Turning the Tide (p.140)
<<< In reporting the Salvadoran election, the NY Times relied overwhelmingly on US and Salvadoran officials. The rebels were occasionally cited, primarily with regard to their disruption plans. In direct contrast, the opposition in Nicaragua was cited extensively and given ample opportunity to explain their objections to the planned elections. US officials and the Nicaraguan opposition provided over 80% of the direct citations, and constituted 60% of the sources cited (meaning that there was some indirect reference to the Sandinistas). In contrast, US and Salvadoran officials provided virtually all of the direct citations in the case of the Salvadoran elections (with the exception noted above, which reinforced the government case), and 80% of total sources (peasants constituted 0.8%).
Choice of topic reflected the same NY Times agenda. The number of articles referring to freedom of the press, organizational freedom and limits on opposition candidates was zero in the case of the Salvadoran elections, whereas in the case of the Nicaraguan elections, 75% of the articles discussed the freedom of the press, 50% discussed organizational freedom, and 62.5 discussed limits on candidates. The power of armed forces to coerce was discussed in 37.5% of articles on the Nicaraguan election, in 3.6% of the articles on the Salvadoran election. To fully appreciate this illustration of media servility to state power, one must bear in mind that abuses of freedom of press, organizational freedom and candidate opportunities were vastly more severe in El Salvador, and that the direct role of the armed forces in coercion was also far greater. >>> |
