Trends in Journalistic Coverage of Iran's Killed Scientists

Trends in Journalistic Coverage of
Irans Killed Scientists

A Thesis
Submitted in Fulfillment of the
Bachelor of Arts degree
of
International Studies
at
Berry College
by
Daniel Rust

2012
Rust 2

Trends in Journalistic Coverage of Irans Killed Scientists

Daniel T. Rust

(Abstract)

This paper seeks to analyze the coverage of Irans murdered nuclear scientists from
the last few years in five newspapers of record: the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the
Washington Times. The research question is: to what degree do Western
newspapers react favorably or unfavorably to assumed covert action against
Iranian nuclear scientists, and are these trends caused by American opinion?
Research methods primarily rely on a quantitative analysis of the verbiage used in
each news outlet's coverage of each case.

Rust 3

Introduction
Recent polling has indicated that the American public generally holds an unfavorable view
towards Iran, particularly with regard to its nuclear program.
12
This paper seeks to find whether
major American newspapers hold similar views by analyzing their coverage of targeted killings
of Irans nuclear-affiliated scientists, and whether these views change before or after public
opinion polling changes. The newspapers included in this study are: the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington
Times. Since 2010, there have been five attacks on scientists in particular, killing four and
wounding one. One scientist allegedly suffocated in 2007, but murder was not considered as a
reason for death until further attacks occurred.
3
Therefore, since there are not any news articles
about a killing of Iranian an scientist until 2010, that particular instance was not counted.
The level of sophistication and targeted nature of the attacks has led to widespread
speculation of foul play at the nation-state level. While the shadow war between Israel and
Iran loom large, Iran is the sole focus of this paper.
4
While the international community largely
implicates Israel in the attacks, it does not have a role as a variable of this paper.
5
The attacks
themselves, however, are seen as an intervening variable within the context of this paper, causing
possible jumps in reactive journalism immediately after. What have been measured as variables
are fifteen keywords about the attacks, and the degree of their aggressiveness toward the subject,
across the span of 130 newspaper articles. Irrelevant to this study are the other separate
incidences (the suffocated scientist, explosions, computer viruses, kidnappings, and other
important figures showing up dead).
6
This is because, simply, there is less evidence in these
events and therefore less room for the public (i.e. newspaper subscribers) to infer that an attack
had happened. The verbiage about the attacks (as well as article and total word counts,
Rust 4

presumably) directly relates to newspaper favorability bias towards Iran. Thus, for precision
purposes, the bulk of the research done for this paper focuses simply on the five targeted attacks
on scientists.
The literature review focuses on three main things: scholarly works analyzing newspapers in
particular, scholarly works analyzing media coverage in relation to foreign policy, and legality
issues involved with the attacks. Despite this emphasis of existing knowledge on media in a
broad sense, this paper is specifically about newspapers and should be read in that light. Frank
Luther Mott wrote in 1942: Occasional newspaper failures testify that mistakes are sometimes
made in this catering business, but the upward curve of aggregate circulations is evidence of the
skill of newspaper makers in answering faithfully to the wishes of the readers.
7
Circulation
trends have changed for the worse since his writing, but today the importance of retaining
subscribers could never be more important to major newspapers. Therein lays the unique
opportunity to find if they cater to readers, at least in the realm of foreign policy (while
maintaining best practices within journalistic ethics).
We know that there are mainstream sections of newspapers (front page, business), and then
there are sections which inform a smaller proportion of the American people (foreign policy). In
fact, Kegley and Wittkopf perhaps said it best with: American society is structured like a
pyramid, with a very small proportion of policy influentials (people who are knowledgeable
about foreign affairs and who have access to decision makers) and decision makers at the top,
followed by a larger component comprising the attentive public (those knowledgeable about
foreign affairs but not necessarily with access to decision makers), with the bulk of the
population making up the mass public.
8
We also know that newspapers can, at times, hold
biases and report more than just the news; at the same time, the lesser-read sections can allow for
Rust 5

such leeway without major criticism. Meanwhile, subscribers have become more picky, and
digital subscriptions are typically (although certainly not always) less expensive than that of
print, therefore newspapers have to do what they must in order to survive and stay on that
subscribers repertoire of chosen media. This excess of supply and lessening of demand leads to
the question: do newspapers care what readers think about specific issues? Do they cater to
those opinions in ways that reflect active trends in public opinion, or do such trends in opinion
simply stem from the news that subscribers read? This objective of this paper is to find hard,
factual indications of fluctuations in journalistic bias, which may infer a catering to subscribers
preexisting opinions.
Literature review
The basic methods of this paper were borrowed from Dr. John Hickman, who did a similar
study on article verbiage called Reporting a New Delhi Bias? A Content Analysis of AP Wire
Stories on the Conflicts in Sri Lanka and Kashmir. In this study, Dr. Hickman and Sarah Bartlett
analyzed things like total articles about each of the regions, word counts, etc. They also picked
11 anti-government words, asking a group of college faculty and a group of students to rank
order them from 1-11, with 1 being the most threatening and 11 being the least threatening
(opposite of the order in which this Iran paper was done).
9
They found that words like suicide
bomber, terrorist, and guerrillas ranked the most threatening, while words like freedom
fighters and separatists ranked least threatening. Hickman and Bartlett then analyzed which of
these words showed up in which articles, finding that while most of the articles used multiple
anti-government keywords, some dominated in most articles. This study concluded that a
strong bias in these wire articles exists, led by a presumed interaction between (U.S.) journalists
and (foreign) official elites, revealing the subordinate nature of commercial news media.
10

Rust 6

The methods used in this paper on Iran go several steps further, mathematically applying the
keyword rankings to their corresponding count in articles (via a weighted point system), which
are then plotted on several time-series charts.
Second to that article, James M. McCormicks The Media, Public Opinion, and the Foreign
Policy Process chapter in American Foreign Policy and Process is most relevant to this study.
He starts out by noting that there are three roles that the media can play in the foreign policy
process: as separate actors, accomplices of the government, and both the media and the
government in a mutually exploitative relationship.
11
In describing the media as actors,
McCormick notes that what the media decide to portray (or not to portray) may have a powerful
influence on the direction of American foreign policy, noting particular cases like the Vietnam
War, with its vivid pictures provided on a nightly basis for the American public and policy
makers.
12
As an example of the media highlighting attacks, McCormick discusses the Bush
administration accusing the media of highlighting the attacks and the problems of
reconstruction, without telling the full story, thereby leading to a decline in support for the
administrations policy at home and abroad.
13

One alternative McCormick gives to the three roles media can play in foreign policy making,
is that sometimes individual members of the media can play a part in real diplomacy, citing such
examples as John Scali aiding in the peaceful resolution during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and
Peter Arnet, taking at face value the Iraqi explanations of events during the Persian Gulf War.
14

While these two cases are unique and involve individuals rather than entire editorial sections of
newspapers, they do relate significantly as a possible motive for newspaper bias. Assuming a
liberal bent in the American media, a possible motive for shining light on the killings of
scientists in Iran is that they want a peaceful resolution to the conflict, as in the example of
Rust 7

Vietnam. Taking the words of Iranian state officials at face value also has a consequence: it does
in fact lend a voice to their message, as indicated by word counts. Therefore, keywords used in
this study that are found in quotations of such officials were included, in some cases significantly
affecting the point range of a given newspaper.
Mr. McCormick also touches on this concept of a liberal media, including several
substantive points. He states that the American public often views the media as being elitist, as
possessing a liberal political bias, and as trying to foist such views on policy.
15
He then lays out
several studies showing that the media are in fact largely liberal, noting one study as saying the
media elite largely came from the northeast and north-central part of the country, had urban and
ethnic roots, were highly educated, were mostly well off, highly educated members of the upper
middle class, and had primarily secular roots.
1617
He noted which media segments tend to
the far ends of either spectrum as found by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo: that the CBS
Evening News and the New York Times had the highest left of center scores; only Fox News
Special Report and the Washington Times were the exception to this liberal direction.
1819
In
other words, these political scientists provided an after-the-fact confirmation that at least two
newspapers in this study balance each other out. McCormick also notes that for some of these
journalists, inevitably profits and professionalism will trump whichever direction their bias may
lean.
Perhaps the best explanation for the medias motive in shaping foreign policy is simply self-
interest, as McCormick discusses later in the chapter: the relationship (between the media and
the United States foreign policy community) is sometimes competitive and sometimes
cooperative, but that is only incidental to its central driving force: self-interest.
2021
He also gets
into which entity may have the upper hand in influencing the foreign policy. For things like
Rust 8

human rights, or low politics, the media are more effective in influencing the process.
22

However, on high politics, like arms control, the policy makers may have an advantage.
23

This duality is particularly relevant and complex when it comes to the Iranian scientists. On the
one hand, it is a human rights and legal issue involving extrajudicial killings; while on the other
hand, it is certainly an arms control issue. Thus, the influence which even widely-read and
respected newspapers such as the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal is notably hard to
distinguish in this realm.
In The Iran Hostage Crisis, Richard Falk examined the bias of international law against
small nations and inadequate concern for outside intervention in them by powerful nations.
24

His research found both a pro-imperial and a pro-governmental bias built into modern
international law.
25
While noting that even Hitler respected the concept of diplomatic immunity,
this article emphasizes the rock and a hard place that some states found themselves between with
regards to subversive elements emanating from embassies seen by the local state as imperial
(read: U.S.). Ayatolla Khomeini was frustrated with the existing international law, and that the
U.S. would not extradite the Shah, and therefore saw no compunction with keeping Americans
with diplomatic immunity hostage. This study has relevance today in that it helps frame possible
bias within international law, favoring the backers of whoever is killing Irans scientists. This
assumption leads to the question of whether or not international law holds parallel biases to that
of major international newspapers. It could also describe the rational of Iran in targeting Israeli
diplomats in retaliatory attacks, despite there being little evidence that Israel was directly
involved in the killings. Ironically, the attacks against Israeli diplomats left significantly more
evidence that they originated from Iran, while simultaneously being less well-put-together.
26

While it could be argued that the scientists are within-limits military targets involved in
Rust 9

proliferation, and therefore high politics, the targeting of official diplomats is nothing more
than a humanitarian issue of low politics.
27

Model and Hypothesis

The question of public opinion polling affecting non op-ed newspaper articles is highly
subjective. There is plenty of data in this paper, yet there will be no statistically significant
correlation between polling percentages and changes in keyword usage. What can be examined
are: article counts, word counts (several types), and points for each newspaper against the
backdrop of that years change in American sentiment towards Iran (Gallup). What is expected
to be found is that similarities will exist between the two, but not a scientific proof of correlation.
For that to be possible there would need to be far more public opinion polls, all with the same
questions.
Methods
Finding the Articles:
The five newspapers were chosen mainly in order to provide a broad-based spectrum of
national newspapers of record from which to decide if newspapers cater to their readers
opinions. In addition, a small non-scientific effort was made to include newspapers from the
each side of the political spectrum: two professors as well as a survey on LinkedIn more or less
confirmed that five comprise a balanced sample of both liberal and conservative bias (Appendix
Change in yearly
sentiment towards
Iran public opinion as
indicated by Gallup
polling.
Corresponding
change of coverage
on scientist-killings
based on those
opinions.
i.e. American public
negativity towards Iran ,
leading to harsh news
coverage of killings ,
indicating sympathy
towards the attacks.
Rust 10

A). The Financial Times was chosen in addition to the other American newspapers in order to
bring in added international perspective, from another English-language newspaper of record.
The underlying assumption going in is that they range in order of liberal to conservative as
follows: New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times (mainly neutral), Wall Street
Journal, and Washington Times. McCormicks American Foreign Policy was also used to
substantiate the balance of bias, at least in the case of the New York Times and the Washington
Times.
28

ProQuest was the research tool of choice for discovering the 130 news articles which were
analyzed. Three types of search terms were used before being narrowed down: Iran +
Scientist in the text body, Iran in the title and Scientist in the text body (the final choice),
and Iran and Scientist both in the title.
Here is a chart of the outcome:
Wide
parameters
(both in text)
Mid-range
parameters
Most-specific
parameters
(both in title)
Mid-range
articles
mentioning the
attacks
New York
Times
242 93 9 47
Washington
Post
243 89 2 38
Financial Times 91 23 4 14
Wall Street
Journal
192 57 2 21
Washington
Times
76 30 2 10
Total 844 292 19 130

After the mid-range results were generated for each newspaper, from 2010-2012, the text
excerpt containing scientist was examined to see if it related to the scientist killings or
Rust 11

something unrelated, for example Pakistans Abdul Qadeer Khan, who was blamed for assisting
Iran with its weapons program but not attacked (or Iranian).
29
If there was any question over the
articles relevance, it was opened to inquire further. The final tally came out to 130, which may
have included one or two irrelevant ones due to error involving the sheer magnitude (out of the
original 292 results), but if that is the case, the extras simply wont add anything to its
newspapers score (due to words only being tallied if they are about the scientists), thereby being
mostly irrelevant to the results. These articles were then dragged into a Google doc, and
eventually into a spreadsheet where they were easier to manipulate en masse.
Word Counting:
As for the word counts themselves, different kinds of data have been collected from each non-
op-ed article on the attacks from the newspapers. These data include individual counts of each
of the 15 keywords, a date, and a total word count. These data theoretically, once aggregated,
can show several things: the newspapers implicit consent or explicit dissent of the attacks as
contained by each article, how these biases relate to those of competing newspapers as well as
the attacks, and finally, whether or not they are influenced by recent public opinion polling.
Measuring depictions of attacks:
The crux of this paper is a point system for each word. As the data shows, total word counts
vary greatly depending on what type of article is called for, or the style of a given newspaper or
staff writer. Therefore, it seems the point system does a much better job of depicting real bias as
it occurs. Three groups at Berry College were polled to see as to how harsh they thought each
word describing the attacks was. They were asked to rank order five words describing agents of
violence: operative, agent, assassin, assailant, and terrorist, from 1 (least harsh) to 5
(most harsh). In order to keep the words individually spaced out after the results were tallied,
Rust 12

they could not assign the same value to any two words. Surveys received which did do this were
either returned to the respondent for edits or thrown out altogether if the respondent was
unavailable. They were then asked to rank order another ten words describing violence in
exactly the same way: "terrorism," "assassinate," "bombing," "attack," "kill," "explosion,"
"violent," "blast," "detonate," and "murder," with 1 being the least harsh and 10 being most.
The three groups polled were an underclassman comparative politics class (19 students), an
upperclassman senior thesis class (9 students), and professors (13), each with differing responses
and total respondents. For each group, the scores were tallied for each word multiplied by how
many respondents gave it that score (surprisingly easy to do with help from Google Forms,
which was also used to generate the survey). These averages were then divided by the total
amount surveyed to bring it back to a comparable level to the others. The score for each word,
for each group (total: 45 scores), was then used to give a weight to each word of each article (like
a grading scale with fifteen elements and 130 students, except with three separate grading
scales). Therefore, the point-system time-series charts may well have the most potential, as they
indicate bias better than simple word counts or numbers of articles can, as has been attempted in
the past.
Here is a chart showing results from the point-system polling using Google Forms:
Search
Term/Word Root
(Descriptors)
Underclassman
Points
Upperclassman
Points
Professor Points Average
blast 2.22 3.21 2.92 2.79
detonat 3.11 4.42 2.15 3.23
explo 3.78 4.58 4.08 4.14
violent 4.56 3.89 4.23 4.23
attack 4.11 4.16 4.92 4.4
kill 5.67 5.32 6.69 5.89
bomb 6.11 6.11 5.46 5.89
murder 8 7.74 8.23 7.99
Rust 13

assassinat 8.89 6.95 8.38 8.07
terror 8.56 8.53 7.92 8.33
Word Root
(agents)
Underclassman
Points
Upperclassman
Points
Professor Points Average
agent 1.58 1.44 1.77 1.5975
operative 1.58 1.88 1.69 1.7201
assailant 3.05 2.77 3 2.9435
assassin 4.05 4.11 4.15 4.1059
terrorist 4.74 4.77 4.38 4.6331

Particularly significant is the fact that the words were each counted from their article
individually, ensuring that they related to the attackers specifically rather than a blind robotic
auto-count of the keywords. While the search function was used, it was only the first tool used
in the process. Words such as bomb in the context of atom bomb, attack, as in the case of
attacks on Israeli diplomats in related cases, or assassination, as in the assassination plot against
the Saudi ambassador, and many other such cases were all excluded from the keyword counts. It
can therefore be said with much confidence that the words that the newspapers choose to
describe attacks on and attackers of Iranian scientists are the primary determinants of how their
newspapers fare in this study (except for the side-story of total word/article counts, which are
simply additional tools for conclusion verification due to availability of the data).
Choosing the variables:
The measures of journalistic displeasure with the attacks against Iran are simply a way of
taking note of the newspapers sympathy towards Iran, which can then be compared to American
sentiment against Iran. If it seems complicated that there is an apparent double-negative
(displeasure with attacks against) against something that can seem negative (Iran), thats
because it is. But media biases of this sort are hardly unprecedented, as the brutal television
coverage of Vietnam showed.
30
Despite this complexity, the central theme of attacks on
Rust 14

scientists was picked as a variable due to the regularity of the attacks, and therefore the wealth of
similar data which would inevitably emerge from newspapers, regardless of liberal or
conservative bias.
It would be easier to visualize American media bias against Irans actions, but this data is a
lot more sparse and diverse. The reason for an inverted variable of the potential newspaper bias
for Iran (versus public opinion polling against) is because theres not a particularly simple way
to directly measure their bias against Iran after something specific that Iran did. Iran does lots of
things that may drive public or journalistic sentiment, and for that reason, it is hard to rule out
what is merely reactive and what is long-standing bias. There are failed nuclear talks happening
left and right, but from a quantifiable word-counting perspective, theres no real demonization or
praise going on there. In addition, none of Irans actions occur with enough regularity to really
pick up much note in English newspapers. The small exception could be the similar bombing-
attacks against Israeli diplomats that occurred theoretically in retaliation for the scientist
victims.
31
Those were both largely unsuccessful, and at the same time hard to attribute it to Iran
as an attacker. Part of the problem may be the American medias oft-critiqued obsession with
serial killers and the like. As Richard J. Lundman wrote, If it bleeds, it leads, continuing:
stories about murder are regular features of national and local television programs, and murder
stories frequently lead news broadcasts.
32
The scientists assailants were all professionals who
pulled off very similar attacks (except the one shooting, rather than bombing), and who killed all
except one of their targets. In other words, by focusing on the attacks and the verbiage therein,
rather than verbiage about more ambiguous attacks, the spikes in specific rhetoric can more
accurately be used to describe bias specifically about Iran.

Rust 15

Public Polling
A search was done on several scholarly search tools as well as simply using Google to find
the best public polling data about American sentiment on Iran. This being a paper about media
bias, much of the polling done had to be thrown out, as it was done by a media organization
itself, rather than by a dedicated polling organization. That being the case, only Pew Research
Center data and Gallup returned anything useful for this time period. Their data both went back
for many years but unfortunately only had about one or two poll questions about Iran per year,
with perhaps two subsections apiece. Therefore, Gallups method of having two types of
unfavorability towards Iran is the most useful, as it shows fluctuations inside a majority of
Americans that oppose Iran.
33
As for using Gallups favorable rating, instead of having
inverted variables: it wouldnt accurately describe the situation, as that percentage (on average
10.33%) represents a tiny fraction of Americans, and is therefore less likely to influence
newspapers.
34

Intervening Variable
The case of the actual attacks is perhaps the most important intervening variable. This is
because, as news organizations, newspapers report the news as soon as they can after it happens,
(assuming newsworthiness). As the attacks accumulate, it would seem natural for the
newspapers to reiterate the recent history of similar events. Because of this intervening variable,
the time-series charts involving each articles amount of points (below) reflect both articles
published immediately after the attacks as well as those outside of a 48 hour window after the
attacks (each chart type having its own space).

Rust 16

Charting:
The majority of testing in this paper is done by charting. While the single standard deviation
number for each newspapers data set is perhaps useful for determining bias, it does not reveal
covariation between itself and public opinion. All of the word counts, totals, and applied points
allow for each respective newspapers views on the subject matter to be effectively plotted based
on date published.
The purpose of getting around this brief window of days immediately following the attacks is
because simply, everyone is reporting on it then. The spikes within the window remain to be
examined, but as a sharpening factor of the study, they are to be ignored to some degree.
Another tool to be used both separately and in conjunction with this immediately following
exclusion is finding one and two points of standard deviation to see if and how many spikes of
journalistic bias occur outside these lines. Therefore, so the theory goes, the more spikes that
occur further outside both of these blotted out segments, the more biased the target newspaper is
in favor of Iran, or at least against violence. These will also be used to help ignore the potential
intervening variable of Israel, which many of the articles attribute as the likely author of the
attacks. The American public largely supports Israel, and therefore the days immediately
following attacks may result in relative bursts of emotion (rhetorically speaking) from
newspapers.
35
In theory, their rhetoric will simmer down when their regular international-
relations-oriented audience again becomes the majority of the articles readership, rather than
everyone in the country. While spikes immediately following attacks may indicate a bias all its
own, the effort will be made via these windows of exclusion to find data that is geared solely
towards Iran. That said, all of the charts and data is graphically-driven, and there is no simple
Rust 17

way to tie public opinion percentages into a formula with an abstract point-system; so all data
points and spikes are fair game in the results section.
These data were aggregated into time-series plots using each news article as an event or point.
The y-axis of these charts consist of things like total word counts per article, specific keyword
counts per article and weighted points per article. Also being considered is the percentage of
relevant killed-scientist articles published per year out of their whole article count for that year.
In this experiment, the results yielded from newspaper analysis are the dependent variable,
while American public opinion polls comprise the independent variables. Given the relative
infrequency of these polls, it may prove difficult to establish a statistically significant and causal
link between them and the respective mood of newspaper coverage. Nevertheless, such an
analysis provides a unique opportunity to analyze the behavior of major American newspapers
with respect to each other, their subscribers, and international events. It may even indicate that
American public opinion is largely held hostage by its own newspapers, a thought hardly outside
the realm of possibility. If there is some sort of reciprocal effect between the two variables, it is
not expected that either will show up as significantly more causal than the other in these models.
Results
Impressions:
While researching and using the search function within articles to determine whether or not
certain words met the criteria to be a keyword about an attack, notes were taken to ascertain
general impressions of the articles. This was done as a sort of qualitative replacement for any
real opposing variable to negativity on the attacks, such as negativity on Iranian actions or
Rust 18

supporting verbiage of Iran, the U.S., or Israel. Many of the notes taken while scanning articles
apply from one newspaper to the next, while others do not.
The New York Times was distinct because it had a few more brief articles (of course, it had
a bit more articles in general as well) of about 50-100 words each. They quoted Iranian officials
significantly more often, it seemed, than other newspapers. The words that occurred more in
these areas with regards to the attackers (i.e. terrorists) largely didnt occur as part of the writers
own verbiage (this held true for all of the newspapers, indicating certain common ground).
While the New York Times had the most articles, and the Washington Post was the runner up,
the New York Times was better at mixing up the storylines, being less repetitive and not simply
adding another killing to its copy-and-paste contextual background as they occurred. Scanning
the New York Times made it clear that the methodology of a smaller point system (1-5) for the
agents of violence was flawed, and that an equal 1-10 scale would have perhaps made the
charts more accurate at determining bias. The issue of which sentences go into the abstract, or
meta description of the articles was also a factor. The New York Times and Washington Post
both had several sentences with searched keywords as part of their abstract as shown by
ProQuest. While this may call into question whether or not to count these words in addition to
those in the text body, it also indicates which parts of the article the newspaper wants to
emphasize. Therefore, those words were in fact counted along with words in the full text. The
New York Times seemed to be the only newspaper which regularly referenced 5 dead scientists
since 2007, which includes the one which suffocated mysteriously. This too indicates a jump to
the conclusion that he must have been killed, despite shakier circumstances as in the cases of
other mysterious deaths in explosions, whereas other newspapers did not make this conclusion.
The words blast and defections did show up, but only referencing large explosions, such as a
Rust 19

blast at a missile base, killing the top missile program commander, or the creation of a nuclear
detonation device. Another recurring theme were the words assassinations, bombings,
cyberattacks, and defections, used in several articles but not necessarily in the same order.
36

These serve to set the agenda and link the killings to the broader concept of this shadow war, as
many media sources call it. In doing so, it helps casts Israel as the perpetrator in the killings, as
it is almost certainly that with regards to the cyberattacks. In a more loose fashion it also links
the U.S. to this broader theme, as the cyberattacks (less so) and particularly the defections
(given plural connotation, despite just once occurring) are arguably attributable to the U.S. as
well.
While finding articles it was noted that the direr a newspaper painted the situation with
regards to Irans nuclear progress in these articles, the more it seemed to be inherently justifying
the attacks. The Washington Post Wall Street Journal and Washington Times seemed to have the
most emphasis on their looming nuclear capability (particularly in 2009, perhaps due to the
renewed negotiations between Iran and the P5+1).
37
The Washington Post also had plenty of
extra details in terms of actors involved in the broader context of a nuclear Iran, from computer
scientists, to Russian and American scientists, to the (perhaps) defected Iranian scientist, the
Pakistani scientist, etc. As noted above, there was a distinct similarity in these articles, due
perhaps to the same staffers for the Washington Post writing them. While the New York Times
also had the same writers for many of its pieces, they were generally more diverse in word usage.
In both of these sources, it was curious that usually the more exotic words like assassin and
assailant were saved for the more exotic stories, which generally went into more detail.
Between the New York Times and Washington Post, the latter had more articles relevant to this
Rust 20

study occurring on the same day, though not by much. The other three newspapers rarely did
this, if ever.
The other three newspapers yielded little in the way of notes, due to significantly less relevant
articles being written over the period. The Financial Times wrote an outstanding 4200 word
cover piece called The Sabotaging Of Iran, encompassing most if not all of the surrounding
details about the attacks up until its publication date in February of 2011 (without any attacks
occurring in the relative timeframe).
38
By contrast with several (but not all) New York Times
articles, the Financial Times did not assume the first scientist in 2007 was assassinated by similar
people, saying instead at least four scientists have been killed.
39
The Financial Times articles
seemed like a breath of fresh air compared to the American newspapers, saying things that
seemed new, like Report says Obama ordered (Stuxnet) operation.
40

The Wall Street Journal seemed at times to edit articles from the past, which isnt necessarily
a bad thing, just odd comparatively. One example being an article dated 7 December 2010
saying at least five scientists have been killed so far.
41
While all of the newspapers covered the
killed scientists to some degree, a certain degree of restraint was shown by some. The Wall
Street Journal did in fact cover the attacks on Israeli diplomats, and in passing mentioned the
attacks on Iranian scientists, despite their specific relevance. On the other hand, they preferred to
use the term assassinate when describing the attacks on scientists, which is generally viewed by
this paper and survey respondents as quite harsh. Hence, the Wall Street Journal and
Washington Post both show some indications of both liberal and conservative bias, and so seem
to have been well-placed in the middle-range of bias ordering from the beginning of this paper.
Despite this semi-parity, the term terror was used much more in describing possible Iranian
acts in the Wall Street Journal, which is more in line with a conservative bias.
Rust 21

The Washington Times was a peculiar newspaper within this study. It was only three-
quarters finished when the total articles from 2010 to 2012 were counted among all of the
newspapers, finding that the Washington Times had a total number of articles ranging from one
quarter to one seventh of the totals of any of the rest (see top-left chart on page 23). That being
the case, its proportion of articles relevant to this study was actually significantly higher than the
rest, averaging about one third larger despite having the least relevant articles (10). Interestingly,
the Financial Times had the smallest proportion, despite also having by far the single largest
relevant article and therefore word count and standard deviation. The op-eds that were filtered
out from the Washington Times were many, and significantly more boisterous than any of the
others, coming from the likes of Ted Nugent (who is on their staff), among others. The only
other newspapers to have a significant number of op-eds which were filtered out were the New
York Times, and to a lesser extent the Washington Post. The Washington Times used the word
bomb freely, though only with respect to attacking Irans facilities or their obtaining of a
nuclear weapon, appearing in one instance 19 times.
42
This newspaper did however bring to
light new information as well, such as five Russian scientists who had been assisting Irans
nuclear program dying in a plane crash.
43
The Washington Times also, like the Wall Street
Journal, refrained from talking much on the attacks on Irans scientists when describing the
attacks on Israels diplomats, despite the many similarities and widespread speculation that they
were related.

Charts and Tables:

0
50
100
150
200
250
WaPo
WT
FT
NYT
WSJ
Average
The Point System:
This chart shows fluctuations in each newspapers points. Each point represents an article, published on the date shown on the x-
axis. How high-up it is on the y-axis is dictated by its total amount of points, effectively indicating how harsh its stance was
towards the attacks.

The orange, light blue, and light pink lines show
the average of all points, standard deviation
plus one, and standard deviation plus two,
respectively. The more a newspaper jumps
above these lines, the more critical or harsh it
is against the attacks, based on averaged
polling results from professors, upperclassmen,
and underclassmen.

Article
Counts
Total amount of
relevant articles
from 2010-2012
Total amount of
articles from 2010-
2012
Percentage of
articles from
2010-2012
WT 10 30796 0.032472%
WaPo 38 154558 0.024586%
NYT 47 214180 0.021944%
WSJ 21 119656 0.017550%
FT 14 157420 0.008893%

WaPo WT FT NYT WSJ
Average
total word
count of
relevant
articles
979.1
923
686.7778 944.785
7
1047.28
9
942.190476
2
Total
word
count:
standard
deviation
467.5
085
381.8458 1146.84
1
551.293
6
408.846746
2
WaPo WT FT NYT WSJ
Average
Points/article
26.02 19.04 34.56 35.53 21.90
Standard
Deviation of
Points
21.23 12.79 56.54 42.71 33.22
Agents
of
Violence
Operative Agent Assassin Assailant Terrorist
WT 1 1 0 0 0
WaPo 3 6 1 3 9
NYT 1 10 3 4 7
WSJ 0 1 2 0 0
FT 2 2 0 0 2
Descriptors of
violence
Terror Assassinat- Bomb- Attack- Kill- Explo- Violent Blast Detonat- Murder
WT 1 7 4 11 8 0 0 0 1 0
WaPo 2 29 11 15 35 4 0 1 0 0
NYT 12 60 43 49 69 3 2 0 4 3
WSJ 4 18 10 25 17 2 0 0 0 1
FT 5 16 3 5 21 4 0 1 0 10
The turquoise box above shows the average points per article, based on the weighting system as determined by polling of professors and students.
The individual standard deviations vary significantly, especially that of the Financial Times, which is why the average, +1 standard deviation, and +2
standard deviations used from this point on were averaged from all five newspapers. These averages comprise the lines shown on subsequent pages,
as a way of indicating how out there certain articles are in terms of harshness about the attacks on scientists.
Rust 24

The word count chart tells a somewhat different story than the initial point system shown a few pages back. While the
New York Times maintains its typical edge on average, it appears that the Wall Street Journal tends to have higher
highs, especially towards the end. Interestingly, the Washington post remains largely hidden behind and underneath
other newspapers high points, although the blue dots are a little more visible. Also, the Financial Times outlier of
February 12
th
, 2011 again shows its prominence in the standard deviation, this time in the word counts.
(including 48 hour window)
Rust 25

Washington Post Analysis

0
20
40
60
80
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
0
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
0
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
0
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
0
1
-
S
e
p
-
1
0
1
-
N
o
v
-
1
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
1
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
1
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
1
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
1
1
-
S
e
p
-
1
1
1
-
N
o
v
-
1
1
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
2
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
2
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
2
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
2
1
-
S
e
p
-
1
2
WaPo points (including 48 hour window)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1-Jan-10 1-Jan-11 1-Jan-12
Word Count (including 48 hour window)
Series1
Poly. (Series1)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Points
Average
+1 Standard Deviation
Polynomial
Trendline
WaPo points, adjusted to
remove data points
immediately following the
attacks (48 hour period)
and showing average, +1
standard deviation, and +2
standard deviations(taken
from all newspapers
sampled).
WaPo Points (excluding the 48 hour window)

New York Times Analysis

0
50
100
150
200
250
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
0
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
0
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
0
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
0
1
-
S
e
p
-
1
0
1
-
N
o
v
-
1
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
1
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
1
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
1
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
1
1
-
S
e
p
-
1
1
1
-
N
o
v
-
1
1
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
2
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
2
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
2
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
2
1
-
S
e
p
-
1
2
1
-
N
o
v
-
1
2
NYT Points (including 48 hour window)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1-Jan-10 1-Jan-11 1-Jan-12
Series1
Poly. (Series1)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
2
/
3
/
2
0
1
0
1
/
3
/
2
0
1
1
2
/
3
/
2
0
1
1
3
/
3
/
2
0
1
1
4
/
3
/
2
0
1
1
5
/
3
/
2
0
1
1
6
/
3
/
2
0
1
1
7
/
3
/
2
0
1
1
8
/
3
/
2
0
1
1
9
/
3
/
2
0
1
1
1
0
/
3
/
2
0
1
1
1
1
/
3
/
2
0
1
1
1
2
/
3
/
2
0
1
1
1
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
2
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
3
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
4
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
5
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
6
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
7
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
8
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
9
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
1
0
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
1
1
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
1
2
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
Points
Average
Polynomial
Trendline

NYT points, adjusted to
remove data points
standard deviation, and
+2 standard
deviations(taken from all
newspapers sampled).

NYT Points (excluding the 48 hour window)

Wall Street Journal Analysis

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
0
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
0
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
0
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
0
1
-
S
e
p
-
1
0
1
-
N
o
v
-
1
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
1
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
1
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
1
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
1
1
-
S
e
p
-
1
1
1
-
N
o
v
-
1
1
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
2
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
2
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
2
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
2
WSJ Points (including 48 hour window)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1-Jan-10 1-Jan-11 1-Jan-12
Series1
Poly. (Series1)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
5
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0
6
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0
7
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0
8
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0
9
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0
1
0
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0
1
1
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0
1
2
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0
1
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
1
2
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
1
3
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
1
4
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
1
5
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
1
6
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
1
7
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
1
8
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
1
9
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
1
1
0
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
1
1
1
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
1
1
2
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
1
1
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
2
2
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
2
3
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
2
4
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
2
5
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
2
6
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
2
7
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
2
8
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
2
Points
Average
"+1 Standard
Deviation"
Polynomial
Trendline

WSJ points, adjusted to remove
data points immediately
following the attacks (48 hour
period) and showing average,
+1 standard deviation, and +2
standard deviations(taken from
all newspapers sampled).

WSJ Points (excluding the 48 hour window)

Financial Times Analysis

0
50
100
150
200
250
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
0
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
0
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
0
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
0
1
-
S
e
p
-
1
0
1
-
N
o
v
-
1
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
1
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
1
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
1
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
1
1
-
S
e
p
-
1
1
1
-
N
o
v
-
1
1
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
2
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
2
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
2
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
2
1
-
S
e
p
-
1
2
FT Points (including 48 hour window)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1-Jan-10 1-Jan-11 1-Jan-12
Word Count
Series1
Poly. (Series1)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Points
Average
+1 Standard
Deviation
FT points, adjusted to
remove data points
standard deviations(taken
from all newspapers
sampled).
Polynomial
Trendline

FT Points (excluding the 48 hour window)

Washington Times Analysis

0
10
20
30
40
50
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
0
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
0
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
0
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
0
1
-
S
e
p
-
1
0
1
-
N
o
v
-
1
0
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
1
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
1
1
-
M
a
y
-
1
1
1
-
J
u
l
-
1
1
1
-
S
e
p
-
1
1
1
-
N
o
v
-
1
1
1
-
J
a
n
-
1
2
1
-
M
a
r
-
1
2
WT Points (including 48 hour window)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1-Jan-10 1-Jan-11 1-Jan-12
Word Count
Series1
Poly. (Series1)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0
2
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0
3
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0
4
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0
6
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0
7
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0
8
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0
9
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0
1
0
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
1
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
2
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
1
2
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
1
3
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
1
4
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
1
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
1
6
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
1
7
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
1
8
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
1
9
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
1
1
0
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
1
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
2
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
2
2
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
2
3
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
2
4
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
2
Points
Average
+1 Standard
Deviation
Polynomial
Trendline

WT points, adjusted to
remove data points
standard deviations (taken
from all newspapers
sampled).

WT Points (excluding the 48 hour window)

Rust 30

As shown below, there simply is not enough data from dedicated polling organizations to
indicate significant fluctuations in American mood. Therefore, attempting to correlate such
fluctuations to measures of journalistic coverage and bias proved difficult.
Pew results for respondents agreeing to the use of military action against Iran if necessary to
prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons flat-lined similar to Pews unfavorable rating with
slightly more fluctuation, but in the end resulted in a 3% decrease.

While Pew results of unfavorability bumped up only one point in three years (from 67% in
2010 and 2011 to 68% in 2012), Gallup had slightly more fluctuation:
44

Date Gallup: mostly unfavorable %
change from prior year
Gallup: very unfavorable %
change from prior year
Net total change
from prior year
9-12 feb 2009 -5% +3% -2%
1-3 feb 2010 +1% +4% +5%
2-5 feb 2011 +3% -3% 0%
2-5 feb 2012 -7% +9% +2%

Gallup did something very smart here, and has been for many years (since at least 1989).
45

Many more, in fact, than there have been attacks on scientists. Given that the American mood
towards Iran is generally unchanging in negativity towards Iran, they have an added indicator of
mood. Gallup allows American respondents to choose either mostly unfavorable (less negative)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
10/14/091/22/10 5/2/10 8/10/1011/18/102/26/11 6/6/11 9/14/1112/23/114/1/12 7/10/12
Gallup Unfavorable
Pew Unfavorable
Military action if need be:
Pew
2 per. Mov. Avg. (Gallup
Unfavorable)
2 per. Mov. Avg. (Pew
Unfavorable)
Rust 31

or very unfavorable (more negative). So despite the fact that Americans are negative about
Iran, there is still a method of distinguishing fluctuations in that mood. As shown, there is a
distinct shift in American public mood towards the more negative column in 2012, coinciding
with a distinct increase in articles critical of the attacks on Iranian scientists (in particular
emanating from the New York Times and Washington Post).
While this coincidence is not nearly enough to indicate causation or even correlation, it is
interesting. As visualized on a chart, it is easier to find the tier three spikes above the pink line,
indicating an article with more points than two standard deviations. Tier two spikes, above one
standard deviations are also relatively easy to find, in between the light blue and pink lines. The
tier one field is a little more difficult, as it comprises the small slice between the orange
average line and blue +1 standard deviation line. The intervening variable of actual attacks
is negated by removing points within a 48 hour window after attacks, thus removing the
possibility of purely reactive/breaking news articles muddying the overall picture.
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
1
/
1
3
/
1
0
0
3
/
1
3
/
1
0
0
5
/
1
3
/
1
0
0
7
/
1
3
/
1
0
0
9
/
1
3
/
1
0
1
1
/
1
3
/
1
0
0
1
/
1
3
/
1
1
0
3
/
1
3
/
1
1
0
5
/
1
3
/
1
1
0
7
/
1
3
/
1
1
0
9
/
1
3
/
1
1
1
1
/
1
3
/
1
1
0
1
/
1
3
/
1
2
0
3
/
1
3
/
1
2
0
5
/
1
3
/
1
2
0
7
/
1
3
/
1
2
0
9
/
1
3
/
1
2
WaPo
WT
FT
NYT
WSJ
Average
"+1 Standard Deviation"
"+2 Standard Deviation"
Tier 3 points
Tier 2 points
Rust 32

On Spikes in Points
9-12
feb
2009
-5% 3% -2%
0
1-3
feb
2010
1% 4% 5%
2 2 1 5
2-5
feb
2011
3% -3% 0% 2
2 1 1 6
2-5
feb
2012
-7% 9% 2% 1 3 3 2
1 1 1 1 13

Tier one: Number
of spikes above
average during
these green periods
Washington
Post
New York
Times
Wall Street
Journal
Financial Times Washington
Times
Sum
Tier two: Number of
spikes above +1
standard deviation
during these orange
periods

Tier three: Number
of spikes above +2
standard deviations
during these red
periods

Gallup: mostly
unfavorable %
change from
prior year
Gallup: very
unfavorable
% change
from prior
year

Gallup: Net change in
% unfavorability from
year prior
While there may not have been a huge percentage change in the net Gallup polling from 2011 to
2012, there was a 9 point shift from mostly unfavorable or better to very unfavorable (the most severe).
This coincided with an increase in spikes (in points) greater than the previous two years combined
(spikes being points above the average, standard deviation +1, or standard deviation +2 marks). Even
if only the spikes above standard deviation +1 and +2 marks are counted without the above average
spikes, 2012s lead in these spikes over 2010 and 2011 combined actually increases by one. Put
simply, the count of articles with a high number of points roughly doubled in 2012 compared to the
previous two years, all occurring after Gallups indicated worsening of public opinion towards Iran.
Sum
Rust 33

The lone datum: a 4200 word Financial
Times Cover story which wasnt published
immediately following an attack.
The y-axis here is
applicable only to
the points. With
no ceiling, it could
not be translated
to percentage
points, and
therefore the
Gallup polling
overlay is relative
only to the x-axis.
Both metrics are
on the same date
x-axis, as are the
four big red dots
indicating attack
dates (also
irrelevant on the
y-axis). The fact
that the attacks
(intervening
variable) and
polling largely
occurred in a
similar time frame
makes it difficult
to tell if a bump in
antipathy, or
accumulation of
regular attacks led
to increased
journalistic
review.
Article point scatterplot (including 48 hour window) with Gallup opinion polling overlay: This chart shows a scatterplot of the
article points, but excludes articles with published dates within 48 hours after an attack. It is overlaid with Gallup polling data indicating
Americans yearly unfavorable rating towards Iran, very unfavorable (in the red) being more severe, and mostly unfavorable (in the blue)
being less.
Rust 34

Discussion
The hypothesis was largely disproven. While there was the coincidence of a nine point shift
in public opinion from essentially negative to more negative on Iran prior to the increase in
points measuring newspaper outspokenness against the attacks, it was not statistically significant.
Within the scope of this study, public polling does not influence newspaper coverage, at least in
the realm of foreign policy. Perhaps if there were many more data points and more fluctuation,
such a conclusion could be reached, and in February of 2013 (presumably the next Gallup poll),
it can be better determined whether or not these journalistic trends in fact influence public
opinion (a reverse ordering of the hypothesis). Given that the public knows so little about
foreign policy though (as indicated by Kegley and Wittkopfs pyramid), it would perhaps be a
frightening concept if staff writers for such newspapers as influential as these were selling out
their foreign policy articles to the opinions of the general public (in other words, catering).
46

The charts largely speak for themselves. The data show steadily increasing activist verbiage
against the attacks. The spikes in points above at least one standard deviation show that which
may be hard to discern from the line graphs: that the Washington Post and New York Times in
particular do not favor these attacks on scientists. It will certainly be interesting to see in the
future the opinions of Americans on Iran as nuclear talks continue, sabotage and a potential
shadow war continues, and media bias carries on.
In determining motives of newspaper bias, this study does not quite have the right variables,
though it is a good starting place. McCormick was probably closer to the mark when he
analyzed their relationship with policymakers themselves, rather than the American people. He
leaves three possible motives for the media bias which probably fit the case here: influencing
Rust 35

policy and/or public opinion (as in the case of Vietnam), the inherent beliefs of an elite, liberal
media, or the media as accomplices (perhaps as in the case of only the foreign Financial Times
being brash enough to report an American ordering of the Stuxnet program, as opposed to the
U.S. newspapers abstaining).
47
Lastly, McCormick leaves the most likely possibility: that the
media, like the government, are simply driven completely by self-interest.
48
As for how they
carry out these self-interests is fair game for the next study. For having made it this far, they
most likely know their audiences and subscribers well as it is, and go from there.
Possible avenues for further study are many. There are plenty of instances in this shadow
war that can be exploited for word count; the hard part is finding a way to word the survey so
that the rank order means something significant. As previously mentioned, the newspapers or
media sources could be rated on favorability or unfavorability to multiple entities or activities,
not simply attacks on Iranian scientists. This study would have been better served to have
ranked both agents and descriptors of violence on scales of 1-10, rather than one being
diminutive relative to the other (agents<descriptors). Despite this flaw, the system of counting
out only the relevant keywords within relevant articles was a very clean, repeatable process.
In conclusion, this study showed marked differences in the foreign policy reporting of major
newspapers. One of the variables proved nearly irrelevant (public opinion), while the
intervening variable of attack dates themselves may or may not have intervened in the way they
had been anticipated to. Despite this, the assumed biases of the newspapers prior to the
undertaking of the study were largely supported by the data, even after accounting for the attack
dates. The point system stood up well. The polling results were largely the same, leading to an
accurate amplification of the relevant keyword counts to an objective level. In the process of
researching, several interesting qualities of these newspapers were also noted.
Rust 36

Appendix A: a quick test of perceptions of newspaper bias
Timestamp
What, if any, is
a better
newspaper of
record than the
above?
Please indicate
the bias of each
of the following
newspapers.
[New York
Times]
Please indicate
the bias of each
of the following
newspapers.
[Washington
Post]
Please indicate
the bias of each
of the following
newspapers.
[Financial
Times]
Please indicate
the bias of each
of the following
newspapers.
[Wall Street
Journal]
Please indicate
the bias of each
of the following
newspapers.
[Washington
Times]
Please indicate
your level of
education.
How did you
find this
survey?
10/22/2012 7:23
news.google.co
m or another a
news
amalgamator Liberal Liberal Moderate Moderate right Conservative Master's LinkedIn
10/22/2012 8:49
Any local
newspaper.
Local news -
arguably the
future of a
viable news Moderate Moderate left Moderate Moderate Conservative Baccalaureate LinkedIn
10/22/2012 10:27
Christian
Science Monitor
is a moderate
replacement. Moderate left Moderate left Moderate Moderate right Conservative Master's LinkedIn
10/23/2012 8:26 Liberal Moderate right Liberal Liberal Conservative Baccalaureate LinkedIn
10/25/2012 13:33 N/A Moderate left Moderate Moderate right Moderate right Moderate Master's LinkedIn
10/25/2012 20:16 USA Today Liberal Liberal Moderate Moderate right Conservative Master's LinkedIn
10/27/2012 23:07 Liberal Moderate right Moderate Moderate Liberal Baccalaureate LinkedIn
10/29/2012 16:17 Liberal Liberal Moderate right Moderate right Conservative Doctor's LinkedIn
Rust 37

Appendix B: Data from the New York Times
Date word count terror assassinatbomb attack kill explo violen blast detonat murder SUM
4. Bombings Hit Atomic Experts In
Iran Streets: [Foreign Desk]
30-Nov-10 1013 1 2 7 8 4 0 0 0 1 0 23
11. WORLD BRIEFING MIDDLE EAST;
Iran: Date Set for Nuclear Talks
With European Union: [Foreign
Desk]
1-Dec-10 453 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 5
8. Iran: Arrests in Attacks on
Nuclear Scientists: [Brief]
3-Dec-10 61 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
32. Iran Claims Advance With
Uranium From Its Own Mine:
[Foreign Desk]
6-Dec-10 733 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
15. Direct Talks Concerning Iran's
Nuclear Program Begin: [Foreign
Desk]
7-Dec-10 1304 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 9
6. Iran Concludes Talks With U.S.
and 5 Other Nations, and Agrees to
Hold More: [Foreign Desk]
8-Dec-10 794 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4
23. Iran Nuclear Capability Seen as
Delayed: [Brief]
30-Dec-10 119 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
40. Israeli Ex-Spy Predicts Delay For
Iran's Nuclear Ambitions: [Foreign
Desk]
8-Jan-11 502 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
35. Israel Tests Called Crucial In Iran
Nuclear Setback: [Foreign Desk]
16-Jan-11 2937 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
5. Survivor of Attack Accelerates
Iran's Effort to Produce Nuclear
Material: [Foreign Desk]
23-Jul-11 1112 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 6
47. Easing Stance, Iran Offers
Inspectors 'Supervision' of Nuclear
Program: [Foreign Desk]
6-Sep-11 903 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Rust 38

SUM operative agent assassin assailant terrorist
4 0 0 2 2 0
4. Bombings Hit Atomic Experts In Iran
Streets: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
11. WORLD BRIEFING MIDDLE EAST;
Iran: Date Set for Nuclear Talks With
European Union: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
8. Iran: Arrests in Attacks on Nuclear
Scientists: [Brief]
0 0 0 0 0 0
32. Iran Claims Advance With Uranium
From Its Own Mine: [Foreign Desk]
2 0 1 1 0 0
15. Direct Talks Concerning Iran's
Nuclear Program Begin: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Iran Concludes Talks With U.S. and 5
Other Nations, and Agrees to Hold
More: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
23. Iran Nuclear Capability Seen as
Delayed: [Brief]
1 0 0 0 1 0
40. Israeli Ex-Spy Predicts Delay For
Iran's Nuclear Ambitions: [Foreign
Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
35. Israel Tests Called Crucial In Iran
Nuclear Setback: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Survivor of Attack Accelerates Iran's
Effort to Produce Nuclear Material:
[Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
47. Easing Stance, Iran Offers
Inspectors 'Supervision' of Nuclear
Program: [Foreign Desk]

Rust 39

41. U.S. Challenged to Explain
Accusations of Iran Plot In the Face
of Skepticism: [Foreign Desk]
13-Oct-11 1219 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
34. To Isolate Iran, U.S. Presses
Inspectors on Nuclear Data:
[Foreign Desk]
16-Oct-11 1241 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
10. America's Deadly Dynamics
With Iran: [News Analysis]
6-Nov-11 2303 0 4 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 13
19. U.N. Agency Says Iran Data
Points to A-Bomb Work: [Foreign
Desk]
9-Nov-11 1457 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
36. U.S. Plans New Sanctions
Against Iran's Oil Industry: [Foreign
Desk]
19-Nov-11 1022 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
39. As Britain Closes Embassies,
Iran's Isolation Could Complicate
Nuclear Issue: [Foreign Desk]
1-Dec-11 1241 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
46. Explosion Seen As Big Setback
To Iran Missiles: [Foreign Desk]
5-Dec-11 1360 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
31. Iran Sentences America to Die
On Spy Charges: [Foreign Desk]
10-Jan-12 1463 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2. Iran Adversaries Said To Step Up
Covert Actions: [Foreign Desk]
12-Jan-12 1670 1 6 6 8 10 1 1 0 0 1 34
1. Iran Signals Revenge Over Killing
Of Scientist: [Foreign Desk]
13-Jan-12 648 1 3 4 1 10 0 0 0 0 1 20
14. Dangerous Tension With Iran:
[Editorial]
13-Jan-12 562 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
18. Israel Says Sanctions Hurt Iran:
[Foreign Desk]
14-Jan-12 596 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4

Rust 40

0 0 0 0 0 0
41. U.S. Challenged to Explain
Accusations of Iran Plot In the Face of
Skepticism: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
34. To Isolate Iran, U.S. Presses
Inspectors on Nuclear Data: [Foreign
Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
10. America's Deadly Dynamics With
Iran: [News Analysis]
0 0 0 0 0 0
19. U.N. Agency Says Iran Data Points
to A-Bomb Work: [Foreign Desk]
1 0 0 0 0 1
36. U.S. Plans New Sanctions Against
Iran's Oil Industry: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
39. As Britain Closes Embassies, Iran's
Isolation Could Complicate Nuclear
Issue: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
46. Explosion Seen As Big Setback To
Iran Missiles: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
31. Iran Sentences America to Die On
Spy Charges: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
2. Iran Adversaries Said To Step Up
Covert Actions: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
1. Iran Signals Revenge Over Killing Of
Scientist: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
14. Dangerous Tension With Iran:
[Editorial]
0 0 0 0 0 0
18. Israel Says Sanctions Hurt Iran:
[Foreign Desk]

Rust 41

16. Iran Face-Off Testing Obama
The Candidate: [Foreign Desk]
17-Jan-12 1201 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
3. Iran Tightens Its Security For
Scientists After Killing: [Foreign
Desk]
18-Jan-12 593 1 5 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 11
22. Decision on Whether to Attack
Iran Is 'Far Off,' Israeli Defense
Minister Says: [Foreign Desk]
19-Jan-12 929 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
42. U.S. General Visits Israel For
Discussions on Iran: [Foreign Desk]
20-Jan-12 685 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
9. Sanctions Against Iran Grow
Tighter, but What's the Next Step?:
[Foreign Desk]
25-Jan-12 1157 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
30. Israelis Assess Threats by Iran
As Partly Bluff: [Foreign Desk]
27-Jan-12 1487 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
38. U.N. Nuclear Inspectors' Visit to
Iran Is a Failure, West Says:
[Foreign Desk]
4-Feb-12 1120 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
25. Israel Says Iran Is Behind
Bombs: [Foreign Desk]
14-Feb-12 1155 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7
26. Iran Leader Is Expected To
Announce Atomic Steps: [Foreign
Desk]
15-Feb-12 661 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
37. Franctic Actions Hint At
Pressure On Iran Leaders: [Foreign
Desk]
16-Feb-12 1350 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
44. Suspected Anti-Israel Plot
Widens Scrutiny on Iran: [Foreign
Desk]
17-Feb-12 790 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
28. In Din Over Iran, Rattling Sabers
Echo: [News Analysis]
22-Feb-12 1261 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

Rust 42

0 0 0 0 0 0
16. Iran Face-Off Testing Obama The
Candidate: [Foreign Desk]
3 0 3 0 0 0
3. Iran Tightens Its Security For
Scientists After Killing: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
22. Decision on Whether to Attack Iran
Is 'Far Off,' Israeli Defense Minister
Says: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
42. U.S. General Visits Israel For
Discussions on Iran: [Foreign Desk]
1 0 1 0 0 0
9. Sanctions Against Iran Grow Tighter,
but What's the Next Step?: [Foreign
Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
30. Israelis Assess Threats by Iran As
Partly Bluff: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
38. U.N. Nuclear Inspectors' Visit to
Iran Is a Failure, West Says: [Foreign
Desk]
3 0 1 0 0 2
25. Israel Says Iran Is Behind Bombs:
[Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
26. Iran Leader Is Expected To
Announce Atomic Steps: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
37. Franctic Actions Hint At Pressure On
Iran Leaders: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
44. Suspected Anti-Israel Plot Widens
Scrutiny on Iran: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
28. In Din Over Iran, Rattling Sabers
Echo: [News Analysis]

Rust 43

29. Nuclear Inspectors Say Their
Mission to Iran Has Failed: [Foreign
Desk]
22-Feb-12 638 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
17. Iran: 15 Accused in
Assassination Plot: [Foreign Desk]
19-Apr-12 449 0 4 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 13
43. Iran: Nuclear Inspector Killed in
Crash: [Foreign Desk]
9-May-12 254 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3
7. Iran Executes Man Accused As
Israeli Spy And Assassin: [Foreign
Desk]
16-May-12 573 0 4 2 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 14
13. After Talks With West Falter,
Iran Says It Won't Halt Uranium
Work: [Foreign Desk]
28-May-12 1069 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
24. Iran: Intelligence Chief Expands
List of Suspects: [Brief]
7-Jul-12 141 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
45. Bus Bomb Kills 6 in Bulgaria;
Israel Blames Iran for the Blast:
[Foreign Desk]
19-Jul-12 1273 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
20. Plots Are Tied to Shadow War of
Israel and Iran: [Foreign Desk]
9-Aug-12 1673 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 8
12. Signs That Iran Is Speeding Up
Nuclear Work: [Foreign Desk]
24-Aug-12 1153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27. At Summit Meeting, Iran Has a
Message for the World: [Foreign
Desk]
27-Aug-12 949 3 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 8
33. Star Lobbyists Help Iran Group
Escape Shadow: [Foreign Desk]
22-Sep-12 1216 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
21. Iran Expands on Claim of
Sabotage From Abroad of Nuclear
and Other Technology: [Foreign
Desk]
26-Sep-12 638 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Rust 44

0 0 0 0 0 0
29. Nuclear Inspectors Say Their
Mission to Iran Has Failed: [Foreign
Desk]
1 0 0 0 0 1
17. Iran: 15 Accused in Assassination
Plot: [Foreign Desk]
1 0 0 0 1 0
43. Iran: Nuclear Inspector Killed in
Crash: [Foreign Desk]
2 0 2 0 0 0
7. Iran Executes Man Accused As Israeli
Spy And Assassin: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
13. After Talks With West Falter, Iran
Says It Won't Halt Uranium Work:
[Foreign Desk]
1 0 0 0 0 1
24. Iran: Intelligence Chief Expands List
of Suspects: [Brief]
2 0 1 0 0 1
45. Bus Bomb Kills 6 in Bulgaria; Israel
Blames Iran for the Blast: [Foreign
Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
20. Plots Are Tied to Shadow War of
Israel and Iran: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
12. Signs That Iran Is Speeding Up
Nuclear Work: [Foreign Desk]
1 0 1 0 0 0
27. At Summit Meeting, Iran Has a
Message for the World: [Foreign Desk]
0 0 0 0 0 0
33. Star Lobbyists Help Iran Group
Escape Shadow: [Foreign Desk]
2 1 0 0 0 1
21. Iran Expands on Claim of Sabotage
From Abroad of Nuclear and Other
Technology: [Foreign Desk]
Rust 45

Appendix C: Data from the Washington Post
Date word count terror assassinat bomb attack kill explo violen blast detonat murder SUM
1. Iran lashes out after lethal blast;
Tehran vows revenge, blames U.S.
and Israel for scientist's death 13-Jan-10 686 0 1 2 2 5 1 0 1 0 0 12
2. In Arab states' fears, Israel sees
impetus for action against Iran
30-Nov-10 866 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4
3. Iran claim about uranium prefaces
multination talks
6-Dec-10 760 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
4. Major powers and Iran hold
'constructive' talks
7-Dec-10 624 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
5. Little progress seen as talks with
Iran come to end
8-Dec-10 803 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
6. Iran Intelligence Ministry says it
arrested spies tied to Israel
11-Jan-11 476 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5
8. Iran 'set back' on nuclear program
18-Oct-11 1161 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
10. Republican candidates embrace
covert action in Iran
14-Nov-11 630 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
11. Mysterious explosions pose
dilemma for Iran
26-Nov-11 796 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
12. Iran facing increased isolation
after embassy rampage
1-Dec-11 1123 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
13. Iran displays plane identified as
downed U.S. surveillance drone
9-Dec-11 645 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
15. Iran lashes out at West, but hints
at diplomacy
14-Jan-12 1006 0 2 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 9
16. E.U. leaders agree to Iran oil
embargo
14-Jan-12 871 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Rust 46

3 0 3 0 0 0
1. Iran lashes out after lethal blast;
Tehran vows revenge, blames U.S.
and Israel for scientist's death
1 0 1 0 0 0
2. In Arab states' fears, Israel sees
impetus for action against Iran
0 0 0 0 0 0
3. Iran claim about uranium prefaces
multination talks
0 0 0 0 0 0
4. Major powers and Iran hold
'constructive' talks
0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Little progress seen as talks with
Iran come to end
5 0 2 0 0 3
6. Iran Intelligence Ministry says it
arrested spies tied to Israel
1 0 0 0 1 0
8. Iran 'set back' on nuclear program
0 0 0 0 0 0
10. Republican candidates embrace
covert action in Iran
0 0 0 0 0 0
11. Mysterious explosions pose
dilemma for Iran
0 0 0 0 0 0
12. Iran facing increased isolation
after embassy rampage
0 0 0 0 0 0
13. Iran displays plane identified as
downed U.S. surveillance drone
1 0 0 0 0 1
15. Iran lashes out at West, but
hints at diplomacy
0 0 0 0 0 0
16. E.U. leaders agree to Iran oil
embargo

Rust 47

18. U.S. spy agencies see new Iran
risk
1-Feb-12 1068 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3
19. Israel accuses Iran in bomb plot
14-Feb-12 1006 0 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 8
21. Israel blames Iran for Bangkok
explosions
15-Feb-12 733 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
22. Iran warns West on nuclear issue
16-Feb-12 1084 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
23. Israel cites more links to Iran in
bombings
16-Feb-12 618 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6
25. Iran orders retrial for American
sentenced to death
6-Mar-12 831 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
26. Iran reports capture of 'terrorist
team'
11-Apr-12 514 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 5
27. U.S. officials encouraged by talks
with Iran
15-Apr-12 1046 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
28. U.S. diplomats among targets of
Iran-linked plot
28-May-12 1860 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3
29. Blast kills at least six Israelis on a
bus in Bulgaria; Netanyahu blames
Iran 19-Jul-12 564 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
30. Escalation feared in Israel-Iran
struggle Fear of 'shadow war' rises in
Mideast 20-Jul-12 1076 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
31. Israel says it will retaliate against
Iran for Bulgaria bombing
20-Jul-12 1042 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
33. Iran, Israel wage a silent war
2-Aug-12 796 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
34. In policy shift, Morsi to visit Iran
28-Aug-12 829 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
35. Iran says blast cut power lines to
nuclear site
18-Sep-12 405 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
37. Azerbaijan relishes role as the
anti-Iran
15-Oct-12 1540 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Rust 48

0 0 0 0 0 0
18. U.S. spy agencies see new Iran
risk
1 0 0 0 1 0
19. Israel accuses Iran in bomb plot
0 0 0 0 0 0
21. Israel blames Iran for Bangkok
explosions
0 0 0 0 0 0
22. Iran warns West on nuclear
issue
0 0 0 0 0 0
23. Israel cites more links to Iran in
bombings
0 0 0 0 0 0
25. Iran orders retrial for American
sentenced to death
8 3 0 0 0 5
26. Iran reports capture of 'terrorist
team'
0 0 0 0 0 0
27. U.S. officials encouraged by
talks with Iran
1 0 0 0 1 0
28. U.S. diplomats among targets of
Iran-linked plot
0 0 0 0 0 0
29. Blast kills at least six Israelis on
a bus in Bulgaria; Netanyahu blames
Iran
0 0 0 0 0 0
30. Escalation feared in Israel-Iran
struggle Fear of 'shadow war' rises
in Mideast
0 0 0 0 0 0
31. Israel says it will retaliate
against Iran for Bulgaria bombing
0 0 0 0 0 0
33. Iran, Israel wage a silent war
0 0 0 0 0 0
34. In policy shift, Morsi to visit Iran
0 0 0 0 0 0
35. Iran says blast cut power lines to
nuclear site
1 0 0 1 0 0
37. Azerbaijan relishes role as the
anti-Iran
Rust 49

Appendix D: Financial Times
Date word countterror assassinat bomb attack kill explo violen blast detonat murder SUM
1. Iran blames Israel and US for scientist's killing 13-Jan-10 570 0 3 2 2 6 1 0 1 0 3 18
14. US fears faster Iran progress on nuclear
weapons
30-Dec-10 602 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
6. The Iran dilemma: Sanctions hurt, but will
they change regime behaviour?
10-Jan-11 402 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
7. A painful lack of progress with Iran:
Diplomacy still needed to curb Tehran's nuclear
activities
26-Jan-11 400 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
2. Cover Story: The Sabotaging Of Iran
12-Feb-11 4203 0 7 0 2 10 3 0 0 0 6 28
3. Iran's intelligence minister resigns
18-Apr-11 110 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5. Oil groups begin to cut ties with Iran
12-Jan-12 444 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4. Iran's nuclear programme: As the US and EU
impose sanctions on oil imports from the
Islamic Republic, the worry is that Tehran will
simply proceed to produce a bomb or act in a
way that provokes military conflict. By Roula
Khalaf and James Blitz
24-Jan-12 2264 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
13. Western standoff with Iran careers towards
conflict
24-Jan-12 651 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12. Debate on Iran's nuclear programme is hot
ticket: Middle East
27-Jan-12 742 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
11. Cyberattack clouds US-Iran talks
2-Jun-12 619 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
8. Iran uses gathering to recast its image as
victim: Tehran summit
30-Aug-12 716 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
10. Iran claims sabotage of nuclear site
18-Sep-12 409 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
9. Iran reformists fear crackdown after US shift
25-Sep-12 571 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Rust 50

Appendix D: Financial Times

1 0 1 0 0 0 1. Iran blames Israel and US for scientist's killing
0 0 0 0 0 0
14. US fears faster Iran progress on nuclear weapons
0 0 0 0 0 0
6. The Iran dilemma: Sanctions hurt, but will they change
regime behaviour?
0 0 0 0 0 0
7. A painful lack of progress with Iran: Diplomacy still
needed to curb Tehran's nuclear activities
4 2 1 0 0 1
2. Cover Story: The Sabotaging Of Iran
0 0 0 0 0 0
3. Iran's intelligence minister resigns
0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Oil groups begin to cut ties with Iran
0 0 0 0 0 0
4. Iran's nuclear programme: As the US and EUimpose
sanctions on oil imports from the Islamic Republic, the
worry is that Tehran will simply proceed to produce a
bomb or act in a way that provokes military conflict. By
Roula Khalaf and James Blitz
0 0 0 0 0 0
13. Western standoff with Iran careers towards conflict
0 0 0 0 0 0
12. Debate on Iran's nuclear programme is hot ticket:
Middle East
0 0 0 0 0 0
11. Cyberattack clouds US-Iran talks
0 0 0 0 0 0
8. Iran uses gathering to recast its image as victim: Tehran
summit
1 0 0 0 0 1
10. Iran claims sabotage of nuclear site
0 0 0 0 0 0
9. Iran reformists fear crackdown after US shift
Rust 51

Appendix E: Data from the Wall Street Journal
1. U.S. News: U.S.-Iran Feud Hits L.A. --- Tehran Seeks
Crackdown on Dissidents in City; 'We Are Not Soldiers,'
Group Says
10-May-10 990 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3
2. Iran Touts Nuke Gain Ahead of U.S. Talks
6-Dec-10 1143 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3. World News: Iran Nuclear Talks Resume --- Reports on
Discussions Give Mixed Picture; Tuesday Seen as Critical
for Progress
7-Dec-10 752 0 1 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 8
4. World News: U.N. Atomic Chief Boosts Efforts to Inspect
Iran
25-Nov-11 669 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5. Scientist Killing Stokes U.S.-Iran Tensions
12-Jan-12 1031 4 3 3 11 6 1 0 0 0 0 28
6. World News: Iran to Let In U.N. Atomic Inspectors
13-Jan-12 691 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
7. World News: U.S. Warns Israel on Strike --- Officials
Lobby Against Attack on Iran as Military Leaders Bolster
Defenses
14-Jan-12 805 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
8. World News: Israel, U.S. Seek 'Common Ground' on Iran
21-Jan-12 490 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
9. Israel Says Iran Behind Attacks on Diplomats
14-Feb-12 909 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 5
10. Botched Thai Bombing Plot Ratchets Up Pressure on
Iran
15-Feb-12 997 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
11. World News: Iran Cites Nuclear Gains, Offers Talks ---
Tehran, Facing Sanctions and Charges Of Terrorism, Claims
Landmark Advance
2/16/2012 949 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Rust 52

0 0 0 0 0 0
1. U.S. News: U.S.-Iran Feud Hits L.A. --- Tehran
Seeks Crackdown on Dissidents in City; 'We Are Not
Soldiers,' Group Says
0 0 0 0 0 0
2. Iran Touts Nuke Gain Ahead of U.S. Talks
0 0 0 0 0 0
3. World News: Iran Nuclear Talks Resume ---
Reports on Discussions Give Mixed Picture; Tuesday
Seen as Critical for Progress
0 0 0 0 0 0
4. World News: U.N. Atomic Chief Boosts Efforts to
Inspect Iran
0 0 0 0 0 0
5. Scientist Killing Stokes U.S.-Iran Tensions
1 0 0 1 0 0
6. World News: Iran to Let In U.N. Atomic Inspectors
0 0 0 0 0 0
7. World News: U.S. Warns Israel on Strike ---
Officials Lobby Against Attack on Iran as Military
Leaders Bolster Defenses
0 0 0 0 0 0
8. World News: Israel, U.S. Seek 'Common Ground'
on Iran
0 0 0 0 0 0
9. Israel Says Iran Behind Attacks on Diplomats
0 0 0 0 0 0
10. Botched Thai Bombing Plot Ratchets Up Pressure
on Iran
0 0 0 0 0 0
11. World News: Iran Cites Nuclear Gains, Offers
Talks --- Tehran, Facing Sanctions and Charges Of
Terrorism, Claims Landmark Advance

Rust 53

12. U.S. Bulks Up Iran Defenses --- Pentagon Plans New
Sea, Land Measures to Counter Any Attempt to Close
Persian Gulf Oil Gateway
25-Feb-12 1300 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
13. World News: Iran Tries for 'Democratic Energy' ---
Loyalists Embrace Regime Depiction of Election as Message
of Defiance; Reformist Candidates Were Kept Off Ballot
3-Mar-12 816 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
14. Iran's Spymaster Counters U.S. Moves in the Mideast
4-Apr-12 2266 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
15. U.S. News --- CAPITAL JOURNAL: U.S., Israel Need to
Stay in Sync on Iran Talks
10-Apr-12 775 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
16. World News: Iran Hangs Alleged Israeli Agent
16-May-12 138 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 7
17. Information Age: Warnings From 'Hitlerland' About Iran
5/25/2012 834 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
18. Israel Says Iran Behind Deadly Blast in Europe
19-Jul-12 836 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
19. World News: Bulgaria Blames Suicide Bomber ---
Suspect in Attack on Israeli Tourists Seen on Video,
Officials Say; Israel Reiterates Iran Link, as Tehran Denies
Involvement
20-Jul-12 1066 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
20. Iran and the Human Rights Opening
8-Aug-12 862 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
21. A Nuclear Pioneer Resurfaces in Iran
30-Aug-12 1467 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

Rust 54

0 0 0 0 0 0
12. U.S. Bulks Up Iran Defenses --- Pentagon Plans
New Sea, Land Measures to Counter Any Attempt to
Close Persian Gulf Oil Gateway
0 0 0 0 0 0
13. World News: Iran Tries for 'Democratic Energy' ---
Loyalists Embrace Regime Depiction of Election as
Message of Defiance; Reformist Candidates Were
Kept Off Ballot
0 0 0 0 0 0
14. Iran's Spymaster Counters U.S. Moves in the
Mideast
0 0 0 0 0 0
15. U.S. News --- CAPITAL JOURNAL: U.S., Israel Need
to Stay in Sync on Iran Talks
1 0 1 0 0 0
16. World News: Iran Hangs Alleged Israeli Agent
0 0 0 0 0 0
17. Information Age: Warnings From 'Hitlerland'
About Iran
0 0 0 0 0 0
18. Israel Says Iran Behind Deadly Blast in Europe
0 0 0 0 0 0
19. World News: Bulgaria Blames Suicide Bomber ---
Suspect in Attack on Israeli Tourists Seen on Video,
Officials Say; Israel Reiterates Iran Link, as Tehran
Denies Involvement
0 0 0 0 0 0
20. Iran and the Human Rights Opening
1 0 0 1 0 0
21. A Nuclear Pioneer Resurfaces in Iran
Rust 55

Appendix F: Data from the Washington Times
1. War with Iran nears: Assassinated scientist alerts
to more bloodshed ahead
13-Jan-10 576 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
2. Israel arms may not be enough to stop nukes:
Strategist suggests cutting Iran's power
24-May-10 1323 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. Air attacks on Iran called 'a dumb idea': Ex-
Mossad chief: Distruptive tactics best way to
control the nuclear threat
10-May-11 508 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3. Exhaust all other options with Iran before war
3-Jun-11 187 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4. The shadow war against Iran: Key assets in
Islamic Republic's nuclear program conveniently
explode
1-Dec-11 524 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
2. Blast hits another plant in Iran: Suspicion that
saboteurs are targeting missile, nuclear sites
13-Dec-11 366 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6
1. Israel: Iran bombed diplomatic car: Explosion in
India, defused bomb in Georgia like attacks on
Iranian scientists
14-Feb-12 553 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4
5. U.S. concerned about spike in Iran-Israel
'shadow war'
15-Feb-12 1142 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6. Iran bombs: The mullahs' assassination attempts
fail - this time
16-Feb-12 510 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1
7. U.S. seen as Iran 'cyber-army' target: Specialists
to testify about threat
26-Apr-12 1016 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6

Rust 56

Appendix F: Data from the Washington Times
0 0 0 0 0 0
1. War with Iran nears: Assassinated scientist
alerts to more bloodshed ahead
0 0 0 0 0 0
2. Israel arms may not be enough to stop
nukes: Strategist suggests cutting Iran's power
0 0 0 0 0 0
3. Air attacks on Iran called 'a dumb idea': Ex-
Mossad chief: Distruptive tactics best way to
control the nuclear threat
0 0 0 0 0 0
3. Exhaust all other options with Iran before
war
1 1 0 0 0 0
4. The shadow war against Iran: Key assets in
Islamic Republic's nuclear program
conveniently explode
0 0 0 0 0 0
2. Blast hits another plant in Iran: Suspicion
that saboteurs are targeting missile, nuclear
sites
0 0 0 0 0 0
1. Israel: Iran bombed diplomatic car:
Explosion in India, defused bomb in Georgia
like attacks on Iranian scientists
1 0 1 0 0 0
5. U.S. concerned about spike in Iran-Israel
'shadow war'
0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Iran bombs: The mullahs' assassination
attempts fail - this time
0 0 0 0 0 0
7. U.S. seen as Iran 'cyber-army' target:
Specialists to testify about threat
Rust 57

Works Cited
Aleaziz, Hamed. "Tracking the Secret War on Iran." Mother Jones 02/09/2012Print.
Blair, David. "Iran nuclear scientist dead: mysterious recent deaths and disappearances." The
Telegraph. 11 Jan 2012Web.
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9007304/Iran-nuclear-scientist-
dead-mysterious-recent-deaths-and-disappearances.html>.
Brulliard, Karin. "Israel Says it Will Retaliate Against Iran for Bulgaria Bombing." The Washington Post:
A.11. Jul 20, 2012 2012. Print.
Druckman, James N., and Michael Parkin. "The Impact of Media Bias: How Editorial Slant Affects
Voters." The Journal of Politics 67.4 (2005): 1030-49. Print.
Erdbrink, Thomas, and Joby Warrick. "Iran Facing Increased Isolation After Embassy Rampage." The
Washington Post: A.11. Dec 1, 2011 2011. Print.
Fairclough, Gordon, Joshua Mitnick and Farnaz Fassihi. "World News: Bulgaria Blames Suicide Bomber
--- Suspect in Attack on Israeli Tourists seen on Video, Officials Say; Israel Reiterates Iran Link,
as Tehran Denies Involvement." Wall Street Journal: A.5. Jul 20, 2012 2012. Print.
Falk, Richard. "The Iran Hostage Crisis: Easy Answers and Hard Questions." American Journal of
International Law 74 (1980): 411-7. Print.
Greenberg, Joel. "Israel Cites More Links to Iran in Bombings." The Washington Post: A.12. Feb 16,
2012 2012. Print.
Groseclose, T., and J. Milyo. "A Measure of Media Bias." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 120.4
(2005): 1191-237. Print.
Hickman, J., and S. Bartlett. "Reporting a New Delhi Bias? A Content Analysis of AP Wire Stories on
the Conflicts in Sri Lanka and Kashmir." Jouvert.A Journal of Postcolonial Studies 6.3 (2002)Print.
Rust 58

"Iran." 2012.Web. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/116236/Iran.aspx>.
James Blitz, et al. "Cover Story: The Sabotaging of Iran." Financial Times: 14. Feb 12, 2011 2011.
Print.
James Blitz, and Najmeh Bozorgmehr. "Cyberattack Clouds US-Iran Talks." Financial Times: 8. Jun 2,
2012 2012. Print.
---. "Iran Claims Sabotage of Nuclear Site." Financial Times: 4. Sep 18, 2012 2012. Print.
Jay Solomon, and Farnaz Fassihi. "World News: Iran Nuclear Talks Resume --- Reports on Discussions
Give Mixed Picture; Tuesday seen as Critical for Progress." Wall Street Journal: A.10. Dec 7, 2010
2010. Print.
Johnson, Bridget. "As deadline looms, Iran nuclear program poses challenge to Obama,
Congress." The Hill. 2009.Web. 11/17/12 <http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/73599-
as-deadline-looms-iran-nuclear-program-poses-challenge>.
Johnson, J. B., R. A. Joslyn, and H. T. Reynolds. Political Science Research Methods. Cq Press, 1995.
Print.
Kegley, Charles W., and Eugene R. Wittkopf. American Foreign Policy. Ed. Beth A. Gillet. 5th ed. New
York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1995. Print.
Lichter, S. R., S. Rothman, and L. S. Lichter. The Media Elite. Adler & Adler Bethesda, MD, 1986. Print.
Lundman, Richard J. "The Newsworthiness and Selection Bias in News about Murder: Comparative and
Relative Effects of Novelty and Race and Gender Typifications on Newspaper Coverage of
Homicide." Sociological Forum 18.3 (2003): 357-86. Print.
McCormick, J. M. American Foreign Policy and Process. Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
Meikle, James. "Iran: timeline of attacks." The Guardian. 11 January 2012Web.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/11/secret-war-iran-timeline-attacks>.
Rust 59

Mendes, Elizabeth. "Americans Continue to Tilt Pro-Israel." Gallup. March 2, 2012Web.
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/153092/Americans-Continue-Tilt-Pro-Israel.aspx>.
Mitnick, Joshua. "World News: Israel, U.S. Seek 'Common Ground' on Iran." Wall Street Journal: A.7.
Jan 21, 2012 2012. Print.
---. "World News: Israel, U.S. Seek 'Common Ground' on Iran." Wall Street Journal: A.7. Jan 21, 2012
2012. Print.
Mott, Frank Luther. "Trends in Newspaper Content." Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science 219 (1942): 60-5. Print.
Nicholas Kulish, and Jodi Rudoren. "Plots are Tied to Shadow War of Israel and Iran." New York Times:
A.1. Aug 9, 2012 2012. Print.
O'Heffernan, P. "A Mutual Exploitation Model of Media Influence in US Foreign Policy." Bennett and
Paletz, eds., Taken By Storm (1994): 240. Print.
"Pew Global Attitudes Project." 2012.Web.
<http://www.pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=25&survey=14&response=Unfavorable&mode=
chart>.
Rowan Scarborough, and THE WASHINGTON TIMES. "Israel Arms may Not be enough to Stop
Nukes." Washington Times: A.1. May 24, 2010 2010. Print.
Scott, Shane. "Iran Adversaries Said to Step Up Covert Actions." New York Times: A.1. Jan 12, 2012
2012. Print.
Taha Siddiqui. "AQ Khan: Father of Pakistan's Nuclear Bomb Jumps into Politics." The Christian
Science Monitor: n/a. Nov 11, 2012 2012. Print.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES. "The Shadow War Against Iran." Washington Times: B.2. Dec 1, 2011
2011. Print.
Rust 60

To download the data for this
paper, go to
http://goo.gl/W5rng or scan
this QR code:

Or to download this paper, go to
http://goo.gl/r5R4j or scan this QR code:

Rust 61

1
Iran, 2012, Gallup, 11/17 2012 <http://www.gallup.com/poll/116236/Iran.aspx>.
2
Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2012, Pew Research Center, 11/17 2012
<http://www.pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=25&survey=14&response=Unfavorable&mode=chart>
.
3
Iran nuclear scientist dead: mysterious recent deaths and disappearances, 11 Jan 2012 The Telegraph,
11/17 2012 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9007304/Iran-nuclear-
scientist-dead-mysterious-recent-deaths-and-disappearances.html>.
4
Nicholas Kulish and Jodi Rudoren, "Plots Are Tied to Shadow War of Israel and Iran," New York Times
Aug 9, 2012 2012, : A.1, .
5
Aug 9, 2012 2012, : A.1, .
6
Hamed Aleaziz, "Tracking the Secret War on Iran," Mother Jones 02/09/2012.
7
Frank Luther Mott. "Trends in Newspaper Content." Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science 219 (1942): 60-5. Print.
8
Charles W. Kegley and Eugene R. Wittkopf. American Foreign Policy. Ed. Beth A. Gillet. 5th ed. New
9
J. Hickman and S. Bartlett. "Reporting a New Delhi Bias? A Content Analysis of AP Wire Stories on the
Conflicts in Sri Lanka and Kashmir." Jouvert.A Journal of Postcolonial Studies 6.3 (2002) Print.
10
J. Hickman and S. Bartlett. "Reporting a New Delhi Bias? A Content Analysis of AP Wire Stories on the
Conflicts in Sri Lanka and Kashmir." Jouvert.A Journal of Postcolonial Studies 6.3 (2002) Print.
11
J. M. McCormick. American Foreign Policy and Process. Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
12
13
14
15
16
17
S. R. Lichter, S. Rothman, and L. S. Lichter. The media elite. Adler & Adler Bethesda, MD, 1986. Print.
Rust 62

18
T. Groseclose and J. Milyo. "A measure of media bias." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 120.4
(2005): 1191-237. Print.
19
20
21
P. O'Heffernan. "A mutual exploitation model of media influence in US foreign policy." Bennett and
Paletz, eds., Taken By Storm (1994): 240. Print.
22
23
24
Richard Falk. "The Iran Hostage Crisis: Easy Answers and Hard Questions." American Journal of
International Law 74 (1980): 411-7. Print.
25
Richard Falk. "The Iran Hostage Crisis: Easy Answers and Hard Questions." American Journal of
International Law 74 (1980): 411-7. Print., "Pew Global Attitudes Project."
26
Aug 9, 2012 2012, : A.1, .
27
28
29
Taha Siddiqui, "AQ Khan: Father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb jumps into politics," The Christian Science
Monitor Nov 11, 2012 2012, : n/a, .
30
31
Aug 9, 2012 2012, : A.1, .
32
Richard J. Lundman. "The Newsworthiness and Selection Bias in News about Murder: Comparative
and Relative Effects of Novelty and Race and Gender Typifications on Newspaper Coverage of
Homicide." Sociological Forum 18.3 (2003): 357-86. Print.
33
34
35
Americans Continue to Tilt Pro-Israel, March 2, 2012 Gallup, 11/17 2012
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/153092/Americans-Continue-Tilt-Pro-Israel.aspx>.
36
Shane Scott, "Iran Adversaries Said To Step Up Covert Actions," New York Times Jan 12, 2012 2012, :
A.1, .
Rust 63

37
As deadline looms, Iran nuclear program poses challenge to Obama, Congress, 2009,
<http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/73599-as-deadline-looms-iran-nuclear-program-poses-
challenge>.
38
James Blitz, et al, "Cover Story: The Sabotaging Of Iran," Financial Times Feb 12, 2011 2011, : 14, .
39
James Blitz and Najmeh Bozorgmehr, "Iran claims sabotage of nuclear site," Financial Times Sep 18,
2012 2012b, : 4, .
40
James Blitz and Najmeh Bozorgmehr, "Cyberattack clouds US-Iran talks," Financial Times Jun 2, 2012
2012a, : 8, .
41
Jay Solomon and Farnaz Fassihi, "World News: Iran Nuclear Talks Resume --- Reports on Discussions
Give Mixed Picture; Tuesday Seen as Critical for Progress," Wall Street Journal Dec 7, 2010 2010, : A.10, .
42
Rowan Scarborough and THE WASHINGTON TIMES, "Israel arms may not be enough to stop nukes,"
Washington Times May 24, 2010 2010, : A.1, .
43
THE WASHINGTON TIMES, "The shadow war against Iran," Washington Times Dec 1, 2011 2011, : B.2, .
44
45
46
Charles W. Kegley and Eugene R. Wittkopf. American Foreign Policy. Ed. Beth A. Gillet. 5th ed. New
47
48

Trends in Journalistic Coverage of Iran's Killed Scientists

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trends in Journalistic Coverage of Iran's Killed Scientists

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trends in Journalistic Coverage of

Irans Killed Scientists

You might also like

Trends in Journalistic Coverage of Iran&#39;s Killed Scientists

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trends in Journalistic Coverage of Iran&#39;s Killed Scientists

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trends in Journalistic Coverage of

Irans Killed Scientists

You might also like

Trends in Journalistic Coverage of Iran's Killed Scientists

Trends in Journalistic Coverage of Iran's Killed Scientists