Media Influence of Public Opinion during
War:
A Good or Bad Capability?
Ryan Guiboa
June 6, 2003
EDGE T.A. Sahil Khanna
Introduction
“More people get
their news from ABC News than from any other source,” ABC News proudly
boasts. But what exactly do they
get? As America delves deeper into the
21st century with an array of social and technological advancements,
one facet that continues to impress, revolutionize, and greatly impact American
society as we know it comes from the evolution of communication, most notably
the digital media. The manner and speed
in which news reaches its audiences is even more remarkable than the saturation
of the media on the American public. War
and the Media, authored by Miles Hudson and John Stanier enlighten the
reader with an example of the antiquated system of communication during
wartime, revealing that often times news would take days if not weeks. They explain, “The news of the victory at
Waterloo in 1815 was brought by a young officer, still wearing his
battle-stained uniform, who burst into the house in Grosvenor Square where the
Prince Regent was being entertained to dinner” (Hudson, xii). In contrast to the battle weary messenger of
1815, the sensational changes over the decades now reveal the war as it unfolds
(or perhaps with a minor second or two delay).
The most recent example of this immediate on-site reporting is no more
evident then America’s war on Iraq. In
this 2003 “see it as it happens” experience, buildings are being bombed,
innocent civilians are running for their lives, and soldiers are engaged in gun
battles. Understandably, Americans tune
in to be shocked, entertained, and informed of the on going crisis. But sadly, citizens have increasingly become subjects of the media’s influence resulting in a potentially
dangerous control of public opinion, especially in times of war. Information has yet to factually support or
deny the now common stance that media reports over the year have provoked or
prevented wars, or have prolonged or curtailed them. But one statement not often contended, recognizes the media’s ability to not only alter public opinion
but shape it. The people of this nation
too often accept the information provided by the media to be factual and true
rather than as it really is – an
entertaining 15 second clip of an issue or event through a reporter’s or news channel’s bias perspective, created to best capture
and maintain the attention of its audience.
This paper will attempt to explain the impact that the media has attained
over the years in significantly affecting public opinion, especially in times
of terrorism and war. Secondly, whether
the media’s positive role as a source of public
information outweigh the negative aspects, including control of public opinion
and consequent governmental influence.
And finally, at what point should action be taken to censor or limit the
ability of the media industry to cover an issue of great national importance. The United States communication system is
one of the best in the world, informing every day Americans of every news
worthy and often times un-news worthy events. This source of information,
arriving continuously into the living rooms of millions of American’s is no doubt invaluable. But case studies of media influence during
wartime bring into question the amount of freedom the media industry currently
holds and the possible necessity of either self-imposed or governmentally
imposed restrictions to what will and what will not be allowed.
Public Opinion
Political
scientist David Mayhew states that politicians are single minded seekers or
reelection. Regardless of whether you
think this point is exaggerated, one cannot contend the fact that our
representatives act in accordance to the needs of their constituency in order
for high approval ratings and electoral success in the future. This is not to say that a politician cannot
follow their own set of morals and vote in accordance to their personal beliefs
and ideas of an ideal government.
However, this personal ideology must be in line with their electoral
base if he/she has any chance for reelection.
As such, public opinion polling has become crucial to the success or
demise of political elections. Martin
Shaw writes in his book Civil Society and Media in Global Crises that:
“Political polling in the broadest sense is
undertaken largely by specialist
firms commissioned by newspapers and
television, political parties and other interest groups. The polls which influence public perceptions
and debate are those which appear in mass media. Whereas some policy as well as voting questions are asked
regularly within polling series, global crises are episodic events impinging
irregularly on political debate, and so taking a poll is a more significant
intervention” (Shaw 127).
The wording of Shaw’s last
sentence, “a more significant intervention,” is something that worries the critics of
free press and an unconstrained media industry. It is understandable to have an immediate source of information
that provides a greater sense of awareness and knowledge to the issues America
confronts. But when this information is
directly effecting the action of the government and exerting control through
coercion, incorrect or misleading information, and often times biased and
selective news reporting, it may seem like a valid idea to place restrictions.
Positive Aspects of the Role
of Media on the International Scene
In The News Media, Civil War, and
Humanitarian Action, authors Larry Minear, Colin Scott, and Thomas Weiss
refer to the influence of media as “The Crisis Triangle,” involving
governments, news media, and humanitarian organizations (Minear 2). These three points determine whether there
will be a response to an international crisis, the rapidity of the response,
and the level of response. Humanitarian
agencies and human rights groups utilize the media’s effectiveness of reaching the people as a
valuable instrument to encourage Congress to act. One example of this interconnectedness is apparent in the 1991
Northern Iraq operation. U.S.
involvement of “coalition
troops to create ‘safe
havens’ for Kurds was viewed at the time as
heralding a new era of humanitarian intervention, with television leading the
charge” (Minear 50). Television and newspapers across the nation portrayed the Kurds
as starving and freezing victims, espousing the average sympathetic viewer to
turn to Congress and the President for an answer. U.S. Under-Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz supports this
notion of media influence by explaining, “I do think the vividness of television images probably heightened the
sense of urgency . . . . The inescapable fact was that you had a half a million
[Kurdish] people who, if nothing was done, were liable to all die and start
dying rather quickly” (Minear
50). No doubt the American media’s influence, if not the determining factor
for such a course of action, most definitely sped up the response, if any was
to occur, and possibly saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. Why then should we even consider censoring the
media industry merely because of the pressure Congress must endure due to
on-site reporting of international dilemmas?
Allan Stoehr
reasserts the necessity of war coverage citing the media’s ability to curtail
warmongers and fervent pro-war leaders into leading the country into their own war. He explains that the media’s war exposure, most apparent since
World War II, has made it “increasingly difficult for the government and
proponents of armed conflict to sustain the surge of patriotic fervor that their
adventures ignite at the start of hostilities” (Stoehr 2). Stoehr argues that the more the press covers
the war, the more the war realities will come forth and thus offsetting the
propaganda that has been so evident in history. A case study that provides support to Stoehr’s claim is seen in
the Afghanistan war. He states, “As the
exposure of the civilian causalities and as the faces of the victims appear
before the American public, there will be a gradual strengthening of peace
sentiment and peace actions – what the war machine dreads” (Stoehr 8). He contends that the evolution of media is
good for our country. The growing
technology enables our media to be just one of many sources of
information. Americans now have access
to the Internet and media from different countries through the recently wide
implementation of digital satellites.
All these news sources provide differing perspectives of international
events that will eliminate severe biases since Americans can clearly see the
“outliers” in such an array of media sources.
Stoehr elucidates on the positive impact of media in Afghanistan by
exclaiming, “Despite Bush and company’s efforts to keep the facts away from the
American people, bits and pieces of news of the civilian deaths and hints of the
true motivation for our involvement there are impacting on the public. The work
of the peace forces . . . is making an impact on attitudes toward the war”
(Stoehr 8). So in one sense, the
advancements and inescapability of media coverage checks our government and
makes our governing institutions more liable then ever before. No longer are the American people fed what
the government views necessary to further their international goals. The media has taken away such privileges or
abuse of privileges as many see it. Our
founding fathers made sure freedom of the press was part of the Bill of Rights
in order to insure that a democratically elected government stays as loyal to
the people as possible.
Negative Aspects of the Role
of Media on the International Scene
Supporters of
censorship refer to the Somalia crisis as the apotheosis to the abuse and
ultimate harm of media involvement in issues of international governmental
affairs. “According to the chairman of a congressional committee: ‘Pictures of the starving children not
policy objectives, got us into Somalia in 1992. Pictures of U.S. causalities, not the completion of our
objectives, led us to exit Somalia’” (Minear 53). Here, well
organized lobbyist and humanitarian agencies exploited the power of the media
to force a quick response from President Bush to address the civil war at hand
in the African country of Somalia. In
reply to the American public’s vocal
support, Bush implemented immediate ground troops to assure assistance and aid
to the suffering women and children.
Unfortunately in the President’s haste to respond to the outcry of the American people, his staff and
fellow government agencies were unable to inspect and evaluate the situation
appropriately. As such, the ground
troops were poorly enforced and tribal militias in Somalia begin to fight
against and kill American troops. The
news media soon begin to show pictures of wounded and dead soldiers and as
quick as the public put American forces in harms way, they demanded their return. In what some consider a complete failure in
appropriately responding to the task at hand, the President succumbed to media
and public pressure, prematurely withdrawing forces to once again leave the
victims to remain under the control and governance of the ruthless tribal
authorities. Miles Hudson and John
Stanier summarize the fault of the communication industry in this crisis by
stating in their book, War and the Media,
“The well-intentioned American intervention
in Somalia under the
auspices of the United Nations turned out
to be an almost unmitigated
disaster.
If one was to single out one factor which led to this situation it
would be the fatal consequences of the
oversimplification of a series of
extremely complex problems and the
widespread arrogant belief that communications demand decision-making on the
basis of information
which by its very nature cannot possibly
tell the whole truth . In its
relentless quest for instant sensation the media must bear some responsibility
for this
state of affairs” (Hudson 245).
Again, one cannot solely condemn the media for their involvement in the
war as the reason behind such a military failure. However, with media images flooding the television screens across
America, it is not a surprise that the American public responded and responded
quickly to the atrocities at hand. And
while quick and effective action is ideal, it always takes time to examine the
situation at hand, especially in a foreign land to best utilize our military
resources efficiently and successfully.
There are still
different accounts of the media’s role in the Gulf War and as the previous section depicts a positive
influence to the conflict, Martin Shaw is yet antother in opposition to the
positive conjectures of media involvement in war. He exclaims, “The
preplanned work of media managers, as of the militaries in general, came to an
end with Bush’s ceasefire. [Yet] the Iraqi wars did not
end there . . . as the military intended and even most academic media
researchers have implicitly accepted.
On the contrary, at almost precisely this moment their most turbulent
phases began” (Shaw 79). But the media continued to explain to the American public that
the insertion of U.S. forces was successful and all is well. Due to the unavailability of any other news
in regards to the war over seas, the public had no choice but to accept such
reporting as the truth. Shaw uses this
example to demonstrate the subversive potential of television and comments on
the unfortunate willingness of the newspapers to reinforce the media industry.
Another negative aspect
of media war coverage is misinformation they send back home in regards to the
status of our soldiers, whether dead, alive, or missing. Dick Sherman, a prisoner of war during World
War II complains that the media is a cause of damage, with the media reporting
that “soldiers likely are missing even before the
military confirms it. The reports
sometimes reach family members before the military officials do” (Smith 3). He continues, “If the
reports are wrong, it upsets the families.
As harsh as it sounds, they’re better off not knowing. The
media can report it so there may be more hope in the report than actually
exists” (Smith 4).
Communication through Print
Media
Read religiously by our grandparents in the olden days, newspapers have lost the value they once held. No longer does the print medium provide the most recent information and in a day and age when people need immediate satisfaction, the television is turned on more often than the newspaper is picked up. It would be refreshing to find information that credits the papers with uncovering the truth and often overlooked specifics of the events the media reports. Unfortunately, in order to keep up the demand, or what is left of such a demand, newspapers have slowly come to terms that in depth reporting no longer sell. Hudson and Stanier enlighten readers by clarifying that “the media has always simplified. Whatever form of communication the media has taken, it has always had a finite amount of time and space in which to explain the situation even if it understands all the nuances itself, which it seldom does because of its own inevitable limitations. As the scope of news gathering has increased and as the time available for any one item in a news broadcast has reduced, so the need for a simple story has become more and more pressing” (Hudson 313). In addition to this information problem, major newspapers have been known to write in accordance with government intentions most specifically, the rally around the flag method to support U.S. declarations of war.
Jim Naurekas writes in an April 2003 article entitled When “Doves” Lie about the influence Washington D.C. has over the content of the New York Times. This newspaper, considered “strongly dovish” before the war on Iraq, quickly altered its position as war involvement seemed inevitable. Naurekas reports that their opposition to war as indicated in this March 9th article entitled “If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no,” quickly changed to a March 14th headline, “Liberals for War: Some of Intellectual Left's Longtime Doves Taking on Role of Hawks” (Naurekas 2). Some argue that a change in reporting to over magnify support is a necessary step in an attempt to unify the country. So while the New York Times played down opposition to the war and exaggerated support for George W. Bush’s Iraq policy, a more unified front formed in support of our troops traveling abroad.
In this same article, the polls of
the New York Times are also highlighted as a distortion of the truth. Nagourney and Elder write, “By many
measures, the poll found that the nation is behind Mr. Bush on Iraq” (Naurekas
3). And the poll further states, “for
all the signs of dissent and protest around the nation, it would appear that
support for war is on the rise” (Naurekas 3).
Yet they found that most questions showed no significant increase in
support for an invasion. The one small
jump that did show an increase in support still indicated a 52-44 percent
opposition to the President’s stance.
However, many argue that while the Times may have changed their
perspective and limited strong anti war language, it is the fault of the reader
to be so naïve and sheepish as to alter their opinions in accordance with a
changing majority.
Yet despite the faults
of newspapers and the antiquated style of informing the public, photographs and
storylines have forever shaped the perspective and thoughts of the people. The most noteworthy political impact of a
newspaper article, arguably to date, is an article written during the Vietnam
War with a photo of a little napalmed girl.
This incredible story not only provided a first hand look at the
destruction and devastation of the country, but the immense pain of the
innocent civilians in the country. In
light of the growing concern of U.S. intentions in the area, the increasing
number of American deaths, and the unpopularity of the war, this single picture
tore straight to the hearts of many Americans and provided the catalyst needed
for the anti war campaign to get under way.
Media’s Role in Response to Terror
Terrorism is an
increasingly important issue of domestic security as threats from international
networks and organizations become more credible and if carried out
successfully, more and more disastrous.
To investigate the media impact on terrorism there must be some type of
consensus on the definition of terrorist/terrorism. Paul Wilkinson first makes the distinction between different
types of terrorism. He indicates the
four different types as “criminal,
psychic, war, and political and explains that the political type of terrorism
can be defined as “the
systematic use of threat of violence to secure political ends” (Alali 4). Wilkinson elucidates on this issue and according to him lists the
factors that motivate international terrorists. The 6 reasons he proposes include:
(1)
The terrorist
is dedicated to a political goal which he sees as one transcendent merit . . .
(2)
The terrorist
seeks attention and publicity for his cause . . .
(3)
The terrorist
aims to erode support for the established political leadership or to undermine
the authority of the state by destroying normality, creating uncertainty,
polarizing a country, fostering economic discord and generally weakening the
fabric of society . . .
(4)
The terrorist’s actions can be measure of deep
frustration where there is no legitimate way to redress grievances . . .
(5)
The terrorist
may seek to liberate his colleagues in foreign jails . . .
(6)
Finally, the
terrorist may desire money so as to buy arms and finance his organization.
(Alali 4-5)
It is apparent that of these 6 factors, 4 of them require media
assistance to be successful. One
question to be considered after review of these 6 reasons is whether or not the
terrorist attacks of September 11th would have happened if not for
the inevitable coverage of the World Trade Center bombings. Would Osama Bin Laden and his followers have
carried out such a high profile attack?
Obviously there is no definitive answer but many terrorist, serial
killers, and other perpetrators thrive off of media exposure. On the other hand, many argue that our
freedoms need to remain and the elimination or constraint of freedom to press
is nothing less then our submission to the barbarous acts of terrorist. And while media may perpetuate acts of
violence and terror it can be argued that the media in turn provides the world
to see what violence is occurring in the world and is a great organizational
tool to raise funds, awareness, and support to combat such grievances. Minear states, “Media images of human suffering have
motivated people to express their concern and their solidarity with those in
distant places by contributing to relief efforts and by demanding explanations
and action from governments. The media’s influence on the shaping of foreign
policy is considerable in many countries” (Minear 3). So while there is
no factual information that the media is the root cause of terrorism or that it
provides the means for terrorist to accomplish their goals, there is
statistical proof of the amount of aid news channels, telethons, and national
and international media organizations provide to victims both monetarily and in
terms of human assistance. Furthermore,
Robert Picard notes in his document entitled The Journalist’s
Role in Coverage of Terrorist Events that media coverage is often advantageous to the public. News broadcasts provide “increasing awareness of their [the
terrorists] existence and recognition of the political, racial, or religious
problem” that motivates this specific group (Hudson
45).
Restrictions on media
Institutions
separate from our government bodies have exerted such control over the thoughts
and actions of United States citizens that there is now talk of restricting
media, in particular news broadcast agencies.
This talk of reform has materialized not only because of the extreme
power the media yields in supplying the American public with information, but
the biases and misleading oversimplification that can drastically and
negatively alter public opinion to be more detrimental than effective. Hudson explains, “truth or reality, particularly news
reality, is constructed. Objectivity is
not a possibility. We have acknowledged
the [various] . . . behind-the-scenes
manipulation of subject and image, particularly in editing. Nevertheless, the fact of an overt mediation
continues to render the illusion that the ‘thing’ being watched is, at the very least, authentic
– apparently because we, the viewers, appear
to access it directly” (Hudson
83).
What makes reform of such an industry so difficult is the lack of evidence that illustrates a direct relationship to harmful government interference. Hudson further elucidates “that the influence of the media is not direct. It is the perception that politicians have of its effects that can have considerable repercussions on the onset, course and ending of war” (Hudson 53). Ask any television news executive what role the medium plays in American journalism, and he or she will pull out surveys showing that the greater part of the American public long ago came to depend primarily, and probably in most cases entirely, on television. Everything from environmental concerns to support for a war or a tax cut come from television news reporting. Yet these often times immediate effects on American public opinion do not directly affect their respective Congressman. In fact, those elected representatives that are most successful respond to their constituencies need before they feel the pressure that they must act accordingly. This way, the official can claim to have had the same concerns and thoughts in mind by making the decision before complaints were even expressed to the representative’s office and office staff. This line of events provides a substantial defense to the media industry’s claim that media affects on politics are not direct and therefore reform and censorship should not occur.
Conclusion including Media Solutions
The media is no doubt
an essential part of American culture.
Mass communication has transformed civil society, influencing every
aspect of governance by directing the will and opinion of the people. Miles Hudson sums up our technological
strides and their effects best by stating:
“The tragedy is that the enormous
technological strides in communication
have often led to less, not more, real
understanding. The world is a vastly
complex place. Oversimplification – and this is the inevitable result of instant communication = can lead
to a mistaken and arrogant belief in the efficacy of military and other action
in solving complex and deep-seated problems which are often completely
misunderstood. Many problems simply do
not have solutions at all, even in the long, let alone the short, term. Easy communication can lead to easy, buy
ignorant and dangerous, conclusions” (Hudson 319).
Censorship continues to be a possibility in limiting the control and
power of the media but other avenues seem to be more appropriate. The United States of America is known for
its universal freedoms to all its citizens in accordance to the
Constitution. Freedom of press is one
enumerated freedom that will never be taken away from the people. As such, one possible solution rather than
limit our domestic media is to expand our media on an international level. If government officials fear that the media
industry constrains there agenda with biases, open available communications to
European media and further abroad.
Hudson compares the media monopolies in the United States to that in
Britain. He contends “that there is only one ‘serious’ newspaper in each city – the New York Times, the Washington Post and so on. In Britain there are at least five available
everywhere” (Hudson 311). As such, there is a variety of opinions available for the public’s consumption. It is obvious that with such a multitude of media sources,
domestic and abroad, competition will be fierce and the power to persuade will
be distributed so widely that no one source of media can alter the perceptions
or opinions of American citizens.
Work Cited
Alali, Eke. Media Coverage of Terrorism. London: Sage Publications, 1991.
Hudson, Miles and John Stanier. War and the Media: A Random Searchlight.
Phoenix
Mill: Sutton Publishing Limited, 1997.
Minear, Larry, Colin Scott and Thomas Weiss. The News Media, Civil War,
and
Humanitarian
Action. London: Lynne
Riener Publishers, 1996.
Naureckas, Jim. “ When ‘Doves’ Lie: The New York Times plays down anti-war
opinion,” FAIR Extra April 2003. 18 May
2003 <http://www.fair.org/extra/0203/nytimes.html>.
Shaw, Marin. Civil Society and Media in Global Crises. New York City: Pinter, 1996.
Smith, Dianna. “Conflict
with Iraq: Media coverage of war connects with some, turns off
others,” Naples Daily News 29 March
2003. 18 May 2003
<http://www.naplesnews.com/03/04/naples/d926571a.htm>.
Stoehr, Allan. “Media
coverage of war and peace,” Peoples Weekly World 16 March
2002. 18 May 2003 <http://www.pww.org/articleview/773/1/64>.