CNN Effect and the Role of 24-Hour Global News as a Catalyst for Humanitarian Intervention - Case Study Example

Media and Conflict Evidence for A CNN Effect and the Role of 24-Hour Global News as a Catalyst for Humanitarian Intervention The CNN effect originated from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and it engrained CNN as the reference standard for news reporting. CNN had the infrastructure required to broadcast news from the war zone. It was the first news organization in America to transmit reportage and images from Iraq for fourteen days (Zingarelli 2010, p8). Furthermore, the CNN images from the Highway of Death (a path of refugee exodus) may have aggravated the end of the war by the Bush Administration. The war reporting rooted CNN firmly as a trustworthy and prestigious news outlet (with a political influence). CNN coverage has helped the administration to have an idea of what is happening. CNN started to influence policymakers for the reason being they were there all the time. During the Gulf War broadcasting, CNN influenced the high-level decision makers and the public (Zingarelli 2010, p9). The impact continued throughout the 1990 crises, and other news agencies started to add to the CNN effect. The continued crisis in Somalia through the television images pressed the Bush Administration to take action. The television made a big difference to Somalia because of the daily relaying pictures of famished children (Zingarelli 2010, p9). CNN is a symbol of the impact of constant video news. The impression, images, and sounds of being there that the 24-hour networks started to offer shifted society’s perception to some extent (Zingarelli 2010, p10; Willis and Willis 2007, p7). CNN effect is simply a theory concerning media driven intervention and is not supposed to be interpreted as an effect of the CNN channel. The CNN effect was originally spoken during the Gulf War in 1991 and was deliberated as referring to psychological and economic consequences, which rose concurrently during the CNN war coverage. The advancement in technology contributed to instant mass communication and continuous global news coverage. The continuous global coverage minimized the space between nations and people and influenced the entire worldwide awareness. Several studies have focused on the CNN effect, but there is still an issue with the definition of the term (Journiette and Olsson 2008, p3). The CNN effect theory was proposed by Piers Robinson in 2002, and it suggests that persuasive television images, particularly those of humanitarian crisis, make the United States policymakers intercede in a situation when that condition would not be in the United States interest. The theory displays the significant supremacy of the mass media. The theory suggests that television coverage has three different impacts on humanitarian military involvements. The first impact is called the CNN effect and it involves images of suffering pushing the governments into intervention. The second impact is the body bags effect in which the images of casualties pulls the government away and the final impact is the bullying effect in which the use of excessive force puts risk of watering down public support for intervention (Bredeson 2011, p5; Gilboa 2005, p30; Hanitzsch and Wahl-Jorgensen 2008, p349). In the past years, there has been intense debate about the ‘CNN effect’ indicating that no crisis will get attention without the television cameras being present to transmit pictures into the homes of the voters. The CNN effect most regularly discusses the potential devastating effect that a 24-hour news network with a global scope can have on the capability of government to control foreign policy. A number of media analysts have indicated that the CNN effect impends to pull diplomatic control away from experienced public officials. It intends to place the power onto the hands of editors, photographers, and journalists. Television images and reporting (of human suffering) can produce public awareness that is generally interpreted as pressures on the government (Cameron 2005, p108). Constant television reporting of the terrorists attack in New York of the World Trade Center made sure that there would be huge public support for the retaliatory action. During the last ten years, the promptness in which the troops are withdrawn or deployed is an issue in which the public opinion had some effect. Especially, television images such as bloody repression in Haiti, refugees evading slaughter in Rwanda, warfare and starvation in Somalia, and ethnic cleansing in Rwanda have touched the feelings of viewing audiences and have forced the policymakers to clarify situations on which they have selected to remain silent (Cameron 2005, p108). Categories of CNN Effect CNN effect is broken into several types, and they include the impediment effect, the accelerant effect, the challenging effect, and the agenda-setting effect. The categories define the manner in which the media affects public opinion and high-level government policy. The accelerant effect discusses the media’s capability to speed policy decision. The effect suggests that politicians have the feeling that they ought to respond speedily to news reports either “because they want their message to define public discussion or because they need to assuage a crisis as soon as possible” (Zingarelli 2010, p12). However, the accelerant effect does not result in the best decisions. The media’s manner of accelerating a decision may not be the best choice. It can result into emotional and impulsive choices from the policymakers. The CNN effect may have expelled the privilege of slow and careful policy consideration that policymakers used to enjoy. The accelerant effect discloses that the CNN effect fails to set value or moral standards; instead, it places appearance and timing as top virtues (Zingarelli 2010, p12). The impediment effect discusses the media influence on military strategy. The interplay between public opinion and strategy dominates. Reportage or images of collateral damage, dead soldiers, humanitarian suffering or other heart wrenching sites can raise questions concerning the purpose of a given conflict or war. The impediment effect can obstruct military operations. This is because of the outcry that is generated by the public. It is vital to note that military leaders give their full attention to his dynamic. For instance, Christiane Amanpour (a CNN reporter) whereabouts was discussed extensively by the Pentagon during the mid-1990s Bosnia conflict. This example discloses that impediment effect can make reporters essential pieces of military action. This is despite the fact that journalists are and are supposed to be hard to control. In a nutshell, the impediment effect makes the public violent and this worries and stimulates officials take the necessary action (Zingarelli 2010, p13). A classic example of the impediment effect is the public response to the Vietnam War. Although CNN was not present at that time, the principles of impediment effect were evident through the various media sources at that time. This might be the reason why the Clinton Administration failed to intervene in the Rwanda case. Taking note of the news coverage of Somalia intervention, the Clinton Administration wondered if any involvement was worth risking (Zingarelli 2010, p14). The impediment effect seems to carry the highest stake among the categories of CNN effect. Therefore, propaganda is considered a related effect by scholars. The government senses the necessity to control and defend perceptions of military actions in peacetime and war. Just like the accelerant effect, it indicates that appearances and response time may be changing careful deliberation as the media reveal humanitarian circumstances that generally require action (Zingarelli 2010, p14). The agenda-setting effect discusses how news agenda can generate a policy plan or reorganize a government’s path of action (Zingarelli 2010, p14). Scholars indicate that the media possesses most power to affect policy when the government fails to make a concrete decision and even in situations where the government attempts to evade a public relations disaster. Although the media can rotate its schedule to discuss human suffering, it can also offer sensational stories priority. Evaluating the exact agenda-setting strength of the media is sophisticated because national or political interests do not always go concurrently with those of the media (Zingarelli 2010, p15; Plappert 2010, p7). The agenda-setting power was particularly evident during the Kosovo War and NATO intervention. In several particular instances, it is indicated that media attention triggered a policy response. For instance, in the outcome of the Gornje Obrinje massacre, the pictures of suffering individuals dominated in the news of the American television. Consequently, the National Security Council called for an emergency meeting in which the policymakers implemented a proviso to Slobodan Milosevic. He was told to either face firepower or withdraw his troops. Policymakers showed to media power their deliberations (Zingarelli 2010, p15). The final class of CNN effect is the challenging effect. The challenging effect discusses the news’ capability to push for decisions to lessen human suffering during a serious crisis such as war. The effect inspires media to be engaged in wars or fill a space in policy that looks irrelevant to the national interest. The 1992 Somalia conflict is a good example of this form of effect. The Bush Administration looking at the devastating images from the disaster, told the military advisers they cannot just watch, they had to do something. This example indicates that sometimes images possess enough power to summon leaders for action (Zingarelli 2010, p16). Although horrifying images in the news can affect leaders, sometimes the politicians can think more of the national ego than the humanitarian concern. For instance, the Srebrenica massacre, which exploded as a result of the Bosnia conflict, made President Clinton speak of the United States as looking weak and losing prestige if it failed to do anything. The same decision has been made by other administrators. Therefore, the challenging effect fails to mention the power of the media to produce compassion alone (Zingarelli 2010, p16). The Role of 24-Hour Global News as a Catalyst for Humanitarian Intervention In the 1980s, the emergence of new technologies changed the capability of the news media to offer a continuous flow of universal real-time news. The collapse of communism and the Tiananmen Square signified by the Berlin Wall fall became the main media events relayed to the Western audiences immediately through television news media. By the end of 1980, the question in the minds of the people was the extent to which media pervasiveness had on the government, especially in the process of making foreign policy. New technologies seemed to minimize the possibility for calm consideration over policy, forcing the policy-makers to react to whatsoever problem journalists concentrated on (Robinson 2002, p7). As mentioned before, the CNN effect refers to the widely available 24-hours broadcasts of Cable News Network. CNN effect was created in controversy. In 1992, the decision by President Bush to place troops in Somalia was severely questioned. The decision was made after the Bush Administration viewed media report of starving refugees in Somalia. Issues such as the American interests in Somalia and CNN’s decision to dictate where the military should go arose. A few months later, the decision by President Clinton to withdraw United States troops from Somalia after scenes of a dead American serviceman were televised appeared to confirm the CNN’s power. The serviceman was being dragged along the streets of Mogadishu in Somalia. Presently, the increase in 24/7 news network and its collective presence of generating round-the-clock news coverage has had an impact on policymaking (Belknap 2002, p100; Strobel 1996, p1). The introduction of real-time news broadcasting has resulted in immediate public scrutiny and awareness of military operations and strategic decisions as they happen. One wonders if it is a loss or a gain for warfighters and strategic leaders. The military salutes the awareness, however, it is wary of the scrutiny. The immense resources give the commanders extraordinary opportunities. However, the press (both the electronic and print news media) still gets different military reviews. Majority of the people in military perceive the media’s interference as a probable career and operational risk (Belknap 2002, p100). It is crucial to state that the military requires the media to have the Americans informed and involved, to gather public support, particularly for its operations. Therefore, the CNN effect is a double-edged sword, that is a potential operational risk and a strategic enabler (Belknap 2002, p101). The continuous media coverage recognized the Somalia crisis, increased the awareness concerning it, and lifted it up the political agenda. Thus, it can be viewed as policy agenda setting influence. At the same time, media coverage from the Washington Post, CNN, CNS, and the New York Times before President Bush Senior made the military intervention modest. Media coverage multiplied quickly after the statement that the United States troops would be sent the days prior to the official placement of the soldiers in Mogadishu. It is argued that the news coverage followed instead of preceding the decision to get involved. There was inadequate media broadcast when the decision (Operation Provide Relief) took place (Journiette and Olsson 2008, p12). However, after the first broadcasting yield in the airlift aftermath, Somalia was no longer in the news. The 1992 deployment of the troops was among the most followed news proceedings in 1992. After the initiation of Operation Restore Hope, news broadcast dropped, and the operation was slowly succeeding. In the autumn of 1993, the military faced difficulties and the number of casualties rose. During this period, there was the renewal of media attention. The number of casualties increased concurrently with the number of articles. Opinion polls done on the American people indicated that they started to see the operation as a total failure and requested for its termination (Journiette and Olsson 2008, p12). The precarious media coverage of proceedings in Mogadishu and video pictures of a soldier being pulled along the streets of Mogadishu while Somali crowds are cheering baffled the public. The news taking of the traumatic events is viewed as an obstruction to the endurance of intervention policy and require for a policy regarding the involvement of the United States. Words that were empathic and supportive were utilized, as many times as words that were distancing and critical during the early understanding of the Somali intervention and crisis. The utilization of optimistic language and positive framing created a support for intervention. However, the media transformed the Somali crisis framing when they established independent information and started challenging the views of the government (Journiette and Olsson 2008, p12). The most swiftly and widely reported war in history was the Operation Desert Storm. It was the first CNN war, and it marked the turning point for the American view of the relationship between the military and the media (Belknap 2002, p105). In the days before the Afghanistan conflict, the media and the military appeared to be on good terms than several years before. In the age of numerous 24-hour cable news (that are utilizing the technology of satellite), the CNN effect continues to put more pressure on the tension between the anarchists and the control freaks. In the first few days of the Afghanistan war, the media had restricted access to operations of the military (Belknap 2002, p108). Elizabeth Becker of the New York Times reported that the military had enforced a tight lid. In other words, the military was attempting to assure the public that the war was in control and at the same time keeping the media a distance. For a warfighter and a strategic leader, it is crucial to understand the existing tensions and the ability to balance the needs of the military to regulate information even when the media desires to give information to the public. This is because it is a matter of operational security. It is crucial for the warfighters and strategic leaders to know that the media is a potential force multiplier in various ways (Belknap 2002, p108). Apart from the positive CNN effect, there exists a reverse CNN effect. When majority of the analysts talk of the policy driving force of the media, they generally refer to the capability of the news organization to coerce particular political actions. At times, the media reports create opposite effects, that is, they lead to policy inaction. The phenomenon is well described as reverse CNN effect. There are certain scenarios that support the existence of this reverse effect. In the 1990s, televisions in America were full of images of violent disintegration in Yugoslavia. However, the military involvement to end the war among the Balkans was seen with disfavor by both the political leadership and the public in the United States (Rozell 2003, p288). The graphic images of Bosnians detained in concentration camps were seen as an issue of ethnic cleansing in the foreign policy agenda of the Bush Administration. The images were not strong enough to command a different overall policy. In contrast, the pictures generally served to support suppositions that ethnic conflict is normal among the Balkans, which is always and will always remain to be so. Any intervention short of a colossal scale looked futile; the former Bush Administration officials seemed to support this idea (Rozell 2003, p288). The war in Bosnia did not get the necessary humanitarian intervention as it was anticipated by the news organization. Instead, it was just seen as a normal thing among the Bosnians. In conclusion, the media and the military have enhanced their relationship since the times of the Vietnam War. As aforementioned, the Vietnam War was the first television in America. The increase in 24/7 news network and satellite technology have propagated and created CNN effect and have affected how warfighters control their commands and their strategic-level decision-making. The military is supposed to anticipate, plan, and anticipate for this new form of dynamic. Resistance between the media and the military will remain to some extent in the future. Friction or resistance will always persist even if war coverage dilemmas are fully recognized by both parties (soldiers and journalists) (Belknap 2002, p112). The soldiers and journalists should create a sympathetic understanding of each other’s responsibilities and needs. Despite these frictions, warfighters and strategic leaders should absorb the increasing strength “of the fourth estate as a strategic enabler while hedging against operational risk” (Belknap 2002, p112). As aforementioned, the effect of a 24-hour news organization can be positive or negative, and it can make the government intervene or fail to intervene in a certain situation despite its horrific display of devastated people. References Belknap, M. H. (2002) The CNN effect: Strategic enabler or operational risk? Parameters, 1, pp100-114. Bredsen, J. (2011) The CNN effect: Mass media and humanitarian aid, Thesis (Honors Program), Liberty University. Cameron, F. (2005) US foreign policy after the cold war: Global hegemon or reluctant Sherriff? London: Routledge. Gilboa, E. (2005) The CNN effect: The search for a communication theory of international relations. Political Communication, 22, pp27-44. Hanitzsch, T., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2008) The handbook of journalism studies, London: Routledge. Journiette, I. B. & Olsson, L. (2008) Media and humanitarian intervention: A study of the CNN effect and the United States foreign policy making in the context of Somalia and Darfur, Thesis, Lunds Universitet Statsvetenskapliga Institutionen. Plappert, S. (2010) Humanitarian intervention: “Why do states intervene in some humanitarian crises and not others?” Germany: GRIN Verlag. Robinson, P. (2002) The CNN effect: The myth of news media, foreign policy and intervention, London: Routledge. Rozell, M. J. (2003) Media power, media politics, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Strobe, W. P. (1996) The CNN effect. American Journalism Review, [online], 1. Available from: [Accessed 6 March 2013]. Willis, J. W. & Willis, J. (2007) The media effect: How the news influences politics and government, Westport: Greenwood Publishing Company. Zingarelli, M. E. (2010) The CNN effect and the Al Jazeera effect in global politics and society, Thesis (Masters), Georgetown University. Read More