Testing Models of Media Performance in Wartime: U.K. TV News and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq

Abstract

Debate over media coverage of foreign affairs has been dominated by a range of theoretical positions, here characterized as the 'elite-driven,' 'independent' and 'oppositional' models. In this article, we explore the relative cogency of these theoretical positions in the context of British media coverage of the 2003 Iraq War. We find that coverage generally conformed to the elite-driven model, reinforcing the coalition. Nevertheless, our analysis also provides evidence to support the independent and oppositional models. Regarding casualties and the humanitarian situation, we find significant levels of coverage which support the oppositional model and the notion of event-driven news. Overall, our study points toward a more nuanced understanding of media-state relations than is suggested by the existing elite-driven paradigm.

Bollywoodization of foreign policy: How film discourse portrays tension between states

“…Thus, analysis of the discourse of selected movies indicates that there is a symbiotic relationship between Indian cinema and the Indian Foreign Ministry. The movies discourse played an advocative role as suggested by Cohen (1963) and Robinson et al (2009). By applying critical political economy and models of media foreign policy relationship, a careful analysis indicates that the Indian foreign ministry uses cultural products to further foreign policy agenda and Bollywood produces movies supplementing Indian government's agenda through supportive discourses at international level.…”

“…For instance, President Carter and many of his advisers were infuriated when, in 1980, NBC negotiated a deal with the Iranian militants whereby an interview with hostage, William Gallegos, was aired on the condition that the Iranian students could also present their point of view (Rasul, 2004). A few other studies (Becker, 1977;McQuail, 2005;Robinson et al, 2009;Thussu, 2007) have posited that it would be wrong to assume that the U.S. media always supports the government policy as in democratic societies, media work independently and play the role of an objective observer in the conduct of international relations. Media organizations, therefore, neither advocates nor opposes the foreign policy of a country.…”

“…At the same time, a few researchers (Becker, 1977;Malik, 2003;Pindle, 1993;Robinson et al, 2009) are of the view that media do not necessarily promote governmental point of view because in egalitarian cultures, media work independently and report events objectively. Another school of thought (Berry, 1990;Flew, 2007, Thussu, 2006 assigns an indifferent role to media according to which media makes situational decisions and supports or opposes the official policy according its political and economic interests.…”

“…In a bid to categorize literature and facilitate analysis in the media-foreign policy relationship research tradition, it could be established that several studies in the past decades (Bagdikian, 2004;Cohen, 1963;Herman & Chomsky, 1988;McChesney, 2008;Robinson et al;Zelizer & Allan, 2011) reflect that media of a country advocates governmental policies on external relations. At the same time, a few researchers (Becker, 1977;Malik, 2003;Pindle, 1993;Robinson et al, 2009) are of the view that media do not necessarily promote governmental point of view because in egalitarian cultures, media work independently and report events objectively.…”

“…Similarly the media in authoritarian systems such as former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran cannot adversarially comment on the policy of the government on external relations. The research on media-foreign-policy nexus can be classified as studies based on advocative, adversarial, and indifferent models that suggest advocative, oppositional, and neutral role for the media respectively while commenting on vital foreign policy issues (Robinson et al, 2009). …”