 2002). Additionally, with

this freedom comes the journalistic responsibility to provide credible information to the









public (Lule, 2001). It is noteworthy that two major media organizations-the Society of

Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the Radio-Television News Directors Association

(RTNDA)-have developed codes of ethics and professional practice that overlap in

three specific areas of responsibility: (1) truth; (2) independence; and (3) accountability.

Gatekeeping Theory

In terms of applying theory to actual practice-to these journalist ideals and

norms-gatekeeping theory has guided research that has helped to inform these concerns

about the media fulfilling their public role. In both the seminal gatekeeping study (White,

1950) and in its subsequent replication (Schneider, 1967) researchers went into the

newsroom to observe how editors actually fulfilled their gatekeeping roles. These initial

studies defined gatekeeping as the way in which the editors, or gatekeepers, selected and

shaped what messages, out of the myriad content available, actually garnered media

coverage. These field reports indicate that gatekeeping decisions were primarily based on

newsworthiness, organizational norms, and space constraints, and the gatekeepers had the

power not only to select, but also to shape and present information. Newsworthiness and

space constraints (also referred to as the limited news hole) are the two primary

considerations that emerged from these studies of how newsroom decisions were made,

in terms of how the media gatekeepers responsibly serve their public duties (Shoemaker

& Reese, 1996).

Dimmick (1974) views gatekeeping as a complex process that can be highly

subjective, as the initial studies indicated. However, he views the standardized norms of

media coverage and ethical concerns to be components of the gatekeeping process.

Shoemaker and Reese (1996) assert that there are three essential aspects to

gatekeeping that can help to reduce chance of irresponsible journalism and bias. These









three governing aspects are news value, objectivity, and organizational structure. It is

perhaps the notion of objectivity, in terms of evaluating true news value, that is at the

center of this dissertation's evaluation of self-reflexivity, narcissism, and

metacommunication in news coverage.

In contrast to Shoemaker and Reese's views of responsible gatekeeping practices,

there are growing concerns about the lack of, or relinquishment of, gatekeeping. It is

argued that the trends of infotainment, tabloidization, and sensationalism in the news

media are evidence of a fundamental disregard, or breakdown of, gatekeeping in the press

(e.g., Shaw, 1994; Kiousis, 2002a; Williams & Delli Carpini, 2004).

Research on media bias seems particularly relevant to this exploration of the

growing concerns about metacommunication and the role of the journalist. While prior

research on the press has long-established categories of bias, such as partisan, structural,

and situational, there appear to be new forms of bias emerging. Scholars and media critics

as well have noted that there tends to be a negative news bias (Kurtz, 1995; Lichter,

Noyes, & Kaid, 2000). Also, Williams (2002), for example, has argued that a "synergy

bias" has emerged due to the significant amount of media consolidations, mergers, and

strategic alliances in recent years. Williams posits that media coverage is now biased in

favor of those organizations that the given media outlet is associated with. Similarly,

Williams and Kiousis (2004) have explored the concept of corporate bias and have found

evidence that suggests that media ownership and cross-promotion do, in fact, have a

direct relationship with what does, and does not, get covered, by the media. The current

dissertation seeks to investigate whether one of the most potent forms of media bias in

not partisan, structural, or situational, but it is perhaps the media's bias towards itself.









Based on the previously mentioned foundations that have shaped the role of the

journalist, the free press, gatekeeping, and media bias, a major concern that is at the

center of this dissertation is that of the media fulfilling the public's trust. For purposes of

this dissertation, trust is defined as a three-part relationship: "A expects B to do X"

(Hardin, 2001). Based on the freedom and responsibility that the media have, it would be

a fair assessment to say that A, the public, expects B, the media, to do X, what it is

obligated to do in a democratic society: provide timely, accurate, newsworthy, unbiased,

and objective information. Work by media critics and scholars indicates that the media

have violated such a reciprocal form of trust and are not fulfilling their role as objective,

impartial observers who report to, and serve, the public.

This possible violation of the social obligation of the media is evidenced in several

ways. For example, scholars have noted that the actual amount of critical information

needed by the public to make informed decisions, such as during the time of a political

campaign, has dramatically decreased (e.g. Kiousis, 2002a). The media has been

criticized for lack of substantive political coverage: The shrinking sound bite and shifting

coverage emphasize the horserace aspects of a campaign-focusing on moments of clash

and spectacle-and even violates viewers' expectations by ambushing and arguing with

candidates or elected officials (Graber 1976; Kaid & Cryer, 1990; Morello, 1998).

These problems, while noteworthy in their own right, are directly related to the

concerns in this research, specifically because an issue of concern about such troubling

journalistic practice is what type of coverage is offered as a result of these practices?

Essentially, the byproducts of journalism run amuck are areas of growing concern. Often

one byproduct that replaces substantive issue information by the media is instead









coverage in which the journalists present themselves as participants of the process or

information they are covering. For example, in a recent campaign cycle, it is reported that

journalists were evaluating the election as "boring" and discussing why they felt it was so

(Jamieson, 1998). Instead of providing the public with actual policy information,

candidate issue stances, or other substantive facts, the journalists were instead acting as

commentators and filling the news hole with their own inane chatter.

Nimmo and Combs (1992) have similarly expressed concern about the excessive

reliance of the media on the political pundits to fill valuable air time. Some mainstream

publications (e.g., The New Yorker and Vanity Fair) have commented on this practice of

filling news shows with these so-called "talking heads" and passing off their volatile,

argumentative dialogue as informative television. Washington Post media critic Howard

Kurtz has also chimed in on this troubling practice and asserts that it has contributed to

what he has labeled a "media circus." The American Journalism Review and Columbia

Journalism Review have also addressed the issues that arise when the media rely on the

media as information sources as areas of concern. Those who are being interviewed and

portrayed as so-called "experts" who provide "insider" reports often turn out to be either

members of the media, partisan pundits, or quasi-scholars who are often pushing their

latest book.

What is particularly problematic about this practice of the media covering

themselves instead of focusing on their traditional, established role is that the discourse is

generally that of running subjective commentary and pontification, instead of objective

reporting of information that could be provided if the media would offer it from readily

available sources other than the media participants themselves. One might ask why the









media are interviewing themselves instead of expert sources or actual participants in the

events or issues they are covering. It appears that the answer is that the media tend to

readily give up their vital function of serving as a watchdog for the public, because they

are largely too busy watching themselves-enamored by the spectacle of the unfolding

news process and their own involvement in it.

Additionally, the media seem to have become wrapped up in what is now being

labeled as spin, by the media players themselves as well as media critics. CNN even airs

a "news show" that deals exclusively with spin: Spin Cycle. Isn't it a fair assumption,

based on the underlying and clearly established principles of the press, that the

professional journalists should rise above the so-called spin? Based on these established

journalistic norms, it would seem that it is the media's job to sift through the public

relations/public information materials they are provided, synthesize this, and provide

objective information to the public. Instead, it appears that the media practitioners are so

wrapped up in the process that they literally spin the spin and take up valuable time and

space away from the business of providing actual news and factual data in the process of

doing so. Could not this synthesis of public relations information or so-called "spin" be

done behind the scenes, and does not this airing of the news process appear to violate the

trust and considerable responsibility that has been bestowed upon the media?

In a Canadian documentary, titled Truth Merchants, a picture is painted for the

audience of the media players and the public relations professionals playing an ongoing,

daily game of cat and mouse to see who can get the best of the other party. The contest

for each to best the other is played out on a daily basis, and it appears that it is the public

that pays the price for this game (McMahon, 1998).









War Coverage

From newsreels to radio to television to the Web, electronic news has been able to

provide coverage to the public during these most dire of circumstances, and it is

especially in a time of war when such coverage literally means life or death. Audiences

tune in, watch, or log on, in order to get up-to-date information.

Just as the media channels and the wars reported on have changed over time, so of

course, has the content:

Before the first civilian war correspondents in the middle of the nineteenth century,
generals reported their own wars. Today, in the war on terrorism if we want a
version of what is happening, we turn on CNN or BBC television and there is an
American general at the Pentagon, or the British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon at
the Ministry of Defense, telling us what they have decided we should know about
the war. Unfortunately this flood of material, coupled with the insatiable appetite of
the 24-hour rolling TV news and the demand of the foreign desks for scoops, made
the temptation to invent stories difficult to resist. (Knightley, 2002, p. 170)

Additionally, the reasons for the use of sensationalized content and graphic visuals

can be attributed more to ratings than to helping the public interpret the complexities of

warfare: "Historical evidence shows that wars are generally good news for television

networks; the global success of CNN in the wake of the Gulf War is a prominent case in

point. Televising live conflict can be particularly profitable if it concerns a patriotic war"

(Thussu, 2002, p. 210).

While a period of war might be a time of higher ratings and profits for televised

news, it is also a period in which these broadcasts face greater criticism: "In a society at

war, the media are even more carefully scrutinized-both by leaders and by scholars-

from the point of view of content and control. Assumptions are made about the functions

of the media in the maintenance of civilian morale, the bolstering of convictions about









justice of the cause, the countering of rumors, the strengthening of solidarity, and so on"

(Peled & Katz, 1974, p. 50).

One reason for this adversarial relationship between the press and the military is the

issue of access to accurate information, or the lack thereof:

Managing news and information about U.S. military interventions became more
sophisticated in the 1990s with the full implantation of the pool system at the time
of the 1991 Gulf War, when a select band of journalist were permitted access only
to predetermined combat locations during Operation Desert Storm. This strategy,
devised by the Pentagon, helped the U.S. to monitor and censor information about
the war before it was broadcast. The military's definition of "sensitive: information
also included anything that might undermine public support for military action.
(Thussu, 2002, p. 204)

Prior research has focused on objectivity and reporting techniques during war and

how to balance journalistic practices with public needs (Fishman, 1980; Gans, 1979;

Gitlin, 1980; Tuchman, 1978). For example, Hallin (1986) conducted a study on the news

practices of journalists in the Vietnam War and argued that there was an emphasis in

news coverage on specific events, and newsworthiness was dictated by official sources

and the importance of reporting on the war itself, instead of interpreting it. Conversely,

Arno (1984) critiqued the media's coverage of the Vietnam War and asserted that

personal interpretation and framing information was in fact what the reporters did engage

in, instead of merely functioning as objective communication professionals.

The Vietnam War was a turning point in the media's coverage of military conflict

and was the first modem war in which television actually brought visual images of

combat into homes. Despite the impact these still images and footage had on the public,

they were not close-up, live reports like we see today.

Then the 1991 Gulf War took televised war coverage to a new level, one in which

viewers could actually watch missiles being launched, and the coverage of this war is









credited for "making" CNN: "Television's coverage of the Gulf War [1991], for the first

time in history, brought military conflict into living rooms across the globe, thanks to

networks like CNN. In the high-tech, bloodless, almost surreal visualizations of war,

cockpit videos of 'precision bombings'. ." (Thussu, 2002, p. 204). This view of war and

destruction was at a distance, and viewing it on television, it appeared "as a painless

Nintendo exercise" (Said, 1993, p. 3).

Kaid et al. (1994) content analyzed CNN's nightly reporting during the 45-day Gulf

War in 1991 from a dramatistic perspective, examining the dominant ways in which CNN

framed the war: "The primary conclusions of this analysis suggest that CNN presented an

American view which often focused on the media players and offered disproportionate

coverage to telecommunications and military technology" (p. 148). The authors argue

that the emphasis on the dramatic and the spectacle in this reporting created an alternate,

mediated reality for viewers. Though not expressly labeled as media narcissism or

metacommunication, the findings of Kaid et al. indicate a turning point in war coverage

in which the journalists inserted themselves into the story at an unprecedented level, thus

becoming participants in the military conflict that they themselves were reporting on.

Similarly, much scholarly research about the media's coverage of the 1991 Gulf

War indicates a general consensus that the reporting was biased in favor of an American

point of view. Additionally these studies conclude that a reason for this bias was that the

media were favorably influenced by the advanced technology used by the United States

against Iraq (Carrier & Swanson, 1991; Liebes, 1992; Zelizer, 1992; Zorn, 1991). Kaid et

al. (1993), however, compared how five international newspapers covered the war and









found that the international press was not as supportive and influenced by the high-tech

visuals and did not find uniformity in the prevalent themes of the war coverage.

The 2003 war with Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom, was an even more unique

military conflict-one in which journalists were given unprecedented access to the

military, and for the first time visuals of combat were filmed close-up and electronically

broadcast in real-time for viewers across the globe. This coverage was not bloodless and

was sometimes shockingly violent and gritty, as compared to the images seen only a

decade earlier in the prior U.S. war with Iraq.

Embedded journalists actually traveled in tanks with soldiers, and ill-fated, star

celebrities such as Peter Arnett and Geraldo Rivera made spectacles of themselves as

they broadcast live from battle scenes, even pointing out actual troop movements and

critiquing the U.S. war effort as it was playing out behind them. In many ways, the

electronic media coverage of the 2003 war made it look like the ultimate reality TV

show. While the nature of showing such coverage is a controversial topic, Bennett argues

that "people cannot interpret what they don't see" (Bennett, 2001, p. 145). Whether the

embedded trend can is open for debate; the ubiquity of embedded journalism raised this

concept to national salience, and "embedded" was selected by yourdictionary.com as its

word of the year for 2003 (yourdictionary.com, 2003).

The current dissertation will add to the body of literature about electronic media

war coverage as it examines the content during a period of time when both journalists and

the public had unprecedented, almost-immediate access to information about and images

of actual military action.









The Web as a News Source

Not only was this an unprecedented war, in terms of journalistic access to military

action in general, it was also the first official U.S. Web war. The Web was still in its very

infantile stages when the first Gulf War occurred, but it has developed into a significant

news source since. Therefore, not only were reports being broadcast electronically

through the medium of television as they occurred, they were also being reported in real

time and in multimedia on the Web.

Overall, the use of the Web as a news information seeking tool has seen a

dramatic increase during the last decade. This was specifically noteworthy in the 2000

presidential election, when unlike the 1996 American general election cycle, politicians

turned to the Web to communicate directly with voters, and citizens turned to the Web to

seek the most up-to-date and accurate election results. In fact, the Pew Internet and

American Life Project and the Pew Center for People and the press are offering regular

reports now on the volume of online information gathering.These organizations have

offered reports over the past decade that cite a rise in using the Internet to fulfill the

public's political information and news gathering needs.

This increasing use of the Web for information seeking proved to be evident

during the 2003 U.S. war with Iraq. According to a survey conducted by the Pew Internet

and American Life Project (2003), the online news audience increased significantly from

the time before the war began. This study indicated that 77% of U.S. Internet users

reported seeking information on the Web about the war. The survey also indicates that

56% percent of American Web users accessed a Web site with the express purpose of

getting news or other information about the war in Iraq. This study also reports that 20%

of American Internet users relied on the Web in order to form opinions about the war.









In an initial study of international coverage of the first few hours following the

U.S. attack on Iraq, Dimitrova, Kaid, Williams, and Trammell (2003) found that most

news Web sites had immediately updated their homepages and were offering breaking

news of the onset of this new war.

Since the proliferation of the Internet as a major source of news, numerous studies

have examined how effectively news Web sites function. Such studies have examined

how national breaking news is covered (Dimitrova, Connolly-Ahern, Williams, Kaid, &

Reid, 2003). There are numerous studies on the effectiveness and use of online

newspapers, magazines, and television news Web sites. Such studies examine the work

of online reporters (Deuze, 1998), the use of the Web for information gathering

(Garrison, 2001), and the pragmatics of news Web sites organizational operations and

journalistic practice (Singer 2001, 2003).

Another advantage of accessing news on the Web is that control of information is

in the hands of the user. While the media gatekeepers control what is linked to in articles

on their Web sites, the user maintains control of which hyperlinks to use and what

information they want to be exposed to (Eveland & Dunwoody, 2001; Peng et al., 1999).

Kiousis (2002b) argues that users are drawn to Web sites, especially ones that offer

multimedia and interactive elements.

The current dissertation will add to the body of literature about electronic media

war coverage by examining how for the first time in history, a U.S. war literally unfolded

on the Web. Additionally, the immediacy of Web site news coverage of the war provides

a unique new medium to apply the metacommunication concept.









Framing

Framing theory posits that media not only set the agenda but also transfer the

salience of specific attributes to issues, events, or candidates. A media frame is the

"central organizing idea for news content that supplies context and suggests what the

issue is using selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration" (Tankard, 2001; Tankard

et al, 1991).

Framing theory suggests that the media place a frame of reference around its

audience's thought process. Tuchman (1978) considers the organization of everyday

reality to be the most important function of media frames.

According to Gitlin (1980), "media frames" organize the world both for journalists

who report it and, in some important degree, for consumers who rely on their reports.

Gamson and Modigliani (1997) suggest that journalists' framing of the news is due to

professional norms and the influence of special interest groups. Similarly, Edelman

(1997, 1993) views the act of framing as being clearly impacted by authorities and

groups.

In a study on the 1991 Gulf War, Kelman (1995) offers 10 dominant frames that

the U.S. administration used to shape public discourse: (1) no negotiations; (2) fear of

reward for aggression; (3) blinkmanship; (4) unbalanced cost-benefit analysis; (5) human

costs for the enemy; (6) self-glorification; (7) stigmatization of dissent; (8) rallying

around the flag; (9) overcoming the Vietnam Syndrome; and (10) a New World Order.

Shoemaker and Reese (1996) and Tuchman (1978) identified at least five key

factors that may potentially influence how journalists frame a given issue: (1) social

norms and values; (2) ownership and organizational pressures and constraints; (3)









Pressures of interest groups; (4) journalistic routines; and (5) ideological or political

orientations of journalists.

lyengar and Simon (1993) purport that network news frames can be classified as

being either episodic or thematic: Episodic frames focus on specific events and incidents,

and thematic frames emphasize abstract ideas and general, broad information.

Scheufele (1999) argues that the way the mass media frame an issue affects

audience perceptions and suggests the consideration of two dominant frames. First, at the

media level, journalists' framing of an issue might be influenced by several social-

structural or organizational variables. Second, at the audience level, frames as the

dependent variable are examined mostly as direct outcomes of the way mass media frame

an issue. Price, Tewksbury, and Powers (1997) have studied framing from an effects

perspective and argue that how the media frames the news influences audiences'

perceptions.

Pan and Kosicki (1991, 2001) view framing and the structuring of news as a

strategic practice and have identified four specific aspects of information that shape the

framing process: (1) syntactic structures-patterns in the arrangements of words, phrases;

(2) script structures-newsworthiness of an issue or event; (3) thematic structures-

journalists' reliance on linking news with preexisting information; and (4) rhetorical

structures-journalistic voice and style of packaging news.

In an analysis of framing European politics in print and broadcast news, Semetko

and Valkenburg (2000) identify five main frames that they believe broadly categorize the

media content: (1) conflict frame; (2) human interest frame; (3) economic consequences

frame; (4) morality frame; and (5) responsibility frame.









In a study that focused on the analysis of visual framing, Messaris and Abraham

(2001) investigated how African Americans were represented in television news. Based

on this analysis, the researchers found evidence of "subtle racism" largely due to the

selection of the types of photographic images of African Americans used, the settings of

these photographs, and the "racial cues" that were provides within news stories, "through

visual juxtapositions and associations [that] provide a picture of those who occupy

[urban] space" (p. 223).

Framing theory also suggests that the media have the power not only to select what

is covered, but also how items are covered. The implications of how items are covered

are that positive or negative framing could influence public opinion.

For example, De Vreese, Peter, and Semetko (2001) assert that while frames may

indeed be issue-specific or generic in nature, that framing often focuses on conflict and

consequences of "events, issues, and policies" (p. 109). De Vreese (2003) argues "that

frames have inherent valence by suggesting, for example, positive or negative aspects,

solutions, or treatments. Given this valence, news frames can be expected to influence

public support for various policy measures" (p. 4).

In 1993, McCombs and Shaw expanded their original definition of agenda setting

to include the concept of framing, stating that, "Both the selection of objects for attention

and the selection of frames for thinking about these objects are powerful agenda-setting

roles [that may] direct attention toward certain attributes and away from others"

(p.62). A number of scholars since then have attempted to extend the boundaries of

agenda setting theory to include the concept of framing as second-level/attribute agenda

setting (Ghanem, 1997; Golan, & Wanta, 2001; Kiousis, Bantimaroudis, & Ban 1999).









While framing or attaching attributes to issues may be viewed as a component of

the transfer of salience that is essential to the agenda-setting model, framing theory does

not need to be examined as such a subcomponent of agenda setting, and can be tested by

the use of content analysis, without comparing rank-ordered issues or attributes. The use

of framing as a theoretical underpinning provides the researcher with an excellent

approach to analyzing the manifest content of media coverage.

Simply put, Entman (1993) states that "to frame is to select some aspects of a

perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text. ." The current

dissertation will add to the existing literature on framing theory by building on what

Holloway (2001) points out are two key components of Entman's definition of framing:

selection and salience.

Metacommunication

Media narcissism, self-reflexive reporting, and metacommunication are three terms

that are being used to describe how the media have shifted their focus more and more to

their favorite subject: themselves. While the terms are different and moving towards a

theory of metacommunication is relatively new, the concept of media self-coverage and

the concerns of the impact of such reporting are decades old.

The study of metacommunication has mostly emphasized the role which the media

have begun to play in the political process. Instead of reporting the news of a political

campaign, the media have increasingly begun to appear more like a self-aware and

participatory institution, and this trend of mediated politics is an area of noted concern as

to its impact on the democratic process (Bennett, & Entman, 2001;Graber, 1997;

Mazzoleni, & Shulz, 1999; Swanson, & Mancini, 1996).









Instead of sitting on the sidelines and reporting the facts, "The news media no

longer simply report; they interpret. Journalists are quick to insert their own construction

of events and issues between candidates and voters" (Lichter, Noyes, & Kaid, 2000, p.

363-364).

One major problem in the coverage of politics on network news is the decrease in

actual attention to the content of candidates' campaign messages. Studies now indicate

that the amount of airtime dedicated to presenting substantive information from

respective candidates is shrinking-literally. Overall, there is less coverage of political

events in general. From 1992 to 1996, the cut in political coverage is staggering. In the

past, conventions were covered from beginning to end. Now, they are only highlighted in

most news coverage. The media are just not covering the process of political races as

much as they once did. In fact, the average amount of time now allotted to air candidates'

"sound-bites" has shrunk to mere seconds-instead of minutes-in which it is utterly

impossible to ascertain the true essence of the civic dialogue the candidate is attempting

to have with the public (Hallin, 1992; Lichter, Noyes, & Kaid, 2000).

For example, Lichter et al. (2000, p. 4) found that "the average amount of airtime

given to candidate statements on the evening news shrank from 42 seconds in 1968 to a

mere 10 seconds in 1988 and an even lover 7 to 8 seconds in 1992." It can be argued that

this dumbing down or abbreviating of the candidates' messages is irresponsible and

ethically questionable since a brief quote might not-and usually cannot-be

representative of a candidate's true message. In fact, this type of compression potentially

misrepresents the real nature of candidates' communications.









Another troublesome aspect of political campaign coverage by the news media is

the emphasis on what is referred to as horserace journalism and the overall political

spectacle. Many scholars and media critics have noted the trend in both print and

broadcast media of coverage predominately focusing on the political campaign as a

contest, instead of a legitimate, substantive political process (Lichter, Noyes, & Kaid,

2000). This image-driven type of coverage does little to inform and educate voters about

domestic or foreign issues or policy issues that might directly affect the voters, but

instead focuses on the candidates as if they were celebrities, sports figures, or game-show

participants who are in a type of race or contest instead of a political campaign to hold

public office and serve a constituency (Colford, 1998; Graber, 1976; Patterson, 1997).

These troubling practices take up valuable space in the limited news hole by focusing

airtime on the media's talking heads, instead of the political candidates and their issues.

This focus of the media was noted in a study of the 1996 presidential campaign that

indicates[] that questions posed by the audience members in call-in programs often

focused more on issues than those asked by journalists, who tended to focus on the

strategy of the candidates" (Johnson et al., 1999). The trend of the media not to just

objectively report a given news story, but instead to put themselves in the given news

content and to emphasize the negative, are areas of journalistic practice that is of growing

concern and has received a fair amount of criticism, both in the scholarly and the popular

press. This trend is particularly alarming in a democracy where the public relies on the

media to provide substantive information on political and policy issues. Researchers have

noted this practice and even measured the amount of time the media spend talking to and

about themselves, versus actual coverage during presidential campaigns, finding









significant decreases in the amounts of substantive coverage of issues (Lichter, Noyes, &

Kaid, 2000). Alarmingly, it has been found that the amount of coverage has drastically

decreased, while the amounts of media participants' discussions have increased.

Scholars in the field of political communication note that this trend is part of a

bigger pattern of campaign coverage that focuses on the spectacle of a political race, and

have even deemed this horseracee journalism" (Lichter, Noyes, & Kaid, 2000). This

image-driven reporting favors the short sound bite and is often followed by an instant

analysis from a media personality. Similarly, Lichter and Noyes (1995) argue that the

three main networks "function as intermediaries between the candidates and the public"

(p. 234).

Another problematic trend is the media's tendency to focus the emphasis of

campaign coverage on itself, as media commentators report and comment on

sensationalistic stories instead of ones that focus on policy. In addition to this

tabloidization of news, the media also direct more attention to argumentative discussions

between candidates-either from debates or the daily "spin." This attention on

argumentation is often driven by the need to boost ratings and may not accurately present

the true nature of the complexity of the opposing views candidates hold on varying issues

(Morello, 1998; Paletz, & Vinegar, 2001). Again, the attention is focused not just on the

sensational or the unusual, but it is also focused on the media's talking heads who are

often making subjective judgments, which shifts emphasis to the unique and the

commentators themselves.

In addition this type of focus could also be considered to be a media bias. From

early studies on partisan bias, a number of other biases have emerged. Scholars have









acknowledged that there are unintended forms of bias, such as situational (e.g., an

incumbent having more command of the media) and structural (e.g. programming time

limits or print news hole), but as society and the media system have become more

complex, so have the types of biases evident in the media. One such bias is the negative

bias. Scholars note that not only is there a tendency for television reporters to have more

airtime than the actual candidates or public servants but also tend to cover negative news

much more than positive (Kaid et al., 1996; Lichter, Noyes, & Kaid, 2000). Not only are

journalists focused on negative aspects of the election, they also seem to be negative

about the process in general: Jamieson notes that "as early as August 1996, media

commentators were characterizing the U.S. presidential election as 'boring'" (Jamieson et

al., 1998, p 232). It is noteworthy that the media personalities are not only biased towards

negative content, but also that they are inclined assert their own personal views and

characterizations of the political process into what one would hope would be substantive,

informative coverage.

In The Political Pundits (Nimmo, & Combs, 1992), the authors agree that the

pundits mediate reality for viewers, creating a less informed public that is a detriment to

democracy, and they also argue that punditry traces its roots as far back as Biblical times

and to the time of Aristotle and that the trend of having "sages" and "oracles" has become

big business, especially on television where "chattering" is apparently revered.

A major problem with narrators dominating television news is that the public may

be likely to buy into what these journalists are selling: "To the media conscious viewer,

the television news format establishes journalistic credibility" (Snow, 149, 1983). This

format influence is perhaps largely due to the visual emphasis and editing techniques









used in this electronic medium: "Packaging such emphases within formats that are visual,

brief, action oriented and dramatic produces an exciting and familiar tempo to news

audiences" (Altheide et al., 2001, p. 307). In addition to the packaging and format, the

authoritative manner in which television personalities state opinions as facts lend a sense

of credibility to what is often subjective commentary.

"There are two principal problems with political commentary on television (1)

today's political talk shows contribute little, and sometimes even detract, from the robust

debate needed to sustain a healthy democracy; and (2) television leads top commentators

astray, making them celebrities or converting them into cartoon figures while diverting

them from their finest and most socially useful pursuits" (Hirsch, 1991, 211).

It is of concern that, "the media become part of the dialectic process of the

production of consent, shaping the consensus while reflecting it" (Jensen, 1992, p. 2).

This insertion of the media into the process of events was exemplified in a study of the

Susan Smith murder trial in South Carolina in which Zoch (2001) argues, "The impact of

the media presence on the town of Union and the trial itself was also framed through the

use of exemplars that highlighted how the media were becoming part of the stories. These

exemplars are identified as 'events occurring because of the media presence' and came in

two forms: those which were representative of how the media affected the trial, and those

which represented the media's effect on the town" (p. 201).

Similarly, Johnson, Boudreau, and Glowaki (1996) explored the issue of media self

coverage in political campaigns using a quantitative methodology. Their study examined

both amount and tone of coverage devoted to different themes of media coverage during

the 1992 presidential election in the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune and on









ABC, CBS, and NBC. The researchers identified four types of stories about the media in

the campaign: (1) media performance/impact; (2) media coverage of policy issues and

campaign issues; (3) candidate media strategy/candidate media performance; and (4)

general media stories. They found only 8 percent of all story themes coded focused on the

media in the media coverage of the 1992 election cycle, with the most prevalent theme

being general media stories. While this might seem like an insignificant percentage of

stories, this study of media self-coverage from the early nineties, points towards an

alarming trend.

Broadly, "metacommunication is defined as the news media's response to a new,

third force in news making: professional political PR. Metacommunication is defined as

the news media's self referential reflections on the nature of the interplay between

political public relations and political journalism" (Esser & D'Angelo 2001a).

Esser and D'Angelo and their colleagues have done extensive work on the role of

both print and electronic media reporting during domestic and international political

campaigns and have identified what they refer to as a postmodern metacommunication

frame. This postmodern metacommunication frame, they argue, is one in which reporters

increasingly report the role journalists play in the political process. They argue that, "The

main focus of modern campaigns centers around publicity generated in television studios.

They are TV-dominated, nationally coordinated and advised by (mostly external)

professional consultants specializing in communications, marketing, polling and

campaign management" (Esser & D'Angelo, 2001b, p. 3).

This postmodern metacommunication frame is broken down into two categories:

(1) self-reflexive news and (2) strategy/process news. Self-reflexive reporting refers to









coverage that describes the role the media is playing in political campaigns.

Strategy/process news refers to stories that describe how political candidates and their

professional communications strategists (often negatively labeled as "Spin Doctors")

attempt to use the media to communicate crafted messages to the public. Much of this

work emphasizes an adversarial relationship between the media and the political players

(D'Angelo, 1999, 2002; D'Angelo & Esser, 2003; Esser, 2000, 2001a, 2001b; Esser &

D'Angelo, 2002, 2003; Esser, Reinemann, & Fan 1999, 2000, 2001; Esser & Spanier,

2003).

Three key components to this theoretical argument of an existence of a postmodern

political communication age are (1) viewing the news media as a political institution

(Cook, 1998, 2001; Esser & D'Angelo, 2001b); (2) viewing political public relations as a

strategic communication endeavor (Bennett, & Manheim, 2000; Esser, & D'Angelo,

2001b; Manheim, 1998); and (3) viewing the news media's response to these prior two

developments as metacommunication (D'Angelo, 1999; Esser & D'Angelo, 2001b;

Esser, Reinemann, & Fan, 2001).

This emphasis on the strategy/process news is troubling to a number of media

critics, but there are mixed interpretations of its impact on society. On the negative side,

researchers argue that one type of strategy/process news is adversarial and is detrimental

to the democratic process (Blumer, 1997; Kerbel, 1997, 1998, 1999). However, other

scholars identify a second category of strategy/process news-educational

strategy/process news, and this second category is heralded as a new type of reporting

that serves to inform the electorate and enhance the democratic public sphere (D'Angelo,

1999; McNair, 2000).









Stebenne (1993) argues that this trend in media self coverage is "a logical

outgrowth of the new emphasis on the political process and the growing sense of the

media's central place within it" (p. 87-88), and indeed research indicates that the

metacoverage frame has become increasingly prevalent in political campaign reporting.

Studies of the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns found use of this frame accounted

for 20 percent of the coverage in the 1992 election cycle and increased to 25 percent in

the 1996 coverage (Kerbel, 1998; Kerbel, Apee, & Ross, 2000). This current dissertation

aims to examine the level of media self coverage in the reporting of the media campaign,

in order to see if this trend appears beyond the political process of campaigning and

elections and into the realm of war and national security.

Kerbel (1994) posits that this increase in self-reflexive reporting has grown out of

the increase in political public relations attempting to control media content through the

use of somewhat questionable tactics-tactics that always put their candidate in the best

light and do not necessarily accurately represent reality. Kerbel asserts that through this

process of being manipulated by campaign strategists, the media has become more self

aware of the importance of its role in the political dialogue or a campaign and has

therefore considered the topic of how they cover a campaign, and the relationship

between candidates and the media, as content worthy of substantive coverage (86-90).

The current dissertation examines whether or not this apparent cycle of strategist

manipulation and media self awareness of the role it plays in the civic dialogue of a

military conflict are apparent.

A study that explicated and applied the research of metacommunication to a crisis

situation, specifically, the first four hours of televised news coverage following the









terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Connolly-Ahem, et al. (2002) found that both

categories of metacommunication were prevalent in that reporting. The researchers found

that self-reflexive reporting accounted for 43 percent of the stories. This is one of the rare

cases in which the concept of metacommunication was applied to non political campaign

coverage, and even though it only focuses on initial coverage, the study indicates that

metacommunication in news content is not limited to an election cycle but is also

prevalent during a crisis situation.

The current dissertation will add to the existing research on metacommunication by

explicating a theoretical perspective that has primarily focused on political campaign

reporting and applying it to the extended coverage of a military campaign. It will

additionally add the component of Internet coverage, an area that has not previously been

explored in terms of a war or the metacommunication concept in general.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

Based on the prior literature on framing theory, evidence of metacommunication

frames and self-reflexive reporting in political campaigns, this study suggests the

following hypotheses about televised new broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation

Iraqi Freedom:

HI: Televised news broadcasts will rely more on media sources than on
independent sources in the coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

H2. Web coverage will rely more on media sources than on independent sources in
the coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

H3. Overall, the episodic media frame will be most prevalent during the initial
stages of the war, and the thematic media frame will be become more prevalent as
the war progresses.

This dissertation seeks to answer the following research questions about televised

news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom:









R1: What were the prevalent frames relied on in the media coverage of the war, and
were there significant differences in the prevalence of these frames in the televised
news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

R2: How prevalent is the metacommunication frame in comparison to the other
frames in the media coverage of the war, and is this comparison significantly
different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi
Freedom?

R3: Did the prevalence of certain frames change over time in the media coverage of
the war, and were there significant difference in the prevalence of these frames in
the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

R4: Did the prevalence of the metacommunication frame, in comparison to the
other frames, change over time in the media coverage of the war, and was this
change significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage
of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

R5: Where there more cases of self-reflexive or strategy/process types of
metacommunication frames in the media coverage of the war, and was the amount
of these cases significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web
coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

R6: What were the types of self-reflexive metacommunication frames relied on in
the media coverage of the war, and was the reliance on these self-reflexive
metacommunication frames significantly different in televised news broadcasts and
Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

R7. What were the types of strategy/process metacommunication frames relied on
in the media coverage of the war, and was the reliance on these strategy/process
metacommunication frames significantly different in televised news broadcasts and
Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

R8: Which category of the strategy/process metacommunication frame was most
prevalent-the adversarial, educational or neutral in the media coverage of the war,
and was the prevalence of these three categories of the strategy/process
metacommunication frames significantly different in the televised news broadcasts
and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

R9: Was the pattern of episodic and thematic frames over time as the war
progressed different between televised news broadcast and Web coverage?

R10: How were the Bush administration's public information efforts assessed in the
media coverage of the war, and were these assessments significantly different in the
televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom?






30


R11: How were the Iraqi government's public information efforts assessed in
media coverage of the war, and are were these assessments significantly different in
the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom?














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

This study uses quantitative content analysis as the method to measure the presence

or absence of metacommunication frames, the categories thereof, and to make

comparisons between TV news broadcasts and Web coverage about Operation Iraqi

Freedom.

Sample

The study used content from United States' television news and Web coverage

from March 20, 2003-the first official day of news coverage about the U.S. military

strikes on Iraq, through May 1, 2003-when President Bush made a declaration of

victory. For purposes of this study, the story was the unit of analysis, and all war-related

stories collected during this time period were used.

Television news coverage consisted of evening broadcasts from the ABC, CBS,

CNN, and Fox News. Television news coverage from the prime-time evening newscasts

recorded on videotape was examined. Thirty minutes of news coverage from each

network's news broadcast was the amount of coverage from each day that was analyzed.

These times for ABC and CBS were from 6:30 7:00 p.m. (EST), and for CNN and Fox

the 7:00 7:30 p.m. (EST) time period was used. Viewership of these networks' news

broadcasts during the Iraqi war are reported as follows: ABC's WorldNews Tonight-

average of 9.9 million viewers; CBS evening news-average of 7.5 million viewers;

CNN-average of 2.7 million viewers; and Fox news-average of 3.3 million viewers

(Johnson, 2003).









The Web sites' data that were analyzed were systematically downloaded daily-

manual, saving each Web page as a separate file. This data collection captured both the

text and the graphics, but not the multimedia, such as audio or video clips. The Web news

coverage sample consisted of the four sites: ABCNews.com, CBSNews.com, CNN.com,

and FOXNews.com, which newsknife.com rated in their list of the top Iraq war news

sites, and in their rating of the overall top U.S. news sites of 2003 (newsknife.com, 2003).

A constraint that affected the sample size and prevented using the entire universe of

televised news broadcasts and the compatible Web site coverage for these networks was

the problem faced by NBC's TV and Web formats. The initial goal of this study was to

include NBC and MSNBC in the televised news broadcasts sample and their Web sites in

the Web coverage sample. The barrier to doing so was that they do not have separate

Web sites, but instead during the time of this data collection, NBC had a Web site that

merged its multiple media products including NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and Newsweek.

This hybrid Web site often did not distinguish which original media channel its content is

attributed to, and made it impossible to do a balanced and accurate comparison with the

other TV and Web coverage being analyzed for this study and would have potentially

skewed the data when comparing the two media channels of the Web coverage and the

Televised news broadcasts.

This TV news and Web coverage sample was limited in that it focused only on

leading U.S. media outlets' coverage of the war. Additionally, the material from the

stories were coded and compared in this analysis was the verbal/textual content only-

not the graphic elements. Since the TV coverage was obviously moving video, and the

Web coverage collected only provided still images, a comparison of the visuals would not









be compatible, given the differences in the manifest content of these visual elements.

However, while not officially coded this constraint of comparing two differing media

channels does not prohibit using examples of noteworthy visual content to help clarify

examples of stories that exemplify certain types of coverage in the discussion section of

this study. The visuals were used in an illustrative way to enhance understanding of the

context of a given metacommunication frame.

Categories and Definitions

This study was designed to analyze the types of sources used during the electronic

media's coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Therefore, each individual story was

coded with a number of variables, including: television broadcast news network, Web

site, length of the story (in seconds and words), main reporter or interviewer, and sources.

Unit of Analysis
For purposes of this study, the news story was the unit of analysis. For TV

coverage a story was marked by a distinct beginning and ending of a central topic area

(i.e., public information, White House communications strategy, Removal of

Saddam/Regime change, etc.). A story might contain numerous sources and information

related to the central topic; and until there was a distinct shift in topic area, the coders

considered a unit of time devoted to one central topic a single story.

In order to determine this, coders watched videotaped televised news broadcasts of

the war coverage, identified the beginning and ending of a story, watched it again and

timed it using a stop watch to determine the length of the story. The coders then watched

the story for a third time in order to determine the manifest verbal content of the story

before coding it.









For Web coverage, a story consisted of the use of a headline and subsequent text.

Story length was determined by a word count, and the coders coded for the manifest

textual content of each Web story. Only the Web stories for each given day were coded-

not the archived coverage that was linked to from a given story, but instead just the

current story with a byline and date for each day in the time-period analyzed.

Source Attribution
Coders identified the presence or absence of sources attributed in each story from a

predetermined list based on prior research: (1) Anchor (for televised news broadcasts) or

Author (for Web coverage); (2) Reporter; (3) Anonymous; (4) Special Interest/Lobbying

Group; (5) Military Expert; (6) Republican Political Pundit; (7) Democratic Political

Pundit; (8) Non-Partisan Political Pundit; (9) Media Personality from Same Network;

(10) Media Personality from Other Organization; (11) Scholar/Media Critic; (12)

Embedded Journalist; (13) Associated Press or other Wire Service; (14) Citizens; (15)

Bush Administration, Aides, or Advisors; (16) Iraqi Government Official Spokesperson;

(17) Report/Document/Poling Data; (18) U.S. Military Official(s); (19) Iraqi Dissidents;

(20) Other. The option of selecting "other" provided coders with the opportunity to

identify this source in an open-ended area on the codesheet.

Coders were then asked to determine the number of Independent and Media

Sources relied on in each story. An independent source was an individual or group that

was not clearly identified as being a part of the media. A media source was identified as

an individual or group that was clearly a member of the media.

Frames
Coders determined the presence or absence of the following list of frames, based on

prior research. The list of frames to be coded were: (1) Military Conflict-frames that









emphasize the military battle itself on macro or micro levels; (2) American Patriotism-

frames that emphasize citizens rallying around the flag and a resurgence of American

patriotism in various manifestations; (3) Protest-frames that show individuals or groups,

in the U.S. or abroad protesting or the discussion of protest of the war; (4) Human

Interest-frames that emphasize the human element of the war, including soldiers, their

families, and any citizens; (5) Responsibility-frames that assign responsibility for the

military conflict to a given individual, government, or regime; (6) Economic

Consequences-frames that focus on the either short or long-term economic

consequences that the war will have domestically, in the Middle East, or internationally;

(7) Diagnostic-frames that emphasize an assessment of how and why this military

conflict developed; (8) Prognostic-frames that emphasize what outcome of the military

conflict will be, including the removal of Saddam/regime change, regional stability, loss

of U.S. soldiers, etc.; (9) Rebuilding of Iraq-frames that specifically deal with the

rebuilding of Iraqi and the future of the country and its people after the war is finished;

and (10) Metacommunication-a frame that emphasizes either the media's self-

reflexivity or the communication process between sources and the news media.

Coders then indicated if each frame that was coded as present was best

characterized as being episodic or thematic. Episodic frames were ones that dealt with

specific events and incidents, individuals, and more micro-level news coverage, and

thematic frames were those that dealt with general, broad topic areas of information,

concepts and abstract ideas, and more macro-level news coverage. Additionally, coders

indicated which of the sources from the above list discussed the content associated with









these frames by writing the identification number of the sources) in the space provided

on the codesheet.

Additionally, coders were asked to determine the association of the

metacommunication frame to the other above-listed frames. If the metacommunication

frame was coded as being present, coders were instructed to indicate which of the above

source and subject frames areas the metacommunication directly related to by filling in

the identification number of the frame(s) in the spaces provided. However, coders were

also instructed that the metacommunication frame may, at given times, be treated as a

stand-alone frame. These cases would be when the frame was not clearly associated with

any of the other established frames, and the story this was about a non-issue or topic but

was, instead purely media-narcissistic babble and self-talk.

Metacommunication Frames
The study was designed primarily to determine the extent, or level, of

metacommunication by the media during the reporting of a military campaign. For

purposes of this study, metacommunication was defined as the news media's self-

reflexive coverage of itself, in a general sense and as the interplay between the Bush

administration's or the Iraqi government's public information efforts about Operation

Iraqi Freedom and the news media's assessments thereof in resulting televised news

broadcasts and Web coverage of the war.

The concept of metacommunication was further broken down into two distinct

areas: self-reflexive reporting and strategy/process news. While, it is acknowledged that,

"The two dimensions of meta-coverage-press and publicity-can at times overlap

within news stories" (Esser & D'Angelo, 2003, p. 620), for purposes of this study the two

differing types of metacommunication were treated as mutually exclusive categories, and









coders characterized each instance of metacommunication frame presence as being

characterized as either one or the other type of metacommunication, not both. Coders

based these decisions on the following definitions and examples of self-reflexive and

strategy/process metacommunication frames.

The self-reflexive metacommunication frame was defined as any coverage that

referred directly or indirectly to the media's role in bringing news about the U.S. military

effort against Iraq to the public. Incidents of self-reflexive reporting include: information

about the impact the coverage of the military campaign was having on the public;

references to the work of the television news network or Web sites' own reporters (such

as embedded journalists); referrals to the electronic media's other news products for more

information; members of the media used as news sources; and mentions of the work of

other news media outlets.

If the self reflexive metacommunication frame was coded as being present, the

coders identified which of the following types of coverage best characterized this frame:

(1) Role of Technology in Attaining Coverage; (2) Anchors or Media Personalities

Discussing their Opinions; (3) Reporters Discussing Personal Experience of Covering the

War; (4) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from their News

Organization, Network, or Publication; (5) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other

Journalists from another News; Organization, Network, or Publications; (6) The News

Media Emphasizing their Role as a Participant in the Event; (7) Cross Promotion and

Cross Referencing of Media; or (8) Insider Views of the War or War Strategizing.

The strategy/process metacommunication frame referred to any coverage that refers

directly or indirectly to the relationship between the media and the leaders of the









Operation Iraqi Freedom. Strategy/process news is defined as information about how

government, official agencies, and other groups rely on the media to relay important

information during the U.S. military campaign against Iraq. Examples of strategy/process

news include: officials using the media to make public announcements; obvious staged

events; live coverage of press conferences; visuals of reporters attending press

conferences; and direct interviews with public officials.

This study additionally evaluated strategy/process metacommunication frames on

another sub-level distinction. Coders determined if the strategy/process

metacommunication was characterized as being adversarial, educational, or neutral.

Adversarial types of strategy/process metacommunication frames included stories that

used negative labels that implied manipulation or the use of ploys in the communication

process as "spin" or called source information a "sound bite." The educational type of

strategy/process metacommunication frame was one in which the viewer would actually

learn something about the communication process between the source and the media but

was without any negative connotations and was, instead, unbiased and clearly

informative about the news gathering or dissemination process. The neutral type of

strategy/process metacommunication frame was one in which there is no negative or

positive slant to the communication process, but instead just states the occurrence of a

communication from source to the media without providing any substantive information

about the transferal of said information or the news process.

Public Information Efforts

Bush administration's public information efforts were defined as follows: Coders

indicated the Story's Assessment/Overall Tone of the Bush Administration's Public

Information Efforts from the following list: (1) Positive; (2) Negative; (3) Neutral; or (4)









Not Applicable. Additionally, coders were asked to list key words, terms, or phrases that

were used to describe the administration and its communication strategies as open-ended

information in the space provided.

Iraqi Government's public information efforts were also coded. Coders indicated

the Story's Assessment/Overall Tone of the Iraqi government's Public Information

Efforts from the following list: (1) Positive; (2) Negative; (3) Neutral; or (4) Not

Applicable. Additionally, coders were asked to list key words, terms, or phrases that were

used to describe the administration and its communication strategies as open-ended

information in the space provided.

Coding Process

Based on prior research addressed in the literature review, and the above-listed

hypotheses and research questions, codesheets and codebooks were developed. In order

to make the coding process as expeditious and clear as possible for coders who were

assisting in the coding of the content for this study, two codesheets and codebooks were

developed: one for televised news stories and another for Web coverage. These coding

instruments were identical in all ways, except for areas that dealt directly with the

specific medium (such as author or anchor).

Two undergraduate and two graduate students (one of whom was this researcher)

were trained in a series of separate coding sessions for both televised news broadcasts

and Web coverage coding, and the coding process was implemented. Intercoder

reliability across all categories for both codesheets ranged from an average of .75 to 1.00

per item and was established for the televised news broadcasts at an average of .97 and







40


for the Web coverage at an average of .95, using Holsti's formula.1 The item by item

(category) reliability is reported in the sample codesheets, which are Appendices C and

D.


1 Intercoder reliability will be calculated based on Holsti's formula IR=2M/(N1+N2), where M is the number of agreements between the coders, N1 is the total
number of coding decisions made by Coder 1 andN2 is the total number of coding decisions made by Coder 2














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This study employed a quantitative content analysis of televised news broadcasts

and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi freedom. The overall goal was to determine the

level and assessment of metacommunication in the media coverage about the 2003 war

with Iraq.

Analysis of News Stories

All stories from March 20, 2003 through May 1, 2000 (N= 1,733) were coded and

analyzed. This sample of media stories about the war consisted of taped evening televised

news broadcasts (n = 751) and downloads of Web site coverage (n = 982).

Televised News Broadcast Source Reliance

Hypothesis one posited that televised news broadcasts would rely more on media

sources than on independent sources in the coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The

results indicate this was not the case.

Overall, 3,875 sources were coded as being present in the televised news

broadcasts during this study of the war coverage. Of these sources, 2,084 (54%) sources

were listed as independent sources, and only 1,791 (46%) sources were listed as media

sources for the televised news broadcasts about Operation Iraqi freedom. This means that

the average number of independent sources in each newscast was 2.77, and the average

number of media sources was only 2.38. This difference is statistically significant, t =

4.97, df = 750, p < .001. Thus hypothesis one was not supported.









Web Coverage Source Reliance

Hypothesis two posited that Web coverage would rely more on media sources than

on independent sources in the coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As with hypothesis

one, the results indicate that this was not so.

Overall, 7,005 sources were coded as being present in the Web coverage during this

study of the war coverage. Of these sources, there were 5,100 (73%) sources listed as

independent sources and only 1,905 (37%) sources listed as media sources for the Web

coverage about Operation Iraqi freedom. This means that the average number of

independent sources in each newscast was 5.19, and the average number of media

sources was only 1.94. This difference is statistically significant, t = 25.83, df = 981, p <

.001. Thus hypothesis two was not supported.

Episodic and Thematic Frame Prevalence

Hypothesis three posited that overall, the episodic media frame would be most

prevalent during the initial stages of the war, and the thematic media frame would

become more prevalent as the war progressed. In order to test this, all news stories from

March 20 through May 1, were broken into three equal time periods: time one, March 20

through April 2; time two, April 3 through April 17; and time three, April 18 through

May 1.

Frequencies of the stories that were coded as having the presence of episodic and

thematic frames were computed for each time period. The results indicate that across

each of the three times, respectively, there were considerably more episodic frames

present than thematic ones. At time one 96.6% of the frames were episodic and 0.04%

were thematic; at time two 94.3% of the frames were episodic and 5.7% were thematic;

and at time three 91.1% were episodic and 9.09% thematic. Thus hypothesis three was









not supported. See Table 4-1 for a total of the episodic and thematic frames and a

breakdown by time and frame/category relationship.

Frame Prevalence

Research question one asked what were the prevalent frames relied on in the media

coverage of the war and if there were significant differences in the prevalence of these

frames in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In order to answer this question a crosstabulation was computed to determine frequencies

of the presence of the ten frames overall and by media channel. See Table 4-2.

Overall, the most prevalent frames, from highest to lowest presence, were military

conflict, metacommunication, human interest, diagnostic, prognostic, rebuilding of Iraq,

protest, economic consequences, American patriotism, and responsibility. The patterns of

prevalence for the two media channels compared in this study follow closely in order

with slight deviations, but these differences were not significant.

For televised news broadcasts, the most prevalent frames, from highest to lowest

presence, were military conflict, metacommunication, human interest, diagnostic,

rebuilding of Iraq, prognostic, protest, American patriotism, economic consequences, and

responsibility.

For Web coverage, the most prevalent frames, from highest to lowest presence,

were military conflict, metacommunication, human interest, rebuilding of Iraq,

diagnostic, economic consequences, protest, prognostic, American patriotism, and

responsibility.












Table 4-1. Episodic and Thematic Frames across Three Periods of Time


All Items
(n = 4,186)


Frames
Military Conflict
American Patriotism
Protest
Human Interest
Responsibility
Economic Consequences
Diagnostic
Prognostic
Rebuilding of Iraq
Metacommunication
Total


Time One
(n = 1,729)

Episodic Thematic
597 16
48 4
76 11
199 11
23 2


1,357
124
181
589
65
126
274
206
254
1,104
4,186


61
112
42
32
466
1,656
(96%)


4
2
5
4
10
73
(4%)


Time Two
(n = 1,789)

Episodic Thematic
519 29
52 3
55 4
248 20
23 5
38 2
98 10
96 10
120 6
436 15
1,685 104
(94%) (6%)


Time Three
(n = 668)

Episodic Thematic
172 24
15 2
33 2
99 12
8 4
16 5
44 8
36 17
81 11
169 8
585 83
(88%) (12%)









Metacommunication Frame Prevalence

Research question two asked how prevalent was the metacommunication frame in

comparison to the other frames in the media coverage of the war and if this comparison

was significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of

Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As Table 4-2 also shows, the Metacommunication frame was a very prevalent

frame in both the media channels. In fact 63% of the televised news broadcasts and 65%

of the Web stories include some type of metacommunication frame. However, there was

no statistically significant difference in amount of metacommunication frames relied on

between the Web and television news coverage.

Table 4-2. Frame Prevalence in Stories by Media Channel

Television News Web All
Broadcasts Coverage Items A
(n = 2,290) (n= 2,030) (n = 4,320)
Military Conflict 79% 78% 1,361 .29
American Patriotism 8 7 125 .28
Protest 12 10 183 1.49
Human Interest 41 30 599 20.64**
Responsibility 4 4 66 .37
Economic Consequences 4 10 130 21.69**
Diagnostic 22 11 277 38.71**
Prognostic 15 10 208 12.80
Rebuilding of Iraq 17 14 259 3.60
Metacommunication 63 65 1,112 .32
**p <.001

Frame Prevalence over Time

Research question three asked if the prevalence of certain frames changed over

time in the media coverage of the war and if there were significant differences in the

prevalence of these frames in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of

Operation Iraqi Freedom.









In terms of frame prevalence over time one, time two, and time three, there is a

slight increase in overall frames relied on in time two, as compared with time one, and

then there is a dramatic decrease in frame presence in time three. Most frames stayed

consistent, in terms of their prevalence over time, as compared with their prevalence

overall. There were, however, a several noteworthy differences in specific shifts in frame

prevalence over time. Both the protest and economic consequences frames dropped to the

least two prevalent frames in time two, as compared to their respectively higher positions

during time one, but they leveled out to a moderate position during time three. The most

significant pattern of change over time was the steadily increasing presence of the

rebuilding of Iraq frame.

In terms of media channel comparisons of frame prevalence by time, most of the 10

frames were fairly evenly distributed among the televised news broadcasts and Web

coverage across time one, time two, and time three and in keeping with the overall

pattern. Overall, the most prevalent frames across the three time periods were military

conflict and metacommunication, which remained at high percentages across all three

times. However, two frames that were different at statistically significant levels of p < .05

among the media channels across time were the prognostic and rebuilding of Iraq frames.

An interesting difference was the pattern of the presence of the prognostic frame, which

was relatively low at 23% during time one, rising to 51% at time two, and then dropped

to 26% at time three. Another noteworthy deviation was the rebuilding of Iraq frame

which similarly was also low at 14% for time one, 50% at time two, and then also

dropped to 36% at time three. See Table 4-4 for a total of the frames over three time

periods and a comparison of these totals by media channel.









Metacommunication Frame Prevalence over Time

Research question four asked if the prevalence of the metacommunication frame, in

comparison to the other frames, changed over time in the media coverage of the war and

if this change was significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and Web

coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As table 4-4 also shows, the metacommunication

frame remained the second most prevalent frame during all three time periods, and there

was no statistically significant difference in its prevalence between the media channels.

Types of Metacommunication Frames

Research question five asked if there were more cases of self-reflexive or

strategy/process types of metacommunication frames in the media coverage of the war

and if the amount of these cases was significantly different in the televised news

broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

To consider these issues a crosstabulation was calculated between the two types of

metacommunication frames and the two media channels analyzed in this study of the war.

The results indicate that the self-reflexive metacommunication frame was more prevalent

than the strategy/process metacommunication frame for both the televised news

broadcasts and the Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. See Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Self-Reflexive and Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frames by Media

Televised News Web Coverage All Items
Broadcasts
(n = 472) (n = 635) (n = 1,107)

Self-Reflexive 62% 60% 61%
Strategv/Process 38 40 39














Table 4-4. Frames Relied on in Stories Covering Operation Iraqi Freedom across Three Periods of Time and by Media Channel
Frames Time One Time Two Time Three A2
(N= 4,320) (n = 1,642) (n = 1,858) (n = 820)
Military Conflict (n= 1,361) 45% 41% 14% 223.36**
Televised News Broadcasts 46 40 14
Web Coverage 44 41 15 .81
American Patriotism (n = 125) 42 45 13 22.10**
Televised News Broadcasts 39 46 15
Web Coverage 44 44 12 .61
Protest ( = 183) 48 33 19 22.16**
Televised News Broadcasts 48 30 22
Web Coverage 47 36 17 1.25
Human Interest ( = 599) 36 46 18 66.45**
Televised News Broadcasts 34 46 20
Web Coverage 38 45 17 1.52
Responsibility (n = 66) 38 44 18 7.18**
Televised News Broadcasts 35 42 23
Web Coverage 40 46 14 .76
Economic Consequences ( = 130) 52 32 16 25.68**
Televised News Broadcasts 51 26 23
Web Coverage 53 43 13 1.47
Diagnostic ( = 277) 42 39 19 26.69**
Televised News Broadcasts 40 47 23
Web Coverage 44 44 12 5.86
Prognostic (n = 208) 23 51 26 31.05**
Televised News Broadcasts 16 53 31
Web Coverage 31 49 20 7.57*
Rebuilding of Iraq (n = 259) 14 50 36 48.91**
Televised News Broadcasts 7 52 41
Web Coverage 21 47 32 10.38*
Metacommunication (n = 1,112) 43 41 16 151.28**
Televised News Broadcasts 42 40 18
Web Coverage 42 42 16 3.20
*Chi square test indicate differences among time one, time two, and time three for the frame at p < .05.
**Chi square test indicate that the difference between television and Web coverage is different for time one, time two, and time three at = p < .05.









Self-Reflexive Metacommunication Frames

Research question six asked what types of self-reflexive metacommunication

frames were relied on in the media coverage of the war and if reliance on these types of

self-reflexive metacommunication frames was significantly different in televised news

broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In order to answer this question, a crosstabulation was calculated between the self-

reflexive metacommunication frame types and the televised news broadcasts and Web

coverage of the war.

Table 4-5. Self-Reflexive Metacommunication Types by Media Channel
Televised News Broadcasts Web Coverage Total
(n = 295) (n = 383) (n = 678)
Role of Technology
in Attaining Coverage .3% .8% .6%
Anchors or Media
Personalities Discussing
their Opinions 7 2 4
Reporters Discussing
Personal Experience of
Covering the War 14 8 11
Reporters Reporting about
Journalists from their
Organization or Network 46 25 34
Reporters Reporting about
Journalist from other
Organizations or Networks 14 17 15
News Media Emphasizing
their Role as Participant
in Event 6 7 6
Cross Promotion and Cross
Referencing of Media 8 37 24
Insider Views of the War
or War Strategizing 5 4 5
A = 93.74, df = 7,p .001.
However, this chi square calculation should be interpreted with caution since some cells
have values of less than 5.









Table 4-5 shows, the most frequently used self-reflexive frame involved "reporters

reporting about journalists from their own organization or network," which made up 34%

of the total self-reflexive frames. The frame in which the media engaged in "cross

promotion and cross referencing of media" also occurred frequently (24%). An

interesting outlier here is the low prevalence of the "role of technology," which showed

up much more frequently in the Kaid et al. (1994) study of CNN coverage of the 1991

Gulf War.

However, the chi square test indicates that the pattern of self-reflexive frames was

not the same between media (see Table 4-5). For instance, whereas the most frequently

used self-reflexive frame in television news broadcasts was the "reporters reporting about

journalists from their own organization or network" (46%), Web coverage used the "cross

promotion and cross refereeing of media" (37%) more often.

Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frames

Research question seven asked what types of strategy/process metacommunication

frames were relied on in the media coverage of the war and if reliance on these types of

strategy/process metacommunication frames was significantly different in televised news

broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In order to answer this question, a crosstabulation was calculated between the

strategy/process metacommunication frame types and the televised news broadcasts and

Web coverage of the war.

Chi square tests indicate the strategy/process metacommunication frames were not

highly similar between the media channels, and the reliance on these frames was

significantly different in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi









Freedom. See Table 4-6 for a comparison of the prevalence of the strategy/process

metacommunication frames by televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of the war.

Table 4-6. Strategy/Process Metacommunication Types by Media Channel

Televised News Broadcasts Web Coverage All Items
(n= 177) (n = 252) (n= 429)

Pentagon Information
Strategy 9% 7% 8%
White House/
Bush Administration
Information Strategy 26 26 26
Military Officials/Troops
Information Strategy 24 25 26
Partisan Information
Source Strategy 4 11 8
Bush Administration and
News Media Relationships
and Interactions 6 18 13
Journalists Participation in
Military Events or Press Briefings 6 9 11
Standards of the Quality of the
News Coverage 12 2 6
Influence of PR/News Management
Strategies on Journalists 14 9 11

A = 41.98, df= 7,p<.001.

However, this chi square calculation should be interpreted with caution since some cells
have values of less than 5.

Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Categories

Research question eight asked which category of the strategy/process

metacommunication frame was most prevalent-the adversarial, educational or neutral in

the media coverage of the war and if the prevalence of these three categories of the

strategy/process metacommunication frames was significantly different in the televised

news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.









Overall, the educational category of the strategy/process metacommunication frame

was most prevalent (46%), the neutral category of the strategy/process

metacommunication frame was second-most prevalent (36%), and the adversarial

category of the strategy process metacommunication frame was least prevalent (18%).

For the televised news broadcasts of the war, the neutral category of the

strategy/process metacommunication frame was most prevalent, with the educational

category being second-most prevalent, and the adversarial category being the least

prevalent. For the Web coverage of the war, the educational category of the

strategy/process metacommunication frame was most prevalent, with the neutral category

being second-most prevalent, and the adversarial category being the least prevalent.

In comparing the prevalence of these three categories of the strategy/process

metacommunication frame by media channel, the most striking difference is the much

larger number of educational strategy/process metacommunication frames present in the

Web coverage as compared to a much smaller number being present in the televised news

coverage. When calculating a chi square statistical analysis, the results indicate that these

three categories of the strategy/process metacommunication frames were significantly

different in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

See Table 4-7 for a comparison of this category by media.

Episodic and Thematic Frame Media Comparisons

Nonetheless, Table 4-9 presents the results of analysis of the difference in the

episodic/thematic pattern between media over time. Table 4-9 shows that, overall, the

prevalence of episodic and thematic frames across all three time spans (as broken down

in the testing of Hypothesis 3) was similar for both television news and Web coverage of

the war. As shown before, the pattern clearly illustrates a dominance of episodic frames









over thematic frames at the beginning, middle, and end of the war. Only one frame

shows a departure from this pattern, the "responsibility" frame. This frame was covered

by television news through all three time periods as an episodic theme, but Web

coverage, which followed television's lead in the beginning and middle time periods,

focused its responsibility frame coverage on a more thematic level in the ending (third)

time period.

Table 4-7. Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Categories by Media
Televised News Web Coverage Total
Broadcasts
(n= 172) (n = 257) (n = 429)

Adversarial 26% 14% 18%
Educational 30 56 46
Neutral 44 30 36

A = 27.77, df = 2,p .01


The ninth research question concerned whether the pattern of episodic and thematic

frames over time as the war progressed was different between television news broadcasts

and Web coverage. This question was originally posed in line with the assumption that

the third hypothesis would prove true--that is, that episodic frames would be more

prevalent in the beginning of the war, progressing toward greater prevalence of thematic

coverage as the war progressed. However, this hypothesis was not substantiated, since

episodic coverage remained the overwhelmingly dominant frame type throughout all

three war coverage time periods tested.









Bush Administration Public Information Assessments

Research question 10 asked how were the Bush administration's public information

efforts assessed in the media coverage of the war and if these assessments were

significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and the Web coverage.

Over half (57%) of the total stories did not discuss the Bush Administration public

information efforts; these stories were omitted from analysis for this question. The

remaining 263 stories were rated as positive, negative, or neutral in regard to their

coverage of the Bush Administration efforts. As Table 4-8 shows, the overall percentage

of these stories portrayed the Bush Administration information efforts as neutral (50%),

and the remainder were categorized as 45% positive and 5% negative.

However, again looking at Table 4-8, it is clear that there is a difference in how the

Bush information efforts fared in the television versus Web media. While television gave

the Bush efforts a positive score in 45% of such stories, the Web only registered a

positive evaluation in 27%. Likewise, the Web coverage was more likely to be negative

toward the Bush Administration information efforts, casting a negative view in 9% of its

stories with this frame.

Table 4-8. Bush Administration Public Information Efforts
Televised News Broadcasts Web Coverage Total
(n = 351) (n = 389) (n = 740)
Positive 45% 27% 36%
Negative 5 9 7
Neutral 50 64 57

2= 30.18, df = 2,p <.001














Table 4-9. Episodic and Thematic Frames across Three Periods of Time and by Media Channel


Frames All Items Time One Time Two Time Three
(N= 4.186) Episodic Thematic Episodic Thematic Episodic Thematic X2
Military Conflict (n = 1,357) 97% 3% 95% 5% 88% 12%
Television News Broadcast 92 2 95 5 92 8
Web Coverage 96 4 94 6 88 12 .04
American Patriotism (n = 124) 92 8 94 6 88 12
Television News Broadcast 100 0 92 8 89 11
Web Coverage 87 13 97 3 88 12 .62
Protest (n= 181) 87 13 93 7 94 6
Television News Broadcast 93 7 100 0 89 11
Web Coverage 82 18 88 12 100 0 2.62
Human Interest (n= 589) 95 5 93 7 89 11
Television News Broadcast 98 2 94 6 90 10
Web Coverage 92 8 91 9 88 12 3.67
Responsibility ( = 65) 92 8 82 18 67 33
Television News Broadcast 100 0 92 8 100 0
Web Coverage 86 14 73 17 20 80 7.91*
Economic Consequences (4 = 126) 94 6 95 5 76 24
Television News Broadcast 100 0 88 12 86 14
Web Coverage 92 8 94 6 71 29 .52
Diagnostic (n = 274) 98 2 91 9 85 15
Television News Broadcast 100 0 95 5 85 15
Web Coverage 96 4 85 15 85 15 2.19
Prognostic (n = 206) 89 11 89 11 68 32
Television News Broadcast 89 11 90 10 74 26
Web Coverage 90 10 88 12 56 44 2.54
Rebuilding of Iraq (n = 254) 89 11 94 6 87 13
Television News Broadcast 78 22 94 6 90 10
Web Coverage 93 7 93 7 83 17 .84
Metacommunication (n = 1,104) 98 2 97 3 94 6
Television News Broadcast 98 2 97 3 97 3
Web Coverage 92 2 97 3 94 6 .19


*Chi square = p < .05









Iraq Government Public Information Assessments

Research question 11 asked how were the Iraqi government's public information

efforts assessed in the media coverage of the war and if these assessments were

significantly different in the televised news broadcasts and the Web coverage.

Over half (73%) of the total stories did not discuss the Iraqi government public

information efforts; these stories were omitted from analysis for this question. The

remaining 442 stories were rated as positive, negative, or neutral in regard to their

coverage of the Iraqi government efforts. As Table 4-10 shows, the overall percentage of

these stories portrayed the Iraqi government information efforts as negative (63%), and

the remainder were categorized as 33% neutral and 4% positive.

However, again looking at Table 4.11, it is clear that there is a difference in how

the Iraqi government fared in the television versus Web media. While television gave the

Iraqi government efforts a negative evaluation in 61% of such stories, the Web registered

a negative evaluation in 66%. However, the Web coverage was more likely to be more

positive toward the Iraqi government information efforts, casting a negative view in 7%

of its stories with this frame, as compared to television coverage of only 2%.

Table 4-10. Iraqi Government Public Information Efforts

Televised News Broadcasts Web Coverage Total
(n = 278) (n = 164) (n = 442)
Positive 2% 7% 4%
Negative 61 66 63
Neutral 37 27 33

XA= 11.51, df = 2,p <.05














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

This exploratory study sought to extend the metacommunication concept that has

been previously used almost exclusively for the analyses of political campaign coverage

to the media coverage of a war. The current study advanced the research in the area of

metacommunication not only by examining this communications practice in a different

context, but also by analyzing both televised news broadcasts and Web coverage which

have largely been overlooked in prior research in this area.

Findings and Implications

Chapter four's reporting of the results directly addressed each hypothesis and

research question. This chapter elaborates on these results categorically, through the use

of examples to illustrate the findings and to discuss the implications thereof.

Additionally, this chapter examines how these findings may be linked to the bigger

picture of the theoretical underpinnings and prior research that were detailed in chapter

two's review of the literature and to see how this study's findings build on an

understanding of these perspectives. Finally, limitations of this study are acknowledged

and goals for future research set.

Source Reliance

Despite the fact that overall both media relied on independent sources more than

media ones, it is important to note that the percentages do point to a substantial tendency

on the part of the media to rely on media sources. Whereas the numbers indicating

independent sources in the lead may be looked at as a somewhat encouraging finding in









terms of the role of the journalist, especially in terms of the key concept of independence

and objectivity, the extent to which the media sources are used is still a troubling finding

in both media channels examined in this study.

While the finding that out of the 3,875 sources relied on in the televised news

broadcasts during this study of the war coverage consisted of 2,084 (54%) independent

sources and 1,791 (46%) media sources might show statistical significance, it is still not

something that points to a lack of media narcissism or self-reflexivity. Reliance on such a

large number of media sources in the televised news broadcasts during Operation Iraqi

Freedom is a noteworthy finding that indicates that the TV news media do become

participants in the stories they are covering and to a rather alarming extent.

However, the finding that out of the 7,005 sources relied on in the Web coverage

during this study of the war coverage consisted of 5,100 (73%) independent sources

1,905 (37%) media sources is not only statistically significant, it is also something that

does point toward a decrease in the media's preoccupation with itself. The large amount

of independent sources, which is almost double the amount of media sources being relied

on in the Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom, is an important finding that indicates

that the Web as a media channel is less likely to insert media practitioners into the stories

they are reporting.

The difference between source reliance by media channel was not a comparison

that was an explicit goal of this study, as evidenced by the fact that the study

hypothesized that both televised news broadcasts and Web coverage would rely on media

sources to a greater degree than on independent sources. These assumptions were not

supported, and the differences in the source reliance by these two media channels is









important and deserves further analysis with the data collected for this study and in future

research efforts.

Episodic and Thematic Frames

The results regarding the presence of episodic and thematic frames and their

shifting over time from episodic frames being prevalent initially and thematic frames

becoming dominant over time was an assumption this study made based on prior

research. The results of this study indicate that this assumption was largely erroneous and

was a surprising finding.

The results of the comparison of the episodic and thematic frame prevalence over

the three time periods yielded drastically differing results than were expected. The sheer

volume and amount of difference in the percentages are staggering: with time one having

96.6% episodic frames and only a negligible 0.04% thematic frames; time two having

94.3% episodic frames and a slight increase to 5.7% thematic frames; and time three

having 91.1% episodic frames and another minimal increase to 9.09% thematic frames.

While the episodic frame slightly decreased during each time period and the thematic

frame rose minimally, these results are a paradoxical finding that bears further

exploration. However, one possible explanation of this finding is the fact that Web

coverage is closer to print coverage than televised news and that print sources possibly

tend to be more thematic than episodic.

The finding that the prevalence of episodic and thematic frames by media channel

indicated similar patterns of frame dominance across time in both the televised news

broadcasts and the Web coverage indicate that these results cannot be attributed to

channel variance. With the only one instance of a statistically significant difference (the

responsibility frame) reported during the all three time periods analyzed, these findings of









episodic frame dominance can be seen as overwhelmingly similar across both time and

media.

The implications of these findings of episodic prevalence and only a slight

thematic increase bear further scrutiny. While this was a short official war, the patterns of

coverage are so extremely variant that the compressed period of time overall and the

context seem like overly simplistic explanations for this finding. It is possible that the

reason for this outcome has to do more with changes in media coverage overall. Since the

media systems are far more complex and increasingly becoming more so, it is perhaps a

change in media coverage style in general that explains why the episodic to thematic

dominance over time was not supported in this study.

With so many media options available to the news consumer, media outlets may

be leaning to shorter, episodic coverage that focuses more on specific events and

individuals (which is more evocative and perhaps easily digested) instead of broader,

thematic coverage that focuses more on issues and implications (which is less sensational

and requires more processing) in attempts to keep the public's tuned in to their given

station or remaining on their given Web site. With the shorter sound bite and a generation

used to fast-paced MTV-style editing, and many Web users who can fairly be

characterized as having short attention spans to the point of being ADD, the media outlets

are well aware that keeping individuals engaged can often be accomplished by providing

more simplistic, dramatic, and event-driven news stories than complex, analytical, and

thoughtful ones. This finding is open to different interpretations, but it clearly deserves

more analysis with the coverage of this war and in other contexts, in order to continue to

test assumption that episodic frames will give way to thematic ones over time.









Frame Prevalence

In terms of establishing the prevalent frames in the media coverage of the war,

and if there were significant differences in the prevalence of these frames in war

coverage, the rank order of frame prevalence from highest to lowest were military

conflict, metacommunication, human interest, diagnostic, prognostic, rebuilding of Iraq,

protest, economic consequences, American patriotism, and responsibility. As reported

earlier, the patterns of prevalence for the two media channels compared in this study

follow closely in order but with slight deviations, but these differences were not

significant.

While the military conflict frame was the most prevalent frame overall and in

both the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage, the metacommunication frame

was the second-most prevalent frame overall and in both the media channels, with 63%

of the televised news broadcasts and 65% of the Web stories include some type of

metacommunication frame.

The sheer volume of metacommunication frame presence in both media channels

is a finding that is striking for several reasons. While military conflict was the most

prevalent frame, it was a frame that included a broad number of scenarios that dealt with

actual conflict and events in the war in general. The other eight frames ranged from very

specific, such as American patriotism, human interest, diagnostic, and prognostic to

broad, such as economic consequences, protest, responsibility, and rebuilding of Iraq.

The military conflict frame was present at 79% for televised news broadcasts and

at 78% for Web coverage followed by the metacommunication frame which was present

at 63% for televised news broadcasts and at 65% for Web coverage. These were the two

highest types of frames that were followed by human interest which was present at 43%









for televised news broadcasts and at 30% for Web coverage. The remaining frames were

present in both media channels from a high of 22% to a low of 4%.

The high level of metacommunication prevalence is a key finding of this study. It

indicates that other than broad military conflict information the media are indeed relying

on providing coverage that is self-reflexive and emphasizing the strategy/process nature

of the media and the public information efforts much more than they are the events,

issues, and people involved in the military conflict. It is also significant to note that the

level of metacommunication frame prevalence was extremely close in both the TV and

Web coverage, and this is not a finding that was limited to just one of the media channels.

Examples of episodic frames where abundant in stories from both media, and

certainly the use of embedded reporters during Operation Iraqi Freedom is a reason that

could have led to such coverage. From the Jessica Lynch rescue, to the toppling of the

Statue of Saddam Hussein, to the day-to-day activities of the U.S. military personnel, to

President Bush's parachute landing and official declaration of the end of the war,

embedded reporters were right there telling this unfolding story. This unprecedented

access given to the media created a situation in which reporters were not only more like

participants, the also became daily storytellers who would tend to focus on incidents and

events, rather than broader issues.

Additionally, the finding that the metacommunication frame remained the second

most prevalent frame during all three time periods, and there was not a statistically

significant difference in its prevalence between the media channels during time one, time

two, or time three further underscores the indication that metacommunication frames









have become a standby in media coverage, even from the onset to the resolution of a war

and at every stage of the conflict.

Metacommunication Frames

This study additionally sought to determine which types of metacommunication

frames were more prevalent: if there we more cases of self-reflexive metacommunication

or strategy/process frames present in the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of

Operation Iraqi Freedom. The results of this indicate that the self-reflexive type of

metacommunication frame, in which media frequently insert themselves into the

coverage and evaluate their role in the news process was largely the dominant type of

metacommunication frame as compared to the strategy/process metacommunication

frame, in which the media often report on the interplay between public information

efforts and the resulting media coverage.

It is a significant finding that the self-reflexive metacommunication frame, which

is in many ways the epitome of media narcissism, is the dominant metacommunication

frame for both media channels. The self reflexive frame is often characterized by

coverage that is inane and vacuous as television news anchors, Web story authors, and

other media players chatter about their opinions and roles in the news, instead of actually

even conveying any substantive news at all. It is perhaps surprising that the

strategy/process frame was present at a statistically significantly lower amount for both

the televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of the war. The strategy/process news

frame can often contain information that actually informs the news consumer about

events, even though it does commonly emphasize the negative relationship between

political public relations practitioners and the press in the news gathering and reporting

process.









Examples of stories that were coded as having the strategy/process frame varied

in content and in type of strategy/process category, but perhaps one of the most blatant of

such frames was the coverage of President Bush's landing on the USS Lincoln. All media

analyzed in this study covered that specific, orchestrated public-information event. Other

such coverage ranged from reporters commenting on rallies and how the administration

responded to them to the White House/Bush administration indicating frustration with the

UN weapons inspectors.

An interesting aspect of this finding is that prior literature in the area of political

communication has often shown the strategy/process frame to be the prevalent form of

metacommunication during election cycles. This exploratory study, however, found that

conversely, during a time of war-even a controversial war-that strategy/process took

second place to self-reflexivity. This finding helps advance understanding of

metacommunication frames in contexts other than political campaigns, and while this

should be explored in different contexts, this finding does indicate that the media's own

favorite subject is in fact itself and reinforces the idea of media bias towards the media as

the bias that one can expect to find in times of peace or conflict.

Self-Reflexive Metacommunication Frames

Another goal of this study was to assess what types of self-reflexive

metacommunication frames were relied on in the media coverage of the war and if

reliance on these types of self-reflexive metacommunication frames was significantly

different in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Based on prior research, the eight types of self-reflexive metacommunication were coded

for.









Self-reflexive metacommunication frames were not similar between the media

channels and the reliance on these frames was significantly different in televised news

broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As reported earlier, an

interesting outlier in this finding was low prevalence of role of technology in attaining

coverage. This is of note, as prior war coverage scholarship conducted by Kaid, et al.

about the 1991 Gulf War and CNN's frequent mentions of its technology, which was a

breakthrough study in metacommunication research, though not explicitly labeled as such

at the time.

There are several other results in comparison of media channels and the analysis

of the self-reflexive metacommunication frame prevalence that deserve mention. For

example, the most dominant self-reflexive frame for the Web coverage was cross

promotion and cross referencing of the media, but this was a very low ranked item in the

televised news broadcasts. However, reporters reporting about journalists from their

organization or network came in first place for televised news broadcasts and second

place for Web coverage. The other items differed widely in rank order, but were not

largely different in the amounts of coverage per item.

Examples of reporters interviewing embedded reporters in the field were

frequently occurring types of self-reflexive coverage and a mainstay of the electronic war

coverage analyzed in this study. Additionally, the televised broadcasts frequently

included anchors and/or media personalities discussing their own opinions about the war,

which ranged from commenting on protests to foreign policy to the future of Iraq. In

addition to interviewing media celebrities and personalities within their own news

organizations, the media also frequently interviewed media sources from other news









organizations about both specific incidents and implications of the war. Again, this is not

largely surprising, as certain major media outlets had access to more data and the actual

troops, and the media sources offered perspectives that were not available through other

independent sources that were not on the front line.

The finding that cross promotion and cross referencing of the media was much

higher in the Web coverage than TV news could be attributed to the structural differences

between these media channels. Since the televised news broadcasts are highly structured

in format and time constraints, as compared to the Web coverage that offer a practically

infinite news hole and more coverage possibilities. Another items however, that is

difficult to find explanations for its differences by media channel is the frame of reporters

discussing their personal experiences of covering the war is more prevalent in TV than

Web coverage, but it is unclear why this would be so.

Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frames

Another goal of this study was to assess what types of strategy/process

metacommunication frames were relied on in the media coverage of the war and if

reliance on these types of strategy/process metacommunication frames was significantly

different in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Based on prior research, the eight types of strategy/process metacommunication were

coded for.

Overall, the strategy/process metacommunication frames were not highly

correlated between the media channels and the reliance on these frames was significantly

different in televised news broadcasts and Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

However there are two exceptions: both the White House/Bush administration

information strategy and Military officials/troops information strategy were ranked as the









top two most prevalent frames for the televised news broadcasts and the Web coverage

the war. These were the only two strategy/process metacommunication frames that were

correlated.

There are several other results in comparison of media channels and the analysis

of the strategy/process metacommunication frame prevalence that deserve mention. For

example, the presence of the Bush administration and news media relationships and

interactions frame was present twice as much in the Web coverage as compared to the

TV news. While the results of this can be attributed to reasons discussed earlier about the

channel differences, which could be one possible explanation for this and other

differences, that is an almost counter intuitive finding and one that seems at odds with the

results from prior research in the context of political campaigns. Once could actually

have predicted the opposite would have been the case, that the Bush administration and

news media relationships and interactions would have played out to a greater degree in

the televised news broadcasts than in the stories about the war in the Web coverage.

Another perplexing finding is that of the standards of the quality of the news

coverage frame, which was present six times more in the televised news broadcasts than

in the Web coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Given the time and structural

constraints of the TV coverage as compared with the Web's, this finding is difficult to

explain, as it is the exact opposite of what would have been expected. However, a

possible explanation for this finding is that this one strategy/process frame is very closely

associated with some of the self-reflexive types of coverage, and while this frame does

assess the quality and standards of the news coverage, the substantive nature of such

assessments is not evaluated in this study, and these frames can include incidents when









anchors or reporters are discussing live and on the air the issues they are facing when

trying to bring the viewer accurate and up-to-date information.

For example, it was common in the televised news broadcasts for anchors or

reporters to allude to domestic and international coverage while reporting the day's

events. Such media-assessment coverage included commenting on coverage from the

controversial AI Jazeera to the traditional news sources, such as the BBC. Often televised

media was self-referential, its anchors and reporters filled the news hole with chatter

about themselves and their own network's quality of news gathering and dissemination

during a time of war.

Strategy/Process Metacommunication Categories

Another layer to the analysis of the strategy/process metacommunication frames

for this study was to categorize the presence of each type as being adversarial,

educational, or neutral and to compare these findings by media channel. The results of

this specific inquiry are central to the implications of this study of metacommunication

prevalence in the media coverage of the war.

Overall, the educational category was most prevalent, the neutral second, and the

adversarial the least. This is a somewhat promising finding, and one that differs from a

number of the prior studies in political campaigns when these categories were evaluated.

For the televised broadcasts, the neutral category was most prevalent, the

educational second, and the adversarial the least. In terms of Web coverage, the

educational category was most prevalent, the neutral second, and the adversarial the least.

The most typical example of such neutral coverage, for both media, was straight-

forward and informative reporting of U.S. public information efforts, such as the release

of reports, interviews, and press conferences. The negative coverage, which was the least









offered of the these assessment categories tended to be humorous and critical of the Iraqi

information officer referred to as "Baghdad Bob" and his denial of the serious nature of

the U.S. assault on Iraq. The educational coverage tended to focus on U.S. public

information efforts and to be objective and very direct in explaining how the government

agencies and/or the White House gathered and released its data to both the media and the

public.

It is encouraging that the educational category of the strategy/process

metacommunication frame emerged as a prevalent frame and the adversarial category

was the least, both overall and by media channel. This implies that the strategy/process

metacommunication frame can potentially be beneficial and enhance the news consumer

and possible contribute to the public sphere (Habermas 1962/1989).

In terms of channel comparisons, it is also worth noting that while the adversarial

category of the strategy/process metacommunication frame was least present in both

media, it was only four percent less prevalent than the educational category in the TV

news, as compared to the Web coverage in which the adversarial category was 28 percent

less prevalent than the educational category. Also, in comparing the amount of

educational strategy/process metacommunication category presence between these two

media channels it is significant that this category was much more prevalent in the Web

coverage (56%) as compared with the (30%) prevalence in the televised news broadcasts.

These findings are congruent with prior scholarship that indicates the Web may be a

medium that is able to enhance the public sphere than other media; in terms of the range

of voices and variety of sources it offers (Strommer-Galley, 2002; Williams & Martin,

2004).









Public Information Assessment

The study also sought to evaluate directly how the media were assessing the

public information efforts of both the Bush administration and the Iraqi government. Not

surprisingly, the findings indicate that the Bush administration's efforts were rated far

more favorably than the Iraqi government's. It is interesting however that the Bush

administration's communication efforts were mostly rated as neutral, as were a limited

number of the Iraqi government's efforts.

These findings, perhaps more than any of the others, can be attributed to the

context of the media coverage. Unlike a political campaign, when one would expect more

negative assessments, the context of this particular military campaign and its associations

with the larger War on Terror that President Bush declared after the September 11

terrorist attacks would create an environment when being overly critical could be viewed

as unpatriotic. In fact, prior research on this war has indicated that media personalities

had to walk a fine line in critiquing the president or the military efforts, and that those

who spoke out faced harsh censure (Williams, Martin, Trammell, Landreville, & Ellis,

2004).

Limitations

As with any study there are limitations, and the current study has several. By its

very nature, this exploratory analysis that attempts to explicate the metacommunication

concept and examine media narcissism and self-reflexivity in a war instead of a political

campaign meant that prior assumptions and findings could only be considered

benchmarks for assessments and not strict guidelines as the contextual issues were so

great.









This study is also limited in that it only analyzes two media: the Web and TV news.

Additionally, visuals for both of these media were not coded and analyzed, and only the

textual, verbal content was addressed.

Future Research

There are multiple directions in which this current study can lead, and as an

exploratory analysis of metacommunication in a context other than a political campaign,

this study will prove to be a springboard for a number of other studies. These studies will

begin with the existing data that have been collected.

Future work with these data will include conducting comparative analyses within

the media channels compared here. For example, it ma be a worthwhile to further break

out the data and see if there are statistically significant differences between the traditional

and cable televised news broadcasts and similarly if there are differences between their

coverage on their respective Web sites.

Additional work with the existing data collected during Operation Iraqi Freedom

include examining which sources were most frequently associated with given frames to

see what patterns emerge, and to examine if and how these patterns are related to the

media channels, the time periods, and the episodic and/or thematic frame

characterizations, as well as other categories and subcategories of metacommunication

frames.

Beyond the work with the existing data, research on metacommunication should be

extended to other types of media coverage. Such coverage can include the terror alerts

that have been put in place over the past few years in the United States, coverage of

religious/political issues, coverage of international crisis events such as the recent

bombings in Spain, and coverage of political scandals.









The opportunities to address metacommunication, media narcissism, and self-

reflexive reporting are seemingly myriad, not only in terms of differing contexts but also

in differing media outlets and areas of the world. Also, after considerably more work has

been done with content analysis, experimental studies to measure the effects of

metacommunication on respondents will provide further chances to advance

understanding of this media practice.

The findings of this study are, overall, troublesome and especially so in regard to

journalistic objectivity. As the public does indeed rely on the media for factual

information on a regular basis, the need for facts from the media during a time of crisis,

such as war or terrorist attacks is paramount. The media have rights and responsibilities

to the public are more vital than narcissistic and self-reflexive. The issues and events are

much more important to the public than being educated about the news gathering process,

and the relationship, and assessments thereof, between the media and political public

relations consultants and/or public information officers is not one that serves the public

interest. The media have been given a great deal of latitude and protection, and it is the

media's duty to live up to these.














APPENDIX A
CODEBOOK FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF TELEVISED NEWS BROADCASTS

Coder ID: Coders will input their three initials for identification purposes.

Story Number: Each story will be given a unique four-digit number.

Story Date: The date on which the story ran.

Story Headline or Title: For TV News Stories, coders will indicate if there is a stated

headline or title for the news segment or will give the story a title for the purpose of

further referencing and locating the story.

Type of Story:

(1) TV News Broadcast

TV News Story Origin:

(1) ABC
(2) CBS
(3) CNN
(4) FOX

TV News Story Source(s): Coders are asked to identify the presence or absence of a

number of sources from a predetermined listed based on prior research: (1) Story's

Author; (2) Reporter; (3) Anonymous; (4) Special Interest/Lobbying Group; (5) Military

Expert; (6) Republican Political Pundit; (7) Democratic Political Pundit; (8) Non-Partisan

Political Pundit; (7) Media Personality from Same Network; (8) Media Personality from

Other Organization; (9) Scholar/Media Critic; (10) Embedded Journalist; (11) Associated

Press or other Wire Service; (12) Citizens; (13) Bush Administration, Aides, or Advisors;









(14) Iraqi Government Official Spokesperson; (15) Report/Document/Poling Data; (16)

U.S. Military Officials-including any branch of the armed services; (17) Iraqi

Dissidents; and (18) Other. If "other" and identifying this source in an open-ended area

on the codesheet.

TV News Story Length (Minutes and Seconds): For TV coverage a story is marked by

a distinct beginning and ending of a central topic area (i.e., public information, White

House communications strategy, Removal of Saddam/Regime change, etc.). A story may

contain numerous sources and information related to the central topic, and until there is a

distinct shift in topic area, the coders will consider a unit of time devoted to one central

topic a single story. In order to determine this, coders will watch videotaped TV news

coverage, identify the beginning and ending of a story, watch it again and time it using a

stop watch to determine the length of the story. The coders will then watch the story for a

third time in order to focus on the manifest verbal content of the story before coding it.

Total Speakers/Sources Relied on for the Story: Coders will write in the total number

of sources relied on for the story based on a total the above coded categories. This

number should equal the totaled speakers/sources noted in the previous question.

Number of Independent and Media Sources: Coders are then asked to determine the

number of Independent and Media Sources relied on in the story. An independent source

is an individual or group that is not clearly identified as being a part of the media. A

media source is identified as an individual or group that is clearly a member of the media.

Anchor Direction of Content: For TV News Stories with an Anchor present, who does

the Anchor Direct the Viewer To?









Media Cross Promotion: Do the TV News Stores direct viewers to their Web sites or

other media coverage? If yes, coders will indicate where viewers are being directed.

Frames: Coders are asked to determine the presence or absence of the following list of

frames, based on prior research, and to indicate if this frame is best characterized as being

episodic or thematic. Additionally, coders are asked to indicate which of the sources from

the above list discussed the content associated with these frames by writing the

identification number of the sources) in the space provided. The list of frames coded for

are: The list of frames coded for are: (1) Military Conflict-frames that emphasize the

military battle itself on macro or micro levels; (2) American Patriotism-frames that

emphasize citizens rallying around the flag and a resurgence of American patriotism in

various manifestations; (3) Protest-frames that show individuals our groups, in the U.S.

or abroad protesting or the discussion of protest of the war; (4) Human Interest-frames

that emphasize the human element of the war, including soldiers and any citizens; (5)

Responsibility-frames that assign responsibility for the military conflict to a given

individual, government, or regime; (6) Economic Consequences-frames that focus on

the either short or long-term economic consequences that the war will have domestically,

in the Middle East, or internationally; (7) Diagnostic-frames that emphasize an

assessment of how and why this military conflict developed; (8) Prognostic-frames that

emphasize what outcome of the military conflict will be, including the removal of

Saddam/regime change, regional stability, loss of U.S. soldiers, etc.; (9) Rebuilding of

Iraq-frames that specifically deal with the rebuilding of Iraqi and the future of the

country and its people after the war is finished; and (10) Metacommunication-a frame

that emphasizes either the media's self-reflexivity or the communication process between









sources and the news media. (In addition to listing the source of the metacommunication,

coders are also asked to indicate the subject of the metacommunication, e.g., the Bush

Administration.)

Metacommunication Frame Presence: If the metacommunication frame is present,

coders are instructed to indicate which of the above frames areas the metacommunication

directly relate to by filling in the identification number of the frame(s) in the space

provided.

Metacommunication Frames: The dissertation is designed to determine the extent to

which metacommunication frames were relied upon by the media during the reporting of

a military campaign. For purposes of this dissertation, metacommunication is defined as

the news media's self-reflexive coverage of itself in a general sense and of the interplay

between the Bush administration's or Iraqi government's public information about

Operation Iraqi Freedom and the TV News and Web sites' resulting coverage.

Metacommunication Frame Type: The concept of metacommunication is further is

broken down into two distinct areas: self-reflexive reporting and strategy/process news.

For purposes of this dissertation the two differing types of metacommunication will be

treated as mutually exclusive categories stories will be coded as being characterized

either one or the other type of metacommunication, not both. If the metacommunication

frame is coded as being present, indicate which one of the following best characterizes

the type of metacommunication present: (1) Self Reflexive or (2) Strategy/Process.

Self Reflexive Metacommunication Frame Characteristics: If the Self Reflexive

Metacommunication Frame is present, indicate which one of the following best

characterizes it: (1) Role of Technology in Attaining Coverage; (2) Anchors or Media









Personalities Discussing their Opinions; (3) Reporters Discussing Personal Experience of

Covering the War; (4) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from

their News Organization, Network, or Publication; (5) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting

about other Journalists from another News Organization, Network, or Publications;

(6) The News Media Emphasizing their Role as a Participant in the Event; (7) Cross

Promotion and Cross Referencing of Media; or (8) Insider Views of the War or War

Strategizing.

Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Characteristics: If, Strategy/Process

Metacommunication Frame is present, indicate which one of the following best

characterizes it: (1) Pentagon Information Strategy; (2) White House/Bush

Administration Information Strategy; (3) Military Official/ Troops Information Strategy;

(4) Partisan Information Source Strategy; (5) Bush Administration-News Media

Relationship and/or Interactions; (6) Journalists Participation in Military Events or Press

Briefings; (7) Standards of the Quality of the News Coverage; and (8) Influence of

PR/News Management Strategies on Journalists

Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Classification: If, Strategy/Process

Metacommunication Frame is present, indicate which one of the following best

characterizes it: (1) Adversarial; (2) Educational; or (3) Neutral.. Adversarial types of

strategy/process frames would include stories that negative label that implies

manipulation or the use of ploys in the communication process as spin or call source

information a sound bite. The neutral type of strategy/process frame is one in which there

is no negative or positive slant to the communication process but instead just states the

occurrence of a transferal of information from source to the media. The educational type









of strategy/process frame is one in which the viewer would actually learn something

about the communication process between the source and the media but is without any

negative connotations and is, instead, unbiased and is clearly informative about the

process.

Assessment of the Bush Administration's Public Information Efforts: Coders will

indicate the Story's Assessment/Overall Tone of the Bush Administration's Public

Information Efforts from the following list: (1) Positive; (2) Negative; (3) Neutral; or (4)

Not Applicable. Additionally, coders are asked to list key words, terms, or phrases that

are used to describe the administration and its communication strategies as open-ended

information in the space provided.

Assessment of the Iraqi government's Administration's Public Information

Efforts: Coders will indicate the Story's Assessment/Overall Tone of the Iraqi

government's Public Information Efforts from the following list: (1) Positive; (2)

Negative; (3) Neutral; or (4) Not Applicable. Additionally, coders are asked to list key

words, terms, or phrases that are used to describe the administration and its

communication strategies as open-ended information in the space provided.














APPENDIX B
CODEBOOK FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF WEB COVERAGE

Coder ID: Coders will input their three initials for identification purposes.

Story Number: Coders will give each story will be a unique four-digit number.

Story Date: Coders will indicate the original date on which the story ran using a

six-digit number (e.g., 040203 for April, 2, 2003)

Story Headline: Coders will either write the exact headline that was associated

with each story.

Type of Story:

(2) Web Coverage

Web site News Story Origin:

(1) ABC

(2) CBS

(3) CNN

(4) FOX

Web News Story Length: Coders will list the length of the story based on a word

count, including the headline and sub-head.

Web site Story Source Attribution: Coders are asked to identify the presence or

absence of a number of sources from a predetermined listed based on prior research: (1)

Story's Author; (2) Reporter; (3) Anonymous; (4) Special Interest/Lobbying Group; (5)

Military Expert-not current personnel; (6) Republican Political Pundit; (7) Democratic

Political Pundit; (8) Non-Partisan Political Pundit; (7) Media Personality from Same









Network; (8) Media Personality from Other Organization; (9) Scholar/Media Critic; (10)

Embedded Journalist; (11) Associated Press or other Wire Service; (12) Citizens; (13)

Bush Administration, Aides, or Advisors; (14) Iraqi Government Official Spokesperson;

(15) Report/Document/Poling Data; (16) U.S. Military Officials-including any branch

of the armed services; (17) Iraqi Dissidents; and (18) Other. If "other" and identifying

this source in an open-ended area on the codesheet.

Total Sources Relied on for the Story: Coders will write in the total number of

sources relied on for the story based on a total the above coded categories. This number

should equal the totaled sources noted in the previous question.

Hyperlinks: Coders will indicate how many subject hyperlinks that relate to

Operation Iraqi freedom are present.

Internal Hyperlinks: Coders will indicate how many of these are subject

hyperlinks are internal hyperlinks that keep the user within the site.

External Hyperlinks: Coders will indicate how many of these are subject

hyperlinks are external hyperlinks that send the user outside the site.

External Hyperlink Destinations: The URLs for the external subject hyperlinks

will be noted in order to determine where the site sending the user.

Frames: Coders are asked to determine the presence or absence of the following

list of frames, based on prior research, and to indicate if this frame is best characterized

as being episodic or thematic. Additionally, coders are asked to indicate which of the

sources from the above list discussed the content associated with these frames by writing

the identification number of the sources) in the space provided. The list of frames coded

for are: (1) Military Conflict-frames that emphasize the military battle itself on macro









or micro levels; (2) American Patriotism-frames that emphasize citizens rallying around

the flag and a resurgence of American patriotism in various manifestations; (3) Protest-

frames that show individuals our groups, in the U.S. or abroad protesting or the

discussion of protest of the war; (4) Human Interest-frames that emphasize the human

element of the war, including soldiers and any citizens; (5) Responsibility-frames that

assign responsibility for the military conflict to a given individual, government, or

regime; (6) Economic Consequences-frames that focus on the either short or long-term

economic consequences that the war will have domestically, in the Middle East, or

internationally; (7) Diagnostic-frames that emphasize an assessment of how and why

this military conflict developed; (8) Prognostic-frames that emphasize what outcome of

the military conflict will be, including the removal of Saddam/regime change, regional

stability, loss of U.S. soldiers, etc.; (9) Rebuilding of Iraq-frames that specifically deal

with the rebuilding of Iraqi and the future of the country and its people after the war is

finished; and (10) Metacommunication-a frame that emphasizes either the media's self-

reflexivity or the communication process between sources and the news media (In

addition to listing the source of the metacommunication, coders are also asked to indicate

the subject of the metacommunication, e.g., the Bush Administration.)

Metacommunication Frame Presence: If the metacommunication frame is

present, coders are instructed to indicate which of the above frames areas the

metacommunication directly relate to by filling in the identification number of the

frame(s) in the space provided.

Metacommunication Frames: The dissertation is designed to determine the extent

to which metacommunication frames were relied upon by the media during the reporting









of a military campaign. For purposes of this dissertation, metacommunication is defined

as the news media's self-reflexive coverage of itself in a general sense and of the

interplay between the Bush administration's or Iraqi government's public information

about Operation Iraqi Freedom and the TV News and Web sites' resulting coverage.

Metacommunication Frame Type: The concept of metacommunication is further

is broken down into two distinct areas: self-reflexive reporting and strategy/process news.

For purposes of this dissertation the two differing types of metacommunication will be

treated as mutually exclusive categories stories will be coded as being characterized

either one or the other type of metacommunication, not both. If the metacommunication

frame is coded as being present, indicate which one of the following best characterizes

the type of metacommunication present: (1) Self Reflexive or (2) Strategy/Process.

Self Reflexive Metacommunication Frame Characteristics: If the Self

Reflexive Metacommunication Frame is present, indicate which one of the following best

characterizes it: (1) Role of Technology in Attaining Coverage; (2) Anchors or Media

Personalities Discussing their Opinions; (3) Reporters Discussing Personal Experience of

Covering the War; (4) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from

their News Organization, Network, or Publication; (5) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting

about other Journalists from another News Organization, Network, or Publications;

(6) The News Media Emphasizing their Role as a Participant in the Event; (7)

Cross Promotion and Cross Referencing of Media; or (8) Insider Views of the War or

War Strategizing.

Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Characteristics: If,

Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame is present, indicate which one of the









following best characterizes it: (1) Pentagon Information Strategy; (2) White House/Bush

Administration Information Strategy; (3) Military Official/ Troops Information Strategy;

(4) Partisan Information Source Strategy; (5) Bush Administration-News Media

Relationship and/or Interactions; (6) Journalists Participation in Military Events or Press

Briefings; (7) Standards of the Quality of the News Coverage; and (8) Influence of

PR/News Management Strategies on Journalists.

Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame Classification: If,

Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame is present, indicate which one of the

following best characterizes it: (1) Adversarial; (2) Educational; or (3) Neutral. Types of

strategy/process metacommunication news frames: This dissertation will additionally

evaluate strategy/process news on another sub-level distinction-this characterization is

either adversarial or educational strategy/process news. Adversarial types of

strategy/process frames would include stories that negative label that implies

manipulation or the use of ploys in the communication process as spin or call source

information a sound bite. The neutral type of strategy/process frame is one in which there

is no negative or positive slant to the communication process but instead just states the

occurrence of a transferal of information from source to the media. The educational type

of strategy/process frame is one in which the viewer would actually learn something

about the communication process between the source and the media but is without any

negative connotations and is, instead, unbiased and is clearly informative about the

process.

Assessment of the Bush Administration's Public Information Efforts: Coders

will indicate the Story's Assessment/Overall Tone of the Bush Administration's Public









Information Efforts from the following list: (1) Positive; (2) Negative; (3) Neutral; or (4)

Not Applicable. Additionally, coders are asked to list key words, terms, or phrases that

are used to describe the administration and its communication strategies as open-ended

information in the space provided.

Assessment of the Iraqi government's Administration's Public Information

Efforts: Coders will indicate the Story's Assessment/Overall Tone of the Iraqi

government's Public Information Efforts from the following list: (1) Positive; (2)

Negative; (3) Neutral; or (4) Not Applicable. Additionally, coders are asked to list key

words, terms, or phrases that are used to describe the administration and its

communication strategies as open-ended information in the space provided.














APPENDIX C
CODESHEET OF CONTENT ANALYSIS OF TELEVISED NEWS BROADCASTS

Coder:

Story Number


(Reliability 1.00)

(Reliability 1.00)


Story Date:


Story Headline or Title:

Type of Story:
(1) TV News Broadcast


TV News Story/Segment Origin:
(1) ABC
(2) CBS
(3) CNN
(4) FOX


(Reliability 1.00)


TV News Story Length (Minutes and Seconds)

TV News Story Speaker(s)/Source(s):
(1) Anchor Present (1) A
(2) Reporter Present (1) A
(3) Anonymous Present (1) A
(4) Special Interest/Lobbying Group Present (1) A
(5) Military Expert (Not Current Personnel) Present (1) A
(6) Republican Political Pundit Present (1) A
(7) Democratic Political Pundit Present (1) A
(8) Non-Partisan Political Pundit Present (1) A
(9) Media Personality from Same Network Present (1) A
(10) Media Personality from Other Organization Present (1) A
(11) Scholar/Media Critic Present (1) A
(12) Embedded Journalist Present (1) A
(13) Associated Press or other Wire Service Present (1) A
(14) Citizens Present (1) A
(15) Bush Administration, Aides, or Advisors Present (1) A
(16) Iraqi Government Official Spokesperson Present (1) A
(17) Report/Document/Poling Data Present (1) A
(18) U.S. Military Official(s) Present (1) A
(19) Iraqi Dissidents Present (1) A
(20) Other Present (1) A

If other, what individuals) or groups) were relied on as a source?


(Reliability .75)


bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability .75)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)

(Reliability 1.00)









How Many Total Speakers/Sources Were Relied on for the Story?


How many of these are Independent Sources?

How many of these are Media Sources?


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)

(Reliability 1.00)


For TV News Stories with an Anchor present, who does the Anchor Direct the Viewer To?
(Reliability 1.00)

Do the TV News Stores direct viewers to their Web sites or other media coverage?
(Reliability 1.00)


If yes, where?


Frames:
(1) Military Conflict Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability .75)
(2) American Patriotism Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(3) Protest Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(4) Human Interest Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability .75)
(5) Responsibility Frame Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(6) Economic Consequences Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(7) Diagnostic Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(8) Prognostic Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(9) Rebuilding of Iraq Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(10) Metacommunication Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
Subject(s): (Reliability .75)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


(Reliability 1.00)

Episodic or Thematic
(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


If Metacommunication frame is present, which of the above frames areas does the
metacommunication directly relate to? (Reliability 1.00)









If the Metacommunication Frame is Present, which one of the following best characterizes it?
(1) Self Reflexive
(2) Strategy/Process (Reliability 1.00)

If Self Reflexive Metacommunication Frame is present, which one of the following best
characterizes it?
(1) Role of Technology in Attaining Coverage
(2) Anchors or Media Personalities Discussing their Opinions
(3) Reporters Discussing Personal Experience of Covering the War
(4) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from their News
Organization, Network, or Publication
(5) Reporters Interviewing/Reporting about other Journalists from another News
Organization, Network, or Publications
(6) The News Media Emphasizing their Role as a Participant in the Event
(7) Cross Promotion and Cross Referencing of Media
(8) Insider Views of the War or War Strategizing (Reliability 1.00)

If, Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame is present, which one of the following best
characterizes it?
(1) Pentagon Information Strategy
(2) White House/Bush Administration Information Strategy
(3) Military Official/ Troops Information Strategy
(4) Partisan Information Source Strategy
(5) Bush Administration-News Media Relationship and/or Interactions
(6) Journalists Participation in Military Events or Press Briefings
(7) Standards of the Quality of the News Coverage
(8) Influence of PR/News Management Strategies on Journalists (Reliability .75)

If, Strategy/Process Metacommunication Frame is present, which one of the following best
characterizes it?
(1) Adversarial
(2) Educational
(3) Neutral (Reliability .75)

Story's Assessment/Overall Tone of the Bush Administration's Public Information Efforts:
(1) Positive
(2) Negative
(3) Neutral
(4) Not Applicable (Reliability .75)

Key words, terms, or phrases used to describe these public information efforts: (Reliability 1.00)

Story's Assessment/Overall Tone of the Iraqi government's Public Information Efforts:
(1) Positive
(2) Negative
(3) Neutral (Reliability 1.00)
(4) Not Applicable

Key words, terms, or phrases used to describe these public information efforts: (Reliability 1.00)














APPENDIX D
CODESHEET FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF WEB COVERAGE

Coder:

Story Number

Story Date: (Reliability 1.00)


Story Headline or Title:

Type of Story:
(2) Web Coverage

Web News Story Origin:
(1) ABC
(2) CBS
(3) CNN
(4) FOX


Web News Story Length: (Word Count)

Source Attribution:
(1) Story Author Present (1) A
(2) Reporter Present (1) A
(3) Anonymous Present (1) A
(4) Special Interest/Lobbying Group Present (1) A
(5) Military Expert (Not Current Personnel) Present (1) A
(6) Republican Political Pundit Present (1) A
(7) Democratic Political Pundit Present (1) A
(8) Non-Partisan Political Pundit Present (1) A
(9) Media Personality from Same Network Present (1) A
(10) Media Personality from Other Organization Present (1) A
(11) Scholar/Media Critic Present (1) A
(12) Embedded Journalist Present (1) A
(13) Associated Press or other Wire Service Present (1) A
(14) Citizens Present (1) A
(15) Bush Administration, Aides, or Advisors Present (1) A
(16) Iraqi Government Official Spokesperson Present (1) A
(17) Report/Document/Poling Data Present (1) A
(18) U.S. Military Official(s) Present (1) A
(19) Iraqi Dissidents Present (1) A
(20) Other Present (1) A

If other, what individuals) or groups) were relied on as a source?


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)

(Reliability 1.00)


bsent (0) (Reliability .75)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)
bsent (0) (Reliability 1.00)

(Reliability 1.00)









How Many Total Sources Were Relied on for the Story?

How many of these are Independent Sources?


How many of these are Media Sources?

How many subject hyperlinks are present?

How many of these are internal hyperlinks?


How many of these are external?


If external, where are they sending the user?

Frames:
(1) Military Conflict Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(2) American Patriotism Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(3) Protest Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(4) Human Interest Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(5) Responsibility Frame Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(6) Economic Consequences Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(7) Diagnostic Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(8) Prognostic Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(9) Rebuilding of Iraq Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
(10) Metacommunication Present (1)
(Reliability 1.00)
Source(s): (Reliability 1.00)
Subject(s): (Reliability 1.00)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


Absent (0)


(Reliability .75)

(Reliability 1.00)

(Reliability 1.00)

(Reliability 1.00)

(Reliability 1.00)

(Reliability 1.00)

(Reliability 1.00)

Episodic or Thematic
(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


(Reliability 1.00)


If Metacommunication frame is present, which of the above frames areas does the
metacommunication directly relate to? (Reliability 1.00)

If Metacommunication Frame is Present, which one of the following best characterizes it?