ABSTRACT

The 9/11 incident is said to have been the beginning of the peak for public triggering against the
concept of Islam, Muslims, and the Arab world. This can also be called Islamophobia which
cannot be separated from the influence caused by the foreign policy taken by President George W.
Bush, especially after the 9/11 incident. There has been a major shift and transformation of the
natural attitude of the United States' foreign policy which tends to be offensive and sensitive to
the threat of terrorism. The term "War on Terror" refers to the high possibility of terror threats
coming from Islam, Muslims, and the Arab world. Public fear has always been led by media
agencies reporting that Bush's foreign policy making is too frontal and excessive, especially The
New York Times. So along with these issues, this paper seeks to find answers to how Bush's
post-9/11 foreign policy framing by The New York Times triggered the concept of Islamophobia.
This paper will use media framing theory as an analytical tool with qualitative data processing.

Keywords: 9/11, Bush Foreign Policy, The New York Times, Media Framing, Islamophobia

I. INTRODUCTION

The war on terror has been anything but average since its inception. It has gone beyond
the known limitations of diplomacy and quick resolution and has defied the standing conventions
of war as we knew it previously. The war on terror has expanded into an limitable fight against
the amorphous menace of terrorism aginst the civiled world with the U.S. serving as its sentry and
Islam looming as its evil antithesis. Beyond actual national security concerns, countries all over
the world have used the conflation of Islam and terrorism to advance certain national agendas.
This American War on Terror gave countries permission, as well as a policing template and
terminology, to profile and oppress their Muslim minorities. The spike of vigilante violence
against Muslims and "Muslim-looking" groups in the United States, fueled by quick official
action such as the War in Afghanistan and the USA PATRIOT Act, had a global impact.

This American Islamophobia was exported around the world through policy and
propaganda as the patriot act domestic surveillance of muslim communities was replicated abroad
restictions on Muslim immigration were tightened and most importanly states adopted the
fundamental war on baseline that muslim identity was presumptive and predictive of terrorism.
The War on Terror framing of an Islamic and Muslim threat intensified animus toward Muslim
individuals, institutions, and states. This animus ultimately came to be known as Islamophobia,
the “fear, suspicion and violent targeting of Muslims'' by individuals and private and state actors.
More than merely hatred or fear, Islamophobic action can be driven by rational or irrational
motives. Understanding how it is wielded rationally is critical for understanding how foreign
governments seize upon Islamophobia as an expedient to further their political objectives.
Islamophobia is also a political tool and must be understood as such when examining the War on
Terror, and how nation states deploy it today.

Furthermore, Bush's actions after the incident were to use the role of the media as a
means of information, which became very vulnerable to being used as a framing tool just for
commercial gain. After the events of 9/11, the media coverage was very still and connected the
incident with Muslims, this greatly influenced the policies issued by Bush. Concerns raised by
media framing also have an impact on the creation of the phenomenon of Islamophobia in the
society of western countries. In constructivism, the use of media framing is very influential in the
formation of public opinion so that it changes the social construction in society. The social
construction that occurred in the end prompted the government to issue policies that were solely
aimed at dealing with the problems at hand or in this case "terrorism" (Osman, 2013).

However, the fear of terror after the 9/11 incident was not only seen from how the media
highlighted and covered the case. Media literacy is important in this regard. Misunderstanding in
interpreting the news can be a trigger for the perception of Islamophobia. As explained by Susan
Moeller (2009), media literacy is the basis for the public to be able to (1) identify the types of
news discussed by the media, including really understanding the actors involved; (2) able to
analyze and absorb media coverage from an individual or a certain event; (3) able to understand
the media's efforts in highlighting a case. News that is too exaggerated and too far-fetched may
further aggravate the community's perception or interpretation. This is surely a problem that
needs to be taken seriously, especially since the perception of Islamophobia after 9/11 always
remains in the minds of the international community. Concerns about the threat that might come
from the Islamic community, Muslims, and the Arab world have become widespread, creating
bad paradigms and speculations that may not necessarily be true. The Islamic community,
Muslims and the Arab world have become topics of interest for news agencies, especially The
New York Times. It is clear that The New York Times is not a new actor in the realm of news, both
nationally and internationally. The New York Times is one of the oldest media agencies in the US
and its coverage tends to have a strong influence in the eyes of the public. Founded in 1851, The
New York Times managed to become the first choice of readers (Hawkins, 2012). This is
evidenced by the increasing number of newspaper editions purchased from 1985-2013 (Bleich et
al, 2015). This of course leads the international community's opinion on Islam, Muslims, and the
Arab world. Thus, this paper seeks to find out how The New York Times framed the U.S. foreign
policy taken by President Bush which was considered repressive and offensive to the perception
of Islamophobia.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

President George W. Bush Affection to U.S Foreign Policy

The U.S. system at the moment under President George W. Bush administration was
surely repressive. David (1996) stated that Bush is a friendly person and tends to talk face-to-face
with his interlocutor that means he is truly a straight-forward person. Bush put forward
negotiations that made him stick to the concept of "open skies" policy in his efforts to take a
single policy. In his book "American Foreign Policy and Process" McCormick (2010) explains
that the perception and style of the Bush administration when he became president of the U.S.
seemed pragmatic and full of moderation. Pragmatization made Bush's foreign policy seem
flexible and dynamic following global changes. The political realism approach is still strongly
implemented in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. policy during the George W. Bush administration
was heavily influenced by the Jewish lobby and Neo-Conservative groups and the group, also
known as the neocons, has a policy color and it tends to be repressive and militaristic (Edgerton,
2007).

However, Bush continued to seek the right role in ongoing issues both domestically and
internationally. Bush brought the U.S into the middle of the Cambodia and Panama dispute which
signifies the closeness of the U.S. to developing countries. Bush's efforts in this regard aim to
further expand the influence and power of the U.S. through U.S. participation and involvement in
issues that are of concern to the global community. Under his control, the U.S. has also realized
the power that China has, especially in economic ingenuity and trade. Bush understands that
China can become allies and enemies at the same time, so it is important for Bush to be able to
maintain harmony between the two but remain firm in placing restrictions on the Chinese
economy. However, Bush's diplomatic relations are increasingly being carried out in order to
maximize the potential of the U.S. in the economic sphere.
 After the cold war, Bush continued to carry the influence of the U.S. until he was able to
control the European continent. The instability that occurred on the European continent caused
Bush to aggressively approach and interact to promote his abilities, especially in supporting the
economic recovery of European countries. The U.S. is confident in welcoming the European
region with the aid of funds distributed to social fields such as food security, environmental funds,
agricultural support programs, technical training, events for the educational sphere. Reunification
became the main motto for Bush in promoting the form of U.S. interaction with European
countries which proved to be able to unite Germany, which was originally divided into two poles
(McCormick, 2010). From this it can be seen that Bush continues to prioritize interaction to
create harmonization for the U.S. with other strong countries in order to manage his foreign
policies. Under his administration, President Bush involved many institutions and organizations
as a manifestation of the existence of non-state actors in the U.S. government. Through these
institutions, Bush involved the U.S. in various agreements to further strengthen U.S. interaction.
Moreover, the agreement to prevent nuclear empowerment that occurred after the cold war was
quite tense. With this it is clear that the U.S. under Bush is very careful about all actions that can
threaten peace and security both nationally and internationally. Through lots of institutional
approaches, the U.S. managed to enter and position itself as a mediator in the middle of
Iraq-Kuwait, both of which were allegedly pitting each other economically. McCormick (2010)
stated that it seems that Bush's efforts to involve the U.S. in the midst of the Iraq-Kuwait riots
cannot be carried out in a negotiable manner. This forced Bush to intervene massively by sending
U.S. troops in the midst of the Iraq-Kuwait conflict. In conducting a deep intervention, the U.S.
cooperated with the UNSC which succeeded in passing resolutions that ended in the final in 1991
with all forms of fines and losses given to Iraq. Bush believed that lasting peace would be more
difficult than winning a brief war. Not only in the field of security, humanitarian assistance is
also a mission from the U.S.

The U.S. foreign policy during the George W. Bush administration had motives and
objectives to seize global economic dominance and the issue of eradication international terrorism
as a U.S. government mega project in order to the most surviving country in the world. However,
it turns out that this action does not necessarily make this superpower escape from various threats
and terrors. Especially when the attack on September 11 2001 began. The terrorist attack was
orchestrated by Osama bin Laden, a head of the militant organization al-Qaeda. Bin Laden and
Abu Walid al-Masri, having quite naive thoughts about the United States, thought that the United
States was starting to weaken. Bin Laden thought of this because he saw the incident in Beirut,
where the bombing of the marine barracks caused the U.S. to leave Lebanon. Not only that, in
1993, the U.S. declared its troop withdrawal in Somalia, following the death of 18 soldiers in
Mogadishu, and the withdrawal of American troops in Vietnam in the 1970s. This trend of
withdrawal of troops that America did create the thought for carrying out the attack. On
September 11, al-Qaeda demonstrated the strength of the organization. Responding to this,
President Bush with his tough stance brought the U.S. to give birth to a new kind of bipolar
structure that complicates the patterns of relations between countries. President Bush's statement,
"either you are with us or you are with the terrorists," in black and white depicts a world that is
split in a fight between the forces of good and the forces of evil. The U.S. government's policy of
tending to use militaristic instrumen rather than interfaith deliberation has resulted in growing
symptoms of fundamentalism, especially in Islamic Countries of the Middle East. The
phenomenon of Middle East Islamic fundamentalism is evidenced by the Hamas movement in
Palestine which has always been a hot topic in various media, especially European-American
media.

In the section “The Values and Beliefs of The Bush Administration: Prior to September
11”. McCormick said that because George W. Bush was philosophically inclined to follow the
foreign policy of his father's administration, it was because the policies abandoned by President
Clinton were deeply disliked. From the very beginning of the election, President Bush was very
against the policies taken by Clinton. According to him, it connects with his political preferences
which can be stated as realists, foreign policy conservatives and non-conservatives, also allowing
veterans contemplating the recent Republican government. Overall, Bush's top advisers are
Washington and foreign policy veterans. During the first period, as noted, some were more
ideological and more unilateralist than their predecessors in the Clinton administration
(McCormick, 2010). During Bush's second term, some neoconservatives were replaced with more
traditional conservatives and political realists. However, at that time, the basic direction of the
government's foreign policy had been set. As we note later in this chapter, there have been several
attempts to moderate the direction of foreign policy in the second period with limited success.
These efforts have been largely overshadowed by existing events and policies (McCormick,
2010).

According to Douglas Kellner (2003) in his book "From 9/11 To Terror War: The
Dangers Of The Bush Legacy'' in the section "The New Militarism, Lies and Propaganda, and the
High Costs of The Bush Presidency", where Kellner said that in history the American presidency,
the rare occurrence of criticism of the American president that receives the amount and intensity
of criticism around the world in which Bush's discourse emerges as the "Axis of evil". This term
itself shows the world that the Bush administration does not fit into contemporary complexities.
The policies issued by Bush were always beneficial to his family business, quoted from Kellner's
book (2003), decisions made by President Bush were always based on the economics of family,
friends, supporters and there was also a dimension where religious fundamentalism combines, as
well as fuel militarism elements. This states that people's views on the decisions taken by Bush
are very close to their personal interests, which has received very sharp criticism by many groups
and elements of society (Kellner, 2003).

During his stopover visit in Alaska on February 16 to encourage troops on their way
to Japan, South Korea, and China, Bush used a quite sensitive sentence, in which Bush said to
“Stand with us in this incredibly important Crusade to defend freedom, this campaign to do what
is right for our children and grandchildren”. For that Bush combined moral and religious rhetoric
to support his military process. Meanwhile, US allies became very uneasy about Bush's decision.
By building a missile defense system that would cripple existing arms deals and balances, and
intensify the Bush administration's foreign policy unilateralism, it goes beyond the war on
terrorism to embrace US dominance in the world, especially post 9/11 incident and many years
after. From the decisions taken by Bush for the world, it greatly influences the views of the global
community to criticize his targets (Kellner, 2003).

Media Existence and Contribution

Montgomery (2003) stated that during his reign, President Bush was close to media
agencies. Media becomes a tool and plays an important role in public policy making. The power
that the media has puts it in an important position so that it can influence government policies and
actions. In accordance with the approach found by Siebert in 1952 and highlighted by
Montgomery examines that the media has a strong attachment to the state and has the freedom to
expressly cover the actual conditions in the government order to the public. Expressive news
about the government will be widely disseminated through the printed media and then the public's
reaction will have an influence on foreign policy making (Montgomery, 2003). However, not all
media have the same responsibility for everything that is disclosed to the public. Quite a number
of media agencies have been proven to reveal things that are wrong or not according to facts
(Montgomery, 2003).
 It is truly undeniable that the existence of the media now holds a fairly strong control.
Media involvement in certain issues is not new in the global order. Responding to this issue,
Robinson (2002) through his book The CNN Effect clearly echoes his criticism of media
intervention that tends to be biased and can even exceed its capabilities. Its strong influence in
efforts to influence the public is even suspected to have an impact on policy making both
domestically as well as foreign policy. Moeller (2009) agrees that the influence of the media is so
strong that it can influence the political policies of a state. With this, she stated that the media has
a strong interaction relationship with politics and the state itself. The state has the right to control
the media and often the media becomes an instrument for the state to promote things that are its
targets and interests (Moeller, 1999). Thus, Robinson (2002) said that the state has regulated the
media to intervene in a particular case with the aim of making it easier for the country to get
public attention so that the goal can be realized. On the other hand, Moeller (1999) asserts that the
media become a platform to realize the desires and wishes of the public. There are times when the
media encourage the will and expectations of news consumers to high-ranking officials or even to
a single state.

The 9/11 event was surely traumatic for half of the world. This event brings a new
concept to the international structure as a “new world order” whereas trouble and threats may
come from many ways. In the days following September 11, footage of the attack was replayed in
the media many times, as were scenes of crowds of people, stricken with grief, gathering at
“Ground Zero” as the site where the tower once stood. for the general public, some with photos of
lost loved ones, looking for clues about their fate (Toros, 2017). The media has started to report
massively and almost spread non-stop about the conditions in the middle east which tend to be the
forerunner of all terror threats. Montgomery (2003) states that journalists are very passionate
about covering terror incidents and do not hesitate to report frontally to the public. Manipulation
on news is often found in a few journalists who are not responsible. The concept of the "war on
terror" policy that Bush promoted after the 9/11 incidents made headlines in almost all news
agencies in the U.S. Bush's foreign policy began to be covered and sometimes the news added
spice to make the news more heated. Montgomery (2003) said that the Bush administration
enlivened the media with propaganda and the concept of “war on terror” was exaggerated.
Through the media, Bush said that the post 9/11 was the beginning for the U.S. to fight against all
acts of terror and has given warnings to the countries that have the potential to threaten security
(McCormick, 2010).
 American Muslims are increasingly stigmatized and may experience backlash in the
American news media and by the public. No studies to date, however, have empirically assessed
the sentiment of American Muslim cable news coverage over a long period of time and evaluated
its effect on mass attitudes. The influence on the attitude of this period occurs from the lack of
knowledge about Islam is a big factor for western countries to understand Islam. Islamophobia
arises because of the dualistic relationship between eastern and western cultures, where
explanations and understandings that are not synchronized from both parties create a bad view for
Islam. With the western news bigger role, it is used with a low understanding, presenting events
using certain terms because they want to show the fear of Islam. The reason is also because the
majority of the audience thinks that Islam itself is a terrorist, so this is abused in the United States
media. In this case, the policy of a president is something that does provide little input to the
community where Islam is the "opponent" of the United States. However, if broken down in more
detail, Islamophobia in the community is a construct and development of media perception in the
name of Islam in terrorism as its biggest element.

In a journal entitled 'The Vermin have struck again': Dehumanizing the enemy in post
9/11 media representation”, it is explained where media errors can lead to misunderstandings in
public perception. In a world that is increasingly deprived of global stability, concerns about the
potential for media outlets to lead to further violence are real and immediate. The media which is
now mainstream and runs parallel to the government should pay more attention if journalism
begins to touch things that are considered conflict sensitive. There are those who certainly think
that journalists have a choice in their nature and ways to cover the news, but by refusing the new
format, they fear that it can have a bad impact on public perceptions regarding sensitive conflicts,
especially religion, it is feared that it will not provide a way out of what is currently happening.
The solution currently being sought is how journalists can highlight issues related to human rights
and their violations as an example, instead of focusing on coverage that focuses on hate crimes,
hate groups and not discussing sensitive issues and long-standing conflicts.

Other than that, the presence of the media in highlighting an issue is strongly related to
media literacy which certainly becomes important to be present in the community. The public or
society, or can also be referred to as consumers as well as connoisseurs of news, need to coexist
with media literacy. As mentioned in Susan Moeller's (2009) discussion that media literacy is the
basis for the public to be able to (1) identify the types of news discussed by the media, including
really understanding the actors involved; (2) able to analyze and absorb media coverage from an
individual or a certain event; (3) able to understand the media's efforts in highlighting a case.
According to Susan Moeller, this is so important given the rapid growth of media in society with
various types of news that can be misinterpreted by news consumers who are not skilled in media
literacy. The tendency of literacy makes a misunderstanding of a news story that starts from the
inhibition of the critical thinking process. Thus, the exposure of media publications does not only
need to be filtered in one direction, in the sense that it is only seen in terms of how the media
highlight the news. But it needs to be in two directions which need to follow up on how people
interpret the news (Moeller, 2009).

Montgomery (2003) also proves that Americans have a low absorption capacity for
reporting on an issue. This is what makes the news confusing and misinterpreted. In addition to
the lack of ability to read the news correctly and coherently, people tend not to care about the
conditions that are happening around them. The type of media presented is also one of the
influencing factors. Entertainment and talk-shows are becoming more interesting than daily news
which tends to be heavy and boring. The world's population, the majority of whom are teenagers,
has a clear influence on the shifting interest of media consumers towards serious news.
Montgomery (2003) also admits that Americans have undergone a media transformation in which
technology has almost changed everything. The emergence of the internet became the initial
milestone in the transformation of printed media to digital. News was increasingly covered in
brief and began to limit the distribution of printed media. However, the events of 9/11 have again
increased public interest in serious news, especially those related to war and the middle east. The
threat of terror continues to be reported massively.

Theory Framework : Media Framing Analysis

Framing is a way of how events are presented by the media. The presentation is done by
emphasizing certain parts, highlighting certain aspects and raising certain ways of telling stories
from a reality. The media connect and highlight events so that the meaning of the event is easier
for the audience to remember. Therefore, as Frank D. Durham said, framing makes the world
more known and more understandable. Complex reality is understood and simplified in certain
categories. According to the subjective view, social reality is a fluid condition and is easily
changed through human interaction in everyday life. Framing analysis can simply be described as
an analysis to find out how reality (events, actors, groups or whatever) is framed by the media.
The framing is of course through the construction process. In Framing analysis, reality is used and
constructed with a certain meaning (Mulyana, 2006).

According to Erving Goffman sociologically the concept of frame analysis maintains the
continuity of our habit of classifying, organizing and actively interpreting our life experiences in
order to understand them. These interpretative schemata are called frames, which allow
individuals to localize, perceive, identify and label events and information. Framing analysis that
is the center of attention is the formation of messages from the text. Framing, especially looking
at how messages/events are constructed by the media. How journalists construct events and
present them to the public. The method of framing analysis that we see is how the media interpret,
understand and frame the cases/events that are reported. This kind of method, of course, seeks to
understand and interpret the meaning of a text by describing how the media frame the issue. The
same event may be framed differently by the media (Verhoeven, 1985).

There are several models of framing analysis that can be used to analyze media texts, one
of which is Robert N. Entman's analytical model used in this study. According to Robert N.
Entman what we know about reality or about the world depends on how we frame and interpret
that reality. Entman sees framing in two broad dimensions: issue selection and emphasizing or
highlighting certain aspects of reality/issues. Framing is carried out by the media by selecting
certain issues and ignoring other issues. Framing is an approach to find out the perspective or
point of view used by journalists when selecting issues and writing news. The concept of framing,
in Entman's view, consistently offers a way to reveal the power of a communication text. Framing
basically refers to reporting definitions, explanations, evaluations, and recommendations in a
discourse to emphasize a certain frame of mind for the events being discussed. To find out how
the framing is done by the media, there is a framing device proposed by Entman that can describe
how an event is interpreted and marked by journalists (Launa, 2020).

Entman divides the framing device into four elements as follows: the first element is
define problems, where this element is the main frame/master frame that emphasizes how events
are interpreted differently by journalists, then the reality that is formed will be different. The
second element is diagnosis causes which is a framing element that is used to frame who is
considered an actor of an event. Cause here can mean “what”, but it can also mean “who”. How
events are understood, of course, determines what and who is considered the source of the
problem. Therefore, if the problem is understood differently, the cause of the problem will be
understood differently. In other words, defining the source of the problem explains who is
considered the perpetrator and who is the victim in the case. The third element is justify argument
which is a framing element that is used to justify/provide an argument for the definition of the
problem that has been made. Once the problem is defined and the cause of the problem has been
determined, a strong argument is needed to support the idea. The ideas quoted relate to something
that is familiar and known to the audience. Finally, the fourth element is a treatment
recommendation which is used to assess what journalists want. What path to choose to solve the
problem. The solution, of course, really depends on how the event is seen and who is seen as the
cause of the problem (Anggoro, 2014).

Margaret Linström together with Willemien Marais (2012) tried to review the
understanding of the concept of frame analysis, approaches in studying news framing, and
qualitative news frame analysis in their journal “Qualitative News Frame Analysis”. The frame
analysis described in this journal has four main objectives in the context of media research,
namely to define problems, to diagnose courses, to make value judgments, and to suggest
solutions. Linström and Marais (2012) define their own frame analysis from various experts
which can be concluded that the definition of frame analysis itself is used to find out how the
perspective used by journalists in selecting issues and writing news. That perspective and vantage
point as well determine what facts are taken, which parts are highlighted and omitted and where
the news will be taken. The concept of framing has recently been widely used in the
communication science literature to describe the process of selecting and highlighting special
aspects of a news story by the media. Adding news frame analysis as a form of qualitative content
analysis can be done for media research purposes related to explaining communication content,
comparing media content to the real world situation, and setting a starting point for media effects
studies. In this journal the area of concern regarding this methodology remains the subjectivity of
the process, coupled with the fact that consensus on a standard frame typology does not yet exist
(Linström & Marais, 2012).

Thus, Scheufele (2004) explained that the concept of framing is considered as one of the
most prominent features in the field of communication science which focuses on the effect of
framing on media recipients, namely media users. In short, his journal “Framing Effects
Approach: A Theoretical and Methodological Critique” limited his focus on discussing the study
of the framing effect in terms of theory, methods and empirical results. Scheufele (2004) tried to
illustrate that the concept of 'frame' can be identified through three levels of the system, namely
the horizontal, vertical, and cognitive levels. From the three classifications, it is possible to
specify three research branches of the framing concept itself, namely the communicator approach,
the public discourse approach, and the media effects approach. What he wrote also focuses more
on elaborating on the differences related to schema theory and subschema in which case framing
will only be a kind of main schema. However, scheufele (2004) has pointed out several important
factors that need to be highlighted. First, he denied that the schema governing the frame refers to
a different class of object or relationship. Second, the schema hierarchy equates the problem and
the frame applied to the problem. Two simple considerations prove that a distinction between
issues and frames is necessary: The same frame can be applied to different issues. And different
frames can be applied to the same problem. Therefore, all these problems require a pragmatic
solution as given here. The advantage of this journal is that in describing the use of the theory of
the framing effect itself, the author tries to illustrate using examples that are often and easily
found in everyday life so that readers can easily capture the implementation of the theory
(Scheufele, 2004).

In this everyday life, news is often enthusiastic when it encounters a phenomenon or

incident that is being discussed by the public. Various points of view try to process and re-explain
the series of events from the hot news that happened in the community. This is proven after the
9/11 incident which was pioneered as the initial act of the emergence of acts of terrorism
originating from Islam, Muslims, and the Arab world. Media agencies started arriving to cover
the events that took place as well as the background that led to the horrific events. In this case,
each media agency certainly has its beliefs and sides in which it affects how news is reviewed and
broadcast to the public (Ireton & Posetti, 2018). On the section of “Framing Terrorism: The News
Media and Government and The Public” Norris et al. (2003) discusses the events of the 9/11
attacks which then made the circulation of framing terrorism in the world from satellite to
satellite. Smith (2013) then explains people transparently changed their views on Islam after the
9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, United States, where previously many Americans did not
think about or pay attention to Islam, but since the 9/11 attacks. Months later, the echoes and
aftershocks triggered by this event continue to influence international relations, domestic policy,
and public opinion. President Bush began to restructure both domestic as well as especially for
U.S. foreign policy.

One of the important issues that emerged from the incident was the role and effect of
mass media coverage on terrorism due to the frequent occurrence of controversial journalism.
Media started to expose all related to Islam, Muslim, and Arab world. Most news agencies with
their power reassess Islam in a more negative way. Norris et al. (2003) then theorizes that 9/11 is
best understood as a symbol of a critical cultural shift in the mainstream news framework used by
the American mass media to understand national security issues, changing perceptions, and risks
at home and threats abroad. Post 9/11, America's fear of the risk of terrorism has increased
sharply which is a dangerous situation because the growing perception of the threat of terrorism
in America has created widespread public concern, and triggered radical changes in the U.S.
security and foreign policy. Powell (2014) seek that media coverage of terrorism is part of the
U.S. government's larger “War on Terror” by keeping the thematic coverage of terrorism from
Muslims at the forefront while playing down terrorist events by non-Muslims who are also U.S.
citizens. The excessive coverage of terrorism coupled with the way the act was covered,
succeeded in increasing the fear of the other party. On his journal “Framing Islam: An Analysis of
US Media Coverage of Terrorism Since 9/11” he highlighted where the actions of the U.S.
government are exploiting this fear by using terrorism to justify unjustified acts of war to "protect
our freedoms" (Powell, 2014). The events of 9/11 moved counter-terrorism to the top of the
public policy agenda in America under Bush's leadership. Norris et al. (2003) found that the
frame on terrorism has been generated and strengthened, the media frame has shaped the pattern
of news coverage in different and varied contexts and cultures. They believe that media framing
on terrorism cases and the 9/11 incident is very strong in influencing public opinion. In this case,
the lack of media literacy may also be said as a factor in the increasing perception of
Islamophobia in the post 9/11 community. Therefore, this paper aims to explore how the terrorism
media frame is lifted and strengthened from the foreign policy set by Bush after the 9/11 incident
which will later influence public opinion, in this case, the increasing perception of Islamophobia.

III. METHODOLOGY

In analyzing the research topic of our group, we will use data that is categorized into
primary and secondary data. We will see how media agencies place news headlines about the
foreign policies taken by President Bush after the 9/11 terror events were very gripping. However,
we attempted to narrow and focus our research on the types of newspaper writing media with the
media agency The New York Times. We will also narrow our research to a timeframe of five years
after the events of 9/11. The horrific and traumatic incident of 9/11 happened in 2001 and with
this we want to see how The New York Times news coverage related to 9/11 until the year of 2005.
It is clear that within five years time can see a significant change in the type of news and how
public opinion is formed on coverage of a story related to 9/11. Thus, we try to support the results
 of our analysis based on secondary data by sampling a survey to know how public perception
addresses the headlines published by The New York Times.

IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

a. Bush’s Foreign Policies Post 9/11

The 9/11 incident certainly has changed many things both from a political, economic and
social perspective for the U.S.. President Bush did not remain silent in the midst of the hustle and
bustle of reporting on the 9/11 tragedy, which was highlighted from many angles by various
media agencies. This makes it supported to change the presidential agenda, especially for the U.S.
foreign policy. The terror tragedy that is thought to have originated in the Middle East has created
tensions that can be hardly felt in international sphere. The ongoing investigative process has
raised public attention to Islam, Muslims and the Arab World. Moreover, Bush's response as the
number one person in the U.S. responded to this terror tragedy as an emergency warning to be
more alert to these three aspects. He even considers that these three aspects are the beginning of
the coming of a barrage of terror threats. It is clear that the statement he issued is an attack on
Islam, Muslims, and the Arab World so that the concept of anti-Islam and Islamophobia is present
among the U.S. society. The president's strategies and agendas underwent a significant shift
towards the U.S..

Responding to the tragedy of 9/11, Bush tried to be more protective of his people through
the reconstruction of national and international regulations and policies. Interaction and
diplomacy were also affected by the steps taken by Bush after 9/11. The U.S. regulations post
9/11 are recognized as increasingly aggressive in promoting its capabilities, especially in the
securities and military fields. Bush sought to increase the visualization of high-profile actions as
the U.S. President after the 9/11 incidents. This visualization was assisted by the massive
coverage by various media agencies. High-profile is believed to be able to increase the portrait of
President Bush to look firm, authoritative, and respected. Reporting from Cfr.org (2001), through
classified documents, six days after the 9/11 terror attacks, President Bush approved a
memorandum to suppress CIA capabilities and operations. Bush tried to further strengthen the
CIA's interrogation strategies and techniques in eliminating any continuing, serious threats that
might come. Then Bush signed the use of military force in an investigative effort for those
involved in the 9/11 terror attacks, especially in the Middle East region.

The determination of a global "War on Terror" by Bush with the statement "either you are
with us or you are with the terrorists" has also exacerbated the perception of the U.S. public to be
hostile to the predicted threat. One month after the tragedy of 9/11, the restructuring of U.S.
foreign policy is increasingly evident. The invasion of Afghanistan began on 7th October 2001
which gave rise to the perception that U.S. actions were justified in defending the homeland,
especially in hunting down Al-Qaeda. The attack was strengthened by the Patriot Act as an
expansion strategy for counterterrorism powers. Law enforcement as well as intelligence is
strengthened to monitor as well as combat financial activities belonging to terrorist groups. The
defense is further strengthened by airport security, which also continues to be vigilant over the
9/11 tragedy which involved the hijacking of the aircraft as the beginning of the collision of the
WTC towers (Cfr.org, 2001).

In 2002, 9/11 coverage was still sensitive and discussed in many media agencies.
Highlights of Bush's response are unavoidable, particularly on U.S.’s foreign policy. Bad
assumptions about Al-Qaeda spread everywhere quickly. The accusations and mistreatment were
obtained by suspected terrorists who have ties to Islam, Muslims, and the Arab World. Bush
began to take Iraq as one of the suspects in the 9/11 tragedy that led the U.S. to engage in war in
Iraq in 2002. Massively U.S. military forces were deployed in Iraq to monitor terrorism activities,
especially in the flashbacks of the 9/11 tragedy. Until 2005, Bush's post-9/11 foreign policy
seemed more aggressive and offensive, especially for Middle Eastern countries.

Peake (2001) supports the assumption that changes in regulations and policies, especially
in foreign policy, are driven by the role of the media. In this regard, The New York Times since
2001 has highlighted the coverage of the 9/11 tragedy to the determination of Bush's strategy in
U.S. foreign policy. Some experts said that the coverage of The New York Times tends to support
the popularity of anti-Islam and Islamophobia concepts after 9/11. The news of the increasingly
aggressive U.S. policies has succeeded in leading public opinion to consider Islam, Muslims, and
the Arab World as a threat to the welfare of U.S. society. Bad perceptions and fears also grew
along with the proliferation of exaggerated news regarding the enactment of a new foreign policy.
b. The New York Times coverage of 9/11 news

We have found that post 9/11 foreign policy has led the U.S. to act more offensively and
aggressively in promoting its military and efforts against various threats, especially those coming
from the Arab World. There are several types and so are media agencies that attracted our
attention enough to be taken into data. However, we attempted to narrow and focus our research
on the types of newspaper writing media with the media agency The New York Times. The New
York Times is one of the oldest media agencies in the U.S. and its coverage tends to have a strong
influence in the eyes of the public. Founded in 1851, The New York Times managed to become the
first choice of readers (Hawkins, 2012). This is evidenced by the increasing number of newspaper
editions purchased from 1985-2013 (Bleich et al, 2015). As one of the major media in the U.S.,
The New York Times grew up being supported by a strong culture from the U.S. Freedom of the
press and opinion makes The New York Times unlimited in publishing information and news.
Especially after the 9/11 incident, which was quite an uproar in the U.S., it has even become the
headline until now. The forerunner to the ferocity of this U.S. policy has created fear in the eyes
of both national and international, especially in Islam, Muslims, and the Arab World. News
continues to be linked to the 9/11 incident. The New York Times since 2001 has often covered
various information related to the 9/11 incident which is still limited to printed media such as
newspapers.

Source: nytimes.com - Printed Edition 2001-2005

 Since the beginning of the 9/11 terror tragedy, The New York Times has been actively
covering the news from various angles. Through the website https://www.nytimes.com, the
printed edition of the article has been completely modified and uploaded into the digital version.
This is important so that The New York Times becomes relevant along with the rapid development
of the internet and technology. Some of The New York Times headlines below prove that the topic
of news related to the 9/11 incident has become very important and has been widely discussed by
the public. Reporting on terror also increases the attention of the public both on a national and
international scale. The use of capital letters in order to highlight news with the words
"THREATS AND RESPONSES" certainly attracts more public attention. The links between the
9/11 incidents and other Arab countries are also increasingly shown by The New York Times.
Some of the editorial published by The New York Times contains George Bush's absurd claims,
such as the Bush Administration claiming that Iraq is allied with Al-Qaeda in connection with the
9/11/ terrorist attack, then how President Bush believes that Iraq does have weapons of mass
destruction. However, the American people and Congress are not permitted to seek relevant
information and are prohibited from making their own judgments about Mr Hussein's weapons
and terrorist connections. Stow (2008) considered that The New York Times was successful in
portraying public mourning by involving public empathy for the 9/11 incident which on the other
hand raised awareness for Islam, Muslims, and the Arab World. Stow later called it the term
"pornography of grief" which tends to be biased towards an excessive depiction of sadness about
the 9/11 incident. The "portraits of grief" brought by The New York Times was indirectly followed
by many editorials of The New York Times that linked the 9/11 tragedy to other Arab countries.
Conspiracy news milling about in the public eye has succeeded in encouraging the creation of bad
perceptions and even complicated interpretations of Islam, Muslims, and the Arab World.
 Source: nytimes.com - Printed Edition 2001-2005

Not only that, reporting on Bush's response is also important in the topic of 9/11. In this
regard, The New York Times sees efforts to strengthen the U.S. military and defense sector by
prioritizing technology and intelligence. Various defense strengthening programs are part of the
U.S.'s way of responding to the threats that emerged after the 9/11 tragedy. Changes to rules,
regulations, and strategies were launched by Bush to be more responsive in responding to various
terror threats, especially those originating from Islam, Muslims, and the Arab World. The New
York Times then tried to show how President Bush would take steps to strengthen U.S. defense.
Through various journalists, The New York Times saw that the U.S. was trying to transform the
 presidential system and trying to strengthen the military and state securities. Unexpected threats
made Bush cautiously in setting regulations, policies, and strategies after the 9/11 tragedy. In the
meantime, the whole community should know what happened and how. We find that President
Bush’s claims and speeches in several headlines in The New York Times contributed to the
formation of negative opinions of Americans as well as international communities towards
Muslim minorities in the U.S. and the increasing number of discrimination due to Islamophobia
that has formed after the 9/11 attacks (Stow, 2008).

c. Public Perception on The New York Times Headlines Regarding to 9/11 news

Tambahin persepsi masyarakat dlm melihat 9/11 -

Mishra (2006) said that the news of The New York Times in the eyes of the public
managed to get public attention through the consumerist version of modernity with the creation of
transnational media that could easily engage with the hearts and minds of people over the world
and universally. The New York Times has a strong influence in driving public opinion. Negative
potrayal of Islam, Muslims, and the Arab World has spreaded around the world (Mishra, 2006;
Abdullah, 2008). Post 9/11, the media's portrayal of Islam, Muslims, and the Arab World tends
to be full of violence and cruelty. This makes the high perception of bad in this aspect. Bad news
raises the concept of Islamophobia in the public and of course increases public awareness.
Abdullah (2008) considers that The New York Times uses a good linguistic strategy in expressing
the ideology of Islam, Muslims, and the Arab World. However, the fear of the threat of terror
continues to increase accompanied by various protests after 9/11. The foreign policy set by Bush
to be firm against Islamic countries has actually strengthened the concept of Islamophobia in the
eyes of the public. Offensive approaches tend to be easily absorbed by Americans and the
international community (Abdullah, 2008; Stow, 2008).

Stereotypes about Islam that are radical, extreme, and terrorist have long been embedded
in the minds of most Americans. This is reinforced by the role of the mass media in the US which
often displays a negative image of Islam. Of the various incidents of national violence in the US,
Muslims have always been the main accused. In viewing terrorism, The New York Times made the
issue into a war and formed a view with a tendency to see who the enemy and who was the friend.
This forms the public perception of the events of 9/11 which gives a negative view of Muslims in
America. The New York Times coverage always portrays Islam as a religion that upholds violence
and identifies Muslims as terrorists responsible for the 9/11 incident. The New York Times' role in
shaping public opinion towards Muslims after the 9/11 incident was to carry out international
propaganda activities using the Glittering Peace Keeping method against the United States and
Name Calling Terrorists against Muslims (Norris, 2003). Stereotypes about Islam that are radical,
extreme, and terrorist have long been embedded in the minds of most Americans. This is
reinforced by the role of the mass media in the US which often displays a negative image of
Islam. Of the various incidents of national violence in the US, Muslims have always been the
main accused (Morgan, 2009)

V. CONCLUSIONS

The analysis verifies that Bush's act of using the media as a source of information
becomes very vulnerable to being used as a framing tool which has resulted in the emergence of a
lot of public opinion. After the 9/11 incident, media coverage was more directed and linked the
news to Muslims. Bush made the media as an important tool in making policy. Bush's discourse
in carrying out the policy of "war on terror" became an interesting topic for The New York Times,
one of the US media agencies that has the most influence in the eyes of the public. Bush included
specific solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the development of Iran's nuclear weapons,
and the United States as a mediator for the Iraq-Kuwait conflict, both of which are suspected to
be fighting economically. This is of course the most appropriate target for making news headlines
by The New York Times which can be dominated by evaluative framing.

The methodology used in this paper has the advantage of looking at the context of case
studies and media framing analysis of Bush's foreign policy. In this way, we have narrowed and
focused our research on types of newspaper writing media with the media agency The New York
Times over the last 5 years. The news that contains the concept of "war on terror" which is
exaggerated by The New York Times has resulted in the formation of public opinion about Islam,
Muslims and the Arab world. The New York Times was deemed repressive and offensive to
Islamophobic perceptions. This is evidenced by the many headlines and terror reports in The New
York Times associated with Arab countries, such as Bush saying that Iraq was allied with
Al-Qaeda in connection with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The increasing number of news frames
that are framed and made into conspiracies that are milling about in the public eye have
succeeded in encouraging the creation of bad perceptions and even complicated interpretations of
Islam, Muslims, and the Arab World.
 REFERENCES

Anggoro, A. D. (2014). Media, Politik, dan Kekuasaan: Analisis Framing Model Robert N. Entman
tentang Pemberitaan Hasil Pemilihan Presiden. Jurnal Aristo, 2(2), 25-52.

David, C. P. (1996). Who was the real George Bush? Foreign policy decision-making under the bush
administration. Diplomacy and Statecraft. University of Quebec, Montreal.

Eriyanto. (2011). Analisis Framing: Konstruksi Ideologi, dan Politik Media. Yogyakarta: Lkis.

Ireton, C., & Posetti, J. (2018). Journalism, Fake News, and Disinformation: Handbook for Journalism
and Training. UNESCO Publication.
Scheufele, B. (2004). Framing-Effects Approach: A Theoretical and Methodological Critique. Journal of
Communication, 29(1), 401-428.

Smith, C. (2013). Anti-Islamic Sentiment and Media Framing during the 9/11 Decade. Journal of Religion
and Society, Vol. 15.

Keller, D. (2003). From 9/11 to Terror War: The Dangers of Bush Legacy. Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers Inc. USA

Launa. (2020). Robert Entman Framing Analysis of Prabowo Subianto's Image in Republika.co.id
March-April 2019 Edition. Journal of Media and Communication, 3(1), 50-64.

Linström, M., & Marais, W. (2012). Qualitative News Frame Analysis: A Methodology. Journal of
Communitas, 17(1), 21-38.

McCormick, J. M. (2010). American Foreign Policy and Process: Fifth Edition. Wadsworth Cengage
Learning. Boston, USA. ISBN-13:978-0-495-18981-7 ISBN-10: 0-495-18981-2.

Moeller, S. (1999). Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell Disease, Famine, War, and Death.
Routledge. New York.

Moeller, S. (2009). Packaging Terrorism: Co-opting the News for Politics and Profit. Communication in
the Public Interest Series. ISBN 978 1405173667.

Montgomery, L. F. (2003). Bush, the Media & the New American Way. Informing Science. USA.

Mulyana, D. (2006). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.

Norris, P., et.al. (2003). Framing Terrorism: The News, Media, the Government, and the Public.
Routledge. New York.

Osman, M. et.al. (2013). The Framing Of International Media On Islam And Terrorism. European
Scientific Journal.

Powell, K. A. (2011). Framing Islam: An Analysis of US Media Coverage of Terrorism Since 9/11.
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Vol, 62. pp.90-112.

Robinson, P. (2002). The CNN Effect: The myth of news, foreign policy and intervention. Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group. London and New York.

Toros, H. (2017). “9/11 is alive and well” or how critical terrorism studies has sustained the 9/11
narrative. Critical Studies On Terrorism, 10(2), 203-219. doi: 10.1080/17539153.2017.1337326

Verhoeven, J. (1985). Goffman's frame analysis and modern micro-sociological paradigms. In E. Goffman
, Micro-Sociological Theory (pp. 71-100). California: Sage Studies in International Sociology.

Morgan, M. J. (2009). The Impact of 9/11 on the Media, Arts and Entertainment. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Norris, P. (2003). Framing Terrorism: the News Media, the Government and the Public. London:
Routledge.