DOCSLIB.ORG

Reportage of War on Terror by Pakistani Print Media: with Agenda Setting Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reportage of War on Terror by Pakistani Print Media: with Agenda Setting Perspective Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS) Vol. 38, No. 1 (2018), pp.40-61 Reportage of War on Terror by Pakistani Print Media: With Agenda setting perspective Aasima Safdar, PhD Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan, Pakistan Adrian M. Budiman, PhD School of Multimedia Technology and Communication, University of Utara Malaysia Norsiah binti Abdul Hamid, PhD School of Multimedia Technology and Communication, University of Utara Malaysia Abstract War on terror that was started by the Bush administration in response of 9/11 attacks, received immense media coverage all over the world. The previous literature showed that the Western media gave enough coverage to the war. However, the present study would provide the Easter and Muslim perspective regarding the reportage of war on terror. It analyzed the editorials of Pakistani English newspapers ‘The Dawn’ and ‘The Nation’ about war on terror. The study explored the dominant news agendas of Pakistani newspapers regarding the war. For answering the research questions, the present study conducted thematic analysis of the editorials of Pakistani newspapers from September 12, 2001 to September 11, 2003. It was found that Pakistani press discussed the agendas of Pak-US relations, terrorism, role of Pakistan in war on terror, prisoners of war, US interests in the Middle Eastern region, and the Muslim unity. It was noted that Pakistani press adopted critical stance against the war and significantly stressed on antiwar agenda. Introduction After 9/11 attacks America launched the war on terror and in its first phase, Afghanistan was attacked on October 7, 2001 by US and coalition forces (Rose, 2002). The objective of the war was to combat against Al-Qaeda and Taliban who were considered as the guilty party of 9/11 atrocity. As well as, during the second phase of ‘war on terror’ America moved towards invading Iraq. On March 20, 2003, US with its coalition partner, Great Britain attacked the city of Baghdad in pursuit of Saddam Hussein who was projected as global threat by having mass destruction weapons. 41 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS) Vol. 38, No. 1 (2018) There was no doubt that the struggle against terrorism got immense media attention. Therefore, Wolfsfeld (1997) correctly commented that events established the amount of media coverage for any particular issue. Nonetheless, journalists played a significant role by elaborating these events into their visual and press coverage. Thus, it can be said that journalists opened a “window on the world” (Tuchman, 1978, p. ix). During the initial hours of 9/11 attacks the American news channels (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS) gave extraordinary coverage. Additionally, their reporters assumed the role of experts and social commentators and used anonymous sources, reported rumours and even included personal references (Amy & Barnett, 2003). During the coverage of Afghanistan war 2001, the US media highlighted government policy towards war while ignored the alternative view points (Barrett, 2003). Additionally, the US media justified military action against the perpetrators of September 11 attacks (Amy & Barnett, 2003) and moreover the audiences were also alarmed by exposing negative images of Osama bin Laden as an evil genius or insane (Winch, 2005). The coverage of Iraq war was also supportive of government policies by US media (Aday, Cluverius & Livingston, 2005; Bennet, 2003; Bennett, Lawrence, & Livingstone, 2006; Dimitrova & Stromback, 2005; Groshek 2008; McLane, 2004). In the long run, the role of American media was pro government and also helpful, publicizing its war agenda among the masses of United States. However, the present article looked at how Pakistan newspapers gave coverage to the war on terror and what agendas were promoted by them. Agenda setting Agenda setting theory proposed that there was a strong link between the media agenda of a particular phenomenon and the audiences’ acceptance of those agendas (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). It was observed that public gave considerable importance to the issues that were frequently focused by the mass media. Similarly, the people noticed the incidents, events and personalities included into mainstream media discourse (Shaw, 1979). In day-to-day life, people came across with different kinds of media, namely, newspapers, magazines, television, and radio but these media could not present all information to their receivers. Therefore certain issues were selected by the media and the rest of the information was excluded. The way, in which the media organized, arranged and emphasized issues, the public followed suit (Shaw, 1979). Similarly Zhu and Blood (1997) denoted that agenda setting was a process that facilitated the public in identifying the imperative issues or objects. Likewise Cohen (1963) argued that press “may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about” (p. 13). According to agenda setting theory, mass media made certain issues more easily approachable for their receivers either by repetition or their placement in print media. People easily remember them, and it influenced public standards of Aasima Safdar, Adrain M. Budiman, Norsiah Binti Abdul Hamid 42 assessment about any political candidate (Price & Tewksbury, 1997) or any other issue. Figure 1.2 elaborated the relationship between media agenda and its impact on public: Issue 1 Transferring Media Influencing Issue 2 specific Agenda agenda to public setting public by opinion mass media Issue 3 Figure 1.1.Agenda Setting: The figure elaborates that media transfer its agenda to the public which consequently affects public opinion. Source: Price & Tewksbury (1997) However, there were certain similarities in agenda setting and media framing approaches. Both focus on how issues were presented in media and which news story was played up or played down. There were some characteristics that differentiate them from each other. Price and Tewksbury (1997) noted that agenda setting selected a particular issue that captured public attention towards that issue while framing not only focused on issue selection but also emphasized the portrayal of the news story. Figure 1.2 explained the conceptual framework of the study. It was depicted that agenda setting role of media stressed upon particular issues by giving it more coverage which consequently established media agenda. For example, Pakistan press might give more coverage to the violation of human rights in Afghanistan. The reporting on particular issues consequently set the media agenda. 43 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS) Vol. 38, No. 1 (2018) Transferring Agenda setting particular War on Terror by Pakistani media agendas press towards public Figure 1.2.Agenda setting process The figure 1.2 explained Pakistani press reporting the issue of “War on Terror’. The Pakistan newspapers promoted particular issues and agenda through their coverage. Coverage of war on terror The previous literature on the war on terror noted that after September 11 attacks, the US media incorporated the themes of public mobilization through patriotic and war expressions, the criticism on offenders, extraordinary support to President Bush, inclusion of contradictory arguments, uncritical approval of ‘official’ point of view and the adoption of censorship policies (Barrett, 2003). The media facilitated the government projecting its military intentions in Afghanistan and later in Iraq which successfully persuaded public opinion in favour of US government (Friel & Falk, 2004; Kumar, 2006; Miller, 2004). Similarly, Haes (2003) conducted a comparative study about the coverage of September 11 attacks by US and German news media. He observed that both countries equally gave huge coverage to the terrorist attacks but US media was more inclined towards patriotic evaluation of the incident. Conversely German media underlined the need of international collaboration for tackling the threats of terrorism.The frame of war on terror led by the Bush administration was accepted uncritically by the American media. It appeared to be more supportive and positive towards official perspective. In fact the war was covered by the US press having more dependence on official sources (McChesney & Nichols, 2005). Such as, in the case of Iraq invasion 2003, Rich (2006) pointed out the media’s disinclination to Aasima Safdar, Adrain M. Budiman, Norsiah Binti Abdul Hamid 44 pose a critical stance towards President Bush’s rationalization for military assault. His study suggested that reporters’ reliance on official resources prevents them to adopt critical approach. Subsequently, the U.S media focused on the “victory frame” following the fall of Baghdad and eluded the severe realities of war, for instance the scandal of Abu Gharaib prison (Aday, Cluverius & Livingston 2005; Bennet, Lawrence et al., 2007). It was also noted that the countries which supported the war on terror, the media also followed the official stance of their governments. For instance, Ottosen (2005) investigated the coverage of war on terror by Norwegian media with special reference to Norwegian military presence in Afghanistan. He studied how Norwegian media framed the ‘War on Terror’ when their army was supporting and participating with the US military in the battle field. The results indicated that Norwegian media projected US view point and particularly relied on Western sources about the coverage of war. Moreover, Norway was presented as a potential victim of future terrorist
Load more

Recommended publications
  • American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics
    American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Nese F. DeBruyne Senior Research Librarian Updated September 14, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32492 American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Summary This report provides U.S. war casualty statistics. It includes data tables containing the number of casualties among American military personnel who served in principal wars and combat operations from 1775 to the present. It also includes data on those wounded in action and information such as race and ethnicity, gender, branch of service, and cause of death. The tables are compiled from various Department of Defense (DOD) sources. Wars covered include the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam Conflict, and the Persian Gulf War. Military operations covered include the Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission; Lebanon Peacekeeping; Urgent Fury in Grenada; Just Cause in Panama; Desert Shield and Desert Storm; Restore Hope in Somalia; Uphold Democracy in Haiti; Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF); Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF); Operation New Dawn (OND); Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR); and Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS). Starting with the Korean War and the more recent conflicts, this report includes additional detailed information on types of casualties and, when available, demographics. It also cites a number of resources for further information, including sources of historical statistics on active duty military deaths, published lists of military personnel killed in combat actions, data on demographic indicators among U.S. military personnel, related websites, and relevant Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports.
    [Show full text]
  • British Public Perception Towards Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
    Global Regional Review (GRR) URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/grr.2018(III-I).37 British Public Perception towards Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq Vol. III, No. I (2018) | Page: 503 ‒ 517 | DOI: 10.31703/grr.2018(III-I).37 p- ISSN: 2616-955X | e-ISSN: 2663-7030 | ISSN-L: 2616-955X This article seeks to explore the Aasima Safdar * Abstract perception of the British informants regarding the Afghanistan war 2001 and Iraq war Samia Manzoor † 2003. Heavy users of British media were interviewed. The present article adopts the qualitative approach Ayesha Qamar ‡ and ten in-depth interviews were conducted by the British informants. It was found that the British informants considered the 9/11 attacks as a tragic incident and Al Qaeda was held responsible for this. They supported their government’s policies to curb terrorism but they highly condemned human Key Words: causalities during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Particularly, they condemned their government’s Public perception, policy about Iraq war 2003. Regarding, the British British media, Iraq media coverage of these wars, there was mixed opinion. Some of them considered that British media war, Afghanistan gave biased coverage to the wars however; few war thought that media adopted a balanced approach. Overall, they stressed that the government should take responsible action against terrorism and human causalities should be avoided. Introduction September 11 attacks were immensely covered by the world media. The electronic channels reported the images of tragedy, popular personalities and the physical destructions (Monahan, 2010). Within a few hours of the tragedy, the TV screens were loaded with images of terrorist attacks.
    [Show full text]
  • American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics
    American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Updated July 29, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL32492 American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Summary This report provides U.S. war casualty statistics. It includes data tables containing the number of casualties among American military personnel who served in principal wars and combat operations from 1775 to the present. It also includes data on those wounded in action and information such as race and ethnicity, gender, branch of service, and cause of death. The tables are compiled from various Department of Defense (DOD) sources. Wars covered include the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam Conflict, and the Persian Gulf War. Military operations covered include the Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission; Lebanon Peacekeeping; Urgent Fury in Grenada; Just Cause in Panama; Desert Shield and Desert Storm; Restore Hope in Somalia; Uphold Democracy in Haiti; Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF); Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF); Operation New Dawn (OND); Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR); and Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS). Starting with the Korean War and the more recent conflicts, this report includes additional detailed information on types of casualties and, when available, demographics. It also cites a number of resources for further information, including sources of historical statistics on active duty military deaths, published lists of military personnel killed in combat actions, data on demographic indicators among U.S. military personnel, related websites, and relevant CRS reports. Congressional Research Service American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • U.S.-Pakistan Engagement: the War on Terrorism and Beyond
    UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org SPECIAL REPORT 1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063 ABOUT THE REPORT Touqir Hussain While the war on terrorism may have provided the rationale for the latest U.S. engagement with Pakistan, the present relationship between the United States and Pakistan is at the crossroads of many other issues, such as Pakistan’s own U.S.-Pakistan reform efforts, America’s evolving strategic relationship with South Asia, democracy in the Muslim world, and the dual problems of religious extremism and nuclear proliferation. As a result, Engagement the two countries have a complex relationship that presents a unique challenge to their respective policymaking communities. The War on Terrorism and Beyond This report examines the history and present state of U.S.-Pakistan relations, addresses the key challenges the two countries face, and concludes with specific policy recommendations Summary for ensuring the relationship meets the needs • The current U.S. engagement with Pakistan may be focused on the war on terrorism, of both the United States and Pakistan. It was written by Touqir Hussain, a senior fellow at the but it is not confined to it. It also addresses several other issues of concern to the United States Institute of Peace and a former United States: national and global security, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, economic senior diplomat from Pakistan, who served as and strategic opportunities in South Asia, democracy, and anti-Americanism in the ambassador to Japan, Spain, and Brazil. Muslim world. • The current U.S. engagement with Pakistan offers certain lessons for U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • STRIKING FIRST – Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National
    THE ARTS This PDF document was made available CHILD POLICY from www.rand.org as a public service of CIVIL JUSTICE the RAND Corporation. EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit NATIONAL SECURITY research organization providing POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY objective analysis and effective SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY solutions that address the challenges SUBSTANCE ABUSE facing the public and private sectors TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY around the world. TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. STRIKINGFIRST Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National Security Policy KARL P. MUELLER JASEN J. CASTILLO FORREST E. MORGAN NEGEEN PEGAHI BRIAN ROSEN Prepared for the United States Air Force Approved for public release; distribution unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-01-C-0003.
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Wars: Old and New
    Michigan State University College of Law INDIGENOUS LAW & POLICY CENTER WORKING PAPER SERIES Indian Wars: Old and New Matthew L.M. Fletcher and Peter S. Vicaire Indigenous Law & Policy Center Working Paper 2011-01 May 4, 2011 1 Indian Wars: Old and New Matthew L.M. Fletcher & Peter S. Vicaire Introduction In March 2011, the United States submitted a brief in United States v. al Bahlul, a military commission case reviewing the conviction of a War on terror suspect, comparing the tactics used by Indians in the First Seminole War to al Qaeda.1 As government lawyers had argued in the days following September 11, 2001, the government in al Bahlul argued that the Seminole Tribe in the 1810s engaged in a form of “irregular warfare” not for the purpose of establishing a nation or state, much like al Qaeda in the modern era.2 The military‟s comparison of Indian tribes to modern international terrorist organizations strike a divisive chord in Indian country and elsewhere, as modern Indian tribes are as far removed from al Qaeda as can be. And yet, the government in some contexts continues to juxtapose the Indian warrior stereotype with modern law and policy. As our colleague Professor Wenona Singel asked, “Who would be persuaded by such an argument?”3 Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law. Director, Indigenous Law and Policy Center. Miigwetch to Wenona Singel, Kate Fort, Brian Gilmore, and Brent Domann, who assisted on the research for this paper. 2010-2011 Fellow, Indigenous Law and Policy Center. Staff Attorney/Law Clerk, Ho-Chunk Nation Trial Court.
    [Show full text]
  • American Muslims As Allies in the War on Terrorism
    Hoover Press : Garfinkle/Terrorism DP0 HGARWT1000 rev1 page 117 American 10 Muslims as Allies in the War on Terrorism M. A. Muqtedar Khan Any and every injury to America is as much an injury to American Muslims as it is to any other American. Therefore, the loss of life and property, as well as the erosion of security as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001, hurt Ameri- can Muslims as much as they hurt other Americans. More than two hundred American Muslims lost their lives on that fateful day, and many American Muslims have since suffered from the political and economic consequences of the attacks. American Muslims also suffered when America responded, militarily and otherwise, to September 11. Today, other Americans view the entire American Muslim community with varying degrees of suspicion. The communi- ty’s institutions are under siege, the status of its civil rights is in grave jeopardy, and many Muslims are suffering socially as well as professionally from rising anti-Muslim sentiments in America. American Muslims have also seen thousands of their Hoover Press : Garfinkle/Terrorism DP0 HGARWT1000 rev1 page 118 118 M. A. Muqtedar Khan fellow Muslims die in wars, which would not have been waged had America not been attacked. The point is that when America is attacked, American Muslims suffer, and when America responds, American Mus- lims suffer again. It follows that American Muslims should be more concerned than anyone about essential American secu- rity and that they have a compelling incentive to do all they can to make sure that the international war on terrorism is effective and successful.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew J. Bacevich
    ANDREW J. BACEVICH Department of International Relations Boston University 152 Bay State Road Boston, Massachusetts 02215 Telephone (617) 358-0194 email: [email protected] CURRENT POSITION Boston University Professor of History and International Relations, College of Arts & Sciences Professor, Kilachand Honors College EDUCATION Princeton University, M. A., American History, 1977; Ph.D. American Diplomatic History, 1982 United States Military Academy, West Point, B.S., 1969 FELLOWSHIPS Columbia University, George McGovern Fellow, 2014 Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame Visiting Research Fellow, 2012 The American Academy in Berlin Berlin Prize Fellow, 2004 The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University Visiting Fellow of Strategic Studies, 1992-1993 The John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University National Security Fellow, 1987-1988 Council on Foreign Relations, New York International Affairs Fellow, 1984-1985 PREVIOUS APPOINTMENTS Boston University Director, Center for International Relations, 1998-2005 The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University Professorial Lecturer; Executive Director, Foreign Policy Institute, 1993-1998 School of Arts and Sciences, Johns Hopkins University Professorial Lecturer, Department of Political Science, 1995-19 United States Military Academy, West Point Assistant Professor, Department of History, 1977-1980 1 PUBLICATIONS Books and Monographs Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country. New York: Metropolitan Books (2013); audio edition (2013). The Short American Century: A Postmortem. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press (2012). (editor) Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War. New York: Metropolitan Books (2010); audio edition (2010); Chinese edition (2011); Korean edition (2013). The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.
    [Show full text]
  • US Military Operations in the Global War on Terrorism
    U.S. Military Operations in the Global War on Terrorism: Afghanistan, Africa, the Philippines, and Colombia Updated January 20, 2006 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL32758 U.S. Military Operations in the Global War on Terrorism Summary U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Africa, the Philippines, and Colombia are part of the U.S.-initiated Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). These operations cover a wide variety of combat and non-combat missions ranging from combating insurgents, to civil affairs and reconstruction operations, to training military forces of other nations in counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and counterinsurgency tactics. Numbers of U.S. forces involved in these operations range from 19,000 to just a few hundred. Some have argued that U.S. military operations in these countries are achieving a degree of success and suggest that they may offer some lessons that might be applied in Iraq as well as for future GWOT operations. Potential issues for the second session of the 109th Congress include NATO assumption of responsibility for operations in Afghanistan, counterdrug operations in Afghanistan, a long-term strategy for Africa, and developments in Colombia and the Philippines. This report will not discuss the provision of equipment and weapons to countries where the U.S. military is conducting counterterrorism operations1 nor will it address Foreign Military Sales (FMS), which are also aspects of the Administration’s GWOT military strategy. This report will be updated on a periodic basis. 1 For additional information see CRS Report RL30982, U.S. Defense Articles and Services Supplied to Foreign Recipients: Restrictions on Their Use, by Richard F.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Enduring Freedom
    Operation Enduring Freedom The War in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) began in October, 2001 in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. Following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and the fall of the Afghan Communist government in 1992, a protracted civil war raged on between the various factions of anti-Communist Afghan fighters, who called themselves the Mujahadeen. Mullah Mohammed Omar, a Mullah (Islamic religious leader) and a member of the Pashtun ethnic group led a new armed group called the Taliban. The word Taliban means "student", and they attracted the support of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida organization. In 1994, the Taliban attacked and defeated local warlords and acquired a reputation for order and military success. From that point onward, until they seized Kabul in September, 1996, the Taliban fought against several militias and warlords, eventually defeating them all. Moscow feared the Taliban as a source of aid and support for the rebels it has fought in Chechnya and Tajikistan. Iran, dominated by Shiite Islamic fundamentalists, was at odds with the Sunni Muslim Taliban, largely over the treatment of the Afghan Shiite minority called the Hazaris. Pakistan's role in the Taliban success is controversial, as it is generally believed that several Taliban military victories are directly attributable to armed Pakistani intervention. After seizing Mazar-i Sharif, the Taliban provoked the hostility of the area's Shiite Hazari minority, and the warlord, General Malik, ended his relationship with the Taliban. The result was the execution of at least 3,000 captured Taliban soldiers by Malik and the Hazaris.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Contextualizing the War on Terror
    Re-contextualizing The War on Terror Emilie Beck Advisor: Dr. Kari Jensen, Department of Global Studies and Geography Committee: Dr. Zilkia Janer, Department of Global Studies and Geography and Dr. Stefanie E. Nanes, Department of Political Science. Honors Dissertation in Geography, Spring 2018 Hofstra University 2 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Methodology and Positionality .......................................................................................................... 6 Critical Understandings of Space in the Context of Conflict ............................................................ 12 Contextualizing the Spaces of the War on Terror .................................................................................. 12 The ‘Era of Development,’ NeoliBeralism, and U.S. Hegemony ............................................................. 14 Racialized and Orientalist Configurations of Space and Identity ........................................................... 19 The Discursive Construction of the War on Terror .......................................................................... 25 President Bush’s Rhetoric: Us vs. Them, Imaginative Geographies, and Cartographic Performances .. 25 Spaces of InvisiBility and Camouflaged Politics ..................................................................................... 32 Neoliberalizing Space: Foundation and Effects ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Framing the War on Terror the Internalization of Policy in the US Press
    Journalism Copyright © The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Vol. 10(6): 777–797 DOI: 10.1177/1464884909344480 ARTICLE Framing the War on Terror The internalization of policy in the US press Stephen D. Reese and Seth C. Lewis University of Texas, USA ABSTRACT The War on Terror was the label assigned by the Bush administration to its national security policy, launched in response to the attacks of 9/11. The cultural construction and political rationale supporting this slogan represent a powerful organizing prin- ciple that has become a widely accepted framing, laying the groundwork for the invasion of Iraq. We examine this framing where its sponsors intersect with US jour- nalism, as illustrated by news texts. Broadly, we examine trends in how news reports refer to the War on Terror and provide an interpretive analysis of stories in USA Today. From the period of September 2001 to early 2006, these news texts suggest that the frame was internalized by the US press. News and editorial reports went beyond ‘transmitting’ the label as shorthand for administration policy, to ‘reify’ the policy as uncontested, and ‘naturalize’ it as a taken-for-granted common-sense notion. KEY WORDS 9/11 framing ideology news routines news texts war on terror The challenge of political violence has grown with new means of global co- ordination and access to weapons of mass destruction. The Bush admini- stration’s response to this threat, following the now iconic policy reference point of 11 September 2001, has had far-ranging implications for national security strategy, relations with the world community, and civil liberties.
    [Show full text]