Content Analysis: ABC This Week, March 23, 2025

This is my first post where I use ChatGPT to perform content analysis on the ABC This Week (March 23, 2025). I used a prompt template that was over 280 words (not including the transcript). The following is GPT's response to my most important questions:

Additional Content Analysis Output – This Week with George Stephanopoulos

Discussion of Potential Biases or Limitations of Correspondents and/or Commentators in Relation to [Goal]: Issue Exclusion

Bias 1: Framing Within Institutional Legitimacy

Jonathan Karl and roundtable contributors consistently frame the Trump administration’s deportation practices and judicial defiance within the bounds of legal debate and institutional authority.

Implicit assumption: if action is “based on a statute,” its legitimacy is presumed or insufficiently challenged.

Limitation: This framing obscures the moral, long-term, or extra-institutional implications of government behavior that technically follows laws.

Bias 2: Focus on Elite Conflict Rather Than Systemic Impact

The show emphasizes elite-level conflict (Trump vs. judges, Trump vs. Schumer, Sanders vs. DNC) but avoids deeper analysis of how exclusions affect marginalized populations or institutional legitimacy.

Correspondents never directly ask: “What narratives or constituencies are left out of this media conversation?”

Discussion of Potential Biases or Limitations of Correspondents and/or Commentators in Relation to [My Question]:

Are there blatant examples of narratives that either minimize the future peril to the members in the Administration who execute its current detention policies and/or a suggestion that average citizens who oppose these policies have no options except voting in midterms?

Bias 1: Failure to Examine Future Risk to Enforcers

Homan is treated as a serious policy actor, not a potentially culpable figure in a human rights context. There are no questions about legal accountability (domestic or international), whistleblower pressure, or historical comparisons.

Christie minimizes risk by casting Trump as legally savvy, thus downplaying the peril to others in the administration.

Bias 2: Overreliance on Electoral Frames

Karl frequently uses questions like “What can Democrats do?” or “Will midterms help?” rather than exploring how citizens could intervene through courts, international mechanisms, or public pressure campaigns.

Sanders’ vague appeal to grassroots power is not interrogated for real-world pathways (e.g., sanctuary cities, mass civil disobedience, lawsuits, watchdog groups).

Suggested External Implications/Effects of Commentator Analysis in Relation to [Goal]:
Effect 1: Normalization of Exclusion Through Legalistic Framing

By not challenging claims that enforcement is merely “using laws on the books,” commentators risk legitimizing legally questionable actions that violate norms of due process or international obligations.

This normalization implicitly marginalizes immigrant rights organizations, international observers, and others not represented in the broadcast.

Effect 2: Reinforcement of Binary Narrative (Trump vs. Institutions)

The broadcast treats conflict as a clash of strong personalities (Trump, Roberts, Sanders) rather than as a systemic governance problem that affects those with no media access.

Effectively silences deep discussion of policy designers vs. implementers vs. resisters.

Suggested External Implications/Effects of Commentator Analysis in Relation to [My Question]:

Effect 1: Erasure of Non-Electoral Civic Pathways

Viewers are given a narrow menu of options: vote, protest, or support a particular candidate. This leaves out civil resistance, municipal action, class-action suits, or international law strategies that may be more immediately actionable or effective.

Effect: demobilization of potential activists who feel alienated from party politics.

Effect 2: Immunity for Bureaucratic Enforcers

Homan’s defiance is neither challenged as dangerous nor treated as setting a precedent that may place future public servants in legal or reputational jeopardy.

Result: future actors may assume impunity, even in legally gray or ethically dubious circumstances.

Suggested Follow-Up Questions in Relation to [Goal]:

To Karl or the Roundtable: “Why was there no exploration of how these deportation flights might violate international human rights norms or precedent?”

To Terry Moran: “Why didn’t the segment include voices from deportees’ families or international law experts to assess whether these policies meet minimum standards of due process?”

To Bernie Sanders: “What institutional mechanisms, aside from electoral wins, do you believe are capable of checking or reversing authoritarian power in real time?”

To Chris Christie: “Do you believe there is any risk that mid-level officials following controversial executive orders could face future criminal or civil consequences?”

Suggested Follow-Up Questions in Relation to [My Question]:

To Tom Homan: “Are you concerned that carrying out orders under the Alien Enemies Act could result in lawsuits or charges if a future administration or international body reviews your role?”

To Jonathan Karl: “You asked Bernie Sanders how voters could resist Trumpism—but why not explore what citizens can do outside of midterm elections?”

To the Roundtable: “If the administration is retaliating against law firms and stripping security clearances, shouldn’t we discuss protective options for citizens or employees who challenge government policies?”

To Asma Khalid (NPR): “You noted that retaliation against journalists and lawyers is concerning—do you see any domestic legal or public mechanisms capable of pushing back beyond voting?”