Proceedings of the 6th Annual GRASP Symposium, Wichita State University, 2010
Editorial Response to President Obama’s School Speech
Elizabeth Winterbone
Faculty: Patricia Dooley
Elliott School of Communication
Abstract. This study seeks to determine if editorial
coverage was supportive or critical of Obama’s September
8, 2009 school speech. Newspapers serve as the
government’s “Fourth Estate” by shining a spotlight on
politicians and commenting on their activities. History
proves that the public and the government are influenced
by opinions printed in newspapers, and the content of the
proposed speech was altered following the outcry from
parents and the media to address what some called, “an
invasive abuse of power.” Understanding the position of
the editorial boards could be an indication of support
Obama will have for his policies. The subject was hotly
debated in the media and extreme interests were noisily
presented, however, the newspapers did perform their role.
school and refusing to let them hear the speech,
claiming the speech was political in nature.
Considering the role of the press to provide
the public with information sufficient for use in the
evaluation of matters of policy and governance [7], it
is important to truly understand the press’ response to
the uproar. Separate from the news coverage,
editorials have a duty to offer readers clarification on
the truth or fairness of the claims and to present
vigorous commentary on the choices facing voters
[8]. This research examines the editorial response to
President Obama’s school speech and to determine if
the newspaper editorials were supportive of his
speech or critical. Understanding the position of the
editorial boards could be a likely indication of what
type of support Obama will have for his policies.
Introduction
“In the old days men had the rack. Now they
have the press,” writer Oscar Wilde commented in
1891 about the role of newspapers in society [1].
Newspapers continue to maintain a vital role in
protecting the integrity of the American government,
acting as the “Fourth Estate” and keeping
government officials in check. In the first year of
Barack Obama’s presidency the press has been
closely monitoring and reporting on the nation’s first
African-American leader’s every word. In fact,
during the first 50 days in office, the three broadcast
network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories
lasting 27 hours, 44 minutes to Barack Obama’s
presidency, five hours more than the combined totals
devoted to George W. Bush and Bill Clinton during
their first 50 days [2]. When Obama announced that
he would be giving a back-to-school address to the
nation’s school children, the press pounced with
voracious vigor on the news.
Splashed across the media were outrageous
claims of Obama’s audacity to enter the classroom.
Newspaper headlines claimed that “Parents see
sinister goals in Obama’s school speech,” [3], and
warned the public to get ready for “All Barack’s
Children”[4]. Other newspapers put a positive spin
on the speech. “Work Hard and Dream Big, Obama
Tells Students,” [5], and “Bi-Partisan Praise For
School Speech,” [6]. The coverage included cries of
racism, threats of socialism and reminders that the
Democrats had been similarly outraged over George
Bush’s school speech in 1991. The public reacted by
announcing their plans to keep their children out of
Experiment, Results, Discussion, and Significance
Method
Focusing on the nation’s top ten newspapers
for circulation, the papers with the broadest reach to
the public, the study relied on a data set collected via
the
LexisNexis database and the ProQuest database to
examine the supportive (positive) position and the
non-supportive (negative) position of the newspapers,
and if there are any neutral comments. The phrase
“Obama School Speech” was used as the search
parameter and a population of articles was created.
The final population was eight editorials. Each
editorial served as a unit of analysis. Each editorial
was studied and coded from printouts from the LexisNexis database. TheLos Angeles Times and the New
York Daily News both printed two separate editorials,
followed by one editorial from each The Washington
Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post
and the Philadelphia Inquirer. No editorials covering
the speech were found in USA Today, The New York
Times, The Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle and
Philadelphia Inquirer. Following previous studies,
the method used to determine the supportive or
critical nature of the editorials was to examine for the
use of evaluative adjectives describing the speech [9].
Terms such as ‘foolish’, ‘fretting’, ‘important’,
‘ridiculous’, ‘worthy’, ‘lunatic’, and ‘petrified’ were
203
Proceedings of the 6th Annual GRASP Symposium, Wichita State University, 2010
some of the words used to judge the nature of each
editorial.
cited is that journalists are too involved personally.
This study shows that in the news there is a great deal
of personal involvement from the press, but the
editors decline to get too involved [13]. In the future
it seems that reporters will be disclosing their points
of view and explaining where that perspective comes
from, which could impact the educated viewpoint
that we expect from the editorials in the newspaper.
Results
Of the eight editorials, five were coded as supportive,
two were coded critical and one was neutral. With
62% of the results being supportive of Obama, these
findings express that the president’s choice to give a
pep-talk to school children is not considered a
negative thing by newspaper editors. 25 % of the
results were critical and 12.5% were neutral of the
speech.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to sincerely thank Dr. Patricia
Dooley, from Elliott School of Communication, for
assistance with the research design and support.
Discussion and Conclusion
[1]Wilde, Oscar and Dowling, Linda.The Soul of Man Under
Socialism. London; New York: Penguin Books 2001.
[2] Rieck, D. (2009). Media boost Obama, bash his policies. The
Center For Media and Public Affairs.
www.cmpa.com/media_room_4_27_09.htm.Retrieved December
1, 2009.
[3]McKinley, James and Dillon, Sam. “Parents see sinister goals in
Obama’s School Speech.” International Herald Tribune 5 Sep,
2009. Retrieved December 1, 2009.
[4]Malkin, Michelle, “Get ready for all my children”. New York
Post 3 Sep. 2009. Retrieved December 1, 2009.
[5]Dillon, Sam. “Work Hard and Dream Big, Obama Tells
Students” New York Times 8 Sep, 2009. Late Ed. A14.Retrieved
December 2, 2009.
[6]Tellstrom, Paul. Letter.Los Angeles Times 9 Sep, 2009. Home
ed. :A44. Retrieved December 1, 2009.
[7]Branton, R., & Dunaway, J. (2009). Slanted Newspaper
Coverage of Immigration: The Importance Of Economics and
Geography. Policy Studies Journal, 37(2), 257-273. Retrieved
November9, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID:
1717997551).
[8] Hendrickson, R.D., & Hale, F. D. (2004). Newspaper editorials
counter unfair judicial campaign ads. Newspaper Research Journal
25(3), 23-27. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from Research Library
(Document ID: 708616751).
[9]Kahn, K., & Kennedy, P., (2002). The slant of the news: How
editorial endorsements influence Campaign coverage and citizen’s
views of candidates. The American Political Science Review.
92(2), 381-394. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from
http://www.jstor.org.stable/3118032.
[10]Lattimer, R.. (2009). Barack Obama: Race, Diversity, and
America's Global Competitiveness. Competition Forum, 7(2), 279289. Retrieved December 5, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global.
(DocumentID: 1912955441).
[11] Druckman, J. &Parkin, M. (2005). The impact of media bias:
How editorial slant affects voters. The Journal of Politics, 67 (4),
1030-1049.
Retrieved
December
5,
2009,
from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3449894.
[12]Richardson, R. (2009). The newsroom’s disdain for revealing
reporters’ political leanings.NeimanReports.63(3), 63.Retrieved
December 1, 2009, from Research Library. (Document
ID:1885759641).
[13]Richardson, R. (2009). The newsroom’s disdain for revealing
reporters’ political leanings.NeimanReports.63(3), 63.Retrieved
December 1, 2009, from Research Library. (Document
ID:1885759641).
The purpose of this study was to see if the editorials
that commented on President Obama’s school speech
were supportive of the speech or critical. Editorials
are focused on commenting on issues of merit, and
this issue did warrant some comment, but not as
much as all the media fuss would imply. The event
may not have a significant impact or meaning in the
broad look at Obama’s presidency, but it does
provide a snapshot of the public’s view of Obama
and also an indication of changes afoot in the way the
media behave.
Further study of Obama and the media is
needed. The first African-American president does
create a new paradigm that begs to be explored in
depth. The issue of race could retard America at
establishing a foundation for helping to shape
America’s global competitive strategy, and for
reaffirming America’s leadership as a balanced and
reasonable world power; one that retains the moral
authority throughout the world [10]. Studies need to
be conducted to determine just what role race has
regarding Obama and to see if the problem is
growing or lessening with his presidency. It would be
useful to use a similar method to check editorial
reaction to additional Obama events and to watch for
trends. In a similar study by Druckman&Parkin [11]
it is pointed out that, “we see our methodology as one
that can and should be replicated in different markets
with different campaigns at different times.”
The changes in media coverage for events,
such as the school speech, shows that in the era of
Facebook and cell phone cameras, newsrooms are
adopting a siege mentality as they further
circumscribe what is acceptable behavior for their
editorial employees [12]. Creating stories about the
story is bigger than ever and the public is growing to
prefer a strong point of view in their news. A Pew
Research Center project shows a 20 year long decline
in the public’s esteem for the press and the reason
204