Exploring American "Journalistic Balance" By Analyzing "The New York Times"

American media believe in journalistic balance, claiming themselves to be independent and liberalistic. They don't doubt their so-called balanced reporting that they are proud of. One of the most prestigious news media in the US, "The New York Times", has been famous for its "objective, fair and unbiased" reporting that seems balanced. However, my content analysis shows that "The New York Times" is not really balanced in its reporting the 2003 Iraqi War. In fact, its orientation and stand well exist in its delicate news management techniques, i.e. persuading its readers into believing some views and neglecting others by agenda-setting, news priming and news framing. The content analysis was carried out by means of epagoge and with the guide of the theories of agenda-setting, media priming and media framing after defining journalistic balance, its preconditions and criteria. The dissertation is later extended to a wider observation of the American media, which again proves that American journalistic balance doesn't really exist. It is revealed that unconditional journalistic balance never exists because of the following four factors: the government's need to control public opinion, media's economic pressures, pressures from the audiences and media's limitations and restraints. Therefore, media can never keep from propagandizing, which probably leads to journalistic unbalance. The dissertation also suggests that the advanced news management techniques that American media often use in their reporting are worth critical learning.