Media coverage of foreign policy

2. Media coverage of foreign policy Wire services: AP, Reuters, France-Pressure and ITAR (AP is the biggest) Where do wire services work? Friendly countries, wealthy countries

3. Effects of media coverage of foreign policy? • Potential for greater impact than coverage of domestic policy

4. Positive and negative effects of foreign affairs coverage • Positive: promote democracy • Negative: harmful effects on conduct of foreign policy by existing democracies, e.g. Iran hostage situation in 1979 • Media as booster for government especially early in wartime, can be overly non-critical at times when questioning of government line might be warranted • Political leaders BELIEVE media coverage of foreign policy influences public, therefore it does have an impact on the behavior of gov’t officials

5. Rise of amateur or citizen journalism in foreign (and domestic) affairs Driven by technology Pros and cons?

6. Chomsky chs. 2 and 3 • Review: Propaganda function of media due to 5 filters • 1) Size/ownership/profit orientation of media system, • 2) Advertising, • 3) Sourcing – Heavy reliance on gov’t officials, 4) Flak, • 5)Anticommunism

7. Worthy and unworthy victims – two priests

8. Worthy and Unworthy Victims • Look at coverage by NYT, Time, Newsweek, CBS • Compare coverage of Polish priest (Popieluszko) – killed by Polish police in 1984 - Cold War era –murdered in an enemy state TO • Priests, Archbishop who criticized US=backed military gov’t in El Salvador, 4 American women, activists killed in friendly (client/anti Communist) states in Latin America (1970s, ‘80s) – Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador. • HOW DID COVERAGE DIFFER? How did the authors compare coverage of the two situations?

9. Chomsky Ch 2-3 continued • Quantity of coverage – how many stories on each murder, number of column inches or number of evening news programs, placement of stories (front page?), editorials condemning the murders • Language used – “thuggery, shameless, crude” to describe Polish state. For those killed in friendly states, few quotes of outrage or suggestions that gov’t must find the guilty or that gov’t is in some way responsible – attribution of responsibility to friendly gov’t is blurred, avoided

10. Chomsky believes & later evidence backs up, that Archbishop Romero was killed by a Salvadoran army officer/political leader on the right, working with others in the army/security forces, but this possibility was not raised by mass media– Media initially suggested it was equally likely killing was done by left and right • Same propagandistic coverage of murder of 4 US churchwomen killed by Salvadoran National Guard – • Also personalization of victims- graphic details on the condition of the bodies when people killed in enemy states, hardly any detail/humanization of those killed by friendly states

11. Third World Elections • Coverage of elections in Third World will vary depending on whether the gov’t holding elections is a friendly state or an enemy state • Looked at NYT coverage – number of articles dealing with various aspects of elections, some compatible with US gov’t’s agenda: • In client states, media should emphasize the positives: elections promote democracy and spur hope, army as protector of election, high turnout , but deemphasize topics incompatible with US gov’t’s agenda (Fraud, lack of free speech, free press and assembly in country holding election, power of armed forces).

12. In enemy states, media will emphasize topics that place enemy state in bad light (lack of freedom of press and assembly, power of armed forces as a bad thing)Nicaragua – enemy state in 1980s (communist run government) – held elections treated by American media as illegitimate, a sham, meaningless. “Not a very good election, just a piece of theatre for Sandinistas

13. El Salvadoran (ally state) elections presented as “step toward democracy”. Same as with Turkey (ally) in 1983, despite flaws in election process. • In enemy states, more media attention to problematic “basic conditions” necessary to democracy, such as freedom of press and assembly – media emphasized that these conditions were missing in Nicaragua so elections were covered as being essentially meaningless.

14. But C. says freedom of press was more impaired in El Salvador than Nicaragua, and freedom of parties to run candidates was impaired also in El Salvador. • Leftist groups couldn’t run because had been destroyed, demobilized prior to election by army. Not covered by media.

15. Key to propaganda-oriented nature of American media coverage: • SOURCING • e.g. for Guatemalan election, almost entirely US officials, official observers, but not “main opposition” – smaller parties, churches, human rights group who would have a different view of the elections than US govt.

16. Iraq – after we invaded post-9/11 – how did media cover elections and vote on Constitution? • Context: US gov’t wanted these events to succeed, show that we helped bring democracy to Iraq after invading.

17. Theories of media coverage of foreign policy (Entman) Chomsky’s “hegemony” theory Indexing theory Entman: cascading activation

18. Cascading activation theory • Explains who “wins” when it comes to framing of foreign policy, i.e. does the administration win? • Explains how frames move from White House to other social actors Start with Administration (President/defense dep’t/state dept) * Consider other elites (e.g. Congress, former gov’t officials, foreign policy experts, foreign leaders) * Media * Public

19. How do frames spread from administration to public?

20. How do frames spread? • Four variables are involved: • Motivations • Cultural Congruence • Power (of political actors) • Strategy

21. CASE STUDY: KAL and Iran Air Flights

22. KAL: 1983, Soviet Air Force shot down a Korean Air Lines flight, over 250 died Iran Air: 1988, US navy ship shot down Iran Air Flight, over 250 died How did American media frame the two incidents?

23. How did difference in coverage manifest itself? • (number of stories: many more for KAL story – seen as bigger tragedy by American media, in part because over 20 Americans were on that flight, but also because our enemy shot down the plane – us v. them story • Different portrayals of government responsibility (USSR versus American government) • Use of language, graphics

24. Approaches to reconciling freedom of press with national security concerns How much censorship/control?

25. 3 basic approaches • Formal censorship • Free press approach • Informal censorship

27. History of censorship of press to protect national security • Alien and Sedition Acts 1798 • Civil War • WWI • Supreme Court rulings

28. Changing relationship between media and military • WWI and WWII – more voluntary cooperation than today • VIETNAM as flash point – relations change. Government takes away lesson that it needs to MANAGE the media more • Grenada invasion 1983 • 1991 Gulf War • 2001 US invades Afghanistan • Process of negotiation • Embedding: starts 2001 - Media gets elementary military training, travels with military

29. Sanitization of war – Aday “The Real War Will Never Get on TV” • Central concern of chapter – “casualty imagery” – how much does public get to see war casualties? • First war casualty photos – Civil War (aided by technology that makes outdoor photography easier; still, only about 100 photos taken during entire war)

30. Images of war – what purposes have they served historically? • Rally public behind conflict • Appeal to a commercial audience (so can’t be too gory) • Aday criticizes media coverage of 1991 Persian Gulf War as too “sanitized” • Little coverage of human cost of war (casualties) but lots of coverage of…

31. * Dramatic visuals of bombs striking targets * Images made war look like “video game” (Hallin) – “patriotic celebration & technological triumph” * Use of Pentagon-produced images of impressive technology used by US in the war * Near-total lack of casualty videos despite 100k Iraqi soldiers, many civilians, 100+ American soldiers killed ---- video of lst day of war

32. Contrast: Arab media DID show gory results of American “smart bombs” • Whereas British law explicitly forbids airing such images, in US journalists in some cases had access to such visuals and could have aired them, but chose not to run with them. • So why does it matter if war is sanitized and casualties not shown?

33. Dehumanization of enemy and its citizenry • Perpetuates consent to war without citizens really knowing the human cost of the war • May be done for commercial reasons – media presents “upbeat” message for fear of losing their audience (or advertisers – Chomsky) – is this honest journalism? “all the news that’s fit to print”?

34. Embedding – 2001 to present • Media gets basic military training, travels with military • Restraints on embedded reporting: • Before joining battalion, embedded journalists must sign contract restricting when and what they can report. Can only describe details of military actions in general terms, can’t write about possible future mission or classified info. • Commander of unit can declare “blackout” meaning reporter prohibited from filing stories via satellite connections. Blackout for security reasons so satellite communication can’t tip off unit’s location to enemy forces.

35. Haigh article – embedded v. non-embedded reporting • Do they differ? How? • Their study: • Newspapers examined • Time period • Coders

36. Aspects of coverage looked at: • Tone • Trust in military • Episodic v. Thematic framing • Authoritativeness • Expectations? Findings?

37. VIETNAM • Common wisdom: media hostile to the war, undermined government: Tet offensive as prime example • Chomsky: no, media served a propaganda function: conveyed US as intervening in service of admirable ideals, war going the way admin says it is going