The ability of officials in government to define policy options is the paramount power in politics (Schattschneider, 1960). Media allocate power and legitimacy to issues, people, and institutions by how they choose to cover them (Graber, 2006). The allocation of power is dependent on what information media filter to the public and how media define the issues, events, and remedies with the chosen information. Previous literature finds that journalists and reporters are dependent on elite sources of information, especially within the realm of foreign policy (Cohen, 1963; Bennett, 1990; Entman 2004). Past research also finds media reflect the policy debate in Washington (Bennett, 1990; Entman 2004).
Using the intervention into Bosnia of the 1990s, I investigate how media allocate power among their various sources. Through a content analysis of the Congressional Record and Major News Media (ABC World News Tonight, the NewsHour on PBS, the New York Times, and CNN) I explain the scope of the debate regarding the intervention into Bosnia through the frames presented by the White House, the Congress, and Major News Media. Moreover, I test whether Major News Media reflected the debate within Washington. The intervention allows me to test the outcome of “going public,” and whether Major News Media counterframed the White House frame. Lastly, this dissertation examines the influence information has on opinions regarding the intervention into Bosnia, the differences between partisans, and the effect of media coverage has on aggregate public opinion.
This research shows an interesting development: the increased use of elite foreign sources by Major News Media in constructing narratives surrounding foreign policy issues and remedies. Furthermore, while it illustrates that media still rely on elite sources, the case of Bosnia shows that the “media debate” did not reflect the “official debate” in Washington. I also show that President Clinton could not effectively control how media portrayed the policy of intervention by going public; his speech had no significant effect on how Major News Media framed the intervention into Bosnia. I show that during a time of instability within the media environment, (January 1993 - April 1993) increased levels information had a positive effect on support, and that partisanship was an inconsistent predictor of support. Also during this time of media instability, an increased level of information within partisan groups (Republicans and Democrats) was an inconsistent predictor of support. However, in a period when the media environment shows stability (October 1995 - December 1995), and when partisans in the press were distinct from each other, both increased levels of information and partisanship were effective predictors of support. Looking within the groups of partisans during this time of stability in media, I find that an increase in information enhances the odds of support among Democrats, but not for Republicans.