Tell Me a Story: FDR,Narrative, and the Making of the Second World War

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was, by all accounts, a master orator. Yet success eluded him as he sought to make his fellow citizens aware of the threat Nazi Germany posed and to banish isolationists to the illegitimate margins. At other times, however, Roosevelt's campaigns to shift the underpinnings of national security debate were more effective. Notably, his definition of the adversary as the Nazi regime, rather than the German people, deeply shaped public discourse during the Second World War. This article explains the uneven results of Roosevelt's narrative projects—and those of other presidents—as a product of the intersection of the rhetorical mode he adopted and the rhetorical demands of the environment. During unsettled times, public demand for storytelling is elevated, and presidents who seize that opportunity can shape the narrative landscape and thereby policy. Presidents who fail to align their rhetoric to the moment—such as Roosevelt offering predominantly argument during these critical junctures—allow alternative narratives to proliferate. More broadly, this article offers an account of the structuring of legitimation in the national security arena.     

Assessing Newspaper Coverage of Corporate Violence: The Dance Hall Fire in Qoteborg, Sweden

The media disproportionately focus on conventional crime while neglecting the impact of corporate misbehavior. The present research examines U.S. newspaper coverage of a deadly fire at a dance hall in Goteborg, Sweden. This particular incident facilitates an examination of how newspapers treat issues involving culpability of conventional offenders (arsonists) and white collar offenders (the owners of the nightclub and the promoters of the dance). It was found that newspapers disproportionately focused on the direct harm associated with the fire, and generally neglected the role played by the organizers/promoters. Suggestions are offered regarding the need for more complete media coverage of crime, particularly white collar crime. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The admissibility of polygraph evidence in court

Polygraph evidence is presently inadmissible in Canada and many jurisdictions of the United States. One of the major reasons for its exclusion lies in the belief (held by members of the judiciary) that jurors would accept such evidence without question due to its technical/scientific nature. The question of such blind acceptance was examined in two experiments on the influence of polygraph evidence on people's judgements of guilt. A second question that was also raised was whether a caution on the limitations of the polygraph would be effective in reducing people's weighting of such evidence. Although polygraph evidence was expected to exert some influence over judgements of guilt, it was not expected to be so great as to result in “blind acceptance”. The results of both experiments supported this hypothesis. The inclusion of a caution was also effective in reducing the influence of such evidence. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of the need to reexamine the admissibility of polygraph evidence in a court of law.