News Media and Governments: The Underlying Debate, CNN and BBC - Essay Example

I. Introduction Since the closing stages of the Cold War the growing eagerness of Western regimes to arbitrate militarily at times of international conflicts, joined with considerable degrees of Western media consideration to the human repercussions of remote civil wars, raises important concerns regarding the relationship of the media and the state. Particularly, it is generally disputed that intervention at times of humanitarian emergencies in northern Iraq in 1991 and Somalia in 1992 were somewhat motivated by news media exposure of people in extreme misery, the CNN and the BBC effect (Robinson, 2002). The primary objective of this research is to examine the assumptions underlying the CNN and BBC effect through carrying out a search for proofs of news media impact on governments. The emphasis would be on a single variable, the media, which are generally recognised as playing a decisive function in influencing intervention from developed nations. Understanding what encourages these developed nations, such as US and Britain to take action is significant to understanding the news media effect since the greater proportion of effective interventions have taken place under the directive and leadership of developed nations. The research seeks to provide substantive conclusions concerning the importance of news media effect on intervention and elaborates why news media have the power to influence government decision and policy making. Lastly, numerous studies of broadcasting are distinguished through searching investigations of media institutions, their cultural background, their proprietorship and social organization, their programming regulations, and their rapport with the state and with prevailing ideologies; yet, the core of the issue, the character of the broadcasting procedure and the manner in which spectators or audiences experience it, frequently appears to be lacking. Somewhat little importance is taken of the real nature of news media, whose influence to decide on audible and watchable substance comes before anything that can be obliged through the institutions that grant them or the regimes that aim to influence them. II. The CNN Influence Considered During the latter part of the twentieth century, the burgeoning of advanced technologies changed the capability of the news media to supply a regular stream of global live news. Tiananmen Square and the decline of communism, represented by the downfall of the historical Berlin Wall, turned out to be chief media events transmitted to Western audiences directly and instantly thru television news media. By the final stages of the decade the concern being addressed was the degree of influence of media occurrence upon government, specifically the mechanism of foreign policy making. Advanced technologies seemed to lessen the coverage for composed forethought over policy, compelling policy-makers to take action to whatever concern journalists emphasised on (Curran & Seaton, 2003). This viewpoint was consequently bolstered by the termination of the bipolar directive and what numerous believed as the end of the old anti-communist agreement which, it was claimed, had resulted in the generation of an ideological ties, merging policy-makers and journalists. Liberated from the shackles of the Cold War journalists were, it was believed to be, more liberated not merely to cover the events they personally prefer but to pass judgment on US foreign policy, too. For fundamental technological idealist these developments implied the recognition of an actual global community wherein the news media were aiding to wear down people’s recognition with the state and in its place shape a multi-ethnic global awareness (ibid). If the Gulf War incident in 1991 brought into mind of the spectators of the tremendous power that regimes had when it came to influencing media study, events following this conflict seemed to verify the contrary. As Martin Shaw argues, controversial and frequently highly crucial media exposure of Kurdish refugees running away from Saddam Hussein’s forces ushered in the practically unparalleled proposal for Kurdish sanctuaries. Operation Restore Hope in Somalia immediately came next, and repeatedly, it was assumed that the unfortunate manoeuvre into the 1992 Horn of Africa had successfully been compelled upon the United States through media demands (Robinson, 2002). The legend of the CNN influence had been born. The two interventions, namely in northern Iraq and Somalia, fired up a major debate within scholarly and government circles; foreign policy specialists specifically were disappointed by what they witnessed as needless incursion by the Fourth Estate into the policy procedure. George Kennan claimed that media exposure of people in misery in Somalia had seized conventional policy-making conduits, encouraging a messed up intervention. Or, Kennan dreaded that influential rule of foreign policy-making had been mislaid to the media. Some commentators agreed with Kennan in articulating concern at the perils of media-directed foreign policy (Davies, 2001). James Hoge, for instance, witnessed that contemporary invasive media intensifies the strain on politicians to take action accordingly to news reports that by their very promptness are inadequate, without perspective and occasionally mistaken. Working from a pragmatist point of view, analysts commonly belittled the CNN influence and highlighted the demand for influential rule of foreign policy (Zelizer, 1992). Nevertheless, whilst initial debate was distinguished by realist outlooks, the success of Democrat Bill Clinton as the president of the United States aided shape a foreign policy community more receptive to the concept of humanitarian intervention. This consequently manifested the globalist and Wilsonian character of several US Democrats. A comparable impact can be noticed within the foreign policy-making community of Britain as it has taken action to the declarations of a principled foreign policy by the Blair administration. As an outcome of these incidents there has been higher recognition amongst multitudes of policy-makers and counsellors as to the advantageous function of the news media in advancing Western intervention (Robinson, 2002). For instance, US Balkans representative Richard Holbrooke acclaimed the news media for helping attracting attention to the destructions in Bosnia and Kosovo, whereas previous National Security advisor Anthony Lake greeted the obvious capability of the media to emphasise humanitarian calamities across the globe. Regardless of this development, the dominant character within foreign policy communities inclines to revolve around issue over the destructive effect of coverage on logical policy making (Zelizer, 1992). To a decisive degree the CNN influence argument has carried on throughout the 1990s. For instance, constituents of the policy-making institution have reemphasised their belief in the influence of the news media to compel Western actions to humanitarian emergencies. For instance, in his speech during the air war against Serbia in 1999, British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that politicians were still “fending off the danger of letting wherever CNN roves be the cattle prod to take a global conflict seriously” (Robinson, 2002, 11) indicating that, if abandoned unmonitored, the news media have the command to force governments to get involved. Lawrence Freedman and Nicholas Wheeler have reanalysed the CNN influence argument and provided valuable ideas into the potential extent of media effect. These scholars draw upon investigation into the CNN influence and, whereas providing a further wary evaluation of media authority, still emphasise to the media fulfilling an essential function in relation to intervention at times of humanitarian emergencies. For instance, Freedman remarks that whereas media authority could have been overstated during previous stages of the CNN influence argument, policy-makers have as a matter of fact come to assume in the authority of the media. Freedman maintains that US intervention in Kosovo was partially due to the assumption that, if left unmonitored, the disaster would create negative media exposure and appeals for something to be done (ibid). In his investigation of humanitarian intervention, Wheeler claims that there is a present definite restriction to the CNN influence, specifically with regard to the operation of ground troops. He too claims that media exposure does not result in or oblige policy-makers to get involved but rather facilitates policy-makers to arbitrate through establishing public support. The repercussion here is that policy-makers are encouraged to arbitrate for non-media associated motives but demand remarkable media exposure to help acquire local support (Robinson, 2002). Or, in other words, whilst meeting the criteria directly claims of the media causation which prevail a great part of the CNN influence argument, these scholars still assert that the media fulfil a significant function in assisting intervention at times of humanitarian emergencies; as such their remarks on media influences suit in with a recognizable set of arguments concerning the powerful role of the media (ibid). Regardless of the work of Freedman and Wheeler, seldom at the time of the CNN influence debate was there a decisive evaluation of the assertion that news media affect intervention. Frequently than not the CNN influence has been claimed rather than confirmed. The outcome is regular indecision over the scope and importance of the CNN influence, as well as the determination of an unfounded and far-reaching belief that the news media have the authority to rouse sentiments and awakes governments (Zelizer, 1992). In other words, the CNN influence has turned out to be an unproved and unverified reality for several foreign policy and humanitarian communities. III. BBC and the Second World War Opinions differ considerably as to the effectiveness of otherwise of the domestic matrimony between cultural generation and consumption. Fussell’s evaluation, for instance, of British and American accepted cultural channels at the time of the Second World War is exceptionally negative; providers, he claims, performed as if they were the entities of government; they articulate with a singular expression communicating the same optimistic war significance, oftentimes in overwhelming terms, within the by and large constraints of an “Allied ideological vacuum” (Hayes & Hill, 1999, 8). In order to be certain, there were exclusions amongst both contributors and spectators within this interpretation; exceptionally intelligent discussion on the BBC or an obvious inclination for critical music in the midst of the troops. However, generally, wartime civilisation was sameness, but as well as superficial and monotonous; and the analytical instruments of doubt, irony and uncertainty were early war fatalities (ibid). However, Fussell also proposes that the war compelled everyone to return to long-established cultural possessions and responses and obliged people to take into account which aspects were important enough to be sustained and enjoyed repeatedly. Certainly, conclusion by the modern historiography, the time Churchill famously envisioned that the continuing war would be Britain’s golden hour; he might well have been giving out his observations straightforwardly to the nation’s cultural creators in manners which transcend plainly acclaiming the patriotic and provokingly valiant criticising of early offerings (Hayes & Hill, 1999). Marwick, for instance, has drawn interest to present-day expression reminiscent of a cultural revitalisation within the arts in Britain during the war. Nor, obviously, was this a remote or scarcely founded incidence. Aldgate distinguishes the war episode as a period of unparalleled recognition for British film when commentators remarked on the tremendous progress in quality; similarly Richards remarks it to be the finest hour of British film music, a gauge of the newly instituted artistic and scholarly dedication by individuals to the patriotic attempt in the struggle against the rise of fascism (Cull, 1995). The list keeps on. Following a shaky inauguration, theatre-going became growingly well-liked; furthermore, people are informed, the push for the promotion and acknowledgment of new ideas became obvious. Extremely commentated upon, as well as, while the war continued, was the substantive progress in light amusement and comedy creation, repeatedly drawing the attention of new social spectators. Basil Dean, the producer of theatrical productions and Director of ENSA, for instance, gave passionate tribute to BBC wartime broadcasting, not slightest its fascinating comedy broadcasts of a framework unheard of prior to the war (Crisell, 1997). On the other hand, the unusual level of collaboration between the American broadcasters assigned in London and their British counterparts attained its highest point in 1943, when Churchill referred to Edward Murrow the position of co-director generalship of the BBC. Justice Felix Frankfurter persuaded Murrow to acknowledge the offer, perceiving the proposal as an exceptional prospect to advance an Anglo-American postwar coalition. Yet Murrow doubted that the finale of the war could convey conflicts of intentions between Britain and the United States. He had no aspiration to split his commitments, and courteously refused (Cull, 1995). Even devoid of Murrow at the controls, the BBC attained much at the time of the leftover years of the war. The corporation’s counsellor on American issues in 1946 disclosed that the service of North America had been possibly the most significant sole passageway of mass communication between Britain and the United States at the time of the war. He remarked that, by 1945, a number of American stations were airing at least one BBC programs every week (ibid). Britain’s most successful publicity, nevertheless, were its endeavours. If British grand policy hanged about a spike in the throat of America, other policies showed very useful constructive propaganda. According to the report of Halifax in February 1943, the Beveridge account on postwar social development arrived as “one of the most effective pieces of British Propaganda for United States consumption for some time” (Cull, 1995, 193). He discovered proof of this in the American medium, because many American associations that generated significant document now called to these as their “Beveridge Report” (ibid, 193). Nevertheless, BBC has never been completely immune from state pressure. Its permit to broadcast has at all times been awarded for permanent periods, by no means in eternity; the state selects its set of governors; and the state, on no account the BBC, decides on the charge of the receiving authorisations, fraction of which it may refuse to give. Therefore it is reasonable to assert that during its history the BBC’s connections with governments of every political character have been subtle and sometimes tensed (Curran & Seaton, 2003). IV. Conclusion The experiences of Britain are essential to any discourse of relations between the news media and governments. It was in Britain, nevertheless, that the traditional assumption regarding this relationship was conceived in the latter part of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries; and 20th century progresses in the ownership, organisation and regulation of the media have guaranteed that the debate is still a vigorous one. A number of partial official accounts, released by the Royal Commissions and Government Committees, in addition to numerous guides, Parliamentary discussions, and manuscripts have investigated the function of the press and broadcasting since the advent of the Second World War. It could be mentioned that the outcomes of these investigations have hardly been proportionate with the effort; yet, they have at least offered a significant interpretation on the dilemmas that weighed down liberal democracy when it attempts to merge its conventions of a liberated press with a typically contemporary concern for the standards and operation of the “watchdog of the public interest” (Nimmo & Mansfield, 1982, 77). In the case of CNN and BBC, and as far as the liberal thinkers are concerned, the only favourable, certainly acceptable, function for government in its engagements with the press was to keep distance and allow a free press communicate, possibly even converse with a free citizenry. As James Mill argued in 1821, “So true it is, that the discontent of the people is the only means of removing the defects of vicious government, that the freedom of the press, the main instrument of creating discontent, is, in all civilised countries, among all but the advocates of misgovernment, regarded as an indispensable security, and the greatest safeguard of the interests of mankind” (ibid, 77). References Crisell, A. (1997). An Introductory History of British Broadcasting. London: Routledge. Cull, N. J. (1995). Selling War: The British Propaganda Campaign against American "Neutrality" in World War II. New York: Oxford University Press. Curran, J. & Seaton, J. (2003). Power Without Responsibility: The Press, Broadcasting, and New Media in Britain. London: Routledge. Davies, M. M. (2001). Dear BBC: Children, Television Storytelling, and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hayes, N. & Hill, J. (1999). "Millions Like Us?": British Culture in the Second World War. Liverpool, England: Liverpool University Press. Nimmo, D. & Mansfield, M.W. (1982). Government and the News Media: Comparative Dimensions. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Robinson, P. (2002). The CNN Effect: The Myth of News, Foreign Policy and Intervention. London: Routledge. Willis, J. (1991). The Shadow World: Life Between the News Media and Reality. New York: Praeger. Zelizer, B. (1992). CNN, the Gulf War and Journalistic Practice. Journal of Communication , 66. Read More