Drone Strikes and the Targeted Killing Program

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 dis- tinct 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 op- portunity 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 state- ments 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 coun- tries 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

Load more