State–Media Consensus on Going to War? Australian Newspapers, Political Elites, and Fighting the Islamic State

Abstract

This article assesses the link between the state and the media in their coverage of foreign policy decisions. It holds up to empirical scrutiny the claim that genuine press criticism can only occur within the bounds of political-elite debate. Taking the Australian government’s 2014 decision to fight the Islamic State as its case study, it explores areas of consensus and dissensus between political discourse and the media. Conducting a qualitative analysis of three media frames used by major newspapers, it tests the “indexing hypothesis” and concludes that some press coverage went beyond the parameters of political-elite debate. This finding of independent criticism has implications beyond the present case study, as it helps us better understand the role of the media in democracies—specifically, holding governments to account when sending their nations to war.

Cascading Activation Revisited: How Audiences Contribute to News Agendas Using Social Media

“…Indeed, the combination of domestic and international aspects may actually sustain further user engagement by generating tension between concerns for locally felt public order and globally orientated humanitarian norms: audiences can realistically invoke either or both priorities. We thereby echo the conclusions of recent research highlighting how the dynamics of agenda-setting, particularly the ways that media respond to each other as well as audiences and elites, likely vary among issues (Allen and Blinder 2018;Mulherin and Isakhan 2019;Neuman et al 2014).…”

Swedish Government and Country Image during the International Media Coverage of the Coronavirus Pandemic Strategy: From Bold to Pariah

“…It is more usual for hegemony and indexing theory to be applied to cases where the government-media power relations are investigated and analyzed within one country, i.e., a national government and national media (Scollon 2003;Entman 2004;Lemon 2014;Andersen 2017;Allen and Blinder 2018;Kilgo and Harlow 2019;Mulherin and Isakhan 2019). This exploratory study seeks to develop new ground by applying government-media relations that involve a foreign government with media outlets in another country.…”

“…An influence factor to be considered is the area of frame building that involves the framing of media input, which is made up of materials that political actors communicate to newsrooms in order to facilitate their work whilst simultaneously attempting to influence news production (Rodelo and Muniz 2019). There are two broad approaches to understanding the government-media nexus within foreign policy, hegemony (Scollon 2003;Lemon 2014;Kilgo and Harlow 2019), and indexing (Andersen 2017;Allen and Blinder 2018;Mulherin and Isakhan 2019). Both of these theoretical approaches see the media as being too subservient to the government.…”

“…Both of these theoretical approaches see the media as being too subservient to the government. Although the use by some studies, such as Mulherin and Isakhan (2019), of indexing theory on media coverage of the 2014 Australian government decision to fight the Islamic State indicate that there are some rare occasions when press coverage goes beyond the constraints of the parameters of the political elite debate. Another study by Allen and Blinder (2018), on the coverage of the immigration issue in the United Kingdom, also hints at a semi-autonomous role of the media in this domestic issue area that is assisted by the bureaucratic procedure of the administrative mechanisms of the state.…”

Different shows, different stories: How German TV formats challenged the government’s framing of the Ukraine crisis

“…The relationship between governmental crisis communication and the media is frequently examined with reference to Bennett’s (1990) indexing thesis (Bennett and Manheim, 1993; Bennett et al, 2006; Mulherin and Isakhan, 2019; Strong, 2017). Accordingly, in their coverage of a specific topic, journalists tend to reflect the range of views expressed by established actors in the political mainstream (Bennett, 1990).…”