Does the CNN Effect exist? Political communications scholars have debated the influence of television news coverage on international affairs since television news began, especially in relation to the coverage of massive human rights violations. These debates have only intensified in the last 20 years, as new technologies have changed the nature of news and the news cycle. But despite frequent assertion, little research into the CNN Effect, or whether television coverage of human rights violations causes state action, exists. Bridging across the disciplines of human right studies, comparative politics, and communication studies in a way that has not been done, this book looks at television news coverage of human rights in the US and UK to answer the question of whether the CNN Effect actually exists. Examining the human rights content in television news in the US and UK yields insights to what television news producers and policy makers consider to be human rights, and what, if anything, audiences can learn about human rights from watching television news. After reviewing 20 years of footage using three different types of content analyses of American television news broadcasts and two different types of British news broadcasts, and comparing those results with human rights rankings and print news coverage of human rights, Shawns M. Brandle concludes that despite rhetoric from both countries in support of human rights, there is not enough coverage of human rights in either country to argue that television media can spur state action on human rights issues. More simply, the violations will not be televised. A welcome and timely book presenting an important examination of human rights coverage on television news.

Does the CNN Effect exist? Political communications scholars have debated the influence of television news coverage on international affairs since television news began, especially in relation to the coverage of massive human rights violations. These debates have only intensified in the last 20 years, as new technologies have changed the nature of news and the news cycle. But despite frequent assertion, little research into the CNN Effect, or whether television coverage of human rights violations causes state action, exists. Bridging across the disciplines of human right studies, comparative politics, and communication studies in a way that has not been done, this book looks at television news coverage of human rights in the US and UK to answer the question of whether the CNN Effect actually exists. Examining the human rights content in television news in the US and UK yields insights to what television news producers and policy makers consider to be human rights, and what, if anything, audiences can learn about human rights from watching television news. After reviewing 20 years of footage using three different types of content analyses of American television news broadcasts and two different types of British news broadcasts, and comparing those results with human rights rankings and print news coverage of human rights, Shawns M. Brandle concludes that despite rhetoric from both countries in support of human rights, there is not enough coverage of human rights in either country to argue that television media can spur state action on human rights issues. More simply, the violations will not be televised. A welcome and timely book presenting an important examination of human rights coverage on television news.

This study briefly reviews the relevent communication studies and international relations literatures to build the foundation for the content analyses by defining terms and highlighting the most salient points for comparison between the media and human rights systems in the US and UK. It then moveson to three different types of content analysis on American television news broadcasts and two different types on British television news broadcasts, all with the goal of determining how those media systems cover human rights and how that coverage differs across media systems. First, a content analysis of all of the stories containing the phrase human rights from one US network news broadcast from 1990-2009 is conducted to see the amount of human rights coverage in the US in the post-Cold War period and examines both the issues and the countries that are covered in the context of human rights in the US. Then one month of transcripts/shooting scripts for evening news broadcasts in the US and UK in 1990 is examined to see what, if any, kinds of stories might be covering human rights issues without explicitly using the phrase human rights. Finally, a visual analysis of one week of evening news broadcasts for the US and UK from 1990-2009 is conducted, comparing which stories are covered in each country, as well as how they are covered. As it turns out, there is very little human rights coverage on television news, period. There is more human rights coverage in the UK than in the US, but not as much more as might have been expected, given the states' differing approaches to human rights and differing television media systems. One key difference between the two countries' coverage is the depth of coverage of human rights stories; once the UK covers a human rights issue, it tends to do it more thoroughly, from more angles, and with more explanation, so the audience is more likely to learn about human rights when they are covered on the BBC than when they are covered on NBC or ABC.

Does the CNN Effect exist? Political communications scholars have debated the influence of television news coverage on international affairs since television news began, especially in relation to the coverage of massive human rights violations. These debates have only intensified in the last 20 years, as new technologies have changed the nature of news and the news cycle. But despite frequent assertion, little research into the CNN Effect, or whether television coverage of human rights violations causes state action, exists. Bridging across the disciplines of human right studies, comparative politics, and communication studies in a way that has not been done, this book looks at television news coverage of human rights in the US and UK to answer the question of whether the CNN Effect actually exists. Examining the human rights content in television news in the US and UK yields insights to what television news producers and policy makers consider to be human rights, and what, if anything, audiences can learn about human rights from watching television news. After reviewing 20 years of footage using three different types of content analyses of American television news broadcasts and two different types of British news broadcasts, and comparing those results with human rights rankings and print news coverage of human rights, Shawns M. Brandle concludes that despite rhetoric from both countries in support of human rights, there is not enough coverage of human rights in either country to argue that television media can spur state action on human rights issues. More simply, the violations will not be televised. A welcome and timely book presenting an important examination of human rights coverage on television news.

Experts in the intelligence community say that torture is ineffective. Yet much of the public appears unconvinced: surveys show that nearly half of Americans think that torture can be acceptable for counterterrorism purposes. Why do people persist in supporting torture—and can they be persuaded to change their minds? In Tortured Logic, Erin M. Kearns and Joseph K. Young draw upon a novel series of group experiments to understand how and why the average citizen might come to support the use of torture techniques. They find evidence that when torture is depicted as effective in the media, people are more likely to approve of it. Their analysis weighs variables such as the ethnicity of the interrogator and the suspect; the salience of one’s own mortality; and framing by experts. Kearns and Young also examine who changes their opinions about torture and how, demonstrating that only some individuals have fixed views while others have more malleable beliefs. They argue that efforts to reduce support for torture should focus on convincing those with fluid views that torture is ineffective. The book features interviews with experienced interrogators and professionals working in the field to contextualize its findings. Bringing empirical rigor to a fraught topic, Tortured Logic has important implications for understanding public perceptions of counterterrorism strategy.

Find free content and save on permission fees Millions of creative works—books, artwork, photos, songs, movies, and more—are available copyright-free in the public domain. Whether your tastes run to Beethoven or Irving Berlin, Edvard Munch or Claude Monet, you’ll find inspiration in The Public Domain. The only book that helps you find and identify which creative works are protected by copyright and which are not, The Public Domain covers the rules for: writings music art photography architecture maps choreography movies video software databases collections For the first time in decades, new works began to enter the public domain in 2019, and more are entering each year. The 9th edition is completely updated to include new public domain resources and to cover the latest legal changes to copyright protection of songs, books, photos, and other creative works, as well as public domain rules outside the U.S.