Up until this point, the structure of my actual paper has been nothing more than a periodically passing, vaguely worrisome thought — but that won’t turn out a paper, will it?
And so, this past weekend I hammered out a rough diagram (T. Olga suggested that I think about it like that instead of an outline) for it, and I honestly have no idea if it will stay anything like how I have it now in my final draft.
However, as of now it has 3 sections that I think it’s safe to say will make it through the whole process:
- The pertinent scope of history for my research (i.e. 1945-1967) and the foreign policy actions taken by the various American presidential administrations towards crucial actors in the Six-Days’ War.
- The frame through which the Six-Days’ War was covered by the NYT.
- The theoretical framework that — I will argue — explains why the NYT’s particular frame of the Six-Days’ War would have been carried down from lead foreign policymakers in the contemporary American government.
If nothing else, it’s a much more specific rendering of my thesis, as laid out in my first post: to “come up with a theoretical basis — a model, if you will — describing why a platform in far-reaching large-scale media outlets would be useful to the American government in justifying foreign policy in the first place.”
What I have now is more nuanced and sounds less like a conspiracy theory, and I think that’s a good thing moving forward.
Well, apart from reading and synthesizing ever more material (always an exciting endeavor), that wraps it up for this week’s update. Next week could very well have me reworking the paper from the ground up, but at this point in mid-February, I’m happy with where I am.