The paper investigates the impact of presidential 9/11 memorial speeches on U.S. public opinion regarding security and counterterrorism. It utilizes Entman's framing theory to analyze how these speeches define problems, identify causes, convey moral judgments, and suggest remedies. The study highlights shifts in presidential rhetoric from 2001 to 2014, examining changes in problem definitions and proposed solutions. It also explores the relationship between these frames and public perceptions, drawing on polling data to assess the influence of presidential speeches on citizens' sense of security and support for antiterrorism measures.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Analytical Framework
Methodology
Analytical Results and Discussion
Analytical Results
Discussion
Hypothesis One
Hypothesis Two
Hypothesis Three
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper examines how the framing of annual presidential 9/11-remembrance speeches has evolved over time and explores the extent to which these rhetorical shifts influence U.S. public opinion regarding national security and counterterrorism measures.
- Evolution of presidential framing in 9/11 commemorations from 2001 to 2014.
- Analysis of the relationship between presidential speech and the public's perception of threat.
- Evaluation of counterterrorism policy support and civil liberties in the post-9/11 era.
- Application of Entman’s framing and priming concepts to political discourse.
- Correlative analysis between speech content and sociological polling data from Gallup and Pew Research Center.
Excerpt from the Book
Introduction
There are few events in history that people across the globe will remember throughout their lifetime – the attacks of September 11, 2001, are doubtlessly part of the few. In response to the disastrous plane crashes early that Tuesday, then-President George W. Bush turned to the U.S. citizens in his Address to the Nation in the evening of September 11, 2001. In his speech, he deliberately employed various emotionally charged adjectives (such as “terrible sadness” or “unyielding anger”, Bush, 2001) to further support his feelings and frequently applied the terms ‘we’ and ‘us’ to emphasize that all American citizens had been affected and only communal efforts would help to overcome the shocks of September 11, 2001. Throughout his address, the then-President categorized the attacks as “despicable acts of terror” (ibid.) and declares that the United States, together with its allies, finds itself in a “war against terror” (ibid.). Through his subjective depiction of the events of 9/11, the President inevitably framed his report of the events of September 11, 2001. As he reported on the same day of the events, his address can be regarded as one of the most influential means shaping the public’s minds regarding the attacks of September 11, 2001. In fact, according to a Gallup poll, 46% of the U.S. citizens regarded terrorism the most dangerous threat to the United States in October 2001.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides the motivation for the study, outlining the critical role of presidential rhetoric in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and introducing the research question regarding the influence of anniversary speeches on public opinion.
Analytical Framework: Defines the theoretical basis of the research, focusing on Entman’s concept of substantive framing and the cascading network activation model as tools for analyzing political discourse.
Methodology: Describes the qualitative two-level approach, incorporating a content analysis of specific presidential speeches and a contrastive analysis using longitudinal polling data from polling institutes.
Analytical Results and Discussion: Presents the findings of the speech analysis, contrasting them with trends in public opinion polls while testing three central hypotheses concerning threat perception and governmental support.
Conclusion: Summarizes the study’s findings, suggesting that while the framing of the 'problem definition' significantly influences public perception, the overall impact of such rhetoric tends to diminish over time.
Keywords
9/11, Presidential Speeches, Framing, Priming, Public Opinion, Counterterrorism, War on Terror, National Security, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Political Discourse, Threat Perception, Civil Liberties, Content Analysis, Knowledge Network
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary objective of this paper?
The paper assesses how presidential framing in annual 9/11-remembrance speeches affects U.S. public opinion regarding national security and governmental counterterrorism efforts over a thirteen-year period.
What are the core thematic fields of the research?
The study centers on political communication, framing theory, public opinion dynamics, and the evolution of American counterterrorism policy rhetoric.
Which research questions guide this work?
The central guiding aim is to determine to what extent the framing of annual 9/11-memorial speeches correlates with and influences the public's changing sense of security and support for antiterrorism policies.
What scientific methodology does the author use?
The author employs a two-level qualitative approach: a content analysis of specific presidential transcripts from 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2014, followed by a contrastive analysis against longitudinal data from Gallup and Pew Research polls.
What topics are explored in the main body?
The main body covers the theoretical framework, the comparative content analysis of speeches, and a rigorous discussion of how public priorities have shifted in response to the themes emphasized by the executive branch.
Which keywords are essential to characterize the work?
Critical terms include framing, priming, 9/11, war on terror, public opinion, and presidential rhetoric.
How has the 'problem definition' of the 9/11 attacks shifted in presidential speeches over time?
The analysis shows a transition from 2001, where the focus was on the U.S. being attacked by terrorists, to a more victim-oriented frame in 2014, emphasizing the lives lost and the endurance of the American people.
Does the author find that presidential rhetoric successfully maintains high public support for restricting civil liberties?
No, the research concludes that Hypothesis Two is invalidated, as the willingness of citizens to sacrifice civil liberties for counterterrorism measures decreased significantly after the immediate post-9/11 period, despite presidential messaging.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Anonym (Autor:in), 2015, The Effect of Presidential Remembrance Speeches on Public Opinion, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1477946
