Renowned scholar Daniel Hallin once described the press as follows: “Media may not only serve to reflect but to strengthen political trends, serving at times as a consensus-maintaining institution and contributing, at others, to an accelerating expansion of bounds of political debate when consensus breaks down." My semester-long research expands on this thesis by identifying commonalities in American reporting mechanisms that persist regardless of time period, type of event, or number of actors involved.

 

In examining transformative events throughout U.S. history, including the Vietnam War, the September 11 terrorist attacks, and the 2016 Presidential election, my study finds that the norms of mainstream, television and print journalism are actually fairly stable.

 

The results support the premise that, as Hallin notes, journalism exists within spheres of consensus. When public consensus is intact, reporters reinforce a single narrative. But when consensus breaks down, journalists seek to maintain objectivity by balancing two, competing narratives. In doing so, journalists exacerbate disagreement by framing the event as a conflict.

​

These conclusions culminate in a content analysis of a very recent event: the testimony of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the psychology professor who accused him of sexually assaulting her, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.