The U.S. Government and Journalists’ Reactance to the News Coverage of the Iraq Wars
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science
Celia M. Shortt
June 2010
© 2010 Celia M. Shortt. All Rights Reserved.
This thesis titled
The U.S. Government and Journalists’ Reactance to the News Coverage of the Iraq Wars
by
CELIA M. SHORTT
has been approved for
the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism
and the Scripps College of Communication by
Yusuf Kalyango, Jr.
Assistant Professor of Journalism
Gregory J. Shepherd
Dean, Scripps College of Communication
ii ABSTRACT
SHORTT, CELIA M., M.S., June 2010, Journalism
The U.S. Government and Journalists’ Reactance to the News Coverage of the Iraq Wars
(112 pp.)
Director of Thesis: Yusuf Kalyango, Jr.
This thesis explores whether the government’s reactance to the media coverage of
the 1991 Persian Gulf War led to the way in which journalistic independence was
curtailed in the 2003 Iraq War. It also examines the undertone used in war reporting to determine how television networks shaped the war coverage, accounting for the government control of messages and restrictions of the media. A textual and observational analysis of CNN newscasts and Fox News coverage were conducted. This study found both positive and negative undertones from both networks’ coverage as a reaction to the government’s handling of the information about their war effort. This thesis builds a new theoretical perspective with two premises for conflict reactance. The
U.S. government’s reactance to the negative media coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf
War was not as successful in totally restricting the negative undertone about its war efforts in the 2003 Iraq War from the networks’ anchor and correspondents; but it was partially successful at shaping the 2003 coverage by injecting some positive undertones in the live reports from the battlefield as a result of its embedded press system.
Approved: ______
Yusuf Kalyango, Jr.
Assistant Professor of Journalism
iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In light of this thesis marking a point in my life where I forgot what was behind
and pressed on toward what was ahead, some acknowledgements are necessary:
Yusuf , thank you for all your help with this project. It would not have been possible without it! Mom and Dad, thank you for everything you’ve done in my life and your phenomenal support. I would not be here without it. I love you! Libby and Cindy,
thank you both for not letting me settle for less in my life. You are amazing sisters, and I
love you both! Glen and Joel, thank you for always protecting your big sister! I love you! Michaela, Jeremy, Bill, Linda, Jon, Sarah, Hart, Rebecca, Jeff, Marcia, and
Jon, thank you for always being there for me, no matter where I am!
Finally, to my high school English teacher, Mrs. Barber, who did what no one else could, not even my mother, show me that I could write and enjoy it. I would not be here without you!
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ...... iii
Acknowledgements ...... iv
List of Figures ...... viiiii
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1
1.1: Scope and Context ...... 2
1.2: Research Design ...... 3
1.3: Textual Analysis and Observational Approach ...... 5
1.4: Justification ...... 7
Chapter 2: Theory Building ...... 9
2.1 Research Model Themes ...... 13
Chapter 3: Freedom of Information ...... 15
Chapter 4: Overview of the Conflicts ...... 19
4.1: Context Following the Vietnam War ...... 19
4.2: The 1991 Persian Gulf War ...... 20
4.3: The 2003 Iraq War ...... 23
Chapter 5: Media Coverage of the War ...... 26
5.1: Cable News Network (CNN) and War Coverage ...... 26
5.2: Fox News and War Coverage ...... 28
Research Questions ...... 31
Chapter 6: Methodology ...... 32
6.1: Textual Analysis ...... 33
v Conflict Reactance Model ...... 36
6.2: Observation Analysis ...... 38
Chapter 7: Results ...... 41
7.1:1991 Persian Gulf War ...... 41
7.2: Reactance Themes with a Negative Tone ...... 42
7.3: Reactance Themes with a Positive Tone ...... 48
7.4: Sources and Technology ...... 50
7.5: 2003 Iraq War ...... 52
7.6: Reactance Themes with a Negative Tone ...... 53
7.7: CNN Coverage of the 2003 Iraq War ...... 54
7.8: Fox News Coverage ...... 60
7.9: Reactance Themes with a Positive Tone ...... 65
7.10: CNN Coverage of the 2003 Iraq War ...... 65
7.11: Fox News Coverage ...... 68
7.12: Sources and Technology ...... 72
Chapter 8: Discussion ...... 75
New Conflict Reactance Model ...... 76
8.1: Negative Undertones ...... 77
8.2: Positive Undertones ...... 85
8.3: Observational Analysis of Technology ...... 88
8.4: Prospects – Advancing Reactance Theory ...... 91
8.5: Limitations of Study ...... 95
vi
Chapter 9: Conclusion...... 97
References ...... 99
vii LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Conflict Reactance Model ...... 36
Figure 2: New Conflict Reactance Model ...... 76
viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The Persian Gulf War ushered in a new era of war reporting, particularly for the
24 hour cable news networks. For the first time, reporters were able to broadcast live from the battlefield when the U.S. military air strikes began in Iraq in 1991. This war became more visible and important to the public in the United States not only because of the conduct of the war, but also because of the way the war was communicated
(Knightley 2004). The 2003 Iraq War continued that new era of war reporting from the
Persian Gulf War. For the first time, journalists were systematically embedded with military combat units (Pfau et. al. 2004). The embedded journalists essentially lived, worked, and traveled with these units in order to provide in-depth coverage of the military in combat (Pfau et. al. 2004).
In addition to the new technology available in both these conflicts, U.S. governmental control was evident in new and powerful ways for both. In the 1991
Persian Gulf War, the U.S. government set up the press pool system that gave the media information about the conflict through daily briefings by the military. The Iraqi government also controlled information through censorship. It heavily censored the information in the stories filed by U.S. war correspondents located in Iraq. In the 2003
Iraq War, the U.S. government controlled the flow of information by embedding journalists with military units who were fighting in the conflict (Knightley 2004). The embedded reporters used these military units as their sources. Official sources and press conferences were also in place for this conflict.
1 The central purpose of this study was to explore whether the U.S. government’s
reactance to the media coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War led to the way in which
journalistic independence was curtailed in the 2003 Iraq War. This study was specifically
looking for the following reactance themes with a negative undertone in the CNN and
Fox News of coverage of the 1991 and 2003 conflicts: senseless, useless, merciless, deadly, innocent, victims, warmongers, insurrection, shameful, shocking, horrifying, bloodthirsty killers, and mission failed. In addition, the following reactance themes with a positive undertone in the 1991 and 2003 conflicts were also explored: heroes and liberators, honorable, patriotic, warriors against terror, inevitable victory, peacemakers/keepers, mission accomplished, and U.S. allies. The study also assessed the technology that the cable networks used to cover and present the war to determine whether the new technologies contributed to the way journalists prevailed over government control particularly in the 2003 Iraq War.
1.1: Scope and Context
Given that backdrop to the international news coverage of the U.S. war with Iraq both in 1991 and then later in 2003, this study explored the United States (U.S.) government’s restriction of media independence in the 2003 Iraq War in reaction to the media coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The two periods examined here are important because they contribute to our understanding of how the government’s reactance to the media coverage from the first conflict may have led to further attempts at control on the next conflict. It also helps us understand whether such governmental
2 control in the 2003 Iraq War produced a different tone in the way journalists covered the
stories.
Previous studies have examined the coverage of these two Iraq wars with the
United States as individual case studies (Newhagen 1994) or investigated each conflict
individually (Lin 2006). The individual studies focused on all types of media coverage.
One comparative study dealt with analysis of comments in the news coverage from both wars (Todd 2007). No known studies assessed both conflicts to determine how the cable
news network reacted to the government’s actions, such as the embedded system and
other types of governmental control.
This study focused on the CNN coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the
CNN and Fox News coverage of 2003 Iraq War. In the first Persian Gulf War conflict,
CNN war correspondents had the technology to report instantaneously what was
happening on the ground, live from the battlefield. Additionally, both networks faced
government censorship that attempted to shape their reporting of the conflict. These wars
with Iraq were both waged by a Bush family member who was commander-in-chief and
president of the United States.
1.2: Research Design
Several studies which have examined the media coverage of these conflicts have
used an already established mass communication theoretical framework, such as framing
(Pfau et. al. 2004). This study explores how journalists reacted through the texts of their
reportage, when their freedom to cover stories is stalled or curtailed by the U.S.
government’s embedding program in the war theater. The exploration of whether the
3 government’s limited control of the media on the battlefield in the 1991 Persian Gulf War led to the way in which journalistic independence was curtailed in the 2003 Iraq War, can also be explained by the reactance theoretical framework.
This theoretical approach was first developed by psychological theorists in the early 1960s. In this study, the theoretical proposition is introduced to mass communication research as an exploratory qualitative paradigm to help us understand the rationale behind the undertone used in war reporting given the environment in which government controlled the media using the embedded journalists system and other restrictions.
Reactance theory is based on the idea that, “Given that a person has a set of free behaviors, he or she will experience reactance whenever any of those behaviors is eliminated or threatened with elimination” (Brehm 1966, p.2). Despite this theory being tested primarily using experimental methods on people in everyday event and professional settings, it can also be applied to mass communication research, specifically journalists and television commentators working under government control during a military conflict.
During a conflict, it can be assumed that any journalist or war correspondent has a set of free behaviors, or reasonable acts, that they practice when covering stories such as conflicts. The behavior as a concept simply refers to any conceivable act (Brehm 1966), and it can be an inference to the journalists’ many conceivable acts of gathering news and the way stories are packaged. Specifically in this study, the behavior broadly refers to the journalists’ freedom of movement to cover the conflicts without any government restrictions, or the correspondents’ right to seek the truth without undue influence from
4 the government to spin coverage as a principle of patriotism and affirmative reporting of
the war. This is especially critical in situations when war correspondents depend on
military sources or experts and the Pentagon briefings as they gather news during a military conflict.
The coverage of these conflicts is the end product of the war correspondents’ efforts in covering a military conflict. The best way to determine how their reactance to
the control imposed on them during the conflict is to evaluate the tone in their reports, the
sources used, and then to determine their hidden meanings. Accordingly, this study sought to determine what themes and sources were used in the CNN television reports to portray the 1991 Persian Gulf War. It also sought to determine what themes and sources were used in the CNN and Fox News television reports to portray the 2003 Iraq War.
From a theoretical perspective, do the themes and sources reflect an undertone in reaction to the government’s restriction of their independence in the 2003 Iraq War? This new theoretical proposition will also draw interpretations from the tone of CNN and Fox
News reports in both Iraq conflicts in consideration of U.S. government restrictions.
1.3: Textual Analysis and Observational Approach
In order to determine the war correspondents’ reactance to the control imposed on
them, a textual analysis of television news coverage from the 1991 Persian Gulf War and
the 2003 Iraq War was conducted. A textual analysis explores reasonable interpretations
of media messages and sees the different ways that it is possible to interpret reality
through a given text. Qualitative analysis, which focuses on meaning in context, relies on
the scholars (humans) who are best suited for the task of interpreting texts and observing
5 essential characteristics of conflict coverage to illuminate the theoretical framework that
defines this mode of inquiry and research problem.
Consequently, this was a textual analysis of the themes and sources the
characterized CNN and Fox News coverage of the conflicts. It also looked at the
technology that was available to reporters for each conflict. The technology used by war
correspondents for both conflicts was seen through the observation of the coverage. For
example, in both conflicts if a reporter did a live report, he or she had to be using some
type of satellite uplink to communicate back to the news station.
In this study, reactance theory and its expression in the correspondents’ thematic
reaction to the prevailing circumstances with which events unfolded, was explored in
terms of positive and negative undertones. For this study, a theme is defined as a
recurring use of a depicted reality on a particular subject matter or premise of story
elements communicated through text as salient, in an otherwise changing environment. A
theme can be either a negative undertone in which the sender/communicator of this
recurring element of a story, criticizes or contradicts the source of the message, for instance, the government during a war effort; or a theme can also be a positive undertone in which sender/communicator of this recurring element of a story is either praising or complimenting the outcome of an event, such as the government during a war effort.
Also in this study, sources are defined as places, experts in a subject matter, or pundits of a topical issue, to whom journalists seek intuitive information to back up their stories. The sources available within the press systems for both the 1991 Persian Gulf
War and the 2003 Iraq War were also part of the analysis.
6 In addition to the sources for the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War,
the technology in both conflicts was also part of the analysis. Both conflicts had new technology available to the journalists and commentators for reporting the war. This technology was observed in order to explore if it made a difference in the curtailment of journalistic independence in the two conflicts.
One of the newsgathering techniques that was considered in the analysis is the system of news delivery for both news networks – how the correspondents used the technology in the delivery of their newscasts. This study provides an insight into how technology evolved from the coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War to the 2003 Iraq
War. This was accomplished using the observational analysis. This observational approach demonstrated the efforts that media organizations took to advance their newsgathering techniques and to react to governmental control in the battlefield.
1.4: Justification
This study explored the curtailment of journalistic independence in the 2003 Iraq
War due to the government’s reactance to the media coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf
War. The findings provide educators with a new mass communication theoretical
framework through which we can understand how journalists react to events in which
their professional conduct of business is restricted or whereby the information released in
the conduct of the war in questionable. The study concludes with recommendations of
how the government can best work with war correspondents in the battlefield without
extraneous control. Additionally, the government and the U.S. military can learn from
this insight about what kind of thematic reactions they generated in correspondents as a
7 result of embedded journalist system and the Pentagon’s war situation press briefings.
From this reactance theoretical perspective, journalists can also gain an understanding of how to deal more effectively with the press system placed upon them when covering conflicts.
8 CHAPTER TWO: THEORY BUILDING
Most mass communications studies have approached media analysis with
established theoretical frameworks. This study breaks new ground by building a conceptual argument based on a reactance theoretical framework.
Reactance theory was most popular when first created in the 1960s through the
1980s (Miller et. al 2007). After which, a renewed interest in the theory during the 1990s allowed it to resurface. It is most popular in the disciplines of social psychology (Hayes and Reineke 2007). Several studies in different disciplines have used reactance theory as the framework for its research.
A 1988 study applied reactance theory to consumer behavior (Lessne and
Notarantonio 1988) to determine the effects of the limits of advertising. Specifically, it extended reactance theory to consumer behavior by creating a limit on the items available for purchase. Lessne and Notarantonio (1988, p.40) found that the “careful use of limits may be capable of increasing sales”. Another study applied reactance theory to the control of language in promotional health messages. Miller’s (2007) research tested the theory to existing research to understand how reactance motivates message rejection by threats to apparent freedoms by the control of language. It expanded reactance theory by pointing to the great potential value of concrete value (Miller et. al. 2007).
Reactance theory explains the idea that when a person’s or group’s ability to engage in a free behavior is curtailed by external powers, the individual or group will experience reactance (Brehm 1966). In this case, this theoretical framework was applied
9 to exploring how war correspondents behaved when their freedoms to cover the 1991
Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War were curtailed by the government.
Additionally, this study explored the reactance of the government to the media,
specifically, how their reactance to the media after the 1991 Persian Gulf War led to the way in which the media’s freedoms in the 2003 Iraq War were curtailed. The pool system for the press and the media in the Persian Gulf War created a difficult situation in which the media had to function. Reporters were on waiting lists for open spots within the pools, and the information they were given was from daily press conferences by the military and the government. They were not free to report the war in any other way.
Conversely, in the Iraq War, war correspondents were given more access to the military and the war effort when they were embedded with military units.
This theory assumes that “if a person’s behavioral freedom is reduced or
threatened with reduction, he will become motivationally aroused” (Brehm 1966, p.2).
This proposition is what some theorists have advanced as a state of motivational arousal, and it is widely called “psychological reactance” (Brehm 1966, p.2). In the news media environment, this reactance may occur through content used or the text that appears in the coverage of war or through the kind of technology used to limit government accessibility
or embargoes in a war theater. Specifically, this theory assumes that:
[T]he more important is that free behavior to the individual, the greater the magnitude of reactance” (Brehm 1966, p.4). Additionally, this theory says, “Given the individual’s set of free behaviors, the greater is the proportion eliminated or threatened with elimination, the greater will be the magnitude of reactance. . . .Given that an important free behavior has been threatened with elimination, the greater is the threat, the greater will be the magnitude of reactance. . . .Just as a free behavior may be threatened by virtue of elimination of or threat to another free behavior, so a free behavior may be threatened by the elimination of or threat to another person’s free behavior” (Brehm 1966, p.6-7). 10 For mass communication, this means that when war correspondents are faced with situations in which their freedoms are eliminated, their reaction will be in proportion to
the magnitude of the freedom being eliminated. Therefore, the greater the freedom taken
away, the more noticeable their reactance will be. In turn, the government’s response to
their reactance will also depend on the scope of the journalists’ vigilance to
independently cover the war.
Included in this theory are the personal and impersonal eliminations of freedom.
A personal elimination of freedom is when a person’s freedom is eliminated intentionally against his or her wish. An impersonal elimination of freedom is one in which the individual cannot tell whether the attack was directed specifically at him/her (Brehm
1966).
A recent study used reactance theory to help determine the effects of censorship of war-related news coverage, specifically the censorship of images of ceremonies that included caskets of dead soldiers (Hayes and Reineke 2007). In their conclusion, Hayes and Reineke (2007, p.425) made the following argument: “Knowledge that the government is attempting to inhibit one’s freedom to obtain information of one’s choosing could prompt a state of reactance.”
During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the media were censored (Fialka 1992). As mentioned earlier, the media system for the Persian Gulf War was a press pool system in which members of the media were given information for their stories from daily press conferences from the military. Those who went out on their own to report did so without military protection (Fialka 1992). Their freedoms to report were personally eliminated.
No known study has explored how war correspondents behaved and reacted to the
11 curtailment of their independence to cover the 1991 Persian Gulf War, how they delivered the messages, and how they shaped content.
In the beginning of the Iraq War, the Pentagon set up a press system that involved embedded journalists. The Pentagon embedded more than 600 journalists in military units
(Pfau et. al. 2004). These journalists lived and traveled with their military units
(Knightley 2004). At first glance, they appeared to have more access than in the previous conflict. They had to stay with their unit. They were not free to report with any other group (Knightley 2004). Additionally, when they reported about their units, they could not give away any information that would compromise their safety or the overall safety of the military. The coverage these embedded journalists provided was only a small piece of what was really going on in the war, and they struggled with that idea of delivering biased coverage about their particular unit (Pfau et. al. 2004). In short, the media in both these conflicts had some of their journalistic freedoms restricted by the military in order to have access to the battlefield.
This study was guided by the reactance theoretical approach to understand how correspondents behaved and reacted to the personal elimination of their freedom and how they delivered the messages in both conflicts in Iraq. Since this study deals with media coverage of conflicts, the concept of conflict reactance was explored. Conflict reactance in this study is the motivational arousal in journalists when their freedoms to move freely as they cover the war and other conflicts are threatened by an external force that does limits or prohibits them from exercising their journalistic independence as shown through their thematic reactions present in the texts.
12 2.1: Research Model Themes
The themes drawn from reactance theory include whether the undertone of
coverage reflected not only the disagreements with the government’s conduct of the war
during the conflict but also the manner in which messages were disseminated by the
military to the media. Some of these themes are negative undertones and they include, but
are not limited to describing some elements of the war as: senseless, useless, merciless,
deadly, innocent victims, warmongers, insurrection, shameful, shocking, horrifying,
bloodthirsty killers, and mission failed (Snow 2004; Taylor 1998). Other themes were
positive undertones and they include, but are not limited to describing some elements of
the war as: heroes and liberators, honorable, patriotic, warriors against terror, inevitable
victory, peacemakers/keepers, mission accomplished, and U.S. allies (Snow 2004; Taylor
1998). The undertone of their coverage is what the war correspondents can use to react to the government restrictions of their freedoms or independence to cover the conflict with undue influence and hindrance.
Conflict reactance undertones and other thematic reactions in driving a story from war correspondence may include but are not limited to the following arguments. It includes giving incomplete facts about war coverage, such as reporting a battle between the U.S. military and Iraqi insurgents, yet only providing information about the Iraqi insurgents. It also includes reinforcing the White House’s reasons and rationale for the
U.S. invasion of Iraq to maintain national security, but not providing a balanced explanation from the Iraqi government as it attempts to be independent of the Al-Qaeda fighters (Snow 2004; Taylor 1998).
13 Other ways that conflict reactance may have been expressed in these conflicts was through the use of narrow sources of “U.S. military experts” on CNN and Fox News reports to provide insights into the situation without providing the other side a chance to provide their side of the story. CNN and Fox News also might have interviewed retired military personnel for different conflict-related issues. They could also treat U.S. official government sources as providing undisputed facts on the ground, instead of a mere perspective that needs to be verified and researched. Reports with undertones may portray one side of the conflict as evil but describe the other side as outright terrorists or enemies of democracy. Judgmental undertones made within the live reporting from the battlefield, or the framework within which opinions are formed by sources, and then later discussed in the texts as the truth. The narrow focus of CNN and Fox News reports about
Iraq that serves the interests of one side of the conflict.
14 CHAPTER THREE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Freedom of information and the press is an important philosophy of journalism.
An understanding or brief summary of it is necessary to put the journalistic freedoms and their elimination in these conflicts into context. It is imperatively important for journalists and commentators to report on the actions of the government in the interest and welfare of its citizens. Access to government-held information has been a valuable right in an open and democratic society (Halstuck and Chamberlin 2006).
Another element of press freedom in the United States is the right to criticize the
U.S. government. Before their independence, the people who struggled to liberate and to form the union envisioned that the press should be free, including a freedom to criticize the government (Mathewson 2009). The First Amendment gave the press legal protection in the areas of: libel, editorial freedom, privacy, and access to courts and other freedoms
(Mathewson 2009). The First Amendment, however, must cede to the prosecutorial authority of the Supreme Court, which is seen by some protectionists as a threat to the purpose of the freedom of the press, which is “to investigate and expose tawdry aspects of government” (Mathewson 2009, p.82).
In 1966, U.S. president, Lyndon B. Johnson created the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) to be a “judicial enforceable public right of access to the wide variety of information compiled by the executive branch agencies” (Halstuck and Chamberlin
2006). Its central purpose was to “provide access to only those records that directly shed light on official agency activities and performance” (Halstuck and Chamberlin 2006, p.514).
15 Federal law provides three official levels of classification for its information, top
secret, secret, and confidential (Hendler 2009). Another level of classification for federal information also exists. This level is formally known as “sensitive, but unclassified” or
“controlled classified” (Hendler 2009, p.30). This information functions outside of the
law and with little government regulation (Hendler 2009). It is the information that falls
into this category that can create a difficult situation for journalists. Since it operates
outside of the law, it is difficult or impossible for them to gain access to this information.
With the development of the Internet, tension was increased between the
individual’s right to privacy and the public’s, or journalists’ right to know, specifically in
obtaining government-held or government agencies’ information. The solution for this
tension is to create a balance between those two issues. One way to have that balance is
in a democratic form of government, like the United States. This balance would be
between the “government’s organizational needs for preparatory and institutional privacy
and the need of the press, interest groups, and other governmental agencies for the
knowledge of government operations required to keep government conduct responsible”
(Halstuck and Chamberlin 2006, p.563). Currently, the FOIA can be implemented in a
way that violates that balance and “privileges privacy over disclosure” (Halstuck and
Chamberlin 2006, 0. 563). This type of violation usually occurs in situations whereby the
government claims to restrict access to information in the defense of national security
during a transnational conflict or a war in which the U.S. government is directly
involved.
This privilege of privacy over disclosure can be seen with the access and
information given to war correspondents or their television media by the government or
16 its sources. The Department of Defense Media Relations Field Manual outlines rules for
journalists and commentators when covering conflict. Journalists who are accredited by
the Department of Defense to cover a conflict must be credentialed by the U.S. Military.
They are also required to follow a set of military ground rules to protect the U.S. forces
and their operations from unintended release of information deemed confidential or top
secret (Department of Defense Media Relations Field Manual p. 57-58). If they violate
these rules, correspondents’ credentials can be suspended, and they can be expelled from
the combat zone in which they are reporting (Department of Defense Media Relations
Field Manual p. 57). In other words, war correspondents must do exactly what the
government tells them to do. If they do not, they will not be allowed to cover the war or
conflict. Additionally, these rules and standards apply to those journalists embedded in
military units. Journalists would also be granted access to military units. Access to
special operations, however, could be limited or not allowed (Department of Defense
Media Relations Field Manual). One of the more important rules is the “10th Principle.”
This principle states:
[T]he U.S. military will retain the option to review news material when operational security is a consideration. This means service members must practice security at the source by not telling reporters anything that could jeopardized [sic.] our service members, such as information about future operations. (Department of Defense Media Relations Field Manual p. 58).
The 10th principle implies the right of the U.S. military to censor news stories when the
operational security of the military is at risk. These requirements can create situations in
which their journalistic independence is curtailed due to the restrictions on the
information the military is allowed to release about its warfare.
17 In the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War, journalists were faced with press systems and situations that curtailed their journalistic independence. This study will explore thematic reactions from those journalists when their independence to report on the war in Iraq was curtailed.
18 CHAPTER FOUR: OVERVIEW OF THE CONFLICTS
4.1: Context following the Vietnam War
The Vietnam War set a unique context for the war correspondence that would follow in future conflicts. It was the first war that was televised with its stories and coverage broadcast on the news for the public to watch (Hallin 1986). Unlike past wars, war correspondents were able to have their stories from the front shown on television, bringing the war to the living rooms of the American public. Additionally, it was the first war in which there was no government censorship (Hallin 1986). The government had not officially declared to the public that they were fighting in Vietnam; therefore, it was hesitant to censor a war in which they never claimed to be fighting (Cambou 2004).
Because of this lack of censorship, correspondents could go with whatever military unit they wanted. They did not need government approval. More importantly, however, the reporters’ coverage of the war contradicted what the government was telling the
American public. One instance was when the government said that victory was imminent in Vietnam. The late journalist, Walter Cronkite, however, said what he had witnessed in
Vietnam was a “bloody stalemate” (Hallin 1986, p.6). Since the video from the war was shown on television, the American public became fully aware of the conflict and the controversy surrounding it. Predominantly, the fact that what they were seeing from
Vietnam was different than what they were hearing from the government. Following the
Vietnam War, the government thought that the media had swayed the public opinion against the war (Hallin 1986). Because of the government’s feelings about how the media had swayed public opinion in Vietnam, an adversarial relationship between the media and
19 the military was created which shaped the government, media, and military relations in
future conflicts.
4.2: The 1991 Persian Gulf War
The Persian Gulf War began on August 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded and occupied
Kuwait. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein believed that Kuwait had flooded the
international market with low cost oil. Hussein claimed that this act had cost Iraq billions
of dollars in oil revenue at a time when it needed the revenue to rebuild after the Iran-Iraq
war. He also demanded compensation from Kuwait because it had taken too much oil
from the Rumalia oil field located on the disputed border between the countries. When he
invaded, Hussein believed that he would have the support of the United States and
President George H. W. Bush. He did not. President Bush responded to Iraq’s invasion by
calling for Iraq’s “unconditional withdrawal” from Kuwait (Knightley 2004). He
deployed U.S. troops to defend their “long-standing vital interests in the Middle East”
(Knightley 2004).
The Persian Gulf War consisted of two main military actions, Operation Desert
Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Operation Desert Shield began on August 8, 1990 and involved the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq. By early November, 240,000 U.S. troops were deployed in Iraq with approximately 1,600 sophisticated combat aircraft
(Yetiv 1997). Operation Desert Storm began on January 16, 1991, when the United
States bombed Iraq after Iraq failed to meet the January 15 deadline for withdrawing from Kuwait (Smith 1992). Desert Storm ended 43 days later when Iraq withdrew from
20 Kuwait. Iraq did not surrender, but instead the conflict ended in a cease-fire (Fialka
1992).
In this conflict, correspondents had access to sophisticated technology that was new to the war correspondence field, and they were able to broadcast live from behind enemy lines in Baghdad. Another major element to the coverage of this conflict was the
Cable News Network (CNN). Before CNN, Americans’ access to news during a war or
conflict was during the local and broadcast network newscasts. With CNN, came twenty-
four hours of news coverage every day. No network like this had been in existence for a
war before this time (Cambou 2004).
The Persian Gulf War was the first war in which there were independent global satellite companies. Before this time, all the satellites were owned by the government.
Having the independently owned satellite companies allowed CNN to have access to satellites across the globe, giving it a global audience to view the twenty-four hour news network (Cambou 2004). Other technology utilized by the media was a suitcase sized satellite phone, the INMARSAT (Weiner 2002). CNN was able to bring in an
INMARSAT near the beginning of Operation Desert Storm as a backup for their four- wire (Weiner 2002). The four-wire is another piece of new technology. This device was an open line to the states that allowed the correspondents to voice their broadcasts live ─ as long as the communications tower stayed intact ─ without having to go through
Baghdad’s phone lines (Cambou 2004).
In order to control the flow of information to the media and thereby the public, the
U.S. Government created the pool system for the war corresponds in Iraq (Fialka 1992).
This pool system put journalists into media reporting teams. These journalists were then
21 supervised by censors. The Americans were supervised by censors from the Public
Affairs Office. At the most, 200 spots for the 1,500 journalists were created within this system. The pools included reporters from all the types of media. Their reports were to be freely made available to every news organization (Taylor 1992).
The four major pools ─ print, photographer, television, and radio ─ had offices in the top two floors of the Dhahran International Hotel (Fialka 1992). When journalists arrived, they would register with one of the media pools. When they made it to the top of the journalist list, they were eligible to work in the field in combat pools that had been set up and managed by U.S. forces (Fialka 1992).
Through this system, the military had more power over the media than in any previous conflict because they could pre-empt them by telling the story of the war that they wanted to release (Baroody 1998). Ideally, it was designed to put that small number of reporters in the pool and then allow them to go on Pentagon-approved tours with
Pentagon escorts and block all other reporters who were present there (Monroe 1991).
The pool system, however, was not successful. It created a difficult situation in which the war correspondents had to work. In fact, shortly after its implementation, the media began complaining to the Pentagon about the restrictions on their coverage from the war, and the pool was referred to by some journalists as a “smoothly functioning dictatorship” (Baroody 1998). One problem with the system was there were too many reporters for the number of slots within the pool. Additionally, the information given to media in the press conferences had been cleared by the government and the military; thereby, giving the reporters and the American viewing public only the information that the government wanted them to see (Fialka 1992).
22 The government had the potential and the power to make the information non-
reflective of what really happened. This information gave war correspondents only a few
possible stories about which they could write and give to the public. It was very difficult
for them to get information other than the official sources at the pool press conferences.
In fact, some journalists were adamant about the need for non-official sources. So much
so, that some journeyed through the desert, at the risk of their lives, without military
escort (Baroody 1998).
4.3: The 2003 Iraq War
On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked by
terrorists. Following the attack and the confirmation by U.S. Secretary of State Colin
Powell that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were behind the attack on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, the United States and Britain began bombing Afghanistan. On
January 30, 2002, President George W. Bush linked Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as
“terrorist allies” and named the “axis of evil” (Beck and Downing 2003).
Because of the link between those terrorists and Afghanistan, the United States
began bombing there, but at the same time, the Pentagon prepared for a war against Iraq,
stating that it wanted to “topple Saddam Hussein and impose a ‘regime change’ on the country” (Knightley 2004). The U.S. government also thought Iraq had access to
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) due to the past conflicts. This line of reasoning
for going to war with Iraq also began a battle among the government, the media, and the
American public. After the conflict began, some in the public felt that President George
W. Bush was not justified in fighting with Iraq, and others though he was trying to finish
23 what his father, President George H.W. Bush, had started in the Persian Gulf War, removing Saddam Hussein from power.
On March 20, 2003, “a ‘Coalition of the Willing’” began the Iraq War when they commenced their plans to invade Iraq (Knightley 2004). Fighting continued and seemed to be successful. By April 30, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Defense Secretary, arrived in
Baghdad and announced an end to Saddam’s “truly brutal, vicious regime” in Iraq (Beck and Downing 2003). In April of 2003, Baghdad fell to the United States troops and thus began the regime change that continues to the present day.
Like the Persian Gulf War, new technology was available for the war correspondents in the Iraq War. In addition to the new technology, increased access for the war correspondents was available. For this conflict, the Pentagon created a project
that embedded hundreds of journalists directly in military units (Pfau et. al. 2004).
Unlike the pool system in the Persian Gulf War, however, embedded journalists were reporters who traveled with combat troops and basically lived with a certain unit in the field (Kuypers and Cooper 2005). In most cases, these reporters became a part of a team with those soldiers (Christenson 2005). Before the Iraq War, embedding journalists in combat units had been used on a limited basis (Pfau et al. 2004). In the 1982 Falklands
War between the United Kingdom and Argentina, journalists were embedded with British forces. Those journalists, like the ones in the Iraq War, were completely reliant on the military for “food, shelter, protection, and transmission of their reports,” in addition to relying on them for “access to the battle zones,” (Pfau et al. 2004, p.75). The scope, however, of this project for the Iraq War was unprecendented from the past uses with more than 600 journalists being embedded in military units (Pfau et al. 2004).
24 This large project brought with it several different concerns that included whether
or not the journalists could remain objective about what they were reporting when they
were in the middle of what was happening (Pfau et al. 2004). Additionally, concern grew
from the fact that the Pentagon created this project and paid $100 million to bring it to
fruition (Pfau et al. 2004). Would the journalists merely be a piece through which the
military could control what the public was told and thereby, tell them exactly what they,
Pentagon, wanted them to hear (Fahmy and Johnson 2005)? Despite these concerns, the
coverage created by embedded journalists involved in the Pentagon’s project, bolstered
the war coverage for the news and the public (Ricchiardi 2003). When Baghdad fell on
April 9, 2003 (The New York Times 2003), news organizations began pulling their embedded journalists out of the field (Carter 2003). Currently, the fighting in Iraq
continues. Additionally, journalists are embedded with military units, but not on as large
of a scale as before.
In addition to this new access, new technology was also available. More improvements with satellites allowed events to be reported; live and in color, from
wherever fighting was taking place. The internet was also available to reporters and the
public during this war. The internet allowed quicker and easier transmission of stories
from Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever fighting was taking place to the United States.
Reporters could email their stories, video, etc., whereas in the previous conflict they
could not.
25 CHAPTER FIVE: MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE WAR
CNN was the only cable news network during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and
CNN and Fox News were two of the major networks that covered the 2003 Iraq War.
They are both 24 hour cable news networks and perpetual news competitors.
Additionally, their coverage of politics, conflicts, and other national issues reflects an ideology grounded in both ends of the America’s liberal and conservative political spectrum. Fox News reported with a bias toward the conservative end (Noah 2005). CNN was said to have reported the news with a more politically liberal bias (Collins 2004).
The two networks will give a complete analysis of thematic reactions, accounting for the undertone in their coverage of the Iraq war, as both networks were subjected to the embedded journalists systems and other restrictions, regardless of their ideological slants.
5.1: Cable News Network (CNN) and War Coverage
CNN was founded by Ted Turner and went on the air in June of 1980. It was the first 24 hour cable news network (Collins 2004). Before this time, to view the news, people had to wait until the mid day or evening newscasts on local and network television. With the launch of CNN on cable, viewers could get the news at any time of the day. Additionally, CNN offered the news as it happened and created a new model for news consumption (Taipei Times 2005).
Ted Turner created CNN with the news model of “always there,” giving CNN an edge over other networks in covering major events (Kanige 2006). As a 24 hour channel,
CNN was always there to cover events as they happened, whereas other broadcast and
26 television network stations such as ABC, CBS and NBC were not. CNN had the ability to
break into any programming at any time to provide a live feed from the field.
CNN gained credibility in 1991 when it broadcast the start of the 1991 Persian
Gulf War and offered 24 hour news coverage for the rest of the conflict. Peter Arnett,
Bernard Shaw, and John Holliman made history when they reported live from Baghdad at the start of the war (Wiener 2002). They also utilized new technology in that broadcast.
The INMARSAT satellite phone and their four-wire made that broadcast possible
(Wiener 2002).
CNN’s ratings during that conflict were 30% to 40% higher than its ratings before
the conflict (Walley 1991). Moreover, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, CNN became
“a global actor in international relations” and inspired other broadcasting organizations to
establish global television networks (Gilboa 2005, p.27). CNN anchor, Bobbie Battista
said, “Before the Gulf War, [CNN] was this little unknown cable network that nobody
was watching and after the Gulf War, suddenly everyone is watching” (Collins 2004,
p.3).
CNN’s coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War was the dominant coverage of the
entire conflict. During the first week of the war, it outperformed ABC, CBS, and NBC,
and broke its own and cable network’s record for ratings (Gutstadt 1993).
CNN emerged from the 1991 Persian Gulf War as a leader in news. Before that conflict, certain issues were underrepresented by media professionals. These issues included: warfare, terrorism, human rights, environmental degradation, refugees, and health (Gilboa 2005). The way in which CNN covered the Persian Gulf War changed the
27 way media professionals viewed and covered these issues, marking a turning point in the
history of communications (Gilboa 2005).
CNN has changed many aspects of global communications and international
relations because of its growth and diversification (Gilboa 2005). Specifically, aspects it
has changed include: “technology, economics, culture, law, public opinion, politics, and
diplomacy” (Gilboa 2005, p.28).
Despite emerging as a leader in the news, CNN’s ratings dropped back to normal
once the conflict was over (Walley 1991). In 1995, CNN merged with Time Warner. As a
result, other giant media companies began looking for cable news networks for
themselves, which resulted in the creation of MSNBC and the Fox News Channel
(Collins 2004).
In 2008, CNN made plans to create mini news bureaus in 10 U.S. cities to
drastically change their domestic newsgathering process. These mini news bureaus are a
crucial part of their overall strategy to increase their content ownership (Weprin 2008).
5.2: Fox News and War Coverage
The Fox News Channel went on the air on October 7, 1996 and joined other 24
hours news networks: CNN, CNN Headline News, and MSNBC (Mifflin 1996). From the
start, Fox News was thought to have been started as a conservative alternative to what
Rupert Murdoch, chief of the News Corporation, saw as a “liberal bias among traditional
news purveyors” (Mifflin 1996, p.1). Specifically, Murdoch said that he wanted Fox
News to “label analysis and opinion” so that they could be distinguished from the news
(Mifflin 1996, p.1).
28 In 1996, the chairman and CEO of Fox News, Roger Ailes, said that this network would be a hard news network that would provide straight and factual information to the public so they could make up their own minds about what was happening (Morris 2005).
Additionally, Fox News wanted to give its viewers constant and “up-to-the-minute news”
(Morris 2005, p.60).
Soon after its inception, Fox News began to rival CNN as a leader in cable news.
It did this by extensively covering certain political and social events. These events included: the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal; the 2000 presidential election and recount; the
September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center; and the 2003 Iraq War (Morris
2005). During its coverage of each of these events, Fox News’ ratings increased (Morris
2005).
The increase in ratings has also been attributed to the way it presents the news.
Fox News has been accused of reporting the news in a biased way, despite maintaining for a long time that it is not biased toward conservatism in news coverage (Noah 2005).
Murdoch was open about the liberal bias he saw in television news, but never said specifically that he was offering an obviously conservative alternative. Instead, he said the news on the Fox News Network would be “fair and balanced” in its news and reporting (Mifflin 1996, p.1). In 2006, however, Roger Ailes, chairman of both Fox News
Channel and Fox Television, said, “We’re not promoting the conservative point of view, we’re merely giving them equal time and access” (Chaffin and van Duyn 2006, p.5). He also knew that due to a smaller, inexperienced staff and the lack of an overseas presence, it could not beat the detail of CNN’s reporting. Instead, Ailes implemented a segmentation strategy. He made Fox News flashier with “brighter graphics, crisper
29 presentation, more opinionated and combative personalities” than CNN and other cable news networks (Farhi 2003, p.34). By 2001, its popularity had grown and given Fox a first place ranking in cable news (Collins 2004).
In addition to the alleged bias, the way in which Fox News presents the news was said to also challenge “conventional journalism” (Morris 2005, p.60). This new television journalism is said to disregard traditional journalistic objectivity. Specifically during the
2003 Iraq War, Fox News was said to have reported the war from pro-war or pro-Bush perspective (Morris 2005).
In its defense, London bureau chief for Fox News, Scott Norvell, said that the network is a private channel and its viewers know what they are getting because their presenters are very open about their personal positions on certain issues. Additionally, he said, “People watch us because they know what they are getting” (Noah 2005, p.1).
Despite this alleged bias, Fox News is still a leader in cable news, maintaining a lead over
CNN (Farhi 2003).
30 Research Questions
It is evident from the press systems and the contexts of both conflicts that the U.S. government plays a major role in controlling the movements of international correspondents who covered the U.S. war with Iraq. Explored here is what television news reports can tell us about conflict reactance given the curtailment of journalistic independence in the 2003 Iraq War by the U.S. government. This thesis advances a new theoretical proposition to answer the following research questions about war correspondence.
RQ 1: What themes and sources were used in the CNN television reports to
portray the 1991 Persian Gulf War?
RQ 2: What themes and sources were used in the CNN and Fox News television
reports to portray the 2003 Iraq War?
RQ 3: In what ways do the themes and sources reflect a journalistic undertone in
reaction to the U.S. government’s restriction of their independence in the 2003
Iraq War?
RQ 4: In what ways was journalistic independence curtailed in the television
reports on the 2003 Iraq War?
31 CHAPTER SIX: METHODOLOGY
The central purpose of this study was to explore whether the government’s reactance to the media coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War led to the way in which journalistic independence was curtailed in the 2003 Iraq War. It also investigated whether such governmental control in the 2003 Iraq War reflects a different tone in the way journalists covered the stories. This exploration is conducted using both textual and observational analysis.
Analyzed in the first period were CNN reports about the conflict during the 1991
Persian Gulf War. Then in the latter period, the analysis was based on both the CNN reports and Fox News reports about the conflict during the 2003 Iraq War. During the
1991 Persian Gulf War, CNN was the only 24 hour cable news network. Its coverage is the most comprehensive and expansive from Iraq during that first period. The texts from the 1991 Persian Gulf War included television newscasts from the start of Operation
Desert Storm on January 16, 1991 to the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait by
Saddam Hussein on February 26, 1991. The analysis was based on coverage of the entire period of that conflict. For that time period, the texts were the CNN 7 p.m. (CST) newscasts. At this time, CNN broadcast network style newscasts only.
The analysis in the second period was based on the coverage of the 2003 Iraq War from both CNN and Fox News television newscasts from the start of the war on March
20, 2003, to the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003. The specific time period of reporting is chosen for the following reasons. First, this time period included the beginning of this conflict until the Fall of Baghdad. After Baghdad fell, the majority of the embedded
32 journalists were pulled from the military units. Since this war is still ongoing, the amount of texts from both CNN and Fox News of the entire conflict to date is too large and beyond the scale of this analysis.
The specific texts that were analyzed from CNN and Fox News are the 7 p.m.
(CST) broadcasts. CNN’s and Fox News’ programming during that time included live coverage of the conflict. The Fox News’ coverage also includes The O’Reilly Factor show. The equity of the analysis of these conflicts is not incumbent upon the amount of coverage. Instead, it is incumbent upon the coverage of each event. All these texts will be viewed through the Vanderbilt Television News Archive and its website.
6.1: Textual Analysis
Textual analysis is an explanation of some of the most likely interpretations that might be made of media content. Texts are any media messages from which meaning can be taken. Textual analysis recognizes the different possible ways to interpret reality, thereby, understanding our own cultures better because the advantages and limitations of our culture’s sense-making practices (McKee 2006).
Textual analysis applies a cultural analytical concept that says, “The physical surroundings may look similar, but the way in which the culture makes sense of them is very different” (McKee 2006, p.4). A society’s texts are the material traces left from past events and or times from that society. For the media, those texts show changes or standards for media.
Texts can be analyzed from three different approaches. First, there is the realist approach, which suggests that my culture describes reality and is correct, making all
33 other cultures wrong. Second, the structuralist approach suggests that even though these
cultures are working out reality differently, they are based on common structures.
Therefore, they are not different and people all over the world are basically the same.
Finally, the third approach is a post-structuralist approach, in which, these cultures do
interpret reality differently, but it is impossible to determine which are right and which
are wrong. In other words, people in different cultures experience the same reality
differently (McKee 2006).
This study will apply the structuralist approach to the conflicts in order to
compare the media texts (coverage) of each conflict and to determine if the technology,
war correspondents’ coverage, media regulations, and the overall portrayal of the Persian
Gulf War led to the way the media and government handled news coverage of the Iraq
War. Texts are also assessed for the differences between the themes and sources for the coverage from each conflict. It will also look at the technology that was available to the
reporters for each conflict through observation analysis.
The coverage provided by the war correspondents in these conflicts showed their
reactance to the elimination of their journalistic freedoms because the coverage is the
product of their work and the conditions in which their freedoms were eliminated. The
war correspondents’ coverage that was created with their freedoms or lack of freedoms
was the best source to determine their reactance to the elimination of their freedoms in
reporting the conflicts. Therefore, viewing that coverage was done to determine their reactance.
During the analysis of themes in this text, the researcher determined what the story was about and contextualized it with the information delivery systems used by war
34 correspondents in that conflict. Additionally, the tone of coverage assessed whether the texts were positive or negative. A positive tone referred to coverage that supported the guidelines set for war correspondents. A negative tone referred to coverage that is converse those guidelines.
Changes and improvements in technology were present in both conflicts. Due to the increased governmental control, commentators and the technology they used to do their jobs, an observation of what kind of technology was used in both conflicts was conducted to determine if it aided or made a difference in the way the journalists prevailed over the government control in these two conflicts.
35 FIGURE 1
Conflict Reactance Model
Gulf War (TV) 2003 Iraq War CNN Coverage CNN and Fox News Coverage 24 Hour News Coverage 24 Hour News Coverage
Type of Coverage Type of Coverage ► Press Pools, Unilateral Embedded Journalists
Undertone of Coverage: ► Themes: what the war correspondents used heroes, liberators, honorable, to react to the government patriotic, warriors against terror, restrictions of their freedoms or inevitable victory, U.S. enemies, independence to cover the peacemakers/keepers, mission conflict accomplished, and U.S. allies
OR
senseless, useless, merciless,
deadly, innocent victims,
warmongers, insurrection,
shameful, shocking, horrifying,
bloodthirsty killers, and mission
failed, fundamentalists.
Tone: Tone: Positive or Negative ► Positive or Negative Technology Technology Content, Satellite ► Mobile satellite, internet, Delivery,
Spinning the War Spinning the War How the media portrayed ► How the media portrayed it to the public. it to the public.
*FIGURE 1 is a schematic representation of the U.S. government and media reactance to conflict in the Iraq wars. 36 This research model is the overall framework for this study. CNN’s television
coverage of the war was the only 24 hour cable news network coverage of the 1991
Persian Gulf War. During the 2003 Iraq War, the two of the main networks covering the
war were CNN and Fox News. The type of coverage that will be viewed in this study will
be the 7 p.m. (CST) news broadcasts during primetime.
When viewing those broadcasts, the researcher discerned and evaluated themes and tone of the reports in all Iraq war stories. In this study, a theme is the unifying or dominant idea of a news story. A story is a report from a war correspondent in both conflicts reporting from the conflict to the people back in the United States. Tone is the attitude in which the theme is expressed through the story. This study will also account for the sourcing ─ the way in which the war correspondents were given their information
─ used in each conflict. The Persian Gulf War used the press pool system, and the Iraq
War used journalists embedded with military units.
Another element on the research model is spinning the war. In this study, spinning the war is defined as how the conflict was portrayed through the coverage provided by the war correspondents to the viewing public. The researcher determined if the war was portrayed to the public in the aforementioned positive or negative way. Determining how the war was spun to the public also helped to show how the journalists’ freedoms were curtailed by the government. It can also help determine the tone of the coverage.
As mentioned previously, new technology was available for both conflicts. The available technology allowed for easier and increased transmission of war correspondents’ video and stories from the front. When viewing the coverage, the researcher also looked at the different technologies available for each set of coverage and
37 how those technologies affected the sourcing, themes, tone and spinning of the war to the public by determining how it aided the coverage. Those technologies will be observed to determine if they made a difference in the way journalists prevailed over the government control in these two conflicts.
6.2: Observational Analysis
This study also employed observational analysis to interpret the process and technique used to deliver stories on the two networks from both the 1991 Persian Gulf
War and the 2003 Iraq War. Specifically, the observation technique of analyzing the delivery system derives from the quasi ethnographic research. Quasi ethnographic analysis uses a naturalistic perspective that relies on material drawn from the first-hand experience of a fieldworker in a setting rather than in an artificial or experimental environment created to recreate a situation (EMMUS 1999). For visual explorations, observational methodology can be applied in media studies to conduct analysis of non- participant communication systems in an effort to explain various dimensions of information flow (EMMUS 1999).
This approach does say that the observer should physically go the environment to observe (EMMUS 1999). Since this is not possible due to the time periods for the conflicts being in the past and the location, viewing the coverage from the war correspondents from the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War was the next logical step. Through viewing their first hand experiences in their coverage, the technology available to them will also be observed.
38 This observational approach allows the observer to see how technology is
integrated into the actual environment in which it is used (EMMUS 1999). In this study,
that environment is the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War. In those
environments, international correspondents file their stories back to their respective
television networks. Therefore, determining how the available technology for the war
correspondents in those conflicts was used to deliver the message provides us with an
understanding of how international war coverage evolved from 1991 to 2003.
This observational approach will demonstrate the efforts that media organizations
take to advance their newsgathering techniques and to react to governmental control in
the battlefield. The principal researcher will be the observer for this analysis; by watching
the war correspondent’s television coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003
Iraq War.
When observing the cable television newscasts from their war correspondents, the
principal research evaluated the means used by journalists to file their reports as well as
the technology used to deliver the messages. Additionally, since both time periods for these conflicts are in the past, verification of the technology used was also obtained.
Therefore, this observational analysis complemented the textual analysis of the cable
news network coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War to
determine what technology was used in both sets of coverage.
In this study, the researcher determined if the story’s theme coincided with the
standards given by the government through the pool system for the first conflict and the
embedded journalist project in the second (Department of Defense Media Relations Field
Manual).
39 To look for themes in the text, the researcher determined what the story was about and compared it against the standards for war correspondents in that conflict.
Additionally, those themes will include if the war correspondents were presenting the war to the public in a positive or negative way. Positive refers to coverage that supported the standards set for the war correspondents, and negative refers to coverage that is converse to those standards. This study observed media texts as reference points for differences between the coverage of both conflicts and the use of technology in the 1991 Persian
Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War.
40 CHAPTER SEVEN: RESULTS
One of the central purposes of this study was to examine the undertone used in
war reporting to determine how the two cable networks shaped the war coverage, given
the environment in which the government controlled the media using the embedded
journalists system and other restrictions. Another primary purpose was to explore
whether the government’s reactance to the media coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War led to the way in which journalistic independence was curtailed in the 2003 Iraq War.
Also observed was the type of technology within each set of coverage. This study was specifically looking at the following – reactance themes with a negative undertone in the
CNN and Fox News coverage of the 1991 and 2003 conflicts: senseless, useless, merciless, deadly, innocent, victims, warmongers, insurrection, shameful, shocking, horrifying, bloodthirsty killers, and mission failed. In addition, the following reactance themes with a positive undertone in the 1991 and 2003 conflicts were also explored: heroes and liberators, honorable, patriotic, warriors against terror, inevitable victory, peacemakers/keepers, mission accomplished, and U.S. allies. This study found both positive and negative reactance and themes in each set of coverage.
7.1: 1991 Persian Gulf War
The findings for the CNN coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War are based on newscasts which aired in the 7 p.m. hour, Central Standard Time (CST), Monday through
Friday. The Central Standard Time zone was used because the Vanderbilt Television
News Archives and its website which are located in Nashville, TN, organize its newscasts
41 using a format that is set up in that time zone. This analysis covers the beginning of the
conflict, January 16, 1991, until the cease-fire on February 26, 1991. The newscast for
January 24, 1991, and February 26, 1991, were not viewed because their recording was
unavailable.
Research Question 1
The first question sought to evaluate the themes and sources used in the CNN
television reports for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The prominent thematic reactions with a
negative undertone in the coverage of this conflict were inconsistent facts, frustrated media, and censorship. The other negative assertions not present in the CNN coverage
included: bloodthirsty killers, horrifying, shocking, shameful, insurrection, warmongers,
victims, innocent, deadly, merciless, useless, and senseless. Reactance from the
journalists with a positive tone included mission accomplished, heroes, and liberators assertions. The other thematic reactions with a positive undertone included the following
assertions: benefits of press system and challenges to media reporting were present less
than those. The reactance assertions of peacemakers/keepers, U.S. enemies,
fundamentalists, inevitable victory, warriors against terror, patriotic, honorable, and U.S.
Allies were not present in the coverage of this conflict.
7.2: Reactance Themes with a Negative Tone
The themes found in the 1991 war coverage include confusion about the truth of
events, proof of results, inconsistent facts, graphic details, censorship, media frustration, inconsistent facts, graphic details, and censorship reminders.
42
Media Frustration
Thematic reactions in this category involved assertions from the journalists and commentators that included their frustration with the press system. Assertions of media frustration were present 10 different times in the newscasts from the 1991 Persian Gulf
War. The first time this theme was present was in the January 21, 1991, broadcast. In this broadcast, CNN Pentagon Correspondent, Wolf Blitzer, said that reporters were challenging the upbeat reports of success released by the Pentagon and added that journalists wanted proof for that success. Pete Williams, the Pentagon spokesman, acknowledged the media frustration with Pentagon’s failure to publicly back up the claims with intelligence.
In the January 23 newscast, CNN Pentagon Correspondent, Wolf Blitzer, described the media as frustrated. That description was soon followed by a live story from CNN Senior International Correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, from Saudi Arabia, who said that there was a collision course between the Pentagon and the press. She reported that the collision course was a result of the strict censorship and frustrations that war correspondents had with getting interviews in the field and adapting to the strict censorship for those correspondents operating in the field. The story was concluded with
CNN Anchor, David French, signing off that, “Christane Amanpour reporting live from
Saudi Arabia, and we can’t even say where.”
In the January 28 newscast, CNN Correspondent, John Holliman, said, “Press coverage has grown pessimistic.” The newscast of February 4, 1991, included a reactance assertion filed by Correspondent, Charles Feldman. He said, “. . . since World War 2 has
43 press coverage gotten better or just a lot faster? And despite the speed, is it now being
held captive by military censorship?”
In the next evenings’ newscast, CNN Anchor, Bernard Shaw, asked former CIA
official, George Carver, who was a guest on the show the following question, “Has either
side benefited from the way the news media is set up?” Carver responded that, “Each side
has gained something, but I think on the whole we have benefited more . . . because 80 percent or more of the people support the president and the war.”
On February 8, 1991, CNN Correspondent, Richard Roth filed a live report from
Tel Aviv, Israel, about a bomb that had been dropped 30 minutes earlier in Tel Aviv.
Roth posed the following question during an interview with an Israeli official about the bombing:
Let me ask you this, Raanan, and I have a hunch you’re not going to be able to tell me the answer, but I’ve got to ask it anyway, and due to the censorship laws here, we understand. Were there any Patriot missiles fired, and were there any interceptions on this scud tonight?
Another assertion of media frustration was in the February 13, 1991, newscast.
This newscast covered the commencement of the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council meetings in which CNN’s U.N. Correspondent, Jeanne Moss, reported on what the Cuban
Ambassador to the U.N. had said earlier. “[T]he Cuban Ambassador said that this would amount to turning the Security Council into a Pentagon pool.”
Inconsistent Facts
This category involved thematic reactions that asserted facts from the sources which were inconsistent with what really happened. Another assertion present in the text
44 was inconsistent facts. The first mention was in January 17, 1991, newscast. CNN
Anchor, David French, said, “We are in a state of confusion about whether there are toxic chemicals on these warheads. We don’t know.” The other assertion was in the newscast of January 25, 1991. Anchors and correspondents in that newscast commented that Peter
Arnett said that he saw no military targets in the area where an alleged baby milk factory had been bombed. The Pentagon and U.S. military said that it had been a military target.
In the January 28, 1991, newscast, John Holliman’s previously mentioned story also used the inconsistent facts assertion. After making the making the statement that the press system had become more pessimistic, Holliman said:
Behind the darker one of recent war reporting may be a trail of unanswered questions … But where’s the truth? It may lie somewhere between the media’s dark assessment and the Pentagon’s assurances that the Gulf War is so far right on schedule.
The CNN newscast of January 30, 1991, included pictures from Iraq TV that showed civilian casualties and injuries from the bombing earlier that day. Those pictures showed civilian casualties and injuries from the bombing. Iraqi officials insisted that civilian targets had been hit by Allied bombers, but the U.S. military consistently said they were not targeting civilians but military installations.
The next evening’s newscast included Christiane Amanpour’s report that bus loads of dead Iraqi civilians had been taken away from the bombing, while the military reported fewer casualties. In the February, 4 1991, newscast, CNN’s Bernard Shaw stated that the Iraqis continued to claim that the U.S. military and its allies were targeting civilians, while the allied forces said that they were carefully avoiding them. On February
13, 1991, the assertion of inconsistent facts was twice present in the newscast. The first
45 mention was in Peter Arnett’s story. Arnett was a CNN Correspondent based in Baghdad
and the third CNN journalist who was part of the initial broadcasts at the start of the war
with John Holliman and Bernard Shaw. In his story, he had video of civilian casualties
and damage done by the allied bombing. He also had interviews with civilians from those
bombings who said that the targets were purely civilian and not military. After his story,
a White House correspondent, Charles Bierbauer, analyzed the damaged buildings shown
in the coverage and maintained that it was a military bunker that had been a longstanding
target. Later in that newscast, Correspondent Bierbauer said:
This war is uglier than has been implied. It is that high tech ability to find targets and destroy them that has created an expectation of nearly infallible precision in this war, but in the Baghdad bombing we’re seeing the fatal results of what the smart bombs could not see.
In the February 14, 1991, newscast, Arnett filed another story updating viewers
that civilians had in fact been targeted in that bombing on Baghdad. On February 20,
1991, the newscast included a story from Blitzer about the whereabouts of troops in Iraq.
He said, “Officials say this has been the intelligence for some time, also as I have said for
months, reporters here had been repeatedly told they were in Southern Iraq.” He attributed this change in information to the reception of better intelligence. The assertion was also present in the February 22, 1991, evening newscast. CNN Correspondent, Bob -
Franken, noted on the impending ground war that “It’s a classic hurry up and wait situation and from top to bottom soldiers have the consistent theme: We don’t know what’s going on they say, but let’s get out of here.”
46 Graphic Details
This category describes thematic reactions in the coverage that included graphic
details which described the destruction from the battlefield. The graphic details assertion was one of the other themes present in this news coverage. Its first occurrence came in the January 22, 1991, evening newscast. CNN Tel Aviv Correspondent, Richard
Blystone, gave a report on the latest bombing attack there. In his report, he said that a woman had been crushed by a wall, and a baby had been seriously injured with splinters
in its head. That broadcast also included video of POWs. Correspondent, Charles
Bierbauer also lamented in graphic details in the February 13, 1991, evening newscast
about the war being uglier than had been implied.
Censorship
Assertions in this category dealt with mentions from the press about the censorship requirements in the press system. Another reactance to the government restriction in the text was the mention of censorship. This first appeared in the January
25, 1991, evening newscast. Correspondent Shaw commented before a live report filed from Saudi Arabia that CNN’s coverage was being censored by a Saudi Arabian official.
Additionally, Catherine Crier reported that an Israeli official was censoring Richard
Blystone’s report from Baghdad. On January 28, 1991, Shaw announced that
correspondent Arnett’s story from Baghdad was being censored before it aired, and Crier
tagged a similar assertion after the story aired. Also in that, newscast, Bierbauer said that he wanted to see the interview between President Saddam Hussein and correspondent
Arnett, rather than just listening to what Arnett reported about it. He said that even with
47 all respect to Arnett, he wanted to hear precisely what President Hussein said. The
undertone present in this was the government’s mistrust of Arnett, a member of the
media. On January 29, 1991, Shaw once again reminded the audience before Arnett’s
interview that it was being censored by the Iraqi government.
On February 18, 1991, the evening newscast had a story about the limited video and photo coverage of caskets of the fallen military. In this story, Sally Tom, of the
Military Family Support Network, said:
We feel that the administration wants the American people not to see the real cost of the war, and therefore, they don’t want the American public to see rows and rows of caskets at Dover Air Force Base.
7.3: Reactance Themes with a Positive Tone
Several reactance themes with a positive tone were also found in the coverage of
the 1991 Persian Gulf War. They included liberators, inevitable victory, and heroes. The following results show how the government attempted to shape the reporting of the conflict by managing the flow of information through official sources used and in
controlling how CNN’s war correspondents and the network anchors covered the 1991
Persian Gulf War in a positive tone.
Liberator
The thematic reactions in this category were references to the U.S.’ effort in Iraq
meant to liberate the Kuwaiti people from Iraqis who had invaded their country.
Mentions of liberator in the text were present in the January 16, 1991, evening newscast when Bierbauer said that according to President George H. W. Bush, the purpose of this
48 conflict was “to get compliance with U.N. resolutions and the liberation of Kuwait.” The
assertions of inevitable victory were also present three times in that newscast. The first assertion was in the report filed by correspondent Blitzer about the Pentagon’s belief on how the war effort was proceeding:
It is an air campaign right now . . . researched for many many months . . . . Here at the Pentagon all the indications that the United States is moving just as it has been planned for many many weeks.
Later, Blitzer made more assertions of inevitable victory about the war effort. He said, “[It is] moving ahead on schedule without any disasters as the United States is concerned.” The last mentions of inevitable victory were in the reports by correspondents
Arnett and Holliman. At this time, Arnett and Holliman were broadcasting live from
Baghdad as the bombing was happening. Arnett said, “Obviously, the United States Air
Force is serious about its mission.” Holliman responded and said, “Absolutely.”
Hero
The reactance assertions in this category were references to the U.S. effort against
Iraq as heroic. The mentions of hero were present in the January 30, 1991, newscast. In that newscast, CNN special assignment reporter John Camp, said, “POWs became dead heroes.” Also, First Lady, Barbara Bush, said, “Norman Schwarzkopf is a hero to me.”
Other reactance themes with a positive tone included mentions of the benefits of
the press system and mission accomplished.
49 Benefits of the Press System
The thematic reaction in this category was a contradiction to the negativity and
frustration against the press system in this conflict. The January 18, 1991, newscast included an interview with Holliman and Shaw after they left Baghdad following the bombing. They both said that there was little excuse for the public to not know what was going on. They argued that through the press system the public should be able to follow the war well through its media coverage.
Mission Accomplished
Reactance assertions in this category were ones in which the missions within the war effort were successful which contributed to the war effort as a whole being successful. The mission accomplished theme was present twice. Its first appearance was in the January 23, 1991, press conference. In that newscast, Patriot missiles were referred to as high tech success stories about the war. The second appearance was in the January
25, 1991, newscast when CNN reported that the United States was taking great pains to not hit civilians in the bombing.
7.4: Sources and Technology
The sources the correspondents used for their coverage of this conflict were the daily military briefings, Pentagon briefings, and other official sources. Additionally, the technology observed through the coverage was predominantly the INMARSAT phone and other satellite technology that allowed the correspondents to broadcast and deliver their live interviews from the conflict. In addition, that satellite technology also allowed
50 video of attacks to be shown to the American public as little as 30 minutes after the
attack.
During this conflict, CNN used graphics that was either a standard lower third
graphic or a over the shoulder graphic. Another graphic producers used was a map graphic. Whenever a reporter, anchor or correspondent was reporting a story either from or about Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any other location from the battlefield, a picture of the map of the area would be shown on screen. Sometimes, additional graphics, such as arrows, were used to highlight or specify a certain area of the map that was being referred to by the correspondent in the story.
CNN did not have anchors presenting the newscast live from the battlefield or any other location outside of the United States. They did, however, have anchors presenting from two different locations in the United States. These were usually the CNN Center in
Atlanta, Georgia, and in their Washington, D.C. bureau. During the coverage from CNN during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, reporters did report live updates from the battlefield and its surrounding areas. These live reports consisted of a live talking head report from the correspondent with new video from the battlefield, existing video from the battlefield, and existing file video used as b roll for the correspondent’s story.
Live video footage from the battlefield and its surrounding areas was another way
that technology was used in this coverage. Video footage of this conflict included video
of the night bombing attack on January 16, 1991, and other night time attacks against
Iraq. Other video footage included damage and destruction from the bombing, footage of
troops and military equipment, video interviews with officials and civilians, satellite
phone calls with correspondents, and video from the daily military press briefings.
51 Technology also allowed live video for an air raid in Jerusalem to be transmitted.
In the January 17, 1991, newscast, air raid sirens went off in Jerusalem. The people in the
bureau were able to transmit live video from their location during the air raid. This video
consisted of the CNN personnel there at the bureau with gas masks on, trying to make
sense of the situation. This personnel was able to view footage from the air raid on local
Jerusalem television and give the CNN viewers a live look at what was happening there during the air raid.
7.5: 2003 Iraq War
The findings for the CNN and Fox News coverage of the 2003 Iraq War are based on newscasts which aired at the 7 p.m. hour, CST, Monday through Friday, from the beginning of the conflict on March 20, 2003, until the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003.
The Fox News newscasts from March 21, 2003, April 4, 2003, and April 9, 2003, are not analyzed here because the recordings or the data are not available at the Vanderbilt television archive.
Reactance from the journalists and commentators was present in the CNN and
Fox News Coverage of the 2003 Iraq War. It was, however, less pointed and appeared fewer times than in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. More thematic reactions with a negative
undertone appeared in the coverage of this conflict than in the coverage of the 1991
Persian Gulf War.
52 Research Question 2
The second research question sought to evaluate the themes and sources used in the coverage of the 2003 Iraq War on CNN and Fox News evening newscasts. In the
CNN coverage of the 2003 Iraq War, the deadly negative reactance assertion was the most prominent. The useless, innocent, and bloodthirsty killer themes were also present.
The negative reactance assertions of senseless, merciless, horrifying, victims, warmongers, insurrection, and shameful were not present in the CNN coverage of this conflict. The most prominent positive reactance assertion in CNN’s coverage of the 2003
Iraq War was inevitable victory. The heroes, liberators, honorable, mission accomplished, peacemakers/keepers, and U.S. allies themes were also present. The negative reactance assertions of patriotic, warriors against terror, and U.S. enemies were not present in
CNN’s coverage of the 2003 Iraq War.
7.6: Reactance Themes with a Negative Tone
Most of the reactance themes found in the coverage of the 2003 Iraq War by CNN and Fox News were different from the 1991 Persian Gulf War coverage by CNN. The themes found in the texts of both networks included: useless, deadly, innocent, warmongers, shameful, horrifying, shocking, and mission failed. In the CNN coverage alone, the following reactance themes were present: useless, deadly, shocking, bloodthirsty killers, and mission failed. In the Fox News coverage, the following reactance themes were present: deadly, innocent, warmongers, shameful, horrifying, and mission failed. Mission failed was the most prominent assertion in both CNN and Fox
53 News. Very few undertones were present in the texts of either network’s coverage of that conflict.
7.7: CNN Coverage of the 2003 Iraq War
Deadly and Shocking
This category of thematic reactions included references to the damage and results from the war as being deadly and/or shocking. Deadly was one of the thematic reactions which appeared periodically in three different CNN newscasts. It first appeared in the
March 26, 2003, evening newscast, mentioned by CNN anchor, Wolf Blitzer, who was reporting from Kuwait City. While explaining the impact of the deadly destruction of human life and property, Blitzer made this assertion he attributed to an unnamed source:
“Those who are doing the destroying should do the rebuilding.” Later in the broadcast he described a bombing in Baghdad by referring to it as a “deadly marketplace attack in
Baghdad.” The next newscast in which this theme was present was the one which aired on April 1, 2003. In this newscast the U.S. military was quoted as saying that it was investigating the “deadly shooting of Iraqi civilians.” One other assertion of this reactance was echoed in the April 3, 2003 newscast. Again, Blitzer described as deadly the aftermath of a car that failed to stop at a check point and added that a two year old child was “shot in the head.”
Shocking was yet another assertion found in the March 27, 2003, newscast when
Blitzer narrated that what was happening in the war was “not a pretty picture.” In the same reaction, CNN Correspondents used sound bites from Iraqis (for instance, see the
April 1, 2003, newscast) who called out the Coalition Troops as bloodthirsty killers. CNN
54 correspondents reported that the Iraqis had accused the United States of shockingly murdering innocent Iraqi civilians through the deadly war effort.
Mission Failed
This theme indicates that the individual war efforts within the conflict by the
United States were not successful. The assertions that the mission had failed were most prominent in the texts out of all the other reactance themes in the 2003 coverage of the
Iraq War. This assertion appeared six times in the CNN newscasts. The first assertion of mission failed was in the March 25, 2003, text. CNN correspondent, Aaron Brown concluded his report in that newscast, “Pentagon officials insist they’re [the troops] are making good progress.” In the March 28, 2003, newscast Blitzer said that the war may have been miscalculated. Three days later on March 31, 2003, CNN correspondent,
Jamie McIntyre, filed a report in which he asserted that the military “have yet to achieve one specific goal.” He described that unattained goal as accomplishing the war mission set out by the Bush Administration.
In the April 3, 2003, newscast, Blitzer reported that, “[The] U.S. Army says it has taken control of Najaf and has isolated forces in that area, but that’s not to say everything has gone smoothly.” The reporter’s reaction continued in two other CNN newscasts.
CNN anchor, Paula Zahn, said that Iraq’s Ambassador to the U.N. had said the war will continue and that the Iraqis would not accept the “colonial rule” of the United States and
Britain. Another time this reactance was found in the text was on April 9, 2003. In this newscast, CNN announcer, Heidi Collins, pronounced that the allied forces were “still meeting scattered resistance.”
55 The assertion that the war is devastating headlined the March 21, 2003, newscast.
Blitzer reported that there were “devastating results from the massive campaign.”
On Course – Off Course
This category included broadcast references that the U.S. war effort was either on- course as success or was off-course as a failure. There was also other reactance in the
CNN texts. The most prominent one was the on course or off course assertion, which was mentioned by the U.S. government and network correspondents introspectively. While the government made the case that the war effort was on course, correspondents introspectively made the case that the war effort was either on course or off course. This reactance first appeared in the April 2, 2003, newscast. Both Zahn and Blitzer reacted to the Bush administration’s assertions that the war is on course by posing the following question, “Is the war plan off course?”On April 3, 2003, newscast Zahn asked McIntyre, the following question: “And finally tonight, Jamie, is anybody characterizing for reporters exactly where the campaign is?” After a long pause, McIntyre responded:
No. They’re saying it will take as long as it takes. They’re making what they consider to be remarkable progress . . . . but they continue to caution us this could be the most dangerous time as they get closer to the end game.
On the following day, Zahn, questioned McIntyre about the administration taking awhile to knock the Al-Jazeera network off the air. She said:
So, Jamie, when the administration keeps on getting hit with pointed questions and second guessing about why they didn’t more aggressively go after this redundant system, is that the answer?” she asked. McIntyre responded, “Well, they’re going after it. There’s no doubt that at some point, perhaps early on, they thought there was some utility in having Iraqi television up to see what was going on. The point has passed, and they’re
56 convinced that eventually they’ll take it down or take it over, one or the other.
Another time this assertion appeared was also on April 4, 2003. Blitzer said,
“Well, as you know, the Bush administration has been trying for a long time to create that
kind of a situation, whereby Saddam Hussein’s top aides, his generals, would, in effect,
go out and kill him. That hasn’t happened yet.”
Inaccurate Pentagon Briefings?
This category included assertions that the information given by the Pentagon to the media was possibly inaccurate. Another assertion found in the CNN newscasts was inaccuracy, which appeared in five different CNN texts during that short period. The first newscast in which the CNN correspondents asserted this kind of reactance was on March
21, 2003. CNN correspondent, Miles O’Brien, asked in a report, “Do you have the nagging sense that some of this is seeming to be too good to be true, so far, the way it’s gone militarily?” In the March 25, 2003, newscast, Ryan Chilcote, another CNN correspondent embedded with the 101st Airborne, made this assertion on the war effort, “I
know the Pentagon has said that the timeline is being held and this isn’t holding things
up, but it is hard to understand here on the ground, how you can do much of anything in
this weather.”
The next newscast in which this assertion appeared was on April 1, 2003.
McIntyre said:
Well, despite the Pentagon’s effort to keep the focus on how well they thought the war was going, they kept getting bogged down in a war of words over whether the Pentagon had sent enough ground troops to get the job done. Today, the
57 Pentagon insisted that the answer to that criticism would come in results on the battlefield.
That assertion was repeated in another newscast. In an effort to get to the bottom
of some inaccuracies from the Pentagon Briefings, Zahn asked Colonel Mike Turner,
retired officer in the United States Air Force, the following question: “What’s your view?
Do the U.S. and its British partners have enough troops on the ground to wage this war?”
Also present in conjunction with this line of reactance to the inaccuracies were assertions of incomplete information. For instance, those kinds of assertions appeared in
the April 7, 2003, newscast, when Zahn reported about the possible discovery of chemical weapons in central Iraq. Throughout the entire segment, she underscored that chemical weapons may have been found, but it was not certain. This thematic reaction
continued in the following day’s newscast on April 8, 2003. CNN showed a clip of
President George W. Bush responding to the whereabouts of President Saddam Hussein.
“I don’t know whether he survived. The only thing I know is, he’s losing power,” said the president in a sound bite aired on CNN. Zahn responded by asking, “When will they know? The answer will not likely come soon.”
Endless War
Themes included an assertion that this war would be going longer than had been originally thought. Another thematic reaction, which appeared in the series of Iraq War coverage, was that this war will not be over quickly or endless war. That assertion was present three times in the March 25, 2003 newscast. In the March 26, 2003, Sr. White
House correspondent, John King reported that president Bush said the fall of Baghdad
58 would come soon. At the same time, a super (on screen) graphic was splashed on the
lower third of the screen, which read, “Pres Bush: War is far from over.” This kind of
reaction also appeared in the April 8, 2003, newscast. Former FBI assistant director,
James Kallstrom, told Blitzer that:
Wolf, we’re in the middle of this war here. And it’s not going to go away when this situation in Iraq goes away. It’s going to be here for a long, long time. It’s really something that we have to get adjusted to and we have to fight for a long, long time.
This theme was twice present on April 9, 2003. Paula Zahn said that Baghdad is
still dangerous. “What are officials saying off the record?” She also said, “This is a
country on the edge. A country with a very uncertain person.”
Unwelcome
Another thematic reactance to the conflict was that the Iraqis did not welcome the
U.S. troops as the U.S. government had widely portrayed. This category referred to the
U.S. troops not being welcomed by Iraqi citizens. This assertion first appeared in the
April 1, 2003, newscast. Zahn asked Rob Sobham, adjunct professor of foreign policy at
Georgetown University, the following question: “Let me ask you this – as we watch this
war go on, at what point do you think we’ll see more Iraqis perceive this war as liberating
and not as an invasion? Do you see that happening?” Sobham responded:
I think the legacy of 1991, when we abandoned the Iraqis weighed heavily on the Iraqis who want to come out and cheer for us – number one. Number two, I think the event that’s going to catapult the people out into the street is when they see the dead bodies of Saddam Hussein, his sons, and the members of his family. That’s when they’ll know the apparatus is finally gone.
59 Another appearance of this kind of reactance was in the April 4, 2003, broadcast.
In that newscast, CNN Sr. political analyst, William (Bill) Schneider, said, “Every
institution, education, the media, religion, the military is controlled by the ruling Baath
Party, which has cells that reach into every village and neighborhood. That explains why
ordinary Iraqis have been reluctant to celebrate the arrival of coalition forces.” This
assertion also appeared in the April 7, 2003, newscast. David Gergen, a former White
House advisor and Director of Communications for President Ronald Reagan, said:
Even so, as what we’re seeing with Al-Jazeera vs., say, CNN, there are . . . different versions of the truth. We see a very different emphasis in Al- Jazeera. As Jeff Greenfield said in his previous report, there is the central truth that comes across on Al-Jazeera is that of Arab suffering and that we are portrayed as the invaders or the colonizers, whereas of course, the truth as we see it on American-based television is quite different: We’re the liberators.
7.8: Fox News Coverage
The following reactance themes were present in the Fox News Coverage of the
2003 Iraq War: deadly, innocent, and mission failed.
The mission failed assertion was the most prominent negative undertone among
the reactance themes found. Other assertions found in the Fox News coverage of this
conflict included shameful, deadly, innocent, warmongers, and horrifying. The assertions that were not present on this network were – senseless, useless, merciless, victims, insurrection, shocking, and bloodthirsty killers. For the positive undertone, the inevitable victory was the most prominent assertion. Mission accomplished, heroes, honorable, liberators, U.S. enemies, peacemakers/keepers, patriotic, and warriors against terror
60 themes were also present in the coverage. The two assertions of fundamentalists and U.S. allies were not present in the Fox News coverage of this conflict.
Deadly
This category included references to the damage and results from the war as being deadly. The assertion of the war being a deadly conflict was first in the March 27, 2003, newscast. Fox News Military Analyst, retired United States Air Force colonel, Walter
Boyne, commented on what winning the war would be like, “To win, it’s going to be ugly, but we have to win it at all costs.” The deadly thematic reaction was present in the
April 7, 2003, newscast. In that newscast, O’Reilly said, “We paid a tremendous price to liberate these people.”
Innocent
Themes in this category were references to innocent civilians being hurt in the war effort. Innocent was another assertion that appeared in the Fox News texts in reaction to the coverage of the 2003 Iraq War. This theme was present in the March 26, 2003, newscast. A Fox News military analyst, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant colonel, Robert
Maginnis said that innocent civilians will continue to be killed because Saddam will
“continue to use them as a human shield.”
61 Mission Failed
As with the CNN coverage, the assertion of mission failed assertion in the Fox
News coverage was more prominent in the texts than any other thematic reaction. It was present five times in the Fox News coverage.
For instance, it was present five times in the March 25, 2003, newscast. The first mention of a possible mission failure on Fox News was on The O’Reilly Factor; he also added that “We don’t want another Vietnam here.” The second time this kind of reactance appeared on Fox News was during a comment by Steve Rendall, of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. He said, “Everyone downplayed how hard this war would be.” The third was another statement from Rendall in which he said, “This war is not the cakewalk it was sold to us as.” The fourth mention was an assertion was a statement from
O’Reilly about the way in which the war was being fought. He said, “Maybe we need a reassessment of how aggressively we wage this war because in the end they are going to hate us anyway.”
The next time this kind of thematic reaction appeared was in the March 26, 2003, newscast. O’Reilly said, “We could have already won this war if it had been fought all out. It isn’t being fought all out, and I understand why.”
Another assertion was flexibility in decision making. In the March 20, 2003, newscast, the White House Correspondent from Fox News said that the president’s decisions had shown to have considerable flexibility.
62 Political Correctness
This category included references to the politically correct element to the U.S. effort. The second theme present was political correctness in the war. In the March 24,
2003, newscast, retired U.S. Army officer, Major Bob Bevelacqua said, “My concern is there is a little too much political correctness that has infiltrated down to the lowest level
. . . . We have to take the gloves off.” In the newscast on March 27, 2003, Bill O’Reilly said, “I did not expect the political correctness of this war.”
Anti-War/Anti-America
This category included references to people or their actions which expressed their beliefs against the war effort as anti-American. One of the most prominent reactance assertions to the war effort was the anti-war/anti-America assertion. This theme was present four times in this set of coverage. This thematic reaction first appeared in the
March 28, 2003, newscast. Fox News correspondent in Jordan, Greg Palkot, filed a story about anti-war actions in Jordan, “In the past week we’ve seen a lot of protests and clashes with police. The [Jordan] government wants to keep a real lid on these anti-war emotions.” He reported that Jordan was a nominal ally to the United States with U.S.
Special Forces based there. Therefore, they wanted to give the impression that they were still on good terms with Iraq. Later in that newscast, this assertion appeared again.
Carolyn Eisenberg, Professor of History at Hofstra University, went to Senator Clinton’s office to confront her about the war and her position with it:
We’ve been very, very disturbed by Senator Clinton’s response to the Bush policies and very disturbed about her lack of responsiveness to her constituents here in New York who, up until the war started, have been
63 essentially an anti-war constituency. She has completely thrown her lot in with the president in a policy that we consider to be very damaging to the best interests in the U.S.
In the April 1, 2003, newscast, this assertion appeared in an interview between
Bill O’Reilly and Osama Siblani, publisher of the Arab American News. O’Reilly asked if Al-Jazeera’s coverage of the 2003 Iraq War was balanced. Siblani said that the coverage from Al-Jazeera was balanced:
I think Al Jazeera has been really fairer and more balanced than some networks that claim they have been fair and balanced . . . . And Al Jazeera puts everything on the screen. If the president is speaking, they even translate on the spot to Arabic the president's speech. If the secretary of state or secretary of defense is speaking, they translate it and they carry it 100 percent, all the way from the beginning to the end.
O’Reilly responded by claiming that Al-Jazeera used images from the war that were too graphic:
[T]hey've got an 8- year-old boy on there. They're saying the Americans killed him . . . . They put dead babies on there. Close-up shots, I mean close-up shots of people's brains blown out. This is designed to inflame opinion against the United States, putting you, your family, my family, everybody's family in danger.
The assertion of anti-war/anti-American appeared later in that same newscast, the author of Speak from the Heart, Steve Adubato, told NBC’s Peter Arnett (Arnett was fired by CNN when he gave an interview on Iraqi TV) that:
But here’s my problem with what happened in this case. I think that there is an incredibly slippery slope here. Arnett was off the wall for doing what he did, but particularly where he did it. But for the rest of us who are good Americans or patriotic, but are journalists who have questions and also believe, as Teddy Roosevelt said, that it is ok in wartime to ask questions, it is ok to challenge [He was cut off here by Bill O’Reilly].
64 Other thematic reactions that were present in this set of coverage were freedom to
criticize, should not be a mission of democracy, war effort reassessment, and the war
effort not going as planned.
The assertion of fighting anti-democratic elements and U.S. enemies was
mentioned in the March 24, 2003, newscast. In that newscast, Bill O’Reilly said, “We want to beat these SOBs over in Iraq. We want to find those Weapons of Mass
Destruction. We want to ram them down Chirac’s nose and go home.”
7.9: Reactance Themes with a Positive Tone
Other assertions with a positive tone in both CNN and Fox News coverage of the
2003 Iraq War included heroes, liberators, honorable, patriotic, warriors against terror,
inevitable victory, U.S. enemies, peacemakers/keepers, and mission accomplished. The
reactance themes with a positive tone in CNN’s coverage of the 2003 Iraq war were:
heroes, liberators, honorable, inevitable victory, and mission accomplished.
The following results show how the government attempted to shape the reporting
of the conflict by managing the flow of information using military experts, and
controlling how war correspondents and their network anchors covered the 2003 Iraq
War in a positive tone.
7.10: CNN Coverage of the 2003 Iraq War
Heroes and Liberators
This category included references to the U.S. effort against Iraq as heroic or as an
effort to liberate the Iraqi people from President Saddam Hussein’s regime. One of the
65 positive thematic reactions to the 2003 Iraq War was calling the U.S. troops heroes. This assertion was prominently present in both the March 25, 2003, and April 3, 2003, newscasts. On March 25, 2003, Blitzer said, “Whatever your feelings you can’t deny the heroism of these Marines.” On April 3, 2003, Heidi Collins said, “Comrades are fighting valiantly . . .” Another positive assertion in the CNN coverage of the 2003 Iraq War was liberators. This theme appeared only once. In the March 20, 2003, newscast, CNN’s
Aaron Brown said that this war would be a “different mission to liberate Kuwait.” Troops were also mentioned in the CNN newscasts as honorable and comrades. For instance, this assertion was present in the April 2, 2003, newscast when Zahn said, “Finding the wounded comrade and bring her home.”
Inevitable Victory
This category included themes asserting that the U.S.’ war effort in Iraq was a sure victory over Saddam Hussein. Inevitable victory was one of the most prominently mentioned positive assertions at the start of the 2003 Iraq War. In the March 20, 2003, newscast, a CNN military analyst General Wesley Clark, said in his comments about the
U.S. military, “We have so much capability against them, they will be destroyed.” The
Pentagon, in the March 24, 2003, newscast, said, “[The] Coalition forces, closing in on
Baghdad.” On March 25, 2003, the United States Air Force was said to be “in total control of the skies.” The assertion of inevitable victory was also mentioned in the March
31, 2003, newscast. CNN’s Jamie McIntyre said that the U.S. was gaining air dominance over Iraq. The final newscast in which this assertion appeared was on April 4, 2003. CNN aired a video clip of General Colin Powell, who said:
66 Psychologically it’s not going to affect our efforts. Our troops know what they are there to do. They are there to liberate Iraq and they will be successful in that mission and whether he is there at the end or not is almost irrelevant.
Mission Accomplished
Another positive assertion that appeared in the CNN coverage of the 2003 Iraq
War was mission accomplished. This assertion appeared in the April 3, 2003 newscast in
which, McIntyre reported that “The Pentagon is brimming with confidence about the
progress of U.S. troops . . .” Another time in which the mission accomplished assertion
appeared was in the April 9, 2003, newscast. Paula Zahn reported that there was “no sign
of Saddam’s regime in the capital,” when the U.S. troops captured Iraq’s capital city,
Baghdad. In addition, after the fall of Baghdad, war correspondents and anchors asserted
that the mission was on track. This assertion first appeared in the March 27, 2003,
broadcast. McIntyre said the “Pentagon insists it hasn’t changed the overall strategy.” A
CNN Military analyst, Major General Don Shepperd, later in the same broadcast said the
following to CNN’s Miles O’Brien:
“So you’re after specific things in this compound. The old days, we used to come in with bombers and obliterate the entire compound and kill things around it. We don’t do that anymore, Miles.”
The network anchors also asserted the positive tone of groundbreaking war. In the
March 28, 2003, newscast, Blitzer filed the following report from Kuwait City:
“And I guess the world is going to have an opportunity to take a close look at these pictures from Baghdad, pictures from here in Kuwait City. A very, very momentous night in this war that has been waging now for more than a week.”
67 7.11: Fox News Coverage
Some of the prominent thematic reactions that were presented in a positive tone in
Fox News’ coverage were: heroes and liberators, honorable, patriotic, inevitable victory, peacemakers/keepers, and mission accomplished. As stated previously, the following results show how the government attempted to shape the reporting of the conflict by managing the flow of information using military experts on Fox News, and controlling how war correspondents and the news analysts and anchors covered the 2003 Iraq War in a positive tone.
Heroes and Liberators
The heroes assertion was first mentioned in the March 31, 2003, Fox News newscast when author Steven Brill referred to soldiers as “unsung heroes.” It also appeared in the April 1, 2003, newscast when the Centcom spokesman, Jim Wilkinson, said, “America doesn’t leave its heroes behind” when he described the rescue of POW,
Jessica Lynch.
The liberators assertion was mentioned in the March 27, April 1, and April 2,
2003, newscasts. The following assertion was found in the March 27, 2003, newscast:
“We wanted this to be a true war of liberation . . . We do what we have to as quickly as we can.” In the April 1, 2003, newscast, Fox News military analyst Major General Burt
Moore, said, “We’re here to liberate them . . . so they can have a chance at a life after this regime.” In the April 2, 2003, newscast, Fox News host, Shepherd Smith gave a live report in which he posited that this war is to liberate the Iraqi people.
68 The troops were also mentioned as honorable four times in Fox News’ coverage of the 2003 Iraq War. In the March 20, 2003, newscast, correspondents concluded that the U.S. military war effort was to attempt to minimize or carry no allied casualties if necessary. In the March 25, 2003, newscast, O’Reilly said, “This war could be over if they wanted it to be, but they’re fighting it on a level of politics, first. Military, second.”
In the April 1, 2003, newscast O’Reilly also said the United States had “Gone far out of way of the way to prevent civilian deaths.” In the next day’s newscast, O’Reilly said,
“We don’t want to show the world we’re bullies.”
Patriotic and Peacemakers/Keepers
This group included assertions of the patriotic element for the war effort by U.S. citizens. The patriotic assertion appeared once in this coverage during the March 25,
2003, newscast. Forbes magazine Sr. editor, Bruce Upbin, referred to Montana as a
“patriotic state,” and said their patriotism, selling all their French stock, was “great for our guys out there.” The U.S. enemies assertion also appeared in the March 24, 2003, newscast. In that newscast, O’Reilly said, “We want to beat these SOBs over in Iraq. We want to find those Weapons of Mass Destruction. We want to ram them down Chirac’s nose and go home.”
The peacemakers/keepers assertion appeared three times in this set of coverage.
In the March 24, 2003, newscast, Fox News military analyst, Colonel David Hunt said,
“We’ve decided to fight this war with humanity [with] as few casualties as possible.” In the March 25, 2003, newscast, a former CIA intelligence officer Peter Brooks said, “This is not a war on Iraqi people.” Also in the March 27, 2003, newscast, when Colonel David
69 Hunt said, “We have been fighting this war with restraint, humanity . . . .” O’Reilly commented on that concept. He said, “What’s keeping us from accomplishing our goal is that we don’t want to hurt any civilians.”
Mission Accomplished
The mission accomplished assertion appeared six times in Fox News’ coverage of the 2003 Iraq War. It first appeared in the newscast on March 20, 2003. A headline appeared on the lower third of the screen that said, “Pentagon: We like what we’re seeing.” In the March 25, 2003, newscast, Brooks said, “We are on track” when referring to the U.S. military effort in Iraq. That assertion also appeared in the March 28, 2003 newscast when O’Reilly commented on the U.S. war effort saying that “We’re really leveling Baghdad, I mean we’re really pounding these installations.” The mission accomplished theme was also present in the April 2, 2003, newscast. Retired United
States Air Force Major General, Thomas McInerney, said, “This is going to turn out to be one of the most brilliant, if not the most brilliant campaign in the history of warfare.” In the April 7, 2003, newscast, this assertion also appeared in a video clip of Donald
Rumsfeld who said, “Hussein has lost control over most of Iraq.” The assertion also appeared in the April 8, 2003, newscast when O’Reilly reported that the “war has been won by coalition forces.”
Research Question 3
This third research question sought to determine how the themes and sources used by journalists and commentators in their coverage of the 2003 Iraq War reflected an
70 undertone in reaction to the U.S. government’s restrictions on their journalistic freedom
to cover the conflict. Both the negative and positive undertones for each set of coverage
reflected differently on the journalists’ thematic reactions to the 2003 Iraq War. Those
differences will be discussed as well as the journalistic undertones represented through
them.
In the CNN and Fox News coverage of the 2003 Iraq War, several negative
undertones were present. These included: harsh environment, source speculation, and incorrect picture of the war. All these journalistic undertones appeared in the CNN coverage of this conflict. Only the last undertone, incorrect picture of the war, appeared both on CNN and Fox News during the coverage of that conflict.
The positive undertones produced different thematic reactions in the CNN and
Fox News coverage of the 2003 Iraq War. Those undertones included: the United States
has already won the war and honorable intentions. Both broad undertones were present in
Fox News’ coverage of this conflict. Only the first assertion appeared in CNN’s coverage
of the war.
Research Question 4
This research question sought to determine how the curtailment of journalistic
independence was reflected in the television reports from the 2003 Iraq War. They also
sought explanations from the tone of coverage from both conflicts. This war was the first
to have a press system that had a large number of journalists embedded with military
units during the conflict. The embedded project came after the unsuccessful press pool
system from the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Despite the access given to journalists, they
71 were still required to rely on the military during this conflict. Therefore, their sources in this conflict did not change. The embedded journalists gave updates from their military unit, but those updates were still cleared or censored by the unit with whom he or she was traveling. Additionally, due to safety reasons, embedded journalists were not able to give any specific details about where they were reporting. Therefore, their stories were limited in the information released despite the access they were given.
Technology gave journalists the ability to broadcast real time from the battlefield.
Embedded journalists were able to give live reports through the video phone. Despite having all this technology, however, embedded journalists were still under their rules for reporting the war. They had the ability to broadcast live from the battlefield, but if they did they still could not say anything that was not approved by their military unit or that could potentially hurt that military unit. In other words, these embedded journalists were still held captive by censorship.
7.12: Sources and Technology
Sources used by CNN and Fox News in the 2003 Iraq War consisted of the military units, official sources, government officials, analysts, and interviewees. In coverage of this conflict, Fox News used more analysts and interviewees than CNN did.
CNN and Fox News utilized technology differently for their coverage of the 2003 Iraq
War. In their coverage, CNN anchors presented the newscast live from the battlefield. In most of the newscasts, CNN’s Paula Zahn, anchored from New York City while Wolf
Blitzer anchored live from Kuwait City.
72 CNN also used live reports from the battlefield and its surrounding areas. These
live reports were filed by correspondents who were embedded with military units and
were transmitted through a videophone. They usually included an update about the
specific military unit with whom they were traveling or an update on an official report
released to the press earlier that day. CNN’s video also included damage and destruction
from the bombing attacks in Baghdad and other surrounding areas involved in the
conflict. Recycled and file video was not presented in CNN’s coverage of the 2003 Iraq
War.
Fox News used video from the battlefield in their coverage of the 2003 Iraq War.
This video included footage of troops, planes dropping bombs, fire fights, and U.S.
prisoners of war (POWs). This video predominantly served as cutaways for host, Bill
O’Reilly, or other Fox News correspondents. They did not have anchors presenting
newscasts live from the battlefield. They did, however, include live reports from Fox
News correspondents in the battlefield or a surrounding area during their newscasts.
CNN rarely mentioned the internet in their coverage of the 2003 Iraq War. If they
did, it was a call to action statement directing the audience to their website to garner more
information about the conflict, or it was present in a lower third graphic on screen. In the
coverage of this conflict, CNN also presented still photos from the front lines. These photos were usually the programming used to take the newscast into a commercial break.
In addition to airing still photos, CNN also aired satellite photos of Baghdad in their
March 27, 2003, newscast.
Fox News mentioned the internet more than CNN. Throughout his show, Bill
O’Reilly mentioned emails he received from listeners. Sometimes they were also
73 mentioned by guests. At the end of his show, O’Reilly had a segment where he read emails from listeners. Additionally, he directed people to his website to gain more information. Websites, if available, for information about guests also appeared in the standard lower graphic with his or her name.
Like, CNN, Fox News utilized still photos in their coverage of the 2003 Iraq War.
They had a segment including these photos coming out of or going into commercial breaks. Fox News also had a segment called the Fox Fly Over. This segment included aerial video of an area from the battlefield. It was present in the March 25, 2003, newscast and included video from downtown Basrah. In the April 8, 2003, Fox News showed video of Rasheed Military Airfield.
74 CHAPTER EIGHT: DISCUSSION
In exploring this new reactance paradigm for mass communication research, a key discovery was made. The results showed the government reactance to controlling the flow of information after the first conflict by creating the embedded journalists system during the 2003 Iraq war. Since the results show that fewer negative reactance themes appeared during the 2003 Iraq War than during the 1991 Persian Gulf war, one explanation could be that the government was successful at restricting the correspondents’ access to critical information at the start of the war and it also contributed to the way the two cable networks covered the war using positive undertones.
This chapter discusses the implications of such restrictive environment in more depth.
75 FIGURE 2
New Mass Communication Conflict Reactance Model
Gulf War (TV) 2003 Iraq War CNN Coverage CNN and Fox News Coverage 24 Hour News Coverage 24 Hour News Coverage
Type of Coverage Type of Coverage ► Press Pools, Unilateral Embedded Journalists
Thematic Reactions: ► Thematic Reactions: Positive: liberator, hero, benefits Positive: heroes and liberators, of the press system, mission inevitable victory, mission accomplished accomplished, patriotic and
OR peacemakers/peacekeepers
Negative: media frustration, OR inconsistent facts, graphic details, Negative: deadly and shocking, censorship. mission failed, on course-off
course, inaccurate Pentagon
briefings?, endless war,
unwelcome, innocent, mission
failed, political correctness, anti-
war/anti-America,
Tone Tone Positive or Negative ► Positive or Negative Technology Technology Content, Satellite ► Mobile satellite, internet, Delivery,
Spinning the War Spinning the War How the media portrayed ► How the media portrayed it to the public. it to the public.
*FIGURE 2 is a schematic representation of the new mass communication conflict reactance model 76 8.1: Negative Undertones
1991 Persian Gulf War
The negative assertions present in CNN’s coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War
present journalistic undertones critical of the press system for the conflict. One undertone shown in their coverage of this conflict was that the press system was not working.
Another undertone was that the media did not benefit from the press pool system. During
CNN’s coverage of this conflict, the anchors pointed out that the press arrangement with the government was not working effectively. Another CNN assertion was that the media did not benefit much from the press pool system.
CNN’s coverage and stories also opposed the both the United States’ and foreign governments’ restrictive rules which were put in place during this conflict. For instance, correspondents insisted on asking questions that they knew would not answered due to the strict suppression of military combat information. Journalists then reacted with negative undertones lamenting that the environment in which they covered the conflict
was both restrictive and devious. One CNN report for instance asserted that the
Pentagon’s assurances that the war was on schedule were false, suggesting that the
journalists did not have a full account of events in the conflicts and that the government’s
official statements were also unreliable. Further evidence in CNN’s coverage was the
undertone that the war effort was going exactly as planned.
These thematic reactions with negative undertones reflect CNN’s distaste with the
press pool system which was put in place for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The assumption
from these reactions is that this system was not an efficient or effective way of gathering
information during the conflict. These findings are consistent are consistent with
77 Baroody’s (1998) conclusion that the press pool system functioned like a dictatorship. In
addition, these findings also support Fialka’s (1992) study which found that through
government censorship and rules, the press system was set up to give the American
public the picture of the war that the government, military, and other official sources
wanted them to see.
2003 Iraq War – Negative Undertones
Harsh Environment
CNN reiterated that this conflict is still a harsh environment despite the positive portrayal of success propagated by the president and military. Additionally, the coverage showed the dangerous environment for the Iraqis as a result of this conflict. CNN described the bombing of Baghdad as deadly, and that many Iraqis were dying. The reports were even forceful. CNN also portrayed the war was an ugly event.
Source Speculation
The mission failed reactance reflected the journalistic undertone of negating source speculation. CNN prominently presented this thematic reaction in its coverage of the conflict possibly as a protest to the government’s control of messages. The government and their military sources had projected its war effort as “mission is on course or will be accomplished.” Pentagon officials maintained that the troops were making good progress in the war effort but CNN’s reaction to the Pentagon briefing was that the war may have been miscalculated. This was an admission from a CNN
78 correspondent that what they had been told about the progress of the war might not have
been necessarily accurate.
In its reactance to the Pentagon briefings and other officials, CNN maintained that the military had not completed one of their goals for the war effort. The network portrayed the events in Iraq as not going smoothly which was a contradiction of the government’s official position about the war progress. One possible explanation for such assertions is that CNN correspondents, anchors, and announcers began to distrust the information from their sources. The negative undertone assertions from CNN correspondents demonstrated their distrust.
These findings also advance Pfau’s (2004) study and Fahmy and Johnson’s
(2005) arguments that the Pentagon’s funding of the embedded journalist system in this war could cause them to be a mouthpiece for the government. The contradiction of what was happening and how it was covered between the official government sources and the correspondents covering the battle provides clear evidence of undue influence from the government to spin and control the debate on the networks in order to secure positive discourse to the war effort. The fact that the networks’ anchors and correspondents used these thematic reactions to challenge and contradict the government pronouncements suggests that there was some type of force attempting to control what they reported and what they said in their stories.
79 Incorrect Picture of the War
The negative thematic reactance that pointed to inaccurate Pentagon briefings
reflected an undertone that the public was being given an incorrect picture of the war by
the official sources. CNN’s reportage maintained that the war effort was pre-orchestrated.
CNN’s coverage also reflected this undertone by questioning the actions of the
military with the impending ground war. Correspondents and anchors questioned the
Pentagon’s statements about how well the war effort was going. They also questioned the
number of troops they were sending for the ground war. Such questions could be
interpreted as an indication that they were not sending enough troops for the ground war
and that was why the government may have decided to cover up its failures. Another
explanation for such actions could be that the information which was given to CNN was
incomplete and devious but it served the purpose of the government’s effort to restrict
media coverage and access while appearing to be working with war correspondents
during this latter war in Iraq.
These assertions from the journalists’ texts or coverage of the 2003 Iraq War
provide the best possible theoretical explanation to Pfau’s (2004) as well as Fahmy and
Johnson’s (2005) concern that the embedded journalist project may have acted as a media
mouthpiece for the Pentagon. However, since the majority of thematic reactions
examined in this study were negative or critical of the official sources, CNN’s coverage can be interpreted as not being totally a mouthpiece for the Pentagon.
Another negative undertone that reflected the inaccurate picture of the war assertion was that this was an endless war despite the government official argument that the war is progressing successfully and is on course. Comments made by correspondents
80 and some CNN studio guests maintained that the Iraq war would be very costly and bloody. These mentions were an indication that the information they were getting about
the potential casualties and damage from this war were either not being properly given to
the media or had not been explored by the source. Additionally, CNN used graphics to contradict official sources who said that the war would be over quickly. For example, the
Former FBI assistant director, James Kallstrom commented that the war was not going to be over quickly and that the U.S. should adjust to that idea. His use of the word, adjust, could be interpreted to imply that the current consensus by government sources and the
U.S. military was that the conflict would be over quickly; yet it was an acknowledgement that the government spin could not be sustained given the reality on the battleground.
When Baghdad fell, CNN aired video of the Iraqis celebrating at the fall of
President Saddam Hussein’s regime when the U.S. troops officially occupied Baghdad.
At the same time, the correspondents’ assessments on the battle field indicated that the situation was still severe.
This undertone of incorrect picture of the war was also reflected by the negative thematic reaction of incomplete information. CNN’s correspondents and its anchor were extremely careful to not conclude that chemical weapons were found, but the government had released information of the possible discovery of chemical weapons in central Iraq.
CNN’s hesitance to affirm what they were hearing from official sources may be a clear explanation of the concern they had that the Pentagon was attempting to make the embedded journalists their mouthpiece for every little bit of positive news.
One prominent negative thematic reaction to the sources providing information with an incorrect picture of the war was also demonstrated by CNN reports which
81 indicated that the U.S. troops were actually not welcomed by Iraqi citizens. It is also an indication that journalists were resisting the government’s attempts to spin the coverage with only positive news that would show the U.S. invasion as liberation of Iraq or peacekeeper.
Guests commented that the U.S. invasion was presented differently to the viewers on the cable news networks in Iraq because some government sources who gave CNN correspondents the information presented it in a way that portrayed the invasion as a liberation instead of an invasion. CNN did not present these official statements as truth.
They presented these official statements as an idea and then critiqued and then made their reactions to the government’s official pronouncements in their studio reports and war correspondents’ stories.
In conclusion, the U.S. government’s reactance to the negative media coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War was not as successful in totally curtailing CNN’s negative undertone about its war efforts in the 2003 Iraq War. The network’s anchor and in-studio journalists made both positive and negative thematic reactions to the efforts of the war.
They thematically challenged devious official statements and lack of a full account of events due to government restrictive environment for getting facts. Argued here also is that the government was partially successful at shaping the 2003 coverage by injecting
some positive undertones from CNN’s live reports in the battlefield as a result of its
embedded press system.
82 Fox News
Several negative thematic reactions from the Fox News network also indicated
that an incorrect picture of the war was presented to the viewers. The mission failed
negative thematic reaction appeared with comments that suggested that the war in Iraq was unfolding differently from they had been told it would be. It can be interpreted that the information given to Fox News by government sources and the U.S. military was the reason they presented an inaccurate picture of the war to the public.
Another reactance to political correctness also demonstrated a concern by the military pundits on Fox News that political correctness had infiltrated all levels of those involved in this conflict. The cumulative assessment of such political correctness in the war coverage suggests that most sources involved with the commentary about the war were perhaps conditioned to portray the war in a politically loyal and affirmative way.
Their coverage did not indicate whether this political correctness was necessarily accurate of the war effort.
Such spinning of the war filled with political correctness may also be explained by the fact that war correspondents, including, Fox News had unprecedented access to the military in this conflict. This may have been an effort to satisfy those in control of their access to the military to provide them with the breaking news first before anyone else. It also supports the premise articulated earlier of journalists being used as a mouthpiece for the government. Some reporters on Fox News might have kept their reports politically correct, although not necessarily accurate, to pacify those in control.
Baroody (1998) mentioned that the pool system in the 1991 Persian Gulf War allowed the military to have more power over the media than ever before. This undertone
83 and these thematic reactions from the 2003 Iraq War support that idea that the press system in which the journalists worked in this conflict was also subject to government control in addition to the increased access to the military.
The negative reactance assertions collaborate Hayes and Reineke’s (2007) conclusion that when the government attempts to hamper one’s freedom in attaining information on an individual’s choosing, it could prompt a state of reactance. This reactance was shown through the positive and negative undertones and some contradictive assertions.
The coverage from both CNN and Fox News for this conflict reflected different undertones. CNN’s coverage reflected all three undertones of harsh environment, source speculation, and incorrect picture of the war. Fox News’ coverage, however, reflected only the incorrect picture of the war undertone. Several different conclusions can be drawn from this. First, it is argued here that since CNN reflected more negative undertones through their thematic reactions to the government control of information and the restrictive environment in which they covered the conflict, their coverage was more critical of the war effort than Fox News coverage, even though both networks were embedded in the same military units. Second, it can be argued that CNN had fewer external forces controlling their information than Fox News did. These conclusions provide the best possible theoretical explanation from a reactance perspective to the claim that Fox News disregards traditional journalistic objectivity and that they had reported the war from a pro-war or pro-Bush perspective (Morris 2005). This thesis advances this debate by theoretically concluding that Fox News also had a negative thematic reaction to
84 the conduct of the war on the question of discerning the reality of success on the battle
field and that it was not entirely a pro-Bush media outlet.
8.2: Positive Undertones
1991 Persian Gulf War
Very few positive undertones were reflected in the thematic reactions that appeared in CNN’s coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. CNN’s mentions included liberators, inevitable victory, and heroes. These thematic reactions reflect the government’s attempt to shape the reporting of the conflict by managing the flow of information.
Two thematic reactions prominently portrayed in CNN’s coverage of the 1991
Persian Gulf War were liberator and inevitable victory. Mentions of liberator in the text maintained that this war was being fought to liberate Kuwait. The assertions of inevitable victory made by CNN and its correspondents maintained that the United States would win this war because of its superior force over Iraq.
The positive thematic reactions of hero honored the troops by saying that POWs
had become dead heroes. Additionally, CNN also aired a clip of First Lady Barbara Bush
who said that the commander of the conflict was a hero to her. These statements by CNN
showed their support for the troops.
Another positive reactance was the benefits of the press system. CNN
correspondents maintained that there was little excuse for the public to not know what
was going on. Such assertions had the negative undertone that the public should be able
to know what was happening in the war because of the coverage under the press system.
85 The CNN coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War contained few positive
undertones. This could be due to the press system and the difficulties it gave to the journalists working within it (Baroody 1998).
2003 Iraq War – Positive Undertones
The United States Has Already Won the War
The positive reactance of inevitable victory appeared in CNN’s coverage of the
2003 Iraq War which indicated the power of the U.S. troops by saying that the Iraqi troops would be destroyed. Their comments can be interpreted to imply that the troops
had already won the war despite the fact that it had just started. Most of the positive assertions came days after the war began, which could also be interpreted that the sources
were providing information that claimed the war in Iraq was won before it started. It also
supports Fahmy and Johnson’s (2005) concern of the journalists being a mouthpiece for
the Pentagon. The newscasts show evidence that the correspondents were merely
repeating the information given to them by the Pentagon and other official sources. The
findings here collaborate and theoretically advance Baroody’s (1998) argument that the
military exercised control over the media.
Fox News Coverage
One of the positive undertones on Fox News indicated that that the United States
had already won the war. The positive assertion of mission accomplished appeared
prominently in the coverage and that the U.S. military effort in Iraq was on track. Fox
News asserted that the United States was leveling Baghdad. This kind of undertone could
86 be interpreted as implying that the U.S. government had succeeded at getting networks to
push the war success debate in the media that U.S. troops were winning the war only
eight days after the conflict started.
Additionally, military analysts reiterated that the conflict in Iraq would be a
brilliant part of military history. Such statements came a week before Baghdad fell.
Honorable Intentions
Fox News military analysts pushed a government agenda that this war was a
liberation that would be fought quickly and with as little loss of life as possible. They
also pushed a new government position that another purpose of the war was to give the
Iraqi people a chance at a life after the regime of President Saddam Hussein. These
assertions could imply that giving the Iraqis a life after this conflict was a great thing that
was above the face value of this war. Fox News prominently mentioned that the U.S. war
effort would have few allied casualties if necessary. Fox News correspondents and guests
reiterated that the United States was doing all it could to prevent the deaths of civilians in
this war effort.
These positive undertones illustrated that at some times the journalists functioned
as a mouthpiece of the government’s propaganda to positively spin the war. This is an
indication of how the government’s reactance to the negative media coverage of the 1991
Persian Gulf War led to the way in which it shaped the reporting of the conflict by
managing the flow of information and controlled how Fox News covered the 2003 Iraq
War with a positive tone using military experts.
87 Converse to the negative undertones, the Fox News thematic reactions were a change from the negative undertones that characterized CNN’s coverage. The conclusion from this difference is that Fox News coverage of the war effort was slanted with more positive thematic reactions than negative undertones while CNN’s thematic reactions reflected more negative undertones than the positive assertions. What was unexpected in this assessment was that Fox News also had an ongoing negative thematic reaction to propaganda from the government official sources about the conduct of the war.
8.3: Observational Analysis of Technology
1991 Persian Gulf War
Observations were carried out to interpret the process and technique used to deliver stories on the two networks from both the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003
Iraq War. The technology observed in the 1991 Persian Gulf War included the
INMARSAT phone and other satellite technology that allowed the correspondents to air live updates and reports from the battlefield or surrounding areas. That technology was also observed in video of the bombing attacks to the American public. They were able to see the video in as little as 30 minutes after the bombing took place.
Other technology observed was the graphics used by CNN in their newscasts.
CNN used graphics that was either a standard lower third graphic or a over the shoulder graphic. Additionally, they used a map graphic whenever a reporter, anchor or correspondent was reporting a story either from or about Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any other location from the battlefield. Sometimes, other graphics, such as arrows, were used to
88 highlight or specify a certain area of the map that was being referred to by the
correspondent in the story.
Live video from the battlefield and its surrounding areas was another element of
technology observed in this coverage. Video of this conflict included video of the bombing attacks, bombing damage, and daily Pentagon briefings. This technology
allowed the public to see aftermath of the events they had been hearing about through the coverage.
The correspondents’ sources observed in this coverage of this conflict were the daily military briefings, Pentagon briefings, and other official sources present in the newscasts.
2003 Iraq War
The sources found in this observational analysis were present in both CNN and
Fox News in the 2003 Iraq War and included: military units, official sources, government officials, analysts, and interviewees. On difference observed was that Fox News used more analysts and interviewees than CNN did.
CNN and Fox News utilized technology differently for their coverage. In their coverage, CNN anchors presented the newscast live from the battlefield. In most of the newscasts, one CNN anchor would be reporting from a CNN bureau in the United States and the other would be reporting from Kuwait City.
Both CNN and Fox News used live reports from the battlefield in their newscasts.
CNN’s live reports were filed by the CNN Correspondents who were embedded with military units and were transmitted through a videophone. They usually included an
89 update about the specific military unit with whom they were traveling or an update on an
official report released to the press earlier that day. They did not have anchors presenting
newscasts live from the battlefield. They did, however, include live reports from Fox
News Correspondents in the battlefield or a surrounding area during their newscasts.
This observational analysis also found that both CNN and Fox News used video
of the conflict in their coverage. CNN’s video included video of damage and destruction from the bombing attacks. Their video was usually the focal point of the story.
Conversely, Fox News’ video of troops, planes dropping bombs, fire fights, and U.S. prisoners of war (POWs), served as b roll for host, Bill O’Reilly, or other Fox News
Correspondents. Moreover, Fox News utilized aerial video in their segment, the Fox Fly
Over. This segment included aerial video of an area from the battlefield.
The internet was observed very few times in this analysis. They rarely mentioned it at all. If they did, it was a call to action statement directing the audience to their website to garner more information about the conflict, or it was present in a lower third graphic on screen. Fox News, however, mentioned the internet, email, and its website throughout its newscasts. Bill O’Reilly and his guests used emails as points of discussion in his show. Additionally, he had an entire segment that included emails from viewers. He also referred to his website as a source for more information about the conflict and other news. In the coverage of this conflict, both CNN and Fox News presented still photos from the front lines. In CNN’s coverage, these photos were usually the programming used to take the newscast into a commercial break. CNN also aired satellite photos. Fox
News had a segment airing still photos from the battlefield that either aired at the
beginning or end of a commercial break.
90 Despite the improvements in technology for the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the
2003 Iraq War, it did not make a difference in the curtailment of journalistic independence for these two conflicts.
8.4: Prospects – Advancing Reactance Theory
In exploring this new reactance qualitative paradigm for mass communication research, a key discovery was made. Reactance themes were present in the coverage of both the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War. In the 2003 Iraq War, however, they were present less. The potential meaning behind this creates a scenario in which the government responded to the journalists’ coverage of the first conflict in their creation of the restrictive press system for the second Iraq war. Because less reactance themes were present in the 2003 Iraq War, it can be argued that the government was successful in lessening the negative undertone - thematic reactance from war correspondents. The most extreme thematic reactions to this government restriction were the ones highlighting the frustrated media in the CNN coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
The results and subsequent discussion have made an exploratory case for this new theoretical perspective with two premises for conflict reactance. The U.S. government’s reactance to the negative media coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War was not as successful in totally curtailing the negative undertone about its war efforts in the 2003
Iraq War from the network’s anchor and in-studio journalist assertions. However, it was partially successful at shaping the network news coverage in the 2003 Iraq war by injecting some positive undertones from the live reports in the battlefield as a result of its restrictive embedded press system.
91 CNN of the government’s restrictive system was very pointed in saying that this
embedded system was not an efficient one that allowed them to do their jobs. The
censorship rules in both conflicts came with a learning curve so steep that is was difficult
for them to conduct interviews. Additionally, it was made clear that access to interviews
was difficult to come by in the field. More statements from CNN correspondents
escalated the negative reactance assertions.
Five days later, CNN which witnessed the historic bombing at the beginning of
the war, said that the coverage of the war from the press had become more negative and
revealed a gap between the negative coverage from the press and the positive reports
from the Pentagon. The conclusion from these two negative thematic reactions is that the
press coverage could be negative because of the system. Despite the positive reports from
the Pentagon, which were the sources for the correspondents working under the press
system, the correspondents were still producing negative coverage from those positive reports. This negative assertions can be interpreted as the government’s attempts to
control the information about the war through the press pool system.
CNN’s later coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War can also be interpreted as the
failed attempt of the government to control the flow of information about the war. A
CNN correspondent in New York asked rhetorical questions about the press system being
held captive by military censorship. His questions could have been interpreted as an
accusation that the censorship requirements by the military were keeping the press from
doing their job.
A day later, CNN asked a guest who was a former CIA official if the press system
benefited anyone involved. His answer highlighted the benefits of the press system for
92 the military, mainly the 80 percent support rate of the war and president George H.W.
Bush. His statement can also be interpreted to imply that the journalists did not benefit much at all and were merely used and control by the government.
CNN’s coverage also demonstrated that this press pool system curtailed journalistic freedom. Their correspondent filed a live report following a bombing in
Jerusalem. Due to censorship rules, he couldn’t ask a question about the specific missiles
used in the attack. After recognizing that the censorship rules would not allow an answer
to his next question, he still asked it anyway. His visual defiance of the censorship rules
in order to do his job and maintain his freedom as a journalist show that this press system
hampered journalistic freedom.
In the 2003 Iraq War, the negative thematic reactions were much less pointed than
these from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which can be interpreted as the reasoning behind
the government and the Pentagon’s creation of the embedded journalist project for the
2003 Iraq War. They embedded reporters in military units for this conflict to reduce the
negative thematic reactions in the coverage of the conflict.
In the 2003 Iraq War, both the CNN and Fox News coverage contained negative
thematic reactions that resembled the thematic reactions from the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
CNN continued to verify the truth of the official sources through their negative
thematic reactions in their coverage. CNN argued that despite all the positive reports, the
United States still had not achieved one of their goals in the conflict. This trend continued
when CNN reiterated that in spite of the positive reports of the occupation of Najaf by
allied forces, the action had not gone smoothly. These occurrences were the most pointed
in CNN’s coverage of the 2003 Iraq War. When compared with the ones present in the
93 1991 Persian Gulf War, they are less pointed and direct, supporting the previous
conclusion drawn that this embedded journalist project was created reduce the negative
thematic reactions from the press in this conflict.
The negative thematic reaction of on course – off course in the CNN coverage
could also imply that CNN correspondents and anchors were attempting to verify the truth of the situation. In a correspondents mention that the Pentagon said it was making what it referred to as remarkable progress, but at the same time was cautioning that the most difficult days could be ahead was one of the few instances in this coverage when
correspondents reacted directly to what they were being told about the events happening
in the conflict, which can be assumed to be directed at the press system because that was
the way the correspondents received their information.
The reactance to accuracy in the CNN coverage of the 2003 Iraq War was also
directed at the press system and its sources. This skepticism that the events in this war
were going too well could imply that the information was devious, inaccurate at worst
and that those providing the information could not be fully trusted.
The mission failed negative thematic reaction in the Fox News coverage of the
2003 Iraq War conflict also implied criticism, but was much less pointed than CCN’s.
Fox News asserted that the initial information they received about the war may have been
incorrect. Additionally, they made statements saying this war was not the war they had
expected from the information they had received from the Pentagon before it started.
Overall, these examples show that there was less reactance from the journalists in
the 2003 Iraq War than the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Since a restrictive press system was
in place for the latter conflict, it is logical to assume that the change in press system for
94 the 2003 Iraq War was caused by the government’s reactance to the 1991 Persian Gulf
War. This assessment is also supported by the less amount of journalist reactance in the
second conflict.
8.5: Limitations of Study
One of the negligible limitations for any type of theory building was the different
primetime lineup between CNN and Fox News during the 2003 Iraq War coverage. This
study analyzed the 7 p.m. (CST) newscasts on both networks. Yet at that particular time,
CNN had a newscast with two anchors and correspondents reporting in with updates and
pre-recorded stories. The Fox News programming at that hour, however, was a news analysis show, called The O’Reilly Factor. In fact, the entire primetime lineup for that
network was shows of that nature. The Fox Report with Sheperd Smith was more of a
newscast type show, but was more analytical than the CNN newscasts at that hour. Such
variations in the style of reporting may account for some minor but manifest-differences
in the reactance themes. Additionally, Fox News coverage was slanted more toward the
war effort. Despite that pro-war slant, some negative reactance themes still occurred in
their coverage. Fewer embedded reporters were also present in the Fox News coverage of
the 2003 Iraq War due to the analytical nature of the show. The show, however, did
contain guests with international ties. The host also referred to reports from embedded
reporters, and the newsbreak present during the show had reports from embedded reporters. This difference from the CNN coverage could account for some of the differences in the negative and positive reactance assertions present in the coverage.
95 Another limitation is that the exploration of conflict reactance as a possible theoretical perspective is informed by textual analysis and built on the foundation of the
content from the journalists and sources. Future research should expand the building of this paradigm to discourse and thematic reactions from the Pentagon, the military personnel on the battlefront, or any other government official source outside of the
television coverage. The analysis of all other additional sources involved in war coverage
other than the 24 cable news networks, the military, and the Pentagon were beyond the
scope of this study. The consistent advancement of this paradigm to explain correlations
or effects of war reporting or lack thereof should be done to enhance the explanatory
power of reactance as a mass communication theory in the field of media and conflict
coverage.
The 2003 Iraq War came as a result of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 (Beck and Downing 2003; Knightley
2004). Journalists and commentators reporting on the 2003 Iraq War may have
experienced some patriotic emotion because of that attack. Even with that emotion,
however, negative thematic reactions were present in the 2003 Iraq War coverage from both CNN and Fox News.
96 CHAPTER NINE: CONCLUSION
Cable news network journalists react differently to restrictions on their freedom to cover a conflict. In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the most prominent thematic reactions were criticisms against the press pool system. Other prominent thematic reactions in both the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War included criticism of the government and military sources that these sources were providing inaccurate information. The conclusion is that Fox News coverage of the war effort was slanted with more positive thematic reactions than negative undertones while CNN’s thematic reactions reflected more negative undertones than positive ones. What was unexpected in this thesis was that
Fox News also had an ongoing negative thematic reaction to the government official sources and its messages about the conduct of the war.
Once again, this study is exploratory. Therefore, it simply advances a new way that media scholars can test coverage of conflicts, in which journalistic independence are curtailed. These exploratory findings demonstrate that the reactance theoretical framework explains how journalists as well as the government react in times of conflicts.
If the government wants to reduce the negative thematic reactions in the coverage of a conflict, it should reevaluate the current operation and set up of the embedded reporter type system so that it is palatable to inquisitions from press investigations and less restrictive to the press mobility.
Perhaps the most important finding in this study was that both negative and positive thematic reactions were present in the slanted coverage of Fox News. Despite the analytical and opinionated nature of The O’Reilly Factor, which has a strong emphasis on
97 pro-conservative political reactance to the war effort, a considerable amount of negative
undertones appeared on Fox News, and on CNN coverage during the same primetime
hour.
Moreover, as mentioned earlier on, Fox News coverage was generally loaded with
more positive undertones than negative ones against the war effort. Despite their pro-war
slant, some negative undertones were still present in the Fox News coverage. At the same
time, a considerable amount of positive undertones appeared in CNN’s coverage of the war, despite the more negative undertones. From this assessment, it can be argued that
Fox News coverage of the 2003 Iraq War was quick to recognize that the U.S. government’s restrictions and management of the war coverage with positive patriotic themes could not be sustained indefinitely and unabated throughout the conflict.
98 REFERENCES
Baroody, Judith Raine. 1998. Media Access and the Military: The Case of the Gulf War.
New York: University Press of American, Inc.
Beck, Sara and Malcolm Downing, Eds. 2003. The Battle for Iraq: BBC News
Correspondents on the War against Saddam. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Brehm, Jack W. 1966. A Theory of Psychological Reactance: Social Psychology, A Series
of Monographs, Treatises, and Texts. New York: Academic Press.
Cambou, Don. 2004. “Frontline Reporting.” History Channel Documentary. United
States: A&E Television Networks.
Carter, Bill. 2003. “A Nation at War: Journalists; News Organizations Remove Some
Reporters from Units.” The New York Times, April 11.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/us/a-nation-at-war-journalists-news-
organizations-remove-some-reporters-from
units.html?scp=18&sq=a+nation+at+war&st=nyt (November 14, 2008).
Chaffin, Joshua, and Aline van Duyn. 2006. “Interview Transcript: Rupert Murdoch and
Roger Ailes.” Financial Times, October 6. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b77af92-
548c-11db-901f-0000779e2340.html (May 29, 2009).
Collins, Scott. 2004. Crazy Like a Fox: The Inside Story of How Fox News Beat CNN.
New York: Penguin Group.
99 Christenson, Sig. 2005. “Truth and Trust: In Iraq War Coverage, They’ve Become
Casualties.” Nieman Reports 59 (Summer): 6-11. Communication & Mass Media
Complete (November 14, 2008).
David Gergen’s Website. 2004. http://www.davidgergen.com/index.php?page=biography
(July 7, 2009).
Department of Defense Media Relations Field Manual
European Multimedia Usability Services. 1999. “Multimedia and the User-Centred
Design Process.” http://www.ucc.ie/hfrg/emmus/wp3doc.htm (May 29, 2009).
Fahmy, Shahira, and Thomas J. Johnson. 2005. “ ‘How We Performed’: Embedded
Journalists’ Attitudes and Perceptions Towards Covering the Iraq War.”
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 82 (Summer): 301-17.
Farhi, Paul. 2003. “Everybody Wins.” American Journalism Review 25 (April): 32-36.
Fialka, John J. 1992. Hotel Warriors: Covering the Gulf War. Washington, D.C.: The
Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Gilboa, Eytan. 2005. “The CNN Effect: The Search for a Communication Theory of
International Relations.” Political Communication 22 (January-March): 27-44.
Gutstadt, Lynn E. 1993. “Taking the Pulse of the CNN Audience: A Case Study of the
Gulf War.” Political Communication 10 (October-December): 389-409.
Hallin, Daniel. 1986. The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Halstuck, Martin, E., and Bill F. Chamberlin. 2006. “The Freedom of Information Act
1966-2006: A Retrospective on the Rise of Privacy Protection Over the Public
100 Interest in Knowing What the Government’s Up To.” Communication Law and
Policy 4 (Autumn): 511-564.
Hayes, Andrew F., and Jason B. Reineke. 2007. “The Effects of Government Censorship
of War-Related News Coverage on Interest in the Censored Coverage: A Test of
Competing Theories.” Mass Communication & Society 4 (Fall): 423-38.
Hendler, Clint. 2009. “What We Didn’t Know Has Hurt Us.” Columbia Journalism
Review 47: (January/February): 28-32.
Kanige, Jeffrey. 2006. “This Date in Deal History: CNN Begins Broadcasting.” The
Deal, May 31 http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2006/05/this_
date_in_deal_history_cnn.php (May 29, 2009).
Knightley, Phillip. 2004. The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero and Myth-
Maker from the Crimea to Iraq. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kuypers, Jim A., and Stephen D. Cooper. 2005. “A Comparative Framing Analysis of
Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War.” Qualitative
Research Reports in Communication 6 (October): 1-10.
Lin, Carolyn A. 2006. “Public Opinion and the Iraq War: The Role of News Perceptions
and Core Values”. Conference Papers – International Communication
Association 2006 Annual Meeting (29p). Communication and Mass Media
Complete (May 29, 2009).
McKee, Alan. 2003. Textual Analysis: A Beginner’s Guide. California: Sage
Publications, LTD.
101 Mathewson, Joe. 2009. “The Long and Strong Tradition of State Protection of Freedom
of the Press.” American Journalism 25 (Winter): 81-112.
Mifflin, Lawrie. 1996. “At the New Fox News Channel, the Buzzword Is Fairness,
Separating News from Bias.” The New York Times October 7
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/07/ business/ at-the-new-fox-news-channel-the-
buzzword-is-fairness-separating-news-from_bias.html?
scp=1&sq=at%20the%20fox%20news%20channel,%20the%20buzzword%20is%
20fairness,%20separating%20news% 20from%20bias&st=cse (May 29, 2009).
Miller, Claude H., Lane, Lindsey T., Deatrick, Leslie M., Young, Alice M., and Kimberly
A. Potts. 2007. “Psychological Reactance and Promotional Health Messages: The
Effects of Controlling Language, Concreteness, and the Restoration of Freedom.”
Human Communication Research 33 (April):
219-240.
Lessne, Greg J., and Elaine M. Notarantonio. 1988. “The Effects of Limits in Retail
Advertisements: A Reactance Theory Perspective.” Psychology & Marketing 5
(Spring): 33-44.
Monroe, Bill. 1991. “How to Cover War: Forget the Pool.” Washington Journalism
Review 13 (June): 6.
Morris, Jonathan S. 2005. “The Fox News Factor.” Press/Politics 10 (Summer): 56-79.
Newhagen, John E. 1994. “The Relationship Between Censorship and the Emotional and
Critical Tone of Television News Coverage of the Persian Gulf War.” Journalism
Quarterly 71 (Spring): 32-42.
102 Noah, Timothy. 2005. “Fox News Admits Bias!” Slate
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx? action=print&id= 2119864 (May 29, 2009).
Pfau., Michael., Haigh, Michel., Gettle, Mitchell., Donnelly, Gregory Scott., Warr, Dana.,
and Elaine Wittenberg. 2004. “Embedding Journalists in Military Combat Units:
Impact on Newspaper Story Frames and Tone.” Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly 81 (Spring): 74-88.
Ricchiardi, Sherry. 2003. “Close to the Action.” American Journalism Review 25 (May):
28-35. Communication & Mass Media Complete (November 14, 2008).
Smith, Jean Edward. 1992. George Bush’s War. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Snow, Nancy. 2004. “Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech, and
Opinion Control since 9/11.” New York, NY: Seven Stories; 1st Edition.
Taipei Times. 2005. “CNN Changed News – For Better or Worse.” 31 May.
Taylor, Philip M. 1993. War and the Media: Propaganda and Persuasion in the Gulf
War. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Taylor, Philip M. 1998. “War and the Media: Propaganda and Persuasion in the Gulf
War.” London, UK: Manchester University Press.
The New York Times. 2003. “Fall of Baghdad.” 10 April.
Todd, Michael. 2007. “A Comparative Analysis of Comments Used in News Coverage of
the Wars in Iraq”. Conference Papers – International Communication Association
2007 Annual Meeting (38p). Communication and Mass Media Complete (May 29,
2009).
Walley, Wayne. 1991. “The Mother of All Ratings Jumps; CNN Has Its Shining
Moment, but Can All Those “New Junkie’ it hooked really translated into
103 growth.” Advertising Age, April 8
http://www.library.ohiou.edu:2256/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?
ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.3364278942657626&bhcp=1 (January 7,
2009).
Weprin, Alex. 2008. “Cable News Ratings: Fox News Stays on Top.” Broadcasting &
Cable, April 28 http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/210239-Cable_News
_Ratings _Fox_News_Stays_On_Top.php (May 31, 2009).
Weprin, Alex. 2008. “CNN Expanding U.S. Newsgathering Presence.” Broadcasting &
Cable, August 12 http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/114995-
CNN_Expanding _U_S_Newsgathering_ Presence.php?q=CNN (May 31, 2009).
Wiener, Robert. 2002. Live from Baghdad: Making Journalism History Behind Enemy
Lines. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Yetiv, Steve A. 1997. The Persian Gulf Crisis. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
104