How Media Coverage of War Affects Presidents and Their Policy Making - Research Paper Example

?Introduction: The media plays a pivotal role in shaping opinions and perceptions that have a lasting impact on the lives of those influenced. The scale of impact, today, is much higher than ever before with the rise of the mass media and the advent of the new media. The masses not only receive information, but also act as a source of information to others. Accuracy and reliability is hence often questionable. However, the significance of the various forms of media cannot be underestimated when analyzing the overall impact of all forms of media on human behavior. The media has played an enormous role in the war on terror. The intricate and detailed coverage of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center were seen by the entire world and led to an extremely emotional response from the American people. The images were associated with terrorism and the knee jerk response of most Americans called for bombing anyone who was responsible for such a hideous act, thus forming the base for any violent response from the US government. This paper shall underline the importance of the media in the coverage and conduct of Warfare, how terrorist groups use the media to spread their message, how the media uses terrorists to further their objectives and the impact of these events on government policy matters. The importance of Media in the Coverage and Conduct of the War: The media has become an important factor in the war on terrorism. The war not only takes place in Afghanistan, but has repercussions for the millions of viewers witnessing the events first hand(Shpiro 2002). The 9/11 attacks have dramatically changed the perceptions of millions around the world on terrorism and perceived threats. Modern wars take place as much on TV screens as on the battlefield. Media coverage not only influences public opinion, it also has a lasting impact on national government policy decisions(Shpiro 2002). The technological enhancement that has taken place in the latter half of the 20th century and the 21st century has enabled the media to broadcast, report and inform the masses of what is happening on ground immediately after the occurrence of the event. While the events of the world wars could be censored, abandoned or edited significantly before they reached audiences, such actions are not possible with the advent of modern technology and the race for ratings between media outlets that demands immediate coverage. An important impact of the increase in the influence of media is that military operations have significant elements of media policy. The speed of the coverage of events means that policy decisions regarding the media need to be made ahead of the event. These policies are the ways in which the military and political leadership handle media aspects of conflicts. The range of these policies encompasses decisions on matters such as censorship, legal restrictions, abandonment of coverage, etc. This policy sets to further the political aims of warfare. Warfare media policies have been a subject of considerable research throughout the 20th century. These policies developed in several phases throughout the last three decades of the 20th century. Before the tremendous technological enhancements, governments sought to censor the flow of any form of information from the battlefields. Both of the world wars saw censorship and controlled coverage rule the flow of information. The purpose of this strategy was to identify the specific news that could be covered and avoid embarrassments. The media was also used for propaganda to justify government actions. The impact of the Vietnam War: The Vietnam War was the first major conflict that brought the bloodshed on the TV screens of the common man. The coverage of the war was very close to real time and Americans felt the pain that the people of Vietnam went through throughout the conflict. The policy set at the outset of the conflict sought to give journalists free access to the entire conflict. The policy was set without due consideration to the political repercussions of comprehensive coverage of the conflict. The effort was meant to strengthen the perception of the American liberal view on freedom of the press. It was also aimed at convincing the American people that the forces sent to Vietnam were indeed winning the war. This freedom, however, allowed journalists to report everything, even things that the military would have preferred to keep secret (Taylor 1992). An important event that dented perceptions of the sitting government and the US military was the coverage of the massacre of My Lai, where US soldiers were guilty of massacring hundreds of innocent civilians. Information was initially suppressed, but investigative journalists were able to decipher the cover up and expose the military’s actions(Bilton and Sim 2002). The subsequent outcry in the ranks of the media forced the US to court-martial some of the guilty military men. Policy makers in the US felt that they were confronting two conflicts, one on the ground in Vietnam and one at home on the Media front. President Lyndon Johnson was specifically perturbed by the impact the media was having due to its persistent coverage of events in Vietnam and the subsequent reactions of the American people. Senior military officials believed that the anti war sentiment of journalists was driving them forward and that they often compromised objective reporting to further their mission of bringing about a policy change. The failure of the US in the war in Vietnam forced a change in perception with respect to the media and journalists. Journalists were increasingly seen as a force to control rather than a force to assist purely because of the enormous impact their coverage and perceptions can have on the strategic policies and implications of events of warfare. Change in US policy: The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq saw a significant change in US conflict media strategy. The strategy sought to prevent coverage similar to that of Vietnam and American military policy makers decided their media policies with respect to the coming war with Iraq early in 1991. They sought to prevent coverage of journalists in the war struck area and control access as a step to prevent potential adverse coverage. Only journalists approved by the US government were allowed to report from predetermined information centers regarding the events of the war. The movement of the few journalists, who were allowed coverage, was controlled comprehensively. Access to satellite phones and broadcasting equipment was severely monitored and the government had taken all actions necessary to avoid a repetition of the fiasco of the Vietnam War. TV coverage of the gulf war was significantly different from that of the Vietnam War. The coverage of the Vietnam War was characterized by enormous amount of graphical images and videos of burnt bodies, bloodshed and huge streams of blood; whereas, audiences of the Gulf war received much more timid and sanitized pictures of bombs hitting their ‘targets’. The apparently harmless imagines of missiles hitting their targets were comparable to images of video games and uses of phrases such as ‘strategic targets’ or ‘surgical strikes’ gave an image of the exercise of firm control on the operations of warfare by the assailants. This helped in rationalization of actions and a significant curb on the potential impact the war could have had on public opinion. Terrorists using the Media: A large part of what terrorists seek to achieve is through instilling fear and panic in the minds of innocent civilians. What better way to further this aim than to use a medium that reaches millions of people in seconds and is cost effective. The impact of a terrorist attack would be much less if it is given lesser coverage in the mass media than it is today. This is why many argue that a large part of the fear and anger that the American people felt after the 9/11 attacks was due to the repetitious and detailed coverage of the attacks. A ubiquitous illustration of the utilization of media by terrorist is the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda which uses the medium to send its message across the world and stir anger, panic and fear. The importance of the media for these organizations is indicated by the way they plan attacks and the spots that they choose to hurt people. Most terrorist attacks are in large metropolises and aimed at targeting vulnerable people to ensure that the public starts to fear them rather than governmental agencies. These organizations not only use the media to stir anger and fear, they also use it to justify their actions and gain sympathy. The Al-Qaeda often interprets its actions as a part of a ‘Holy Mission’ and invites gullible Muslims to join their cause. They also seek to gain legitimacy by asserting their presence after any successful mission is completed. Compared to the strategy of Al-Qaeda, the media strategy of the Taliban has been a dismal failure resulting in a lesser threat perception despite their strong network and numerous successful attacks. Media Policy decisions: In their interaction with terrorists, the media and journalists have had to handle the challenging task of balancing the public demand for extra information about the acts of violence and providing the terrorists a stage for their violent acts. Some argue that if terrorists seek to use the media as an important part to further their cause, then responsible media must reduce its coverage of violent acts as a means to prevent further violence. This argument, however, ignores the economics of the equation and the ever growing competitiveness of the media industry in the race for ratings, resulting in the eventual coverage of terrorist acts by one media outlet or the other. Targeting the primetime: Organized terrorists seek to maximize media coverage of their actions and often wait for the perfect time to strike. Most attacks are carried out at times where the target population is awake and glued to the TV sets. Furthermore, these attacks are largely aimed at creating panic and string policy actions that may disrupt the status quo if it does not favor them. Changing Public Opinions: The perception of threat plays a pivotal role in the estimation of success of any terrorist attack. Any attack that goes unnoticed is a failure for a terrorist organization. Threat perception is also often used by policy makers to justify their decisions regarding Warfare. George W Bush utilized the increasing threat perception of the American public post 9/11 to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. He continued to follow the same rule and created an alarmingly high ‘threat’ of the possession of weapons of mass destruction in the unsafe hands of Saddam Hussein, subsequently relating it to how it could potentially impact Americans at home. He then built on the fear and invaded Afghanistan as well. While no weapons of mass destruction were found, America continues to pursue its strategic interests to this date. Governmental Policy changes: While governments outline their strategic objectives beforehand, history has shown us, specifically during the Vietnam War, that governments can be influenced by the media coverage of warfare. An important implication that media coverage can have on government policy is called the ‘CNN Effect’. The CNN effect believes that the global mass media has the ability to ‘leverage the conduct of diplomacy and foreign policy’(Owen 2003). This concepts entails three different notions. The first is that the media can play a role as a policy agenda setting agent, whereby its coverage of warfare results in changes in plans, policies and strategies outlined at the initiation of missions. Compelling and convincing coverage can even alter foreign policy objectives of governments. The second notion suggests that the media coverage of gruesome images leads to a loss of morale, especially for the forces in operation and the public. This often results in a threat to operational security. Soldiers engulfed in warfare would be severely hammered by any news of their compatriots being manhandled and demolished in other parts of the mission. This would lead to a significant dip in morale and an increase in threat perception. The last notion of the CNN effect is the accelerant effect. This notion argues that the speed with which the media covers events and spreads true state of affairs to the public decreases the amount of time politicians have to react and form policies regarding warfare missions. Because information of warfare is considered privileged and, even in this age, often reaches the strategic decision makers before the media can access it, politicians have a lead time to take actions before the public knows. Today, however technological enhancements have enormously decreased that lead time and have forced politicians to stay on their toes and take steps quickly(Owen 2003). This has increased the probability of hasty and incorrect decision making. There have been times when the politicians have admitted to the influence of the media on their decision making. Despite the arguments mentioned above, there is debate over whether media coverage and governmental decision making have a cause-effect relationship. Throughout history leaders have been subject to public pressure, however their decisions often seem to look beyond what is known and obvious to the masses and encompasses greater strategic goals that are often hidden. Furthermore, while the media continues to show graphic images or cover events as they happen, they do not force the government to change their policies or take specific actions in most cases. We must also consider the fact that the media-government relationship is not a one sided affair. While the media can influence the government indirectly, the government can influence the media via policy matters and obligations that the media has to abide by to remain operational. Media coverage of terrorism is also often used by governments, politicians and policy makers to justify their counter terrorism actions and rationalize their blunders and mistakes. A perfect illustration is President Bush’s efforts to somehow link Iraq to terrorism post 9/11 before the invasion. An important part of his strategy was to use the media to explain why anti-terrorism legislation would prevent the new 9/11 from happening (Domke 2006). In summary, the relationship between the Media’s coverage of warfare and government policy is an extremely important one. This was illustrated by the events of the Vietnam War and the subsequent policy measures taken by US governments to significantly influence media coverage of warfare. Furthermore, in today’s world, the coverage that terrorist attacks get serve purposes on all three fronts. The terrorists gain by furthering their objectives of spreading fear and panic, the media gains by increasing viewership and making money, whereas governments often gain by referring to the terrorist acts as a justification to their counter terrorism efforts. Hence we can conclude that media coverage of warfare plays a key role in the 21st century in influencing decision making on all fronts of the conflict including the victims, the perpetrators and the states involved in any form of war. Bibliography Bilton, M, and K Sim. "Four hours in My lai." Vikin, 2002. Domke, D. "“Going Public as Political Strategy: The Bush Administration, an." Political Communicaion, 2006. Owen, D. “Transnational Mass Media Organizations and Security". Georgetown University Press, 2003. Shpiro, Shlomo. "Conflicts of Media Strategies and the politics of counter-terrorism." Journal of Politics, Bar-Ilan University, Israel, 2002. Read More