Drone Strikes and the Targeted Killing Program

A Media & Communications Roadmap to Advocacy and Reform Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 1

Overall Strategy & Campaign Recommendations 2

Top Findings & Recommendations 2

I. Introduction 7

Methodology 7

II. Media Landscape Coverage 9

Event Timeline and Sentiment 9

Quotation Sentiment in the Media 13

Mediums Driving Coverage 15

Outlets 17

Journalists 18

Sources 21

III. Op-Eds, Editorials, and Columns 31

IV. Social Media 35

V. Public Opinion 39

VI. Six Messaging & Strategy Recommendations 43

1. Contest the “War On Terror” arguments 43

2. Design a media accountability campaign 46

3. What we call it matters 48

4. Continue Campaigns that Emphasize Civilian Casualties 50

5. Develop a Nuanced Right/Left Strategy 51

6. Investigate a campaign on Precedent and proliferation 53

Appendix: Coding and Methodology i

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media i Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION The practice of targeted killing by drone is expanding with minimal congressional oversight, and under a questionable legal framework. At the same time, the number of innocent casualties has steadily increased and a growing body of evidence suggests that the public reporting of these casualties has been grossly inaccurate. There has been minimal public discussion of concerns that the targeted killing program is actually working against U.S. security by fostering standard for the unaccountable global use of targeted killing? In a world where most industrial- ized nations are projected to have armed drones within 10 years, these are all critical policy issues. The goal of this media and public opinion audit is to inform the development of media and messaging strategies amongst organizations working to restrain the U.S. targeted killing program, bring it under greater congressional oversight, increase transparency, and establish clearer legal guidelines. It is also meant to inform current and potential funders who support This comprehensive benchmark media audit examines domestic media coverage of the U.S. targeted killing program across 13,710 quotations from more than 2,100 print, wire service, and broadcast stories and transcripts, and 529 editorial and opinion pieces over a 14 month period from January 2013 to March 1 2014. It excludes discussions of the domestic use of drones for surveillance, law enforcement, border patrols, etc. The audit additionally examines public opinion and social media trends (including more than 9 million tweets) over the same time. The abbreviation “NSHR” refers to organizations associated with the Open Society Foun- dation’s National Security and Human Rights campaign. The abbreviation “SRC” refers to the organizations associated with the Proteus Fund’s Security and Rights Collaborative. The terms are often used interchangeably due to both the overlap between the two and internal coding on the part of ReThink Media. Quotations were coded as “positive” if they advocate for more restraint, transparency, and accountability in the targeted killing program—essentially, “anti-drone.” Quotations were coded as “negative” if they oppose disclosures about the targeted killing program, advocate for the increased use of drones, or unreservedly defend the program—essentially, “pro-drone.” Quota- balanced argument. A complete description of the methodology is included in the appendix. suggest seven campaigns or strategies for future advocacy work on the targeted killing program, summarized in this Executive Summary and elaborated in Section VI. We then summa-

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 1 of 55 OVERALL STRATEGY & CAMPAIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Contest the “War on Terror” Arguments. Contest the largely uncontested assertion that the targeted killing program is successfully winning the “war on terror.” Speakers with national - jor validators on this issue such as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. Stanley McChrystal should be cited. This does not require organizations to oppose all drone strikes, but rather to acknowledge that there are many unresolved questions as to their consequence. Fail- making other policy arguments less persuasive in the process. 2. Design a Media Accountability Campaign. Consider a media accountability campaign de- - tions of the targeted killing policy and reduce the use of unnamed (and therefore unaccount- 3. What We Call It Matters. Research public responses to varying terms associated with the issue such as drone strikes, targeted killing, etc. and explore public responsiveness to related arguments surrounding precedent and proliferation. 4. Continue Campaigns that Emphasize Civilian Casualties. Continue to drive campaigns that force greater discussion of civilian casualties (e.g.: the UN resolution obliging governments to investigate civilian casualties; more involved media tours, emphasizing victims’ stories and aimed at accessing local/regional media markets; legislation requiring the casualties be ac- of the debate. 5. Develop a Nuanced Right/Left Strategy. campaign alliance or separate Right/Left campaigns with language and tactics explicitly devel- audiences but united by core policy demands re: checks and balances, transparency, and legal constraints on unchecked executive power. Exploit opportunities provided by the upcoming presidential election and the current midterm elections to drive message targeting these distinct populations. 6. Investigate a Campaign on Precedent and Proliferation. Increase public attention to the major unanswered questions surrounding precedent and proliferation. Create a new coalition rights with those principally concerned with matters of arms control and nonproliferation to jointly press for greater scrutiny of the drone strike program overall. More content should be generated raising outstanding questions. These can be opportunistically driven by current events. For example, what would Americans have thought if Russia had deployed drones in the Crimea or if China was deploying them in territorial disputes in the South China Sea?

TOP FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Media Landscape Findings • Overall, coverage of drones and targeted killing leans solidly in favor of greater checks and balances and disclosure. If media coverage at the beginning of 2014, which was driven by the ini- then positive and negative coverage drops to parity.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 2 of 55 • The President’s National Defense University speech in May 2013 represented a missed opportunity to frame coverage, and the White House successfully drove a message ahead of the speech that undercut NSHR policy objectives. • Coverage surrounding particular varying drone strikes was frequently driven by unchallenged • Coverage of the joint Amnesty and Human Rights Watch reports on civilian casualties however, was overwhelmingly positive. • Print and wire services are the main drivers of news on targeted killing. The wire services are Americans. • Among the top 50 reporters covering the issue, 42% source NSHR spokespeople. However, this pattern is clustered around the top reporters who write the largest number of articles, whereas other reporters who are covering the issues less routinely, but still among the top 50, are much less likely to source NSHR spokespeople. • NSHR organizations are the ninth most cited source, representing 2.8% of all quotations, but jump to 5% in the latter half of the year. • our broader policy objectives. • Media quotations from Senate sources are largely positive and are uniquely bipartisan. No other media analysis that ReThink has conducted shows the same measure of positive statements from both Republicans and Democrats. • Congressional response has focused more on their own prerogatives and issues of congressional oversight, and far less on public transparency and oversight, on whether the policy is a casualties. • debate and their impact is overwhelmingly negative. Unnamed citizens, cited primarily in countries where drone strikes have occurred, are the most positive of unnamed sources. • primarily to the news values of drama and controversy. The initial white paper story and Presi- dent Obama’s National Defense University speech were lesser stories for TV outlets. The joint Amnesty and Human Rights Watch reports became a TV story when the White House disputed Recommendations 1. Execute media strategies to frame coverage in advance of major new stories such as Presiden- tial speeches. Letting those advocating targeted killing set the narrative will set the tone for entire news cycles. 2. Prepare more for rapid response surrounding uncontrollable events like the leaked white paper. Streamline the legal-to-communications pipeline. 3. Develop a strategy to proactively and consistently engage with conservative/libertarian media outlets addressing this issue. 4. Plan more media work explicitly designed to drive our messages (e.g. Amnesty and Human

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 3 of 55 Rights Watch report). 5. Focus on relationship-building with the top print and wire service outlets and reporters identi- 6. 7. Position top NSHR and SRC spokespeople to broadcast outlets as credible sources on the topic of targeted killing. Promote a list of additional outside credential experts who can address Commentary, Editorial, and Opinion Findings • NSHR positions are unequivocally winning the debate on targeted killing as far as op-eds, editorials, and commentary are concerned. Editorials, columnists and op-eds supported our positions across every major news cycle. • Editorial Boards in particular have weighed in strongly in favor of NSHR positions. It is unusual for editorial commentary to outpace op-ed commentary. • There is very strong support from the nation’s columnists. • NSHR organizations are comparatively under-represented in op-eds despite the fact that editorial boards appear to lean heavily in favor of greater checks and balances in the targeted killing program. • - such as the AUMF. Recommendations 1. Generate substantially more op-ed content. 2. - policy issues. 3. 4. Use the substantial public interest in domestic drones (surveillance, policing, border control) to bootstrap content addressing targeted killing. News stories focused on domestic drone use can be used to draw parallels to international drone use and make arguments more accessible for readers. Social Media Findings • Digital and visual content are critical drivers of social media engagement on this issue. • The social media conversation on drones is larger, more culturally driven, and inclusive of all of the associated policy and technology issues, especially matters of surveillance. • #hashtags. This cacophony makes it harder for advocates to have a strong impact in the social media conversation. • Some of the digital communications that most successfully drove top messages did not origi- nate with NSHR organizations. The failure to capitalize on this original content represented a missed opportunity.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 4 of 55 • related issues from targeted killing to domestic surveillance. Recommendations 1. potential for driving a stronger online echo chamber. 2. Capitalize on content generated externally, rather than solely using internally generated content. 3. Pursue agreement among major organizations to use shared Twitter hash tags surrounding major news hooks. 4. Make greater use of visuals, data visualizations and video, in the roll out of reports and other content, especially through Twitter. 5. Public Opinion Findings • Americans are hearing more about drones. The percentage of Americans who have heard “a Democrats reported following news about drones very or somewhat closely. • Public approval for the targeted killing of terrorists abroad remains high. Overall, public approval for using drones to kill terrorists in foreign countries has stayed above 50% since Febru- ary 2012. • for using drones drops about 10%. • Who is using drones matters. Fairleigh Dickinson conducted an experiment in February 2013 and found there a 10% drop in approval when the attacks are described as having been carried out by the U.S. military (75%) versus the CIA (65%). • Civilian casualties are a powerful sticking point for the American public. In February 2013, a Pew poll found that 81% were concerned (51% very) that drone attacks would endanger the lives of innocent civilians. Comparatively, in the same poll 65% said they were worried drone attacks could lead to retaliation from extremist groups, and 57% were concerned drones could damage America’s reputation around the world. • Concerns about the domestic drone use may spill over into targeted killing opinion. In February 2013, Reason-Rupe asked, “if your local police department is using drones, how much do you worry that they might invade your privacy?” They found that 60% were concerned (40% a lot), compared with 39% who were not concerned. • There has been minimal research examining public opinion in relation to the issues of precedent and proliferation and it is unclear how greater coverage of those issues would impact public perceptions of the targeted killing program. Recommendations 1. Pursue additional public opinion research exploring attitudes toward civilian casualties, legal precedence, international precedence, and unchecked proliferation. 2. - cess. It may also invoke “killing,” “death,” and “murder” more than other more sanitized termi-

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 5 of 55 nology. Research should examine the impact of terminology on public perception of the issues, such as the current “drone strikes” and “targeted killing,” as well as possible other language such as “remote assassinations” or “pilotless bombing.” Messaging and Framing Findings • questions of Presidential authority and of checks and balances); Transparency and Account- as questions regarding whether the targeted killing program is actually killing innocent civilians, whether it is producing “blowback,” etc.). • When the debate on a particular news story or development is framed in a War on Terror context—which is to say, solely focused on whether we are “winning” the war on terror, or how and media stories grounded in those message themes consistently tilt positively. • The Administration consistently frames the issues in a manner that represents their policies as highly successful at killing terror suspects exclusively and devastating their infrastructure. Only secondarily do they address unresolved issues of legality or congressional oversight. • - ence, largely framing the targeted killing program as successful. • Assertions by both named and unnamed sources within the War on Terror frame go largely unchallenged, arguably ceding a critical debate. NSHR groups do not reference or promote critical voices on this message theme and those perspectives are rarely heard. • The issues of civilian casualties and “blowback” were almost wholly unaddressed by the White - ministration moved to acknowledging casualties, but marginalizing them. Pressing these issues produced a defensive response from the White House, which expanded coverage of the Am- nesty and Human Rights Watch reports. • There are strong Democratic and Republican voices opposing restrictions on executive power and supporting a secretive targeted killing program. There are also strong Democratic and Republican voices arguing for stronger checks and balances. Unlike almost any other issue, there is a striking balance of political engagement across political parties, with challenges to the status quo coming from the wings of each major party and defenders of the status quo repre- • There is almost no meaningful coverage of the major policy issues surrounding proliferation, international control, and precedent with regard to the targeted killing program. • The language adopted by the White House, “targeted killing,” has largely been adopted by the media and opponents of the program. The term is now most consistently used by opponents relative to “drone strikes.”

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 6 of 55 I. Introduction This 2013-14 media and public opinion audit was conducted by ReThink Media with the support of the Security and Rights Fund and the National Security and Human Rights Campaign. This analysis is focused primarily on what has come to be referred to as the “targeted killing” program with attention paid to coverage and opinion on drones more broadly as relevant. Throughout the document, “we” refers to organizations working to curb targeted killing, establish clear legal guidelines and oversight for the practice; questioning the domestic and international laws governing the use of drone technology; or encouraging a public examination and - - ReThink Media’s unique approach to audits of this depth and breadth allows us to: 1. Understand the media landscape we are working in as a sector, and to identify where we are 2. Identify clear strategic gaps and opportunities in both traditional and social media relative to the opposition; 3. Establish a benchmark to inform strategic decisions among funders and key organizations about the type of resources, training, and support needed to measurably close those gaps; 4. Work directly with organizations and allies to inform and coordinate strategy, develop shared messages and media resources, and to implement a coordinated media outreach strategy; 5. In addition, ReThink’s ongoing curating of press, opinion and social media coverage on this topic provides continuous data about media trends and individual reporters before and after adapt as necessary.

METHODOLOGY This report assesses the landscape of media coverage using a news intelligence service and customized media monitoring portal that extracts relevant articles and transcripts from previ- quote level. We also use a sophisticated set of social media monitoring and analytics tools that and to measure the impact of our online strategies both at the sector and individual organizational level.

Sentiment: positive, negative, neutral Data regarding traditional media is coded with positive and negative sentiment, where appli- cable. “Positive” and “negative” are sentiments relative to our larger community’s position on For example, a quotation such as, “the Obama administration deserved an ‘A-plus’ for its drone

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 7 of 55 program” (Lindsey Graham, AP, March 5, 2013) would be coded as negative. Quotations are the targeted killing program—essentially, “anti-drone.” Quotations are coded as “negative” if they oppose disclosures about the targeted killing program, advocate for the increased use of drones, or defend the program—essentially, “pro-drone.” Quotations are considered neutral if For example, quotations calling for better reporting of civilian casualties of drone attacks, expressing concern about drones’ role in a state of perpetual war, or asking how targeted killing that targets of drones present an imminent threat to the U.S. would be coded as “negative.” Quotations reporting the occurrence of a drone strike, presenting both sides of an argument over “blowback,” or discussing the current structures of legal power over the drones program would be coded as “neutral.” Throughout this document, we use positive and anti-targeted killing interchangeably; and negative and pro-targeted killing interchangeably.

Source Types Sources are named and categorized into “types” based on how they are perceived by the pub- The search terms and sentiment coding was informed by direct feedback from advocacy organizations. The messages and sub-messages forming the foundation of this database, along with the sentiment coding, allow us to drill down further into any of these areas or create new ones as other issues or campaigns emerge. For example, the data set would allow us to do an in depth audit exclusively focused on the top reporters, messages and most quoted sources on the issues of transparency and accountability surrounding the targeted killing program.

Data Set This comprehensive benchmark media audit examines domestic media coverage of the U.S. targeted killing program across 13,710 quotations from more than 2,100 print, wire service, and broadcast stories and transcripts over a 14 month period from January 2013 to March 1, 2014. The data set also includes over 500 (529) opinion and editorial pieces from the leading national and Hill outlets, and from the top 2–5 highest circulation outlets in each state. The audit additionally examines social media trends (including more than 9 million tweets) over the same time, and all public available opinion polls related to drones and the targeted killing program dating from February 2012 onward. Though we track media coverage of a broader set of issues related to drones, for the purposes of this audit we have excluded discussions of the domestic use of drones for surveillance, law enforcement, border patrols, etc. For the complete methodology, coding instructions, advocacy groups tracked, and outlets and publications monitored, please refer the appendix.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 8 of 55 II. Media Landscape Coverage

EVENT TIMELINE AND SENTIMENT In this section we will cover the major events that drove the four top peaks of coverage over the period of this audit, including the messages and sentiment patterns manifested in relation- the targeted killing program.

NBC Memo Leak (February 4, 2013) 200 print and wire articles containing 1,500 quotations between February 4 and the beginning U.S. citizens (such as Anwar al-Awlaki) abroad if they posed an “imminent” threat to the country. program (up to this point an open secret), we see the most mixed coverage of all of the peaks: the program or the civilian toll represent the lowest share.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 9 of 55 The self- described ‘most trans- parent administration in history’ owes more of an explanation to the American people on The memos also led to a great many quotes on both sides regarding the why they can be hypocrisy of the administration’s secrecy and lack of transparency. Notably, targeted for execu- both quotations focused on hypocrisy and those supporting the program tion abroad than and presidential prerogative come from across the political spectrum. From legal ﬂuf packaged the political right, quotes focused on hypocrisy argue that the Obama ad- for and deliberately ministration has belatedly come to embrace Bush era approaches that he leaked to the media. previously critiqued, and support him for doing so. Quotes from the political —Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), left similarly argue that Obama has embraced Bush era approaches, but de- The Hill, 2/7/13 nounce him for doing so. Other quotes from both the political right and left challenge the administration’s excessive concentration of executive power Sampling of related quotes:

“The memo threatened constitu- - tional rights and dangerously ex- parent administration in history’ - tutes an imminent attack.”—Un- named Expert/Analyst, Plain Dealer, 2/6/13 transparency. He promised over- media.”—Sen. John Cornyn (R- “The parallels to the Bush admin- TX), The Hill, 2/7/13 istration torture memos are chill- given us. ing…[To deliver on his promises “But this is a standardless deter- memo in the sense that there’s .”— Vincent Warren, Center for . And . It’s not—as a legal docu- Constitution Rights, Washing- ment.”—Kirsten Powers, Media/ ton Post, 2/6/13, Karen DeY- Journalist, Fox News Special oung Report with Bret Baier, 2/8/13 “I have to say as an American analysis. “All right. . And this document gives the president the suggests that it’s no real meaning- the right to remain silent anything .”—Sen. Mike executioner.. It Lee (R-UT), Fox News: Hannity, doesn’t meet the moral or Consti- 2/7/13 kill you. .”—Ed Schultz, MSNBC: The Ed Show, Feb 8, 2013 (source media/ never get to decide someone’s drones to kill American citizens. journalist) Let’s take a look.”—Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, Hannity, 2/7/13 ahead and kill him.”—Rand Paul, Washington Times, 2/11/13 Benjamin Wolfgang

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 10 of 55 Rand Paul’s Filibuster (March 6, 2013) On March 6, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul took up the issue of the targeting of U.S. Citizens and thrust of Senator Paul’s speech succeeded in drawing sharp attention to the question of unchecked Presidential power and the need for increased transparency. members of Congress took up a cry for transparency and accountability. As the chart indicates, quotes regarding the legality of the program and the degree of presidential power represented far outpaced other aspects of the issues, followed by quotes regarding transparency and accountability as a prerequisite for addressing the unresolved legal questions. Sampling of related quotes:

the enemy. general saying that they do not . Rand Paul, Washington Times, . . 3/7/13, Stephen Dinan - strike program does kill noncom- - . They may argue that Are we so they’re conspiring or may some- . afraid of . terrorism, are the same standard you’re going . I’m really not so interested we so afraid in putting her on a drone kill list of terrorists that either.- .”—Sen. Rand Paul, CNN: . we’re willing to just Erin Burnett OutFront, 3/7/13 throw out our rights - and freedom? —Rand Paul, Washington Sen. Rand Times, 3/7/13, Stephen Dinan Paul, Fox News: Special Report with Brett BaIer, 3/6/13

President Obama’s speech at the National Defense University (May 23, 2013) On May 23, President Obama delivered a speech at the National Defense University (NDU) that was the only major spike in media attention over the period of the audit where negative, pro- drone, quotations overtook positive ones. We will address this further below. The President’s NDU speech was framed to focus foremost on the successes of his administration’s prosecution of the “war on terror.” To this end he covered the four major pro-drone, pro- “targeted killing” arguments that we see throughout coverage. First, that drones are a highly precise tool in our counter-terrorism toolkit: “Drone strikes have killed ‘dozens of highly skilled al-Qaida commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives.’” Second, that terrorists still pose an imminent threat to Americans: “Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 11 of 55 Drone strikes have killed ‘dozens of highly skilled al-Qaida commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives. Plots have been international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops disrupted that would in Afghanistan.” Third, “simply put, these strikes have saved lives”—including have targeted inter- keeping our troops out of harm’s way. And fourth, that the Administration national aviation, U.S. painstakingly vets the kill list and does everything in its power to prevent transit systems, Euro- civilian casualties. pean cities and our Accordingly, he emphasized successes in attacking al-Qaeda and his ad- troops in Afghani- ministrations’ resolve, while downplaying legal concerns. While he pledged stan. Simply put, greater accountability and transparency, those were tertiary topics. Consid- these strikes have erations of whether the program produces “blowback” were largely unad- saved lives.’ dressed. Civilian casualties were acknowledged but represented as unavoid- —Barack Obama, Chicago Tribune, 5/25/13 ensure U.S. security. He positioned “targeted” killing as one of the centerpieces of his national defense strategy, a “new technology for new wars” approach, as the following quotes illustrate. Sampling of related quotes:

“America does not take strikes - - continuing and imminent threat and operatives. - - there are no other governments .S. President Obama, AP, 5/25/13, the threat.”—President Obama, Julie Pace . Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/13 - saved lives.’”—President Obama, Chicago Tribune, 5/25/13 .”— President Obama, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/13

Release of Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch Reports (October 2013) Compared with the three big stories of the spring, coverage of targeted killing during the rest of 2013 and early 2014 was relatively modest. In August, reports of drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan generated a small rise in coverage; in late October, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International coordinated their releases of two reports on civilian casualties in drone attacks; on November 2, U.S. drones were reported to have killed Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban; and in late November the American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Dunford, telephoned Afghan President Hamid Karzai to apologize for the civilian death caused by a rare drone attack that took place in his country. On December 11, U.S. drones mistakenly targeted a convoy on its way to a wedding in Yemen, and further revelations about this incident continued to be reported from December to Febru- United States should use drones to target a suspected terrorist in Pakistan who was a U.S.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 12 of 55 citizen. This debate bore echoes of the major stories a year earlier, but nowhere near the same volume of coverage. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports, examining in detail suspected drone strikes in Pakistan and questioning the Administration’s reporting of civilian casualties and other aspects of the targeted killing program.

“In separate reports released on examined in detail nine suspected - drone strikes in Pakistan. Hu- man Rights Watch looked at six - . The groups reached a similar conclu- .”—Jim Sciutto, CNN The Situation Room 10/22/13 United States may have violated - - .”—The New York Times, 10/24/13 .”—Ben Emmerson, Houston Chronicle, 10/19/13 We are extremely - concerned national researcher, Mustafa Qadri’s direct and public challenge to the that these administration on the CNN Situation Room station, “We are extremely and other killings concerned that these and other killings documented in [their] our report documented in may constitute extrajudicial executions or war crimes.” This direct challenge [their] our report may (a key news value) prompted a public response from the administration that constitute extrajudicial executions or White House Press Secretary, was widely quoted on October 23 as saying, war crimes. “To the extent these reports claim that the US has acted contrary to interna- —Mustafa Qadri, CNN: the tional law, we would strongly disagree…US counterterrorism operations are Situation Room, 10/22/13 U.S. values and policy.”

QUOTATION SENTIMENT IN THE MEDIA As we can see from the chart below, and as we would expect from largely event-driven coverage, the majority of quotations in news coverage represent neutral reporting. Amongst quotations expressing a point of view (i.e., not neutral), targeted killing coverage has been more positive than negative—that is, there have been more anti-drone quotations than pro-drone overall. However, as we can see from the chart above, and as described in the previous section, media attention on the targeted killing program had two distinct periods over the audit period: Janu- ary–May 2013 and June 2013–February 2014. Each of these bears a separate examination.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 13 of 55 most foreign policy stories, each of these peaks was characterized by a majority of neutral coverage: quotations tended to be factual accounts of events or debates, rather than arguments and messages. - cal of the targeted killing program outweighed those supporting the program, often by a wide margin. In the weeks leading up to President Obama’s speech at the National Defense Universi- ty however, these positive quotations dropped out of the media. In the coverage of the speech, suspected terrorists and enemy combatants remained more plentiful than those criticizing the program or promoting more transparency and accountability. Following the enormous spikes in the spring of 2013, negative and positive quotations bumped along together, neither one fully overtaking the other. the year, few of the targeted killing stories driving coverage after May 2013 were characterized by large amounts of neutral reporting. In the period shown above (June 2013–February 2014), anti-drone quotations represent 29.5% and pro-drone 24.1% of the media coverage. In fact, only during two driving events (the Amnes- ty International/Human Rights Watch report releases and reports of civilian deaths in Afghani- stan) do positive quotations outstrip negative.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 14 of 55 There was also a sharp drop in volume of coverage. Some of this drop can be attributed to national security reporters moving onto massive stories like the Snowden leaks, however absent other major drone events, the overall trend was that coverage died down dramatically leaving the sector at best breaking even in the day-today reporting in terms of sentiment. Barring another major anti-drone story to drive positive sentiment, we do not have a discernable advantage except when the story is one that we are generating from within our community. It will, therefore, be critical to continue to drive anti-drone stories and coverage in order to put additional pressure on the administration and convince the public.

MEDIUMS DRIVING COVERAGE As the chart below illustrates, in the case of each major story on targeted killing, most of the coverage was in print media, usually followed by the wire services (Reuters, AP, Bloomberg). Television, noted by the black dotted lines, more so than any other medium, is driven by what

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 15 of 55 others. In addition, television news, as compared to commentary, is commonly built on visuals. Few national security stories are visually compelling—particularly those concerning a covert program like targeted killing. So it makes sense that a scandal like a leaked memo, the drama capture the attention of television whereas other drones stories have not. As the charts below illustrate, quotations questioning targeted killing outweigh those supporting the practice across all three mediums we tracked. During the major stories of February, March, and May, TV contained the highest ratio (17% versus 6%) largely on the basis of the Coverage overall was higher during the Spring 2013 months, as discussed above, but the - ruary 2014. Following the big Spring stories on targeted killing, television seg- ments dropped below wire articles in number, and the proportion of quotations challenging the targeted killing program in TV dropped (to 24–10%). The wire services, which now occupied the number two spot in mediums covering drones, contained a higher proportion of quotations challenging targeted killing (34–8%). Unfortu- nately, the top medium—print— dropped to an almost 1:1 ratio on this issue (27–25%).

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 16 of 55 When a medium does cover the targeted killing program, coverage tends to be better for our side than not. But barring major—and largely unforeseeable—events such as a leaked docu- Meanwhile, coverage in print media, apart from major anti-drone stories, is closely divided between pro- and anti-drone arguments. As we saw above, while the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports garnered one of the biggest positive-versus-negative advantages, the reports did not achieve nearly the

OUTLETS

The most - ing targeted killing in the last year were wire services and print outlets. This is particularly important to underscore because fewer local or regional outlets have reporters covering these national and international stories, opting instead to pick up reports from the wire services. The wire services are also the dominant players in the countries where drone strikes occur. Accordingly, the wire services’ share of this type of news reporting is steadily growing. This means that advocates must make cultivating relationships with wire reporters a top priority. As we show in the outlet time series chart above, television jumps on stories with compelling “news values” creating those tent-pole stories on the timeline—but drops away to almost nothing between those peaks. As a result, the TV outlet with the most pieces on targeted killing (“CNN: The Situation Room”) has fewer than a quarter

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 17 of 55 of the pieces of the top wire service (Reuters) and about a third of the pieces of the top print outlet (The New York Times). The top four print outlets and wire services remained consistent throughout the audit period: Reuters, the Associ- ated Press, The New York Times, and The Washing- ton Post published a col- lective 47% of the printed articles on targeted killing. Notably, with their greater international reach, Reuters was the top wire service, with their global reporting consistently reaching domestic U.S. audiences. The Los Angeles Times also remained in the top six throughout legacy papers and wire services devote to foreign policy issues in general, compared with other outlets. Some of the other outlets in the top ten, however, varied considerably in part, based upon their target audiences: CQ occupied the three major Hill-related stories—but dropped down to ninth after May 2013. The Houston Chronicle didn’t crack the top ten covering the early targeted killing stories, but jumped to the seventh spot between June 2013 and February 2014. and the Wall Street Journal. The dominance of the wires will continue and those reporters should be top targets for outreach.

JOURNALISTS who have written more than 10 articles since January 2013). The charts read from top to bot- that it is important to know on this issue, it provides a good baseline as the list draws from nearly every major national outlet. Of course, many wire service articles are published with no byline.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 18 of 55 Which of these top journalists quote our groups? Of those reporters covering the topic, comparatively few quote the spokespeople or statements of National Security and Human Rights campaign groups. The chart above shows an overlay of blue bars that represent the number of quotations from NSHR groups each reporter included in his or her stories on targeted killing in the audit period. Scott Shane of the New York Times is the most likely to quote NSHR groups, with 20 NSHR quotes out of 161 total quotes in his stories (12%); Anna Mulrine the Washington reporter for the Christian Science Monitor used 13 of 106 (12%); and Sebastian Abbot of the Associated Press used 16 of 85 (18%).

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 19 of 55 In total, 42% of the top 50 journalists quoted spokespeople from the NSHR sector over the audit period with many of that 42% being some of the most consistent reporters on the subject. This highlights the good work the sector has done to establish strong working relationships with national security reporters, but it also indicates, particularly in a relatively new issue area, that there is some critical work required. Many within the remaining 58% are key reporters at wire outlets, some reporting from targeted killing countries, who are generating much of the day-today coverage that we’re now breaking even on.

What do these journalists write about? There is considerable variation in focus among the top 50 journalists writing about targeted killing. For present purposes, we have grouped the topics that journalists cover into four subjects: 1. the “war on terror”—which focuses on reporting surrounding 2. whether it is producing “blowback, etc.”; 3. - geted killing program, the administration’s resistance to greater trans- 4. “legality”—which examines questions as to whether drone strikes are legal under the laws of war as well as whether the President has the legal authority to order them unilaterally. While most reporters include a relatively large number of quotations related to factual reporting on the “war on terror” and the use of the “targeted killing” program as a counter-terrorism strategy (which includes reports on the event of a drone strike occurring), some of the - ing Scott Shane of the NYT, Mark Hosenball of Reuters, and Michael Hirsch of The National Journal. Even more startling is the high variation across the remaining three themes. Some journalists are most interested in the debate around civilian casualties and blowback including Tim Craig

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 20 of 55 of the Washington Post, Ahmed Al-haj of the AP, David Zucchino of the LA Times, and Sebastian Abbot (formerly the AP bureau chief in Pakistan). Others are much more devoted to questions of transparency and accountability including Tim Starks of Roll Call, Scott Shane of the NYT, Mark Hosenball of Reuters and Kimberly Dozier (formerly at AP and now writing for the Daily Beast). Fewer journalists quote extensively on legality issues involved in targeted killing—not journalist by a factor of almost two-to-one, across the period of our audit has the most balanced distribution of quotations. Comparing the thematic distribution across journalists with the thematic distribution across outlets is striking: with few exceptions, distribution looks almost identical amongst the top

issues—a gap we will see again when examining what aspects of the program that members of Congress choose to address. The conclusion we draw from these two data points is that large outlets are deploying multiple journalists to cover various aspects of the targeted killing program. The implication? When pitching a story about an aspect of the targeted killing program it is critical to identify the correct reporter covering that nuance and develop relationships accordingly.

SOURCES As we would expect from a national security-related, event- and wire coverage are members of government and military government, military, and foreign government or military). In the case of coverage of the targeted killing program, with the exception of Senators, their quotations tend to be either

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 21 of 55 neutral or defending the targeted killing program (coded negative). Quotes from spokespeople and press releases from NSHR organizations are ninth and represent a comparatively small 2.8% of the quotations in print and wire outlets across the entire au-

dit period. However, during the period following the initial spikes—that is, between June 2013 and Febru- ary 2014—NSHR quotations represented about 5% of those in print and wire coverage, which is on a par with other issue areas in which NSHR organizations are active. The implication is that earlier spikes in coverage led to a surge in commentary from other sources diluting the voice share of NSHR groups. large proportion of these quotations are from Sen. Rand Paul and the push for more transparency and checking Presidential power that contrast, are about evenly split between positive and negative. We will discuss potential allies and opponents in Congress later in this section. because many quotations are either defending the targeted killing program—“These strikes are legal. They are ethical, and they are wise” (Jay Carney, February 6, 2013, Washington Times)—or describing the “surgical precision” of the targeted program—“the ability, with laser-like focus, to eliminate the cancerous tumor called an al-Qaeda terrorist while limiting the damage to the tissue around it” (John Brennan, January 10, 2013, New York Daily News). As we would expect in coverage of foreign policy issues Barack Obama, John Bren-

Given the lack of transparency around the program, it is not surprising to see that when you

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 22 of 55 It is legal for the government to kill U.S. citizens abroad if it believes they are senior al- Qaida leaders continually engaged in operations aimed at killing Americans, is, by far, the most frequently-quoted unnamed source with 856 quotations even if there is no - evidence of a speciﬁc named Expert/Analyst” (134), “Unnamed Citizen” (87 quotes), “Unnamed imminent attack. —UFO, AP, 2/7/13, “Unnamed Source” (63). Kimberly Dozier - ticular, play a prominent role in selling the Administration’s position, which many journalists disproportionately source. They were also the most dominant source framing and driving negative, pro-drone coverage in the lead up to the President’s NDU speech. This is problematic on multiple levels. First, those who are supportive of the current targeted remarks. Second, it creates a channel for those involved in targeted killing to selectively leak information that they feel is supportive of their case while excluding information that may not be. Third, it eliminates the possibility that they may be challenged on the veracity of their com- ments. Assertions are stated as facts with no provision for assessing the factual or statistical basis of the assertion. And fourth, and in particular in an overseas context, it is even more dif- people were targeted or that there were limited civilian casualties, for example, those assertions are often repeated in the U.S. press. Taken together, all of the media’s uses of unnamed sources creates the opportunity for highly biased representations of events and reinforces the proposition that the targeted killing program represents unchecked power because the checks on power that would come from relying accountability campaign directed at outlets’ and individual reporters’ over-reliance on unnamed sources in coverage, which we will return to later in our strategy recommendations.

“The condition that an operation- “Thanks to drone missile strikes to kill U.S. and other counter-terrorism the United States does not require leaders continually engaged in the United States to have clear operations aimed at killing Ameri- eviscerated that U.S. intelligence - U.S. .“— stand the organizational structure - UFO, AP, 2/7/13, Kimberly ture.“—UFO, Washington Times, Dozier .“—Unnamed DOD 2/6/13, Shaun Waterman Ken Dilanian

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 23 of 55 . “The revived drone campaign— - signa- sion—is directly related to the ture strike, - .“—UFO, Reuters, New York Times, and toting arms in an area controlled Miami Herald, 5/22/13 .“—UFO, to attack Western targets.“—UFO, Houston Chronicle (no by-line) Washington Post & Chicago and NY Times, 5/23/13, Scott Tribune, 8/7/13, Greg Miller Shane .“—UFO, Chicago Tribune, 2/26/13, Shashank Bengali

Congressional Allies and Opponents Politicians have been largely on our side in the media (positive quotations) and have focused doubts about the domestic legality of the TK program. Politicians’ primary concern has been program disclosure—either neutral statements about to drones, and questioned the legal parameters within which the targeted killing program is conducted. criticism of drones and the targeted killing program during the audit period. Dianne Feinstein was close behind Senator Paul, followed by Ron Wyden, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Dick Durbin. However, as we will see, these senators were active in the press for only a brief period. In contrast to other political issues, U.S. Representatives have been relative-

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 24 of 55 targeted killing Senators and Rep- resentatives were most active in the media around the NBC memo leak and Rand While an unlikely ally, Senator Paul, drew massive media attention not only to the issue of killing-by- drone, but also to the lack of oversight and questionable legality surrounding the program. Although his messaging, largely focused on the need to protect U.S. citizens, didn’t go as far as our sector wanted in terms of protecting non-U.S. citizens as well, - tions. A few senators joined his call for increased transparency and accountability, from both President Obama’s speech in May and have kept mum ever since. This suggests that their primary concerns were about their own prerogatives access to information about targeted killing—not public transparency. It also suggests that messages framed with that interest in mind, of the targeted killing program were more numerous and more frequently quoted than those supporting the program. The most prominent ally apart from Senator Paul was Senator Wyden, who was quoted 150 times during the audit period (129 positively)—mostly questioning the legality of the drone program and This is the calling for more transparency and accountability. most astounding Senators Feinstein and McCain share the dubious honor of being amongst and the most both the top allies and the top opponents, although Feinstein comes down astoundingly dis- on our side about three times as frequently as not (86 versus 29 quota- turbing hearing that tions), while McCain evenly straddles the fence (30 versus 24 quotations). I’ve been to since I’ve Both Senators, as senior members of the Senate, voice more concern over been here. You guys congressional oversight than civilian casualties. have essentially rewritten the Consti- talked about and those contained in our opponents’ quotations. As the tution here today. chart below shows, in contrast to the potential allies, opponents on the Hill —Sen. Angus King, Chicago tend to frequently invoke the War on Terror and issues related to it, wheth- Tribune & LA Times, 51713, er arguing that drones are a necessary tool by emphasizing the threats we Ken Dilanian face in the 21st Century, or that the targets of this program present immi-

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 25 of 55 nent threats to the U.S., or that drones are one adaptation to the new realities of war. While Senator McCain falls on the side of more transparency/accountability for the targeted killing casualties, blowback, morality), nor do they tend to discuss drones in the context of the War on - countability and transparency (at least with regard to reporting to Congress) is not. Although calls for transparency and accountability were the strongest amongst the senators who chose to speak up about targeted killing in a critical way, the kind of transparency they

As the chart below shows, with the exception of Feinstein and Rogers, these senators have been silent on targeted killing since May (some since even earlier), almost certainly because the White House agreed to give the Justice Department permission to share more with both the Senate and House intelligence committees, despite the fact that it still remains opaque to ordinary Americans. The net result is that, although we continue to have allies on The Hill working with us on issues surrounding the targeted killing program behind closed doors, we have lost nearly all momen- tum with those allies speaking publicly, which in turn means we have lost some of the greatest validators on the issue and the public media share we would hope to own.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 26 of 55 Quotes from allied Congressional sources:

“I understand you can’t have . But - and the executioner all in one is . And very contrary to the traditions and .”—Sen. - Angus King, Washington Times, sation.”—Sen. Durbin, Roll Call 2/8/13, Shaun Waterman 2813, Tim Starks and CQ, no by-line .”—Sen. “This is the most astounding and Ron Wyden (D-OR), CNN: The Situation Room, 3/7/13 .- here today.”—Sen. Angus King, carrying out military-like opera- Chicago Tribune & LA Times, .”—Sen. 51713, Ken Dilanian John McCain, The Hill, 52213, Jordy Yager - .C. to ensure that the president’s . There . .”—Sen. - And I think you’re going to see Ted Cruz, Chicago Tribune, .’”—Sen. Ron 3713, Paul West Wyden (D-OR), The NY Times, 3/6/13 CIA drone program that targets .S. program… I have continued to say casualties.”—Sen. Feinstein, AP, 2/8/13, Kimberly Dozier . And - U.S. counterterrorism operations . While .”—Sen. Ron Wyden .”—Sen. (D-OR), CNN: The Situation Udall (D-OR), AP, 5/25/13, Julie Room, 3/7/13 Pace

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 27 of 55 Quotes from opposition Congressional sources:

- then count me in ... - .”—Rep. the single digits’ annually.”—Sen. Mike Rogers (R-MI) CQ 2/4/13 Dianne Feinstein, AJC, 2/8/13, Daniel Malloy “When an individual has joined count me out.”—Sen. Lindsey ...- Graham (R-SC), Washington “The intelligence that is used [in ture attacks against U.S. Times, 3/8/13, Benjamin Wolf- gang and very good.”—Sen. Dianne .S. government has Feinstein, The Hill, 2/10/13, - Carlo Munoz that threat.”—Rep. Mike Rogers program and he rejected an idea (R-MI), The Hill, 2/5/13, Carlo intrusion ... Munoz country’ on the president’s author- court system to regulate drone . We strikes.”—Sen .Lindsay Graham (R-SC), AP, 3/5/13, Richard should not give that enemy any Lardner - immunity. And to me there are tle.. - there are protocols in place. And ness. Who the enemy is composed - sure.”—Sen. Dick Durbin, Wash- decision”—Sen .Lindsay Graham ington Post, 4/24/13, Ernesto (R-SC), The Hill, 2/13/13, Carlo Londono Munoz “The administration’s interpreta- .”—Rep. Peter King, CNN: The Situation Room, 2/7/13 others that aligned themselves exercise patience and discretion. - - cally to prevent collateral dam- against us.’”—Sen. Carl Levin (D- gram has not done that nearly as age’ and that she “would really MI), NYTimes, 5/17/13, Charlie .”—Sen. Dianne Feinstein, have to be convinced that the Savage The Hill, 3/24/13, Carlo Munoz military would carry it out that well.”—Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Washington Post, 5/26/13, Greg Miller

Performance of the NSHR National Security and Human Rights Collaborative organizations and spokespeople are the 7th most quoted source type in targeted killing coverage over the past year, with 2.8% of the quo-

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 28 of 55 tations against the backdrop of overall quotation volume. However, when we examine it more closely, the pattern of our groups’ quotations does not look much like the volume pattern of TK coverage overall. Although there are certainly peaks in the expected places (as the above chart show) the weight coordinated release of the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports on October 22, 2013. The Amnesty report examined civilian casualties in Pakistan caused by drone strikes, while the Human Rights Watch report examined six drone strikes in Yemen (two that involved civilian casualties). The reports were launched in conjunction with one another and included a joint press conference at the National Press Club. The net result was exclusive emphasis on the issue of civilian casualties and the discrepancy between what the government said it was doing to limit that damage and the real damage actually being done on the ground. The blue dashed line shows the percentage of total quotations that NSHR quotes represent over time (right-hand axis), while the green and grey lines show the raw count of NSHR quotes. The NSHR voiceshare spikes along with big stories, but falls to zero between major news hooks. To be clear, there is plenty of media activity on targeted killing in the lulls we see above: for example, in the week of April 12, 2013, there were 197 quotations published on drones, but not a single one was from an NSHR spokesperson. Two weeks later, there were 233 quotes, but only one of those was from the NSHR. As a sector there is still need for improvement in taking greater advantage of both proactive and reactive media opportunities in addition to maintaining and developing relationships (and in return consistent hits) with the reporters covering this issue on a very regular basis. Unpack- - tinct inferences. First, NSHR spokespeople were sought-after experts for commentary regarding the leaked targeting memos. At the same time, however, a more aggressive rapid media response could have driven that quote share higher and made a greater impact on the overall means to drive top messages. This may be because of discomfort with the senator’s broader politics or because of a lack of connections with some of the media sources driving that story.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 29 of 55 clearly did not match the opportunity itself. Fourth, the very strong performance surrounding - coverage regularly occurs around a drone strike. Simple solutions to some of these areas would be to engage in a more coordinated collab- reporters covering this issue. No one organization can accomplish this task on its own and the data suggests that many organizations are already doing an excellent job of engaging some of these reporters, but it just happens to be the same ones. We should develop and circulate that theory every story that gets written on this subject we want the impulse of the reporter to be to contact one or two of our spokespeople. This is especially critical for reporters working on the Thinking about how we improve our media work around major breaking news scenarios like the OLC leaks should also be considered. Why were we not out there earlier? We need to evalu- also need to consider how we could have better framed the landmark NDU speech before the White House public relations machine got in front of us. To be clear this doesn’t discount the successful media work that has been done on the individual and organizational level on this subject over the past 15 months, but there is always room for improvement and given the likely longevity of the relevance of this issue it would be pru- dent to plot out and plan strategies and opportunities for collectively improvement. Our spokespeople have been on-message in terms of quote sentiment in the last year: nearly all quotations are positive, a few are neutral, and none are negative.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 30 of 55 III. Op-Eds, Editorials, and Columns We can say unequivocally that, over the last year, we are winning the debate on drones in the opinion section with more than a 3 to 1 advantage. Across all opinion pieces in the top national, Beltway, and state outlets, 78% are positive and 22% are negative.

Breaking this out into the three types of opinion pieces shown above, editorials, the most abun- dant opinion type, had a 4:1 ratio of positive (anti-drone) to negative (pro-drone) pieces. Fol- lowed by commentary, or columns, with a slightly lower ratio of closer to 3:1, with 137 positive columns to 51 negative. And lastly, Op-Eds with the lowest volume, where the ratio of positive to negative coverage was closer to 3:1, with 42 positive and 12 negative during the audit period.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 31 of 55 The comparatively small amount of op-ed content is striking, especially relative to editorial comment, and is very atypical in our experience. This clearly indicates that editors would be receptive to more expert-generated content submitted around key news hooks. A concerted complete message control, allowing advocates to drive their own messages and the messages of allies and key validators completely rather than attempting to insert them into more con- tested article space.

Like the hard news coverage, opinion content in the media clumped around the same major news stories. Unlike hard news coverage, however, the opinion pieces supporting targeted killing and drones never outweighed those criticizing them during any major story. Commentary Columnists only took up the subject of drones and targeted killing occasionally during the audit period, despite the major news events at play here. (With the exception of Charles Krauthammer however, when they do take up the subject they tend to be on our side). The top two columnists in the chart below—Charles Krauthammer and Eugene Robinson—demonstrate the power and reach of being syndicated, in this case both columnists for The Washington Post. Krauthammer, our top opposition or pro drone columnist wrote 6 pieces in total, but which appeared 32 times as compared to Eugene Robinson, who has written exclusively in a critical way about drones, who wrote 5 pieces which appeared 21 times across the country through syndication. Prominent columnists like Maureen Dowd, David Ignatius, David Brooks, and Nicholas Kristof challenged the targeted killing program and wrote a handful of pieces last year. Few columnists were supportive of the targeted killing program, and only two wrote exclusively neutral or negative pieces addressing drones: Kathleen Parker and Charles Krauthammer (both syndicated columnists for The Washing- ton Post). Krauthammer’s very consistent and consistently negative columns on NSHR issues continue to have disproportionate sway through syndication and there really is not a peer competitor from a progressive viewpoint. As we move into 2014, this appears to be a battle between Robinson and Krauthammer, with

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 32 of 55 promising signs of support amongst a diverse corps of columnists. Major value could be real- ized from cultivating further columnist relationships, followed by far more consistent outreach syndicated columnists in the country favor our advocacy positions, we should be far more dili- gent in capitalizing on that and develop a long-term strategy for personal engagement. One example of this type of powerful commentary in our favor was a piece by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. She wrote a piece entitled “The C.I.A.’s Angry Birds” (April 16, 2013) - ecuting targets around the globe. They were starting to realize that, while the American public approves of remotely killing terrorists, it is a drain on the democratic soul to zap people with no due process and little regard for the loss of innocents.” It is rare to see such a powerful and national security issues. A second example was a piece by the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, One of the who wrote about on a hearing in that didn’t receive the congressional or arguments media attention that he felt it merited. In “A Human Face for Drone Victims” for America’s (October 29, 2013), Milbank discusses the rarely-seen human aftermath of heavy reli- the drone program: “From Washington, the drone-warfare program looks ance on drone strikes… has been a world away. But on Tuesday, this anonymous form of warfare assumed a surgical precision… name and a face: that of 9-year-old Nibila ur Rehman…” His column has a These claims were syndication radius of 200 papers nationwide. always hard to - accept… Now two tively engaged on this issue, largely on our side, without any work done by human rights groups, our sector. In both cases these columns reached enormous audiences all Amnesty Interna- over the country (and world). These are just two of a dozen examples of tional and Human columnists who have contributed this way, unprompted by our community, Rights Watch, have overwhelmingly in our favor over the past year on this issue. marshalled impressive new evidence Editorial Boards challenging them. Editorials, as outlined above, were also overwhelmingly critical of drones —The Deaths of Innocents, and the targeted killing program during the audit period by a factor of four- New York Times Editorial, - 10/23/13 burgh Post-Gazette, which wrote 16 editorials on drones in 2013 (11 positive, three negative, two neutral). solely positive and neutral pieces about drones. Only a few papers around the country tilted in favor of the targeted killing program: The Boston Herald (four negative, one positive, two neutral); The Tampa Bay Times (three negative, two positive, one neutral); The Chicago Tribune (three negative, two positive, one neutral); and The Augusta Chronicle (three negative, one positive, one neutral). Despite the NSHR’s relatively minimal foray into this work—in surveying and working directly with groups, it became clear that over the past year core NSHR groups have distributed less

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 33 of 55 than a half dozen editorial board memos on the issue of drone strikes—the data indicates an opportunity to further engage editors in addressing the major unresolved policy issues. When successfully timed, like the Amnesty editorial board memo ahead of their report release, the results are noticeable: “One of the arguments for America’s heavy reliance on drone strikes against suspected extremists has been surgical precision. The only militants are killed, and that collateral damage to innocent civilians is rare. These claims were always hard to accept, especially given the government’s refusal to provide corroborating date. Now two human rights groups, Amnesty Interna- tional and Human Rights Watch, have marshalled impressive new evidence challenging them.”—The Deaths of Innocents, New York Times editorial, October 23, 2013.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 34 of 55 IV. Social Media Alongside our examination of traditional media coverage and public opinion polling on targeted killing over the last year, ReThink also examined the social media discussion on Twitter using the research tools TopsyPro and Sysomos. While Twitter is not the only social media platform where drones are discussed, it tends to be the most news and event-focused, and it is

Event-Driven Cacophony Broadly speaking, the Twitter conversation about drones resembles traditional media coverage: large spikes around major “tent pole” news stories and much less discussion between attention in the social media sphere than they did amongst professional journalists and major news outlets. In particular, the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports on civilian casualties of drones and U.S. drone strikes against a Taliban leader in Pakistan, both in late October, drove a relatively large spike that peaked at over 300,000 tweets. The spike directly following that—rising above 400K tweets in mid-November—was sparked by Amazon’s announcement that the company will begin using drones for delivery to Prime customers in the near future. But one of the challenges of analyzing the social media conversation on targeted killing is that there are many conversations taking place at once—both about drones in the context of counter-terrorism and about drones in many other contexts, domestic and foreign. It is nearly impossible to separate the conversations from one another, particularly since the word “drone” applies to and is used in all of these conversations. The chart above demonstrates the cacophony of keywords and hashtags relevant to targeted killing that gained enough traction to be included in our analysis.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 35 of 55 No Hashtag Coordination Hashtag consistency and coordination makes it easier for citizens to follow and participate in a conversation. It also gives tweets more impact on policymakers and journalists, as they can be measured as part of a larger conversation. - ing the targeted killing program—neither over the course of this audit, nor during any of the - dence that they tried a few other hashtags before this one got traction. This means that neither our allies nor our opponents—potential or actual—are having a coordinated conversation about drones on social media. This is an opportunity for our community to capitalize on real concerns amongst the American public about targeted killing in order to shape and augment the national conversation. room for a real message in the rest of the tweet, but long enough to have meaning. The term “targeted killing” is already 16 characters long. By contrast, “drone” is 5. Our initial research shows that the hashtag #dronewars is already being used in this conversation, and makes for a great place to start while developing one or two more.

Social media platforms are more democratic than traditional news outlets in the sense that anyone can be deemed a trustworthy source of information or opinion. But some users (or accounts) have considerably more reach than others by virtue of how frequently they talk about a topic, how many people listen to (and repeat) what they say, and what other authority they columnists, and editorial boards on traditional media: they have the biggest microphones. aviation; others discuss unintended deaths from drone strikes; yet others tweet about surveillance and privacy rights. Within the conversation on targeted killing, there are two types of First, journalists covering targeted killing—like journalists in general—are active on Twitter and are often open to conversations on the platform. Nearly all journalists at major outlets these days are on Twitter, and many discuss important issues before they write stories about them. potential social media validators—the equivalent of a general authoring an op-ed urging the our messages to a wider audience, particularly an audience that may not engage with traditional media.

Images and Interactives shared static and interactive graphics. Most often, these are single images, sometimes with text

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 36 of 55 overlaid, sometimes without. Occasionally, “infographics” and other data visualizations gain traction; even more rarely, interactive features become popular. Our audit of the visual elements that gained the most traction in the Twitter conversation about drones suggests that the vast majority of these images depict drones themselves: technological capabilities of unmanned aerial vehicles or government-produced pictures of drones. Amazon advertisements are also popular images connected with drones, as were a couple of parodic images connected with Amazon delivery drones. Very few images of drone strike victims have gained traction, although this may not be the case in non-English-language social media (just as graphic images of victims of violence are more common in non-English traditional media). The one interactive piece that made a major impact in social media is called “Out of Sight, Out of Mind” by Pitch Interactive. Designed to “bring light on the topic of drones” and the “new kind of clandestine military operation” now being conducted by the United States, the piece uses animations and interactive graphics to illustrate data primarily sourced from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ). The Pitch Interactive piece generated 9,000 tweets with a total of 19 million potential impres- The success of this interactive was further demonstrated by the fact that several media outlets picked up the story and wrote follow-on pieces directly commenting on the piece. Given that this issue, and without substantive support, it seems very likely that, had those resources been brought to bear, a far larger impact could have been achieved. This indicates that a strong, col- should explore.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 37 of 55 The next most popular image was a parody image of an Amazon drone delivery slip, which was tweeted 11,000 times for a total of 11 million potential impressions.

Most-Shared Stories Through Topsy, we were also able to track the most frequently shared links during our audit period, even when links are shortened through services like ow.ly. All of the top three shared links were news stories published in the New York Times: • “U.S. Acknowledges Killing 4 Americans in Drone Strikes: Obama, in a Shift, to Limit Targets of Drone Strikes,” by Charlie Savage and Peter Baker. Published May 22, 2013. Tweeted 6,000 times for 48 million potential impressions • “Drone Strikes Are Said to Kill Taliban Chief,” by Declan Walsh, Ihsanullah Tipu Mehsud, and Ismail Khan. Published November 1, 2013. Tweeted 1,000 times for 45 million potential impressions. • “The Drone That Killed My Grandson,” by Nasser al-Awlaki (op-ed). Published July 17, 2013. Tweeted 8,000 times for 29 million potential impressions.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 38 of 55 V. Public Opinion In this section, we examine all of the publicly available opinion polls (15 to-date) that included questions about drones and the U.S. targeted killing program. In addition, we identify several important questions for which we do not have enough (or any) data about public opinion. Publicly-available opinion polls and the news media have a feedback-loop relationship: the topics found in opinion polls are often drawn from the headlines (or anticipated headlines), and - ent from sponsored polls, although the latter may be conducted by the same pollsters and may message-testing instruments; they are usually focused on one topic.

Americans are hearing more about drones. The percentage of Americans who have heard “a lot” about drones increased from 27% in June 2012 to 37% in February 2013, following the Brennan hearings. According to a Gallup poll in reported following news about drones very or somewhat closely. Given the amount of conversation about drones on social media—as demonstrated in the previous section—we expect this level of exposure to continue to rise in coming years. Already, Americans are seeing or hearing about many types of drones in pop culture contexts: photos for archaeological surveying and endangered species protection. Drones are the major foe in both the recent Captain America and Top Gun sequels. Amazon, Google, and other retailers are launching drone delivery programs. With drones increasingly available to consumers, Ameri- cans are forming opinions quickly about a technology that was widely unknown ten years ago.

Public approval for the targeted killing of terror suspects abroad remains high. Overall, public approval for using drones to kill terrorists in foreign countries has stayed above 50% since February 2012. But the size of that majority approval varies substantially: at the high end, the Washington Post/ABC found an 83–11% split in February 2012; Fairleigh Dickinson found 75–13% in February 2013; and Fox News found 74–22% in March 2013; New York Times/ CBS News found 70–20% both in February and April 2013; and Quinnipiac showed 69–24% in December 2013. At the lower end, Pew found a 55–34% split in February 2013; YouGov/Econo- mist found 53–22% (25% not sure) in March 2013, and roughly 53–18% (28% not sure) in May- June 2013. By far the most common question in polls, though there is also a lot of variation in phrasing, is “Do you support drone strikes?” Most pollsters call the targets some variation of “terrorism sus- - ists” (Pew) and “people and other targets deemed a threat to the U.S.” (Fairleigh Dickinson). Drones are mostly called drones, but a few polls have also used terms like “pilotless aircraft” (Pew) or “unmanned aircraft” (Fox News). Pollsters mostly characterize the United States/U.S. as the principal actor, but a few use alternative characterizations: the Economist/YouGov asks whether respondents “approve or disapprove of the Obama Administration using drones,” and Farleigh Dickinson asked both about the U.S. Military and about the CIA using drones.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 39 of 55 Approval drops 10% if U.S. citizens are targets. One of the biggest complicating issues in the public discussion of targeted killing is whether the targets: a credible “imminent threat” to the country). Because this was one of the legal questions included in the leaked Justice Department memo, Senator Paul took it up as a focal point into a few public polls. for using drones drops about 10%. As early as February 2012, a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that just under 80% of those who approved of using drones against suspected terrorists abroad approved of them when the suspected terrorists were American citizens. In February 2013, most said it was unconstitutional for the president to “order the killing of Ameri- can citizens who are suspected of being terrorists” by 57–31% (Reason-Rupe). According to the February 2013 Farleigh Dickinson poll, almost half of Americans thought it was illegal to target citizens with drones (48–24%), although 28% were unsure. March 2013 polls from the Economist/YouGov showed a drop in approval of drone attacks (on U.S. citizen versus foreign targets) from 53% to 42%; and from Fox News, 74% to 60%. In May and June, the Economist/YouGov polls had similar results: three-quarters of those who said they approve of using drones to kill terrorist suspects overseas still approved “even if those suspects are American citizens”—lowering overall support from a bare majority (55%) to 41%.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 40 of 55 about using drones against American citizens on American soil. Not surprisingly, most respon- - mist/YouGov poll; 50-45% disapproved in the Fox poll.

Who is using drones matters. There is some indication that who is overseeing or carrying out the attacks matters. Fairleigh Dickinson conducted an experiment in February 2013 and found there a 10% drop in approval when the attacks are described as having been carried out by the U.S. military (75%) versus the killing away from the CIA and to the Pentagon with the aim of increasing transparency. In May/June 2013, the Economist/YouGov asked, which authority “should be permitted to order drone strikes against suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens” and found a plurality in favor 14% said “nobody,” and 20% were unsure. Furthermore, the Economist/YouGov polls consistently use the phrase, “the Obama Adminis- (52–55%) and more uncertainty (25–29%) than other polls. - ample, people’s support for negotiation with Iran tracks closely to whether President Obama is mentioned. This speaks to thoughtfully invoking the name of President Obama in some cases and invoking the name of Republican presidential contenders in others. Our point is the non- partisanship.

Civilian casualties are a powerful sticking point for the American public. - sues such as legality, constitutionality, and consequences have the potential to shift opinion dramatically. Civilian casualties, in particular, are a real sticking point for the American public: drones are presented by the government Majority as “surgical” and precise,” and an indication that they are neither seems to support for worry the public. As empiricist John Sides (GWU) noted in the Washington drone strikes may be frag- that majority support for drone strikes may be fragile precisely because ile precisely because they put civilians at risk.” they put civilians at risk. In February 2013, a Pew poll found that 81% were concerned (51% very) that drone attacks would endanger the lives of innocent civilians. Comparatively, —John Sides, Washington in the same poll 65% said they were worried drone attacks could lead to Post, 3/10/13 retaliation from extremist groups, and 57% were concerned drones could damage America’s reputation around the world. More conclusively, only half of those initially approving of drone attacks against suspected terrorists still approved of drone attacks “even if innocent civilians may also be killed”—bringing the total approval down to a little over 25% when civilians are at risk.

Concerns about domestic drones may spill over into targeted killing opinion. drones. In June 2012 Monmouth University found that, while there is strong support for using

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 41 of 55 drones to control illegal immigration on the border (64%), to help with search and rescue mis- sions (80%), and to track down runaway criminals (67%), most Americans would be concerned “if U.S. law enforcement started using unmanned drones with high tech cameras” (64–31%). Wenzel Strategies found in January 2013 that about 62% thought “the use of drones in domes- Reason-Rupe asked, “if your local police department is using drones, how much do you worry that they might invade your privacy?” They found that 60% were concerned (40% a lot), compared with 39% who were not concerned. While issues of domestic privacy and surveillance drones are not directly related to the tar- how the public feels about the targeted killing program. Early in the 2014 election season, we are already seeing political ads that use surveillance drones as a leverage issue for criticizing government overreach.

What we’d like to know. There are four topics of particular interest that rarely or never come up in polling about drones: Blowback During the audit period, only one poll (Pew, February 2013) addressed the question of blowback, and it found that 65% of people were worried that drone attacks could lead to retaliation from extremist groups. That’s an indication that this is a potent area of pushback, but we need corroborating evidence of where public opinion lies on this matter. America’s Reputation Abroad During the audit period, only one poll addressed this question—the same Pew poll in February last year. Pew found that 57% were concerned that Virtually drones could damage America’s reputation around the world. A number of every coun- quotations from powerful validators back this up, as outlined in the follow- try on Earth ing section. But we want to know more. will be able to Proliferation build or acquire drones capable of An article inpublished in early May says that “Virtually every ﬁring missiles within the next ten years… missiles within the next ten years. Armed aerial drones will be used for What’s worse…it’s too targeted killings, terrorism and the government suppression of civil unrest. late for the United States to do anything Yet we have not seen a single question about the proliferation of drone about it. technology—not to mention targeted killing programs—in a poll. And in 14 —Patrick Tucker, Defense months of coverage, there were only a handful of quotations on this sub- One, 5/6/14 ject. If this is a compelling angle for the public, it could be a major, innova- tive strategy. But we don’t know yet. Transparency and the Right to Know We have also never seen a question about the transparency of the targeted killing program, nor addressing whether Americans feel they have a right to know about it. We know that senators think they have a right to know more about the program, but what does the public think?

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 42 of 55 VI. Six Messaging & Strategy Recommendations possible solutions to addressing them.

1. CONTEST THE “WAR ON TERROR” ARGUMENTS We lose when the debate is framed solely in the context of counter-terrorism and the “war on terror,” and the article or story is reported solely on the basis of which or how many suspected terrorists or extremists were killed. Quotations using this frame skew strongly negative, out- stripping positive quotes by more than 3 to 1. “war on terror” and those assertions are rarely challenged or balanced by opposing arguments or views. A quotation using this frame might go something like this: “Thanks to drone missile strikes and other counter-terrorism operations, the network founded by Osama bin Laden has been so eviscerated that U.S. intelligence agencies no longer fully understand the organization- 4/15/13. It is critical to recognize that stories framed in this manner dominate overall coverage and, thus, constitute the bulk of what the public hears on the subject. At the same time, this is the argument that NSHR groups are the least likely to address, in essence ceding the macro framing of the issue. As we described earlier, this set of messages includes stories focused on reports of drone strikes, discussions of counter-terrorism strategy, the way the U.S. conducts war, and questions of the imminence of the threats involved in (and ostensibly averted by) targeted killing.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 43 of 55 Although each of these arguments is prevalent throughout coverage, they particularly domi- nated the conversation in coverage of President Obama’s NDU speech in May, in which he was the administration’s response to the NBC Memo leaks in February 2013, and continue to frame reporting of individual strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. - tion to know something about events and policy, and therefore more likely to represent them - as a top, predominately negative (pro-drone), source for many reporters. Critics of the targeted killing program are rarely quoted in these stories, The more the being sought out for alternative perspectives. Critics may also be perceived administra- by reporters as having neither the authority nor the expertise to comment. tion is rightly NSHR spokespeople are rarely quoted on this topic—only 23 quotations forced to related to “war on terror” messages were from our groups during the audit disclose about who it period. is killing and why, the more obvious it Recommendation becomes that the Given that “security” is the driving overall value in the entire debate, the un- practice is growing, checked assertion that targeted killing strikes are successfully “winning” the is illegal in its scope, “war on terror,” and thus enhancing security, likely forecloses a fair amount is causing large-scale of possible debate. For groups opposed to targeted killing strikes altogether, civilian casualties it is critical to challenge that assertion by promoting credentialed speakers and is a slow-moving to address questions such as whether the strikes are having a multiplier train wreck with serious blowback about how drone strikes are turning the population in key countries against consequences to U.S. the U.S., being manipulated to settle local scores, or are over-hyped with national security. regard to their success rate should be increased. This quotation from Kathy —Gabor Rona, New York Kay on Meet the Press is one of the few over the entire period of the audit Times, 4/13/13 to successfully make this case: “We are turning large numbers of moderate Pakistanis: journalists, politicians, lawyers, doctors, the kind of people that shape policy in those countries, against us. Ad- miral Mullen, General McChrystal, have all expressed concerns that every time we had a drone that mishits somebody, kills civilians, we set back our strategy in those countries by months, if not years” (February 10, 2013). For organizations not opposed to drone strikes per se, but rather to the lack of legal oversight and/or transparency, the arguments outlined above (asserting without question the program’s executive power issues. In short, so long as the unchecked assertion is that targeted killing is working as intended, the incentive to question or limit the practice is diminished. Our recommendation is for the community to develop messages that can address these themes, and to cultivate experts who can convincingly raise questions as to whether the practice is as successful as is portrayed by its proponents. The following quote from Gabor Rona of

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 44 of 55 Human Rights First is a good example of this: “The more the administration is rightly forced to disclose about who it is killing and why, the more obvious it becomes that the practice is growing, is illegal in its scope, is causing large- scale civilian casualties and is a slow-moving train wreck with serious blowback consequences to U.S. national security” (New York Times, April 13, 2013). In the event that credentialed experts cannot be marshaled to make these arguments, those who have done so already should be as widely cited and quoted as possible. Representative “War on Terror” Quotes from Coverage Below are representative examples of pro-targeted killing quotes and arguments justifying the program as a successful counter-terrorism strategy in the “war on terror” (in time order). These arguments dominate coverage and are rarely challenged on national security terms.

in context. . to take actions against individuals - - more terrorists using drones. . . to take this action that may ground.”—Harold Ford, Analyst/ involve a lethal strike.”—John - Commentator, Meet the Press, Brennan, Washington Times, 1/19/4 2/8/13, Shaun Waterman .”—Rob- ert Gates, State of the Union, - 2/10/13 terrorist threat out there. Islamist extremists are out there still trying “Retired Col. - matic or inspirational qualities or . - hard-to-replace operational skills; - - nation.”—Dennis Blair, National the tools necessary to do so.” - —Eric Cantor, R-VA Meet the ing. Press, 2/10/13 they are necessary to mitigate on- “America does not take strikes to - - . Such operations also take longer imminent threat to the American - an American commando might - .”— . So they .”— Martha McSally, New York Barack Obama, Christian Times, 4/23/13, Charlie Savage .”— Science Monitor, 5/23/13 Jay Carney, Washington Times, 2/6/13, Shaun Waterman

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 45 of 55 2. DESIGN A MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY CAMPAIGN The problematic use of unnamed sources is potentially fertile ground for a media accountability campaign challenging the journalistic integrity of media reports that disproportionately use them. In short, the frequent use of unnamed sources demonstrably skews coverage in one direction while obscuring and/or eliminating any meaningful accountability. An unnamed the source nor the accuracy of their description can be challenged because they are unknown. This creates a scenario wherein self-serving descriptions may be rife because unnamed sources want to avoid institutional accountability for errors, encourage additional resources to be Similarly, accountability around the drone strike program overall is obscured by the use of unnamed sources and assertions as to which agencies are involved in strikes, how those strikes are vetted and approved and what criteria are used are uncorroborated.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 46 of 55 ReThink Media monitors and tracks both the outlets and the reporters most frequently using writing about drones quotes unnamed sources. But how high is the variance between journalists and outlets? Who are the worst abusers? The charts above show the top 16 outlets and 25 journalists who use the most quotations from unnamed sources and the percentage of their total quotations that those unnamed sources represent. While there are legitimate reasons for quoting a source without naming him or her—nowhere is this more true than in stories about sensitive topics, allowing sources to remain anonymous is a slippery slope that leads away from the transparency that good journalism provides. Adam Journal stories over 75% of the time and overwhelmingly those quotes either support or defend the targeted killing program. The higher the unnamed sources in a story the less trustworthy they become. This tact is the likely the advisable approach to any public facing campaign. as FAIR or NPR’s On the Media, but they can also be driven independently through blog posts,

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 47 of 55 example, the Just Security Blog very successfully published an annotated version of a New York Times article on a drone strike that challenged multiple assertions in the story, prompting a response from the Times’ Public Editor. ReThink Media has also successfully pursued media accountability by publishing the types of that essentially grades them with regard to their performance in this regard. This involves a simple website, a summary report that can be provided to media watchdogs, and a password- protected means for journalists to assess their performance. Our work addressing the use of the word “torture” in news reporting (coveringtorture.org), relative to varying euphemisms, has been cited frequently.

Recommendation Explore the prospect of funding a targeted media accountability campaign with clear metrics aimed at reducing the use of unnamed sources in media reporting surrounding drone strikes. such a strategy forward.

3. WHAT WE CALL IT MATTERS The language used to describe U.S. drone strike policy varies considerably based on the speak- “Targeted killing” is widely seen as a description preferred by advocates of drones. The percep- - tiveness and convey minimal civilian impact. We are not aware of any research however that supports that contention. Meanwhile, our research found that proponents of the program are actually less likely to use the term, a circumstance that may or may not be informed by public opinion research. The term ‘targeted killing’ actually appears rarely in media quotations: only 119 quotations included the term last year. Of those, about half (53%) were neutral—balanced or factual statements; the lion’s share of the rest (43%) were anti-drone; and very few (3.6%) were pro-drone. Journalists are far and away the most common users of this phrase: 231 articles include “targeted killing”—most outside a quotation. Amongst the anti-drone quotations that include the term “targeted killing,” NSHR organizations are the most common source (37.3%). Think tanks, international organizations, and academ- ics—source types we might expect to be more likely to be allied with us—also appear relatively frequently here. What this means in concrete terms is that, contrary to what we expected, it is journalists and opponents of the targeted killing program who use the term “targeted killing” the most. It’s not entirely clear why proponents of drones tend to steer clear of the term. It may be that program rather than the technological advances, “surgical precision,” or purported tidiness. It may also be increasing concerns and reports of civilian casualties or the desire to emphasize “unmanned military aircraft” or “unmanned aircraft called drones” to hit home implicitly, that American soldiers are out of harms way in these attacks.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 48 of 55 Industry sources, meanwhile, have tended toward the use of the more antiseptic “unmanned aerial vehicles” while shying away from the word “drones.” This technical term is almost three times as common in media pieces related to domestic uses of drones—often concerned with drone technology, business, search and rescue, and law enforcement. It would appear that this purposes, as separate from the perceived negative stigma associated with targeted killings strikes (good versus bad drones).

Recommendation interrogation, or Park51 Community Center versus “ground zero mosque.” At present, advocates of greater transparency and accountability are operating blind with regard to the impact that works against their objectives. Given this mixed landscape of terminology, we recommend

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 49 of 55 to help inform our sector in choosing how best to refer to and challenge the program going forward. - sages addressing the issues of proliferation and precedent (see below for detail) impact public opinion. To date, there has been only the most minimal discussion of these issues which may

4. CONTINUE CAMPAIGNS THAT EMPHASIZE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES As detailed in the public opinion section, overall, public approval for using drones to kill terrorists in foreign countries has stayed above 50% since February 2012, though the size of that majority approval varies substantially with the most recent numbers from YouGov/Economist in May–June 2013 at roughly 53–18%, (with 28% not sure). - tacks would endanger the lives of innocent civilians. As underscored in the earlier public opinion section, in February 2013, a Pew poll found that 81% were concerned (51% very) that drone attacks endanger the lives of innocent civilians. Comparatively, in the same poll 65% said they were worried drone attacks could lead to retaliation from extremist groups, and 57% were concerned drones could damage America’s reputa- against suspected terrorists still approved of drone attacks “if innocent civilians may also be killed”—bringing the total approval down to a little over 25% when civilians are at risk. The release of the Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch reports, press coverage surrounding the organized testimonies of impacted victims and family members, and increased frequency of reports of civilians being harmed (e.g. reports of wedding party bombing) have helped produce in a discernible shift in the Administration’s messaging as is evident in the following quotes over time. In January 2013, CIA Director John Brennan claimed that, “there has [had] not been a “single to “we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life…by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among” (AP, 5/25/13, Julie Pace). - non at the AP (7/25/13) stating that “The CIA has been instructed to be more cautious with its attacks, limiting them to high-value targets and dropping the practice of so-called “signature strikes” hitting larger groups of suspected militants based purely on their behavior, such as being armed and meeting with known militants.” was widely quoted by outlets, stating that, “before drone strikes were taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians would be killed or wounded.” (Reuters, The Hill, Christian Science Monitor, NY Times, Think Progress, 10/22/13).

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 50 of 55 Recommendation Moving forward, our recommendation is to continue to structure communications campaigns explicitly designed to emphasize the reality of civilian casualties. Organizing tactics to drive this message include speaking tours and media appearances featuring impacted civilians, the production of additional digital content emphasizing this message (video or graphics), increasing the involvement of faith-based validators and/or organizing a communications campaign squarely targeting faith audiences. hooks such as the UN resolution obliging governments to investigate civilian casualties and equally drive the wider agenda of greater transparency and accountability, they can be most Sample of quotations challenging the program regarding civilian casualties:

- . But just six days .S. sentiment to surge. What radicals - - nocently killed in drone attacks . The drone strike and its accomplished in an instant. There in Iraq. And I can tell you having - .”—Ferea al-Muslimi, Washington Post, mine. 5/26/13, (also the Chicago Tri- bune, Reuters, NYTimes) . And there is this the strike happened.”—Ferea people. And as many people have al-Muslimi, Reuters, 4/23/123, presumption.”—Tom Brokaw, Tabassum Zakaria (testifying secure. In addition to the moral Fox News (addressing the Bos- before congress) - ton Marathon attack), 4/22/13 “It makes me personally uncom- .- . .”— and the U.S. government has not Glenn Greenwald, Think Prog- paragraphs.… I think that stirs ress, 10/28/13, Hayes Brown .”—John Bellinger, Americans than it resolves in kill- Boston Globe, 5/14/13 .”— Jimmy Carter, National Journal, 1/10/13 (Michael Hirsch)

5. DEVELOP A NUANCED RIGHT/LEFT STRATEGY The dominant congressional and legal debate on targeted killing program focuses on the theme of “checks and balances” vs. “unchecked executive power.” These include arguments related to oversight and transparency. Two events in particular peaked this debate—the leak of

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 51 of 55 surrounding the issue of whether a U.S. president can unilaterally order the killing of a U.S. citizen. - rounds the issue of Presidential authority. Amongst other things, it appears that those with a authority in a way that might not transfer to another President. Similarly, some voters who might otherwise be expected to question unlimited executive power appear to support Presi- dent Obama’s exercise of that power because he is exercising it. There are strong Democratic and Republican voices arguing for a stronger system of checks and balances, as Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) illustrated on CNN’s The Situation Room: “This debate about drones, both in Washington, D.C., and in our country, is just beginning. There is a lot more work yet to be done. And I think you’re going to see Democrats and Re- publicans here in the United States Senate—we kind of call ourselves the checks and balances caucus—spending a lot of time trying to bring to light consistent with national security more details about the drone program” (March 7, 2013). But the same time, there are clear nuances in how conservatives and liberals respond to the subject of drone strikes, as the quotes at the end of this section illustrate. Conservatives have exhibited more concern about the growth in unchecked federal and executive power and the potential consequences for their personal freedom while liberals have focused more on unchecked federal and executive power and the rights of suspects and potential innocent casualties.

Recommendation Given that a majority vote may be required for any policy restraining the targeted killing program, creating greater transparency or establishing accountability for casualties, this will require considerable support across both sides of the aisle. Currently, there are Democrats and Republicans alike both opposing and promoting reform measures. Under these circumstances there are two possible approaches aimed at building greater bipar- along the lines of the Constitution Project’s Task Force on Torture, aimed at demonstrating that checks and balances are a politically neutral, constitutionally driven objective. - instances, there are clear messages that will likely resonate with distinct set of constituencies. -

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 52 of 55 Sample of quotations calling for checks and balances on executive authority:

. As treason. - earliest days.”—John Podesta, . What is the Center for American Progress, Reuters, 3/15/13 a judge and a jury. the shoulder to make sure that “The idea that this president .- - raises.”— should never get to decide some- Journalist, MSNBC: The Ed - Show, 2/7/13 - . es . . . let’s go ahead and kill him.”—Sen. and there is no international Ron Paul (R-TX), CNN State of intelligence. the Union, 2/10/13 . “And so I think—I think this idea . .”—Ann - Marie Slaughter, former Admin Constitution.”—Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), MSNBC Rachel Maddow 4/7/13, Karen DeYoung Show, 2/7/13 the Congress or the intelligence committees or something like “I understand you can’t have . I think that the and the executioner all in one is rules and the—and the practices very contrary to the traditions and .”—Sen. Angus King (I-ME), Washington . But Times, 2/8/13, Shaun Water- man Robert Gates, Former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, CNN State of the Union, 2/10/13

6. INVESTIGATE A CAMPAIGN ON PRECEDENT AND PROLIFERATION One of the most striking aspects of the media and policy debate about drone strikes is the near total absence of discussion of the critical issues of proliferation and precedent. In short, U.S. policy is establishing a strong precedent for other nations’ use of drone strikes, and the precedent is multi-faceted. First, the precedent is being established that a nation can execute drone strikes anywhere in the world within the national boundaries of countries with which the striking nation is not at war. Second, the precedent is being established that the rationale and intelligence surrounding these strikes does not have to be disclosed in any way and

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 53 of 55 international bodies do not have an enforceable oversight mechanism. These issues raise major questions. If the White House can order drone strikes in Yemen, can the Kremlin order them in Ukraine? Can Beijing order drone strikes targeting Muslim separat- ists in Western China? Could Beijing or Moscow take that decision and then declare that their - ror suspect within the boundaries of a lesser power such as Yemen or Somalia and a greater power? If the U.S. is unaccountable to the United Nations with regard to targeted killing, does the same apply to other nations? To a striking degree, the topic has heretofore been addressed in a vacuum that presumes that only the U.S. will be in a position to utilize drones. Within this narrow context, it is not surpris- - ror suspects with drones, nor is it surprising that, given that reductive choice, the public has favored eliminated such perceived threats. All of these questions, which have not been substantively addressed either in the media or on in part at the urging of ReThink Media, the Stimson Center released a report posing this very question with regard to the possible use of Russian drones in Ukraine. The report was one of the most widely cited in press coverage. It “raised warnings that other countries might adopt the same rationale as the United States has for carrying out lethal strikes outside of declared war zones. Using an example of a current crisis, it said that Russia could use armed drones disclose the intelligence that served as the basis for the strike,” wrote Mark Mazzetti in the New York Times. “‘In such circumstances,’ the report asked, ’how could the United States credibly condemn Russian targeted killings?’” (June 26, 2014) In addition to precedent questions, proliferation questions have also largely gone unaddressed. of a world with far more drones deployed and a far greater use of targeted killing. Is the public considering U.S. policy in the context of a future of worldwide drone proliferation with little or no international norms or controls? Several of these questions fall somewhat outside the more narrow scope of human rights and rule of law funders and organizations but at the same time they cannot be decoupled from

Recommendation In addition to exploring public opinion on these topics as noted above, we strongly encourage current U.S. policy. The more the subject of drone strikes and targeted killing is reduced to a support the policy. While we cannot say with certainty that addressing these additional layers of complexity will shift public opinion, we would strongly argue that failing to raise these questions skews the debate by limiting the public’s understanding of the issues at hand and weakens the foundation

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 54 of 55 for addressing critical human rights and rule of law questions. Many of the advocates that are principally concerned with the rule of law, transparency and human rights are limited in terms of their experience with matters of arms proliferation and security policy. Similarly, many of the organizations that principally address these latter issues are less familiar with the former ones. Under these circumstances, groups addressing one set of - ganizations and experts into one discussion. While the organizations involved need not adopt 100% of each other’s positions or messages their overall perspective is likely to be largely com-

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media 55 of 55 Appendix: Coding and Methodology

MESSAGES Legality • • Targets (Kill List): Who is on the list, how is the list compiled, and is it okay to kill US citizens? • US Law: Does the TK program conform to US law? Is there a need for new legislation? • International Law: Distinct from discussion of domestic legality, does the TK program comply with international law? • Blowback: Radicalization of individuals because of their reaction to the drone program • Civilian Casualties: The civilian toll; human interest stories about victims of drone strikes; discussions of the anxiety the drones cause in local populations. • Morality: Moral, humanitarian arguments about the TK program. • Proliferation: We are only interested in other countries’ use of drones if the context explicitly • US Reputation Abroad: TK program on the US reputation in the rest of the world. Transparency & Accountability • Drones Court: Distinct from both Oversight and Judicial Review, in that this is for direct discussion of a new “drones court.” NB, for the purposes of this methodology we are opposed to a special drones court. • Government Agency: Which government entity currently has or should have oversight and control over the drones targeted killing program. • Judicial Review: Distinct from Oversight in that this is mentions of discussions of a judicial review process for targeting. • Oversight:- cient oversight. • Program Disclosure: “The Obama administration today revealed details of…” • Public Knowledge/Interest: Focused on quotes or statements about whether the public cares about overseas or domestic drones. This will include discussion of US public opinion, polling results, etc. • Spending/Budget: Discussion of funding or budgeting allocations for drone programs/manu- facturers. War on Terror • War Doctrine: • Counter-terrorism: • Drone Strikes: This is for actual reports of drone strikes. • Imminence (Imminent Threat): The imminent threat, or the “ticking time bomb” scenario, has been used to justify torture and other extralegal security activities.

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media Appendix i QUOTATIONS Quotation Sentiment Each message and sub-message above has its own attendant sentiment-coding guidance to capture the position of our community on the issues. Coders err on the side of “neutral” in cases where sentiment is not clear. As a general rule, the sentiment guidelines are as follows: Positive Quotations are coded as “positive” if they advocate for more restraint, transparency, and accountability in the targeted killing program—essentially, “anti-drone.” Negative Quotations are coded as “negative” if they oppose disclosures about the targeted killing program, advocate for the increased use of drones, or unreservedly defend the program—essentially, “pro-drone.” Neutral a balanced argument, or present no position or argument on the subject of drones or targeted killing.

Sources and Spokespeople • Source Name: First, Middle, Last Name • Description: A full and complete description is important. For example, if the source is a State of that politician. • Gender: If a person, select either Male or Female. Leave as Unknown if the source is an organization, statement from a group source, or other entity that is not a person. • Democratic, Republican, Independent, Nonaligned • Source Type: every source must have a source type assigned to it • Academic: College professors, academic administrators, and people who work in an academic institution and are providing academic commentary on the subject matter. • Analyst/Commentator: Any person providing analytic, third-party commentary on the subject matter. Typically not associated with an organization, political party or any other group. This articles, and Editorial Board sources. • Blogger: Person who primarily writes on a blog (EXAMPLES), and is known primarily as a blogger. • Business Community: • Citizen: Quotes from a “man on the street,” a person who is providing commentary from the average citizen perspective. Joe Schmo. • SRC Organization: Sources who are representing any of the groups in the Security & Rights Coalition should get this Source Type. For a complete list, contact us at [email protected]. • Supreme Court judges, US District Judges, US Circuit Court of Appeals judges, US attorneys. • Any person who works for or represents a federal agency of the United

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media Appendix ii - neys representing a federal agency in a court case. • Former presidents, vice presidents, and former employees of a presidential administration. • Law Enforcement: • Lobbyist:- growth in their industry. Typically this will be corporations, CEOs, industry groups, etc. • Media/Journalist: Objective, unbiased reporting statements from a media outlet, statements from a media company, or a person who runs a media company. • rights, etc.). • Other • Partisans/Fmr. Politicians: Partisans and former politicians who are NOT associated with not already sitting in one, political consultants for Republicans or Democrats, major donors to the Republican or Democratic party, people who are the head of the Democratic or Republican party organization in a state or county. • Private Attorney: An attorney who is representing a private party in a court case, which means • Religious/Clerical • State Supreme court judges, county judges, municipal court judges, probate court judges, intermediate state appellate court judges, and state attorneys. • State Senators and Representatives, Governors, city mayors, assembly- men/women, city councilmen/women, people who work for or represent state government attorneys who represent a state government agency in a court case. • SuperPAC: Statements from SuperPACs and spokepeople for SuperPACs. • • • Union: Statement from a Union (Labor Union, Trade Union, Political Union, etc) or from a Union spokesperson.

MEDIUMS INCLUDED IN THIS AUDIT Print: newspapers and magazines Blogs Wire Services Television: cable news programs Web-based outlets

OUTLETS INCLUDED IN THIS AUDIT Print Outlets and Wire Services Chicago Sun-Times Detroit Free Press Chicago Tribune Houston Chronicle

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media Appendix iii Los Angeles Times The Hill National Journal The Kansas City Star (Mo.) Newsday (N.Y.) The Miami Herald New York Daily News The New York Times New York Post The Philadelphia Inquirer Roll Call/Congressional Quarterly The Wall Street Journal The Arizona Republic The Washington Post The Atlanta Journal-Constitution The Washington Times The Boston Globe USA Today The Christian Science Monitor Associated Press The Detroit News Reuters Television ABC News: This Week Fox News: On the Record w/ Greta Van CBS News: Face the Nation Susteren CNN: Anderson Cooper 360° Fox News: O’Reilly Factor CNN: Erin Burnett OutFront Fox News: Special Report with Brett Baier CNN: John King, USA MSNBC: Countdown CNN: State of the Union with Candy Crowley MSNBC: HARDBALL CNN: The Situation Room MSNBC: The Ed Show with Ed Schultz Fox News: Fox News Sunday MSNBC: The Last Word with Lawrence Fox News: Glenn Beck O’Donnell Fox News: Hannity MSNBC: The Rachel Maddow Show NBC News: Meet the Press Web-based Outlets and Blogs National Review Talking Points Memo Plain Dealer (Cleveland) Politico

SEARCH STRING drone OR drones OR unmanned aerial vehicle OR unmanned aerial vehicles OR targeted killing OR targeted killings OR signature strike OR signature strikes

Targeted Killing Media Audit, 2014 | ReThink Media Appendix iv