War and ‘World Opinion’: Parliamentary Speaking and the Falklands War

Abstract

Parliamentary and media discourses are different. Whereas speaking in parliament is, at least on the surface, governed by procedural rules and deliberative traditions, media representations adhere to a narrative dramaturgy. A crisis situation affects the relation between these forms of discourse. When there is a perceived threat against the nation, often the media ‘rally around the flag’, purportedly displaying a greater acceptance of the arguments presented by leading politicians or the government. Similarly, crisis awareness limits the room for dissent in parliament, since there is a perceived need to close ranks in the face of an external threat. In this situation, turning to public opinion is not an option for those wanting to present alternative viewpoints. This article examines whether the concept ‘world opinion’ became an alternative outside ally for members of parliament (MPs) who wanted to position themselves in the debates on the Falklands War (1982).

Rally ’round the flag revised: External soft threats and media coverage

“…In media ‘rally’ coverage of external threats, the traditional predisposition to present a balanced perspective is challenged by the difficulty of obtaining critical comments regarding the official leadership’s policies from sources that can routinely be counted on to express opposition to the policy elite (Baker and Oneal, 2001). This could be sourced in fear of looking foolish or unpatriotic, or in a perceived need to close ranks in the face of an external threat (Baker and Oneal, 2001; Coser, 1956; Harvard, 2016).…”

“…In the media realm with which this article is concerned, ‘rally ’round the flag’ research concentrates primarily on the role of the media in triggering the effect (Baker and Oneal, 2001; Harvard, 2016; Kazun, 2016; Oneal and Bryan, 1995); the nature and extent of media coverage of US foreign policy crises as a product of journalists’ professional preferences of certain stories over others (Groeling and Baum, 2008); and the likelihood of ‘rally’ effects appearing in relation to front-page coverage of major media outlets (Newman and Forcehimes, 2010; Oneal and Bryan, 1995). Common to literature dealing with the media’s role in ‘rally’ effects is the linkage between media coverage and public opinion support for leaders against the background of a conventional hard-power threat.…”

“…Depictions of the media’s functioning in times of external crises note the likelihood of ‘rally’ events to be covered in a more one-sided fashion that is favorable to the president than coverage typifying issues of domestic policy or routine international events (Baker and Oneal, 2001). As part of the ‘rally ’round the flag’ phenomenon, the media is said to display a greater acceptance of the arguments presented by leading politicians or the government and generate patriotic news (Harvard, 2016).…”

The Springs Of Democracy: National and Transnational Debates on Constitutional Reform in the British, German, Swedish and Finnish Parliaments, 1917-1919

“…Count Kuno von Westarp, a Prussian civil servant, considered that it was essential to maintain a clear distinction between legislative and executive responsibilities so that the Reichstag should continue to be involved in the legislative process and the budget but refrain from extending its power to issues belonging to the executive. 577 572 On international public opinion and parliaments, see Harvard 2016. 573 Verhandlungen, Ernst Müller-Meinigen, 29 March 1917, 2844.…”

“…Count Kuno von Westarp, a Prussian civil servant, considered that it was essential to maintain a clear distinction between legislative and executive responsibilities so that the Reichstag should continue to be involved in the legislative process and the budget but refrain from extending its power to issues belonging to the executive. 577 572 On international public opinion and parliaments, see Harvard 2016. Similar views were echoed by Albrecht von Graefe, who questioned parliamentarism altogether, insisting that the ministers were the representatives of the opinion of the monarch. According to this Prussian civil servant and former soldier, if the monarch were forced to choose his ministers according to the will of the majority in the parliament, he would totally lose his relevance as a political agent.…”