Policy Agendas in the Media
95
Throughout the week, reporters echoed the dominant discourse embodied by
state managers. These calls suggest that the attack had long-term political and
social effects. CBS reporter Bob McNamara observed “gone in a few seconds —
but gone forever — is the middle-American sense of security, replaced with the
sinking feeling that suddenly no place is safe” (CBS 1995a). Likewise, by the
middle of the week, people had a good idea of the fate of the victims and wanted
some form of vindication. Dr. Bob Amot, a CBS reporter, remarked that “the
predominant emotion here in Oklahoma City now is anger and it’s only going to
grow” (CBS 1995c).
In addition, many calls for direct state-sponsored violence were offered after
the bombing and aimed at quelhng the public anger arising out of the attack on the
Murrah Federal building. These justifications were focused on the prosecution and
punishment of the perpetrators while reflecting the desire of pohtical ehtes to reform
the death penalty. For example. President Clinton condemned the attack and noted
that “justice will be swift, certain and severe” (NBC 1995a). Likewise, Attorney
General Janet Reno noted that “the death penalty is available and we will seek it”
(CBS 1995a). Interestingly, these calls crossed party lines with both Chnton and
Reno offering support to the Republican- sponsored policy initiative.
Mediated Discourse Theories
These justifications support Gerbner’s (1992) contention that state officials
will seize the moment and frame pohtical dissidents who commit terrorism as
abnormal and deviant. Gerbner’s theory suggested that a tie should exist between
the pohtics of power control and news media coverage. This idea is supported by
the data herein. State manager advocacy in the media also supported the ideas of
other media theorists. For example, Bruck (1992) used the term spectacultuarization
to describe crisis periods whereby the spectacle of violence is used to vahdate
viewer’s feehngs of turmoil. Twenty-four percent (24 %) of speakers on the network
broadcasts offered some expression supportive of this concept.
Likewise, Halhday, et al. (1992), reminds us th at coverage of terrorism may
demonstrate a dehberate use of the “evil other” in order to continue the existing
relations of power. This study examined the use of the evil other stereotype to
discover if the discourse around specific victims, specifically the children hurt in
the explosion, was used by state managers to justify their policy recommendations.
Creation of an evil other refers to the dehumanization process associated with an
individual, or group, and the successful application of a stigmatic label. During the
week after the bombing, the use of the evil other stereotype was widespread and
frequent. In nearly thirty percent (29.80%) of the cases, the speaker made reference
to some variety of evil other.
As a general framing technique, the victims, and especially the children who