Bombing Baghdad: Comparing The Influence of Foreign Policy and Propaganda Tools
in British and American Newspapers During a Joint Military Action
December 17-21, 1998
Abhinav Aima
Graduate Student
E.W. Scripps School of Journalism
Address - #126 South Green Drive, Room 226
Ohio University, Athens, OH-45701.
Phone # (740)-597-7057
e-mail - [log in to unmask]
MacDougall Contest
AEJMC Convention (Newspaper Division), August 4-7, 1999, New Orleans, LA.
Abhinav Aima, Bombing Baghdad: Comparing The Influence of Foreign Policy and
Propaganda Tools in British and American Newspapers During a Joint Military
Action
December 17-21, 1998.
This study compared the coverage of air strikes against Iraq in four American
and four British newspapers in the period December 17-21, 1998. A content
analysis of 293 news stories collected from the Lexis-Nexis databank for these
five days showed a similar trend in newspapers of both countries that lent
support to the propaganda model theory. Both countries' newspapers
over-represented the sources that were favorable to the respective foreign
policies or largely kept their opinions within the confines of the foreign
policy debate.
Bombing Baghdad: Comparing The Influence of Foreign Policy and Propaganda Tools
in British and American Newspapers
During a Joint Military Action
December 17-21, 1998
INTRODUCTION
The United States and the United Kingdom launched joint air-strikes against Iraq
on December 16, 1998, allegedly in retaliation for Iraq's non-compliance to the
UN brokered WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) inspection program. The air
strikes lasted four days, from December 16 to December 20.
Coincidentally, or otherwise, the date for the launch of the air strikes came
just before a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach President
Clinton. In a rare display of authority British Prime Minister confirmed the air
strikes publicly before President Clinton did. The timing of the air strikes
prompted criticism from some quarters of the U.S. administration that evening,
largely on account of the pending vote on impeachment. "I cannot support this
military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," said Senate majority leader
Trent Lott in a statement that reportedly infuriated the White House. "Both the
timing and the policy are subject to question," he added.[1]
Similar criticism was also leveled at Tony Blair in England, but as he was not
facing an impeachment vote the criticism focused more on the actual complicity
of his decision. Over the course of the day, however, most criticism for the
air-strikes in the U.S. media was considerably toned down as Representative
Robert L. Livingston of Louisiana, the Speaker-designate, urged both Republicans
and Democrats to "support our troops, now that they're deployed," and ostensibly
preserve the morale of the fighting force by practicing restrain in criticism of
Clinton's decision[2]. The next day Senate majority leader Trent Lott, who had
been among the first to openly question President Clinton's decision to bomb
Iraq, also rolled back claiming that he had been misquoted. "Once the decision
has been made and the action is under way, you support it," he declared on
television[3]. Soon after this, the debate in the media shifted back to the
mathematics of the vote on impeachment.
Thus, at a time when it was required most, the examination of the attack on Iraq
was curtailed in the name of nationalism, and the air strikes were allowed to
extend, with seemingly
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
little criticism, into four days. The American press seemed to fall in line, as
it had done before in the crucial days of the campaigns in Grenada, Panama and
the Gulf War of 1990-91.
"Covering war is unlike covering anything else, and it leads inevitably toward
nationalistic accounts," wrote Everette E. Dennis, Executive Director of the
Gannett Foundation Media Center shortly after the conclusion of the Persian Gulf
war in 1991. "Historically," he added, "the consequence of such coverage is
cheerleading rather than critical analysis."[4] Everette went on to ask a panel
of senior journalists for their views on the performance of the press in the
Persian Gulf war.
"There is no question that in war, reporters tend to be cheerleaders for their
own side and their own country," said Lawrence Grossman, President of PBS.
"But," he added, "certainly in this war (Persian Gulf War, 1991), which lasted
for such a short time and was so intense, I think there is no question that we
saw an unusually patriotic, supportive journalistic crops."[5]
Jack Nelson, the Washington bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times, was sure he
saw something else in the Persian Gulf War of 1991, something more sinister. "If
you look at it from the outset," noted Nelson, "the press was reflecting the
views of the government and it never really changed. Bush and the people around
him did a masterful job controlling exactly what the American people were
seeing."[6]
If the American press was cheerleading and toeing the line during the 1991
Persian Gulf War, then was its behavior any different during the for four days
of air strikes in December 1998? Had the press learned any lessons from dealing
with the government and the military during the 1991 campaign?
Margaret Blanchard pointed out in her study (Spring 1992)[7] that the practice
of censoring information reaching the American people during wartime - the
deliberate twisting of information by government sources to manipulate public
opinion and the unwillingness to tolerate dissent during wartime - were not
traits limited to the government's attempts to control the press during the
Persian Gulf War alone, but rather a practice that could find precedent in up to
200 years of the history of the American press covering American wars.
"If the past is any indication of the future," wrote Blanchard, "government
efforts to restrict dissent and press activity in wartime should be no surprise.
What may be the surprise is that such restrictions have continued for two
hundred years without being changed. Continued
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
efforts at suppression and repression of the free flow of information may well
cost the nation some of its most prized freedoms."[8]
It was Shakespeare who wrote, "the past is the prologue to the present." The
press coverage of the air strikes of December 1998 seemed to vindicate his
claim. Once again, when it was most required, the criticism in the American
press seemed to be wanting, curtailed, held back by a politically ordained
larger national need to preserve morale and support the troops. But the air
strikes were a joint operation - acted out by both British and American
governments and covered by both British and American press. Was there a similar
suspension of surveillance in the British press?
Once again, the answer to this question lies in the past. During the Falkland
war between Britain and Argentina there was a hint of relationship of common
gain from the conflict for the Press, if it supported the British foreign policy
of military action against Argentina (Holmes, 1986).[9] At that time the British
press had largely sought to align itself with the national cause rather than
actively pursue an objective reportage of comprehensive facts.[10] As Ralph
Negrine noted in his study of the mass media in Britain[11], in the instance
where a section of the British press tried to report on Argentina's side of the
story during the Falkland campaign, the combined flak by government foreign
policy makers, and foreign policy supporters in the British media, was such that
the news organization had to back off. This news organization was the BBC and,
as Negrine noted, the pressure by the supporters of British policy in the
Falklands was such that the BBC was forced to reconsider its editorial policies
to reflect solely the British government's arguments in defense of the actions
it was taking in the Falklands[12].
Patriotism was also a profitable enterprise for the British newspapers, as in
the past conflicts unpatriotic newspapers had been known to lose business and
readers[13] (Harris, 1983). For instance, newspapers that had been presenting
critical news and views of the British government during the 1956 Suez crises
lost between 30,000 and 70,000 readers in just one week, prompting newspapers to
quickly corner the market in patriotism when the Falkland crises came up in
1982[14].
The behavior of the British government during the Falkland war was, in fact,
recognized as a lesson in dealing with the press during military operations - a
lesson that the post-Vietnam era U.S. would shortly apply in its military action
in Grenada (Adams, 1986)[15]. In the Falkland campaign the British government
set the precedent for the U.S. by declaring and defending the claim that news
could be dangerous to national interests if it jeopardized both, operational
goals
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
and the morale of troops by reporting on facts contrary to those stated by
government or military sources[16].
In their study of the "Propaganda Model" for democratic and free societies, Noam
Chomsky and Edward Herman[17] noted that the propaganda function of mass media
is more insidious and much harder to see in societies like the United States
where the mass media systems are not directly run by the state. Chomsky and
Herman thus offered a propaganda model that, they claimed, could trace the
routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print,
marginalize dissent, and allow government and dominant private interests to get
their message across to the public. Does this model apply to the British
government as it does to the American government with respect to the handling of
the press?
According to Herman and Chomsky the western, capitalist system addresses itself
to the infrastructural and operational needs of a privately owned and profit
driven news organization. This results in the use of easily available, cheap and
flak free information through government sources that tend to drown out other
dissenting voices from access to the media. Such efforts to round up the press
within a propaganda model could be seen during the four decisive days of the
bombing of Iraq in December 1998. Elaborate Press briefings were organized in
which Pentagon and State Department officials quoted impressing facts and
commanded significant news space.
The test for the presence of propaganda, therefore, would be to study how much
coverage was given to investigating the claims of the government sources in the
media. Pressed for time in which to act, did the newspapers fulfill their
surveillance function to give the audience their fair share of facts in the
news? Or did the journalists fall for easy sources and cheaper, more easily
obtained facts and figures that the multi-million dollar Pentagon public affairs
cell made available to them through prompt and well-organized briefings? Also,
was this merely an American phenomenon or did it also extend to the British
press? As Britain was an equal partner in this joint-exercise, did the British
press behave similarly when collecting appropriate news of the bombings?
Purpose of Study
This study compared the background and the number of various government and
non-government sources that were quoted in four British and four American
newspapers in articles related to the air strikes against Iraq in the time
period of December 17 to December 21, 1998. The content analysis was used to
determine a statistically significant over-representation of the
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
government view through a significant over-reliance on sources friendly to the
U.S. and British foreign policies regarding the containment of Iraq.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Theoretical Views
One of the basic functions of the press is that of surveillance (Lasswell,
1948).[18] The news is our source of warnings about imminent threats and dangers
in the world (Wright, 1986). A journalist's role, therefore, can be summed up to
be one of selecting, evaluating and interpreting events and then signifying
their relative importance.[19] The efficient functioning of the news media can
help prevent disasters. This can be achieved through the news media's ability to
put developing situations on the public agenda, or build an agenda for handling
a specific concern (McCombs & Shaw, 1972).[20]
It has also been established through media-effects research that the nature of
news coverage of foreign countries and foreign issues can well determine the
understanding of those countries and issues by the readers (Perry, 1987).[21]
This, in turn, makes the foreign correspondent an important and influential
person.
The relationship between the press and U.S. foreign policy is one of both give
and take (Cohen, 1963). Press coverage can act as a source of information and
influence on foreign policy makers. The press can also be of a deliberate
instrumental use to the makers of foreign policy, and can be effectively used to
achieve specific foreign policy objectives.[22]
There is, thus, a considerable effort on the part of the government to curtail
this surveillance role of the press, to use the press as a propaganda tool to
voice U.S. foreign policy and thus overwhelm other opinions or views.[23] The
Propaganda Model devised by Herman and Chomsky (1988) addresses the manner with
which governments of western democracies can devise methods of exploiting the
economic, ideological and professional set-up of news organizations to turn them
into propaganda tools. In the Herman and Chomsky model the concept of a national
religion of anti-communism can be substituted in post-Cold War era to that of
`anti-American.' For instance, when trying to gather support for a military
action against Iraq in November 1990, Vice President Quayle compared Saddam
Hussein to Leonid Brezhnev, and argued that the U.S. needed to be as prepared to
face off with Saddam's Iraq as it had been against
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
the Soviet Union during President Carter's term. Quayle further extended the
rationale of the domino theory, arguing that "if Saddam Hussein succeeds in his
aggression, it is likely that his success will embolden other dictators to
emulate his example."[24]
The Theories of Foreign News Selection
The discrepancies in news flow from international sources have been explained in
various manners. While Schiller (1978) and Masmoudi (1981) criticize the press
for providing little international news and ignoring the third world, Potter
(1987) argues to the contrary, claiming that third world coverage has been
steadily rising.[25]
An analysis of the newsworthiness of world events (Shoemaker et. all, 1991) has
pointed towards an editorial process bias in favoring foreign news which is
either deviant or imperative to U.S. national security or business
interests.[26] This criterion for selection of foreign news is also identified
as an influence on gatekeepers/newspaper editors in their decisions regarding
use of wire stories (Chang and Lee, 1992). Therefore, the presumed threat of a
certain country or event to the U.S. security and national interest is found to
be a decisive factor in the gatekeepers' selection of news.[27]
Nevertheless, while such analysis can explain the difference in the volume of
news space that a story/country enjoys in the U.S. press, it does not explain
why the tone of the coverage of a certain country changes with U.S. foreign
policy.
A Changing U.S. Foreign Policy Changes the Tone of Press Coverage
The press coverage of a certain country or crises abroad has kept pace with U.S.
foreign policy, and the press has dressed its attitude along these shifts in
foreign policy (Krishnaiah et. all, 1993). A study of the New York Times
coverage of the Soviet intervention and subsequent withdrawal from Afghanistan
showed that the newspaper coverage satisfied the propaganda model predictions of
being consistent with the U.S. foreign policy interests.[28] The newspapers'
coverage of the Soviet Troops, the Afghan government, the U.S.S.R. and the
Intervention was decidedly negative and unfavorable until the rapprochement
between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in 1985. After this point, as foreign
policy towards the U.S.S.R. started warming up, the press coverage of the
Soviets became more favorable.
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
Similar changes in the framing of Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Tse-tung were noticed
as U.S. foreign policy went from supporting Taiwan to recognizing China
(Yang-Chou and Riffe, 1989). This study examined the editorial importance
awarded to each leader and showed that while the leaders remained the same, the
U.S. newsmagazines gave them different emphasis with relation to each other as
U.S. policy went through a transition from 1949 to 1976. Chiang was treated less
favorably and Mao less unfavorably as the U.S. policy shifted from support of
Taiwan to recognition of China.[29]
The nature of press coverage can be sweepingly biased, so as to misrepresent
entire countries in the propaganda model. However, as the U.S. policy has
changed to a less prejudiced view of the Communist/socialist State, these
editorial biases have corrected themselves (Tsan-Kuo Chang, 1988). A study of
the New York Times and the Washington Post front page news and editorials
revealed that pejorative labels attached to countries' names also changed to
keep up with the changing U.S. foreign policy. As the U.S. policy changed to
better relations with the Chinese, the newspapers' use of ideological symbols
such as 'Communist China', 'Red China' or 'Chinese Communist regime' gave way to
a more appropriate 'China' from 1950 to 1984. On the other hand, newspapers
gradually dropped the use of 'Nationalist China' with reference to Taiwan,
particularly after the U.S. severed diplomatic relations with the Nationalist
government on Taiwan in 1979 and recognized the Communist government on mainland
China as the sole representative of the state.[30]
Foreign Policy Influence on Press Coverage
A bias in the manner in which the press covers some of the countries vital to
U.S. interest can be judged in terms of the 'anticommunist national religion'
described in the propaganda model (Herman and Chomsky, 1988). The effect of this
propaganda filter has been addressed in studies such as the bias in the
reporting of the conflict in Nicaragua between 1983-1987 (Dickson, 1992). In
this study, both the New York Times and the Washington Post were found to have
relied heavily on U.S. government sources with only 5-6% of material coming from
the Contra rebel sources - the ones who were fighting the actual war against
the Sandanistas. With the U.S. sources defining the aims and goals of the Contra
for them, the newspapers demonstrated a pattern of legitimizing U.S. foreign
policy in the Nicaraguan conflict. The limited criticism published by the
newspapers was found to be criticism of the means of achieving stated U.S.
policy goals, rather than being a criticism of the U.S. policy itself.[31]
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
The nature of the press bias is not limited to issues of anti-communism alone.
An analysis of the coverage by newsmagazines of the invasion of Panama
(Villalobos et. all, 1994) confirmed that the mainstream newsmagazines (both
Time and Newsweek) offered little criticism of U.S. policies and mostly offered
arguments that reinforced the U.S. foreign policy stand for removing Noriega,
and supported the invasion.[32]
The findings of the newsmagazine study were corroborated by Sandra Dickson's
analysis of the New York Times' coverage of the U.S. invasion of Panama
(Dickson, 1994). A content analysis of the sources used by the New York Times in
it's coverage of the invasion again proved a bias in favor of the U.S. view on
the conflict, with U.S. officials largely defining and dominating the political
debate regarding the invasion in the newspaper.[33]
Similarly, Barranco and Shyles' study of the coverage of Arab versus Israeli
news in 1976 and 1984 found that in these years the New York Times gave more
coverage to issues of importance to Israel (a long standing U.S. ally), thereby
favoring one segment of a geopolitical region over another and further
aggravating Mideastern wounds by infecting the international news agenda with
disfigured perceptions of the Mideast.[34]
HYPOTHESIS
If the propaganda model applies to both the U.S. and Britain then -
1. American newspapers with represent a statistically significant greater number
of U.S. government friendly sources in their coverage, while the British
newspapers will similarly represent a statistically significant greater number
of sources friendly to British foreign policy in their coverage of the four-day
air strikes against Iraq. Furthermore, if the nature of news collection routines
is similar as per the propaganda model, the rank order correlation for various
sources used by newspapers of both countries will also be significant - thereby
showing the similarities in the over all emphasis placed by the newspapers of
the two countries on the sources of facts and information regarding the air
strikes for the five day period.
1. While the overall distribution in number of sources presented in news
coverage may numerically differ between the British and American newspapers, the
treatment awarded to sources foreign to both U.S. and U.K. interests shall be
similar in both countries' newspapers. Or, in other words, there shall be no
statistically significant difference in the distribution of non-British,
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
non-American sources between the American and British newspapers thereby showing
a similar news process of awarding representation to sources friendly to the
respective national foreign policy.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study also tried to address the changes in types of sources over a short
period of time during military action to see if newspapers in Britain and the
U.S. were exhibiting any statistically significant trends in representation of
sources as the coverage of the air strikes moved from December 17 to December 21
1998. The questions that were posed were -
1. Did any particular kind of sources exhibit a significant change with passage
of time over the period of the air strikes in American newspapers?
1. Did any particular kind of sources exhibit a significant change with passage
of time over the period of the air strikes in British newspapers?
1. Did any particular kind of sources exhibit a significant change with passage
of time over the period of the air strikes when both categories of newspapers
are collapsed?
METHODOLOGY
Four newspapers were chosen from the American and British mainstream press and
assumed to be widely representative of the diversity of news presented to the
readers in both countries. These newspapers were the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Boston Globe from the U.S.A.,
and the Independent, the Times, the Guardian, and the Scotsman from the U.K.
The stories from these newspapers were identified for the purposes of content
analysis by a keyword search of the Lexis-Nexis database. The time period of the
data was restricted to five days, starting with stories written on December 17
(the day after the air strikes were announced) and going through to December 21
(the day after the air strikes were called off).
The objective of the content analysis was to identify the sources that were
represented in the news articles so as to recognize the effect of the government
regulated reporting patterns on the coverage of facts during a military
operation. Therefore, comment pieces and editorials were
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
left out of this study as they did not reflect attribution to the sources of the
facts used in the arguments presented. The study was also limited to news pages
and therefore the articles published in the Fashion, Style, Financial and other
supplementary feature pages were also left out.
The keywords used for the search were - Iraq, Bombing, the newspaper's name and
the dates of the study, ranging from December 17, 1998 to December 21, 1998.
After the data had been collected, each news story was read and every source
mentioned was noted for its nationality, its professional background and its
support, opposition or no opinion on the question of bombing Iraq. Every fact
mentioned in the news story attributed to a source was coded.
The source's nationality was broken down into U.S., U.K., Iraqi, Russian,
French, Chinese, Organization of Islamic Countries member or Arab/Middle Eastern
nationality, an office bearer of the United Nations, or any other country. The
source's professional background was coded as Military, Government (including
members of opposition parties), Non-governmental Organization/Expert or an
ordinary person with no special/authoritative skills mentioned in the story (as
in man-on-the-street interviews). Furthermore, opinion polls were also coded on
the basis of their nationality and the nature of the result published -
pro-bombing, anti-bombing or a result that focussed on aspects of the air-strike
but did not comment on the issue of bombing itself (example - polls about
support or suspicion of Clinton's motives, trustworthiness etc.). The objective
was to identify the sources with views that clearly questioned the respective
foreign policy in the U.S. or in the U.K.
The opinion regarding the act of bombing itself was clear in some cases - the
source either supported the bombing, or asked for it to be stopped, or refused
to comment on the issue, concentrating on other aspects of the crises. In cases
where the source offered news of successful raids or efficient damage to weapon
facilities in Iraq as a fact in support of bombing the source was recognized and
coded to be speaking in support of bombing Iraq. In cases where sources
identified civilian dead or wounded as an argument against bombing, the sources
were recognized and coded to be speaking against the bombing of Iraq. In cases
where sources offered no comment on anything related to the actual act of
bombing Iraq, the sources were recognized and coded to be evading comment on the
bombing of Iraq.[35]
A total of 293 stories were published in the eight newspapers between December
17-21, 1998, which satisfied the parameters mentioned above and formed the
universe of content for this study.
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
FINDINGS
A content analysis of the 293 news stories collected from the eight newspapers
across the five-day period resulted in findings that supported the hypothesis of
this study. The content analysis revealed a similarity in under-representation
of the non-government, non-military sources between the American and British
newspapers, thereby pointing towards a pro-establishment bias in published
sources in both countries newspapers. This largely supports the view of the
propaganda model - that governments of western, capitalistic, democracies have
devised ways to manipulate the financial and professional infrastructure of
their respective news organizations, thereby succeeding in reducing the
representation of dissenting views in the press and largely limiting national
debate along the lines of argument set up in the foreign policy.
The overall distribution of all sources across all days in the newspapers of the
two countries is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Total Number of Sources in U.S. and U.K. Newspapers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationality of Source American Newspapers (Rank) British Newspapers (Rank)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
American 1904 (1) 375 (2)
Iraqi 222 (2) 143 (4)
U.N./European/Asian/Other 188 (3) 145 (3)
British 104 (4) 517 (1)
Russian 92 (5) 75 (5)
Arab/Middle Eastern/OIC 71 (6) 60 (6)
France 28 (7) 40 (7)
China 21 (8) 23 (8)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
A rank order correlation of the sources in the two nations' newspapers showed a
significant correlation (Spearman's Rho = 0.83), indicating a similar pattern of
news collection and source attribution as referred to in Hypothesis 1. As can be
seen in Table 1, both the U.S. and the U.K. newspapers over-represented their
respective national sources in the news stories published between December 17,
1998 and December 21, 1998 (Chi square = 1040, probability = 0.0001, df = 7).
The sources were then broken up on the basis of their view regarding support to
the air strike - the results were as shown in Table 2.
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
Table 2. Opinion of Sources in U.S. and U.K. Newspapers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationality/Opinion of Source American Newspapers (Rank) British Newspapers
(Rank)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
American Pro-bombing 695 (2) 182 (2)
American Anti-bombing 94 (5) 28 (13)
American No Comment on bombing 1115 (1) 165 (3)
British Pro-bombing 67 (7) 275 (1)
British Anti-bombing 6 (18) 92 (5)
British No Comment on bombing 31 (12) 150 (4)
Iraqi Pro-bombing 2 (21) 2 (20.5)
Iraqi Anti bombing 141 (3) 89 (6)
Iraqi No Comment on bombing 79 (6) 52 (8)
Russian Pro-bombing 1 (22) 0* (23)
Russian Anti-bombing 51 (9) 51 (9)
Russian No Comment on Bombing 40 (10.5) 24 (14.5)
French Pro-bombing 0* (23.5) 0* (23)
French Anti-bombing 13 (17) 24 (14.5)
French No Comment on Bombing 15 (15.5) 16 (17)
Chinese Pro-bombing 0* (24.5) 0* (23)
Chinese Anti-bombing 16 (14) 21 (16)
Chinese No Comment on bombing 5 (19) 2 (20.5)
Arab/OIC Pro-bombing 3 (20) 4 (19)
Arab/OIC Anti-bombing 53 (8) 42 (10)
Arab/OIC No Comment on Bombing 15 (15.5) 14 (18)
U.N./European/Asian/Other Pro-bombing 28 (13) 30 (12)
U.N./European/Asian/Other Anti-bombing 40 (10.5) 34 (11)
U.N./European/Asian/Other No Comment on bombing 120 (4) 81 (7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*All zero values were changed to 1 in order to make cross tabulation
calculations of Chi square possible.
Even after the sources were broken down into 24 categories, the two nations'
newspapers continued to show a high degree of rank order correlation (Spearman's
Rho = 0.825), thereby indicating that not only were the two nations' newspapers
giving near equal emphasis to similar sources, they were also giving near equal
emphasis to the sources that had a particular point of view, which in this case
was one of support to the parameters of the debate as laid down in the British
and U.S. foreign policy on the containment of Iraq.
A cross tabulation of the number of sources of each nationality across the three
opinions showed that U.S. and U.K. newspapers differed with statistical
significance on how American sources were distributed across the opinion on
support for bombings (Chi square = 27.4, probability = 0.0001, df = 2).
Similarly, the two groups of newspapers also differed with statistical
significance on the representation of the opinion presented by British sources
(Chi square = 9.94, probability = 0.007, df = 2). This largely falls in line
with the notion that each newspaper group
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
would significantly over-represent it's own nationality in sources, and within
these representations the number of sources that are foreign-policy friendly
will be greater too, thus the U.S. newspapers had a statistically significant
greater number of U.S. foreign policy friendly American sources, and the British
had a statistically significant greater number of British foreign policy
friendly U.K. sources.
However, the two groups of newspapers were not found to be statistically
different in their representation of views from sources of other nationalities.
The cross tabulations for the two newspapers groups and their representation of
sources who were Iraqi (Chi square = 0.234, probability = 0.89, df = 2), Russian
(Chi square = 3.3, probability = 0.19, df = 2), French (Chi square = 1.28,
probability = 0.526, df = 2), Chinese (Chi square = 1.88, probability = 0.391,
df = 2), OIC/Middle East sources (Chi square = 0.531, probability = 0.767, df =
2) and U.N./European/Asian/Other sources (Chi square = 2.61, probability =
0.271, df = 2), all revealed closeness in numbers to the point that there was no
statistically significant difference between their coverage in American and
British newspapers. This supports Hypothesis 2, that the two newspapers will
treat non-British and non-American sources similarly, pointing towards a
commonality of sourcing patterns.
This phenomenon was also sustained when the sources were further broken down on
the basis of their professional background, as shown in Table 3 and Table 4.
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
Table 3. Opinion of Government Sources in U.S. and U.K. Newspapers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationality/Opinion of Government Source American Newspapers British
Newspapers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
American Pro-bombing 498 147
American Anti-bombing 45 23
American No Comment on bombing 744 134
British Pro-bombing 56 225
British Anti-bombing 4 63
British No Comment on bombing 19 86
Iraqi Pro-bombing 0 2
Iraqi Anti bombing 86 69
Iraqi No Comment on bombing 33 25
Russian Pro-bombing 1 0*
Russian Anti-bombing 51 51
Russian No Comment on Bombing 40 24
French Pro-bombing 0* 0*
French Anti-bombing 13 24
French No Comment on Bombing 15 16
Chinese Pro-bombing 0* 0*
Chinese Anti-bombing 16 21
Chinese No Comment on bombing 5 2
European Pro-bombing 19 21
European Anti-bombing 6 14
European No Comment on Bombing 1 3
Other Pro-bombing 5 11
Other Anti-bombing 15 25
Other No Comment on bombing 5 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*All zero values were changed to 1 in order to make cross tabulation
calculations of Chi square possible.
A cross tabulation of the number of government sources of each nationality
across the three opinions showed that U.S. and U.K. newspapers differed with
statistical significance on how American government sources were distributed
across the opinion on support for bombings (Chi square = 23.6, probability =
0.0001, df = 2). Similarly, the two groups of newspapers also differed with
statistical significance on the representation of the opinion presented by
British government sources (Chi square = 7.36, probability = 0.025, df = 2). In
other words, the U.S. press carried more information from U.S. government
sources than the British press, and the British press gave more representation
to it's own government sources than the American press. The two newspaper groups
also differed with statistical significance in the number of European government
sources and their opinions on the bombings (Chi square = 7.73, probability =
0.021, df = 2), with the British press carrying more European government
comments on the air strikes.
However, the two groups of newspapers were not found to be statistically
different in their representation of views from government sources of other
nationalities. The cross tabulations
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
for the two newspapers groups and their representation of government sources who
were Iraqi (Chi square = 2.54, probability = 0.281, df = 2), Russian (Chi square
= 3.3, probability = 0.19, df = 2), French (Chi square = 1.28, probability =
0.526, df = 2), Chinese (Chi square = 1.88, probability = 0.391, df = 2), and
Other (Islamic nations, Arab nations, Asian nations) government sources (Chi
square = 2.21, probability = 0.331, df = 2), all revealed closeness in numbers
to the point that there was no statistically significant difference between
their coverage in American and British newspapers.
Table 4. Opinion of Military Sources in U.S. and U.K. Newspapers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationality/Opinion of Military Source American Newspapers British Newspapers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
American Pro-bombing 112 25
American Anti-bombing 0* 0*
American No Comment on bombing 70 9
British Pro-bombing 6 41
British Anti-bombing 0* 0*
British No Comment on bombing 0* 27
Iraqi Pro-bombing 0* 0*
Iraqi Anti bombing 3 0*
Iraqi No Comment on bombing 2 0*
Other Pro-bombing 0* 0* Other
Anti-bombing 4 0*
Other No Comment on bombing 0* 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*All zero values were changed to 1 in order to make cross tabulation
calculations of Chi square possible.
A cross tabulation of the number of military sources of each nationality across
the three opinions showed that U.S. and U.K. newspapers did not differ with
statistical significance on how American military sources were distributed
across the opinion on support for bombings (Chi square = 3.47, probability =
0.176, df = 2). Similarly, the two groups of newspapers also did not differ with
statistical significance on the representation of the opinion presented by
British military sources (Chi square = 5.05, probability = 0.080, df = 2), Iraqi
military sources (Chi square = 0.375, probability = 0.829, df = 2) or Other
countries' military sources (Chi square = 4.42, probability = 0.11, df = 2).
This remarkable lack of statistical difference in the representation of the
number of military sources of various nationalities across opinion also furthers
the argument that the information attributed to the military is received from
controlled channels that have adapted themselves to press routines to better
exploit reporting practices.
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
Trends in Coverage Over the 5 Day Period in U.S. Newspapers
When the data was analyzed for the manner in which the nature of sources behaved
with a change in period of time (from December 17 to December 21, 1998) in the
four U.S. newspapers it was found that the numbers of some published sources
showed a correlation with the passage of time. For instance, the number of Iraqi
government sources quoted with no direct comments on air strikes increased with
time (Pearson Correlation = 0.395, Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.014). Also, the criticism
published for the air strikes from the French government fell with time in U.S.
newspapers (Pearson Correlation = -0.541, Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.020). The number
of published quotes of ordinary U.S. citizen supporting the air strikes also
fell with time (Pearson Correlation = -0.431, Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.012).
Trends in Coverage Over the 5 Day Period in U.K. Newspapers
When the data was analyzed for the manner in which the nature of sources behaved
with a change in period of time (from December 17 to December 21, 1998) in the
four U.K. newspapers it was found that the numbers of some published sources
showed a correlation with the passage of time. For instance, the published
number of U.S. government sources opposed to air strikes fell in British
newspapers across the 5 day period (Pearson Correlation = -0.333, Sig.
(2-tailed) = 0.010). Also, the number of published British military sources
supporting the air strikes increased across time (Pearson Correlation = 0.555,
Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.002).
Trends in Coverage Over the 5 Day Period in All Newspapers
When the data from all 293 news stories was analyzed for the manner in which the
nature of sources behaved with a change in period of time (from December 17 to
December 21, 1998) it was found that the numbers of some published sources
showed a correlation with the passage of time.
The number of published British military sources supporting the bombings
increased with time (Pearson Correlation = 0.505, Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.002). On
the other hand, the number of published Iraqi military sources critical of the
bombings also increased across the 5 day period (Pearson Correlation = 0.635,
Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.011), as did the number of other military sources not
offering an opinion on the bombing itself (Pearson Correlation = 0.549, Sig.
(2-tailed) = 0.034). The trend, therefore, was to highlight the military success
on the allied side while highlighting the military frustration on the Iraqis.
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
The number of published U.S. government sources critical of the air strikes
decreased over the 5 day period (Pearson Correlation = -0.227, Sig. (2-tailed) =
0.003), as did the number of U.S. government sources offering no comment on the
bombings (Pearson Correlation = -0.167, Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.027). The number of
published Iraqi government sources offering no opinion on the bombings also
increased across the 5 day period (Pearson Correlation = 0.311, Sig. (2-tailed)
= 0.007). The published criticism of the bombings from the French government
sources decreased (Pearson Correlation = 0.330, Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.035), while
published remarks from the French government that offered no opinion on the
bombings increased (Pearson Correlation = 0.383, Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.012).
Published criticism from European government sources increased across the 5 day
period (Pearson Correlation = 0.468, Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.009) as did the
published remarks from European governments that offered no opinion on the
bombings (Pearson Correlation = 0.440, Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.013). There was also
an increase in number of published sources from governments of Islamic countries
who offered no comment on the bombings (Pearson Correlation = 0.594, Sig.
(2-tailed) = 0.0001). A similar increase also took place in published comments
from government sources of Asian countries who offered no comments on the
bombings (Pearson Correlation = 0.898, Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.0001). The trend,
therefore, was towards subduing criticism within allied government sources,
while highlighting issues beyond the question of the bombing itself.
The number of published comments from ordinary U.S. citizens in support of the
bombings went down across the 5-day period (Pearson Correlation = -0.387, Sig.
(2-tailed) = 0.012) but this seemed to be part of a larger trend to cut down on
ordinary people quotes in the stories across the 5 day period.
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION
The content analysis of the American and British newspaper coverage of air
strikes against Iraq in December 1998 shows that there exists a pattern of
over-representation of the facts and arguments presented by the respective
governments and the respective military in both the American and the British
press. The rank correlation comparisons of the total sources referred to in the
five day period by the American and British newspapers also shows that there is
a statistically significant resemblance in the degree of importance given to
certain kinds of sources. This in turn strengthens the propaganda model
hypothesis that the governments of developed, capitalistic democracies have
created similar systems of exploiting their news media in order to perpetuate
their foreign policy goals with minimal dissonance. Indeed, the findings of the
correlation of sources against passage of time points towards an intensification
of government and military predominance in the news coverage thereby generating
the public support required to fulfill the military commitment.
This under-representation of voices that speak beyond the respective national
foreign policies in both countries' newspapers points towards the manner in
which both the American and the British press have been unable to break free of
the propaganda model to look for alternate ways to gather news and information.
Such alternate pattern of sources for information can help put the government
sources and the military sources in perspective. This lack of perspective beyond
the foreign policy debate points towards a reinforcement of the status quo and a
failure of the surveillance function of the press. The dissent that is published
is largely critical of the means of accomplishing the respective national
foreign policy goals, and not critical of the respective national foreign policy
itself.
Future research may look at broadening the scope of this study to include more
newspapers, magazines, or even TV news programs from Britain and America to
study the degree of similarity in the nature and number of sources that the two
countries' journalists rely on to put together their reports. As this study
looked primarily at the nature and number of sources in news reports, an
important, defining instrument of press criticism and opinion building was left
out - namely, the editorial pieces written in newspapers of both countries
during this 5 day air strike. An analysis of the nature of the editorial
criticism, or lack of it, for the air strikes in the newspapers of the two
countries could also shed light on the nature of the relationship between the
press and the foreign policies of the governments in America and Britain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
[1]
NOTES
Please see New York Times, December 17, 1998.
[2] Please see New York Times, December 17, 1998.
[3] Please see New York Times, December 18, 1998.
[4] Everette E. Dennis, The Media At War: The Press and the Persian Gulf
Conflict, A Gannett Foundation Report (NY: Gannett Foundation, June 1991), p. 2.
[5] Lawrence Grossman, The Media At War: The Press and the Persian Gulf
Conflict, A Gannett Foundation Report (NY: Gannett Foundation, June 1991), p.
65.
[6] Jack Nelson, The Media At War: The Press and the Persian Gulf Conflict, A
Gannett Foundation Report (NY: Gannett Foundation, June 1991), p. 67.
[7] Margaret Blanchard, "Free Expression and Wartime: Lessons from the Past,
Hopes for the Future," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Spring 1992), pp.
5-17.
[8] Margaret Blanchard, "Free Expression and Wartime: Lessons from the Past,
Hopes for the Future," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Spring 1992), p.
17.
[9] Deborah Holmes, Governing The Press: Media Freedom in the U.S. and Great
Britain (London: Westview Press Inc., 1986).
[10] Deborah Holmes, Governing The Press: Media Freedom in the U.S. and Great
Britain (London: Westview Press Inc., 1986) p. 43.
[11] Ralph Negrine, Politics and the Mass Media in Britain (NY: Routledge,
1994).
[12] Ralph Negrine, Politics and the Mass Media in Britain (NY: Routledge,
1994), pp. 110-112.
[13] Robert Harris, Gotcha! The Media, the Government and the Falklands Crises
(MA: Faber and Faber, Inc., 1983).
[14] Robert Harris, Gotcha! The Media, the Government and the Falklands Crises
(MA: Faber and Faber, Inc., 1983), p. 44.
[15] Valerie Adams, The Media and the Falklands Campaign (NY: St. Martin's
Press, Inc., 1986).
[16] Valerie Adams, The Media and the Falklands Campaign (NY: St. Martin's
Press, Inc., 1986), pp. 149-155.
[17] Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political
Economy of the Mass Media (NY: Pantheon Books, 1988).
[18]
Harold Lasswell, "The Structure and Function of Communication in Society," The
Communication of Ideas, Lyman Bryson ed. (NY: Cooper Square Publishers, 1948).
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
[19]
Charles Wright, Mass Communication: A Sociological Perspective (NY: Random
House, 1986).
[20]
Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw, "The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass
Media," Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (Spring 1972), pp. 176-187.
[21]
David K. Perry, "The Image Gap: How International News Affects Perceptions of
Nations," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 2-3 (Summer/Autumn 1987), pp.
416-421.
[22]
Bernard C. Cohen, The Press and Foreign Policy (NJ: Princeton University Press,
1963).
[23]
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy
of the Mass Media (NY: Pantheon Books, 1988).
[24]
Vice President Quayle, "America's Objectives in the Persian Gulf," as reported
in the U.S. Department of State Dispatch, Vol. 1, No. 15, December 10, 1990.
[25]
Herbert I. Schiller, "Decolonization of Information: Efforts Towards a New
Information Order," Latin American Perspective, 5 (1978), pp. 35-48; Mustapha
Masmoudi, "The New World Information Order," Journal of Communication, Vol.
21(1979), pp. 172-179; W. James Potter, "News From Three Worlds in Prestige US
Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Spring 1987), pp. 73-79.
[26]
Pamela Shoemaker, Lucig H. Danielian and Nancy Brendlinger, "Deviant Acts,
Risky Business and US Interests: The Newsworthiness of World Events," Journalism
Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Winter 1991), pp. 781-795.
[27]
Tsan-Kuo Chang and Jae-Won Lee, "Factors Affecting Gatekeepers Selection of
Foreign News: A National Survey of Newspaper editors," Journalism Quarterly,
Vol. 69, No. 3 (Fall 1992), pp. 554-561.
[28]
Jothik Krishnaiah, Nancy Signorielli, and Douglas M. McLeod, "The Evil Empire
Revisited: New York Times Coverage of The Soviet Intervention in and Withdrawal
From Afghanistan," Journalism Quarterly Vol. 70, No. 3 (Autumn 1993), pp.
647-655.
[29]
Yang-Chou Yu and Daniel Riffe, "Chiang and Mao in U.S. News Magazines,"
Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Winter 1989), pp. 913-919.
[30] Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
Tsan-Kuo Chang, "The News and U.S.-China Policy: Symbols in Newspapers and
Documents," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Summer 1988), pp. 320-327.
[31]
Sandra H. Dickson, "Press and the U.S. Policy Towards Nicaragua, 1983-1987: A
Study of the New York Times and Washington Post," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 69,
No. 3 (Fall 1992), pp. 562-571.
[32]
Sonia Gutierrez-Villalobos, James K. Hertog, and Ramona R. Rush, "Press Support
for the US administration during the Panama Invasion: Analyses of Strategic and
Tactical Critique in the Domestic Press," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 3
(Autumn 1994), pp. 618-627.
[33]
Sandra H. Dickson, "Understanding Media Bias: The Press and the U.S. Invasion
of Panama," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Winter 1994), pp. 809-819.
[34]
Deborah A. Barranco and Leonard Skyles, "Arab vs. Israeli News Coverage In the
New York Times, 1976 and 1984," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Spring
1988), pp. 178-181.
[35]
Please see copy of coding sheet attached as Appendix 1.
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bernard C. Cohen, The Press and Foreign Policy (NJ: Princeton University Press,
1963).
Charles Wright, Mass Communication: A Sociological Perspective (NY: Random
House, 1986).
Deborah Holmes, Governing The Press: Media Freedom in the U.S. and Great Britain
(London: Westview Press Inc., 1986).
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy
of the Mass Media (NY: Pantheon Books, 1988).
Harold Lasswell, "The Structure and Function of Communication in Society," The
Communication of Ideas, Lyman Bryson ed. (NY: Cooper Square Publishers, 1948).
Ralph Negrine, Politics and the Mass Media in Britain (NY: Routledge, 1994).
Robert Harris, Gotcha! The Media, the Government and the Falklands Crises (MA:
Faber and Faber, Inc., 1983).
Valerie Adams, The Media and the Falklands Campaign (NY: St. Martin's Press,
Inc., 1986).
------------------------------------
Bombing Baghdad: A 5-Day Study
Appendix 1.
Coding Sheet / 5 Day US UK Coverage
Article Title/Case no. ___________________________________________
_ _ _
Newspaper _ _
1= The Washington Post 5=The Scotsman
2=New York Times 6=The Times
3= L A Times 7=The Independent
4=Boston Globe 8=The Guardian
Date (Year-Month-Day) _ _ / _ _ / _ _
Story length (Total words, should be mentioned in article) _ _ _ _
Page number _ _
Story Dateline (Filed From) - _
1=Baghdad
2=On U.S. Ship
3=Egypt/Jordan/Turkey
4=Washington D.C./New York
5=London/Scotland
6=Can't Say/Don't Know
Sources - (US, UK, Iraqi-IR, Russian-RU, French-FR, Palestinian-PL, Israeli-IS,
Other-use first two letter of country please?) (1= pro bombing, 2= anti bombing,
3= not mention bombing)
Military _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Government_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Non-government Organization/Expert_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Polls_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Ordinary person_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
|
