Journalism in international conflicts Essay

What importance have authoritiess placed on public dealingss in recent international struggles, and how has this affected the manner that wars have been reported?

To properly buttocks whether the importance placed on public dealingss by authoritiess has affected the manner that wars have been reported, it is of import to specify the term. The Oxford Dictionary defines “public relations” as “Theprofessionalmaintenanceof afavourablepublic image by a company or other administration or a famousperson” ( Oxford Dictionary, 2015 ) . Hiebert ( 1991 ) discusses the fact that public dealingss is an built-in portion of modern struggle with propaganda and public dealingss, via words and images, being used as arms in struggle. Taylor ( 1992 ) argues that authoritiess pay wars and so they must win public support for their engagement before the war can get down and surely whilst the war is in advancement. For illustration, in order to win support prior to the 1990-1991 Gulf War, the United States authorities launched a public dealingss run aimed at act uponing the populace in favor of a military intercession ( Macarthur, 2004 ) . Furthermore, Hiebert ( 1991 ) suggests that authoritiess entered the Gulf War, and won, in big portion by the usage of smart words instead than the preciseness of smart bombs.

It can be argued that this strategic usage of public dealingss and propaganda runs continued on from the Gulf War to the 2003 struggle in Iraq ( Hiebert, 2003 ) . The Oxford Dictionary defines the term “propaganda” as “Information, particularly of abiasedor misleadingnature, used topromoteapoliticalcause or point of view” ( Oxford Dictionary, 2015 ) . Public dealingss techniques and propaganda were arguably of import parts of the scheme that led the United States into the 2003 Iraq struggle ( MacAskill, 2008 ) . Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, following the disclosures of plagiarism and the falsification of grounds ( White and Whitaker, 2003 ) , public dealingss besides became an indispensable portion of the attempt, by the British authorities, to take the UK to war in Iraq ( Hiebert, 2003 ) . Additionally, the US authorities utilised public dealingss techniques to make fright and to convert the public that the struggle was necessary ( MacAskill, 2008 ) . Issues were framed in such a manner that the public became positive of the demand for the struggle ; narratives reported in the media were shown and written in such a manner that the facts were skewed and used to bring forth support ( Hiebert, 2003 ) . Nightly briefings about the struggle on the intelligence, coupled with embedded journalists and regular coverage of flamboyant briefings bombarded the populace with information about the struggle, supplying repeated chances for the populace to develop support for it ( MacAskill, 2008 ) .

Propaganda was apparent during all chances that the struggle was discussed in the media, with the propaganda machine basically moving to lead on the American populace and to take them to back up the struggle in Iraq ( Hiebert, 2003 ) . Unbiased, nonsubjective news media was rare in the mainstream media in the tally up to and during the Iraq struggle ( MacAskill, 2008 ) . As Hiebert ( 2003 ) notes, given that this attack was so successful, it is likely that such fallacious news media will be used in future whenever the authorities needs to earn support for any peculiar issue. The corollary to this ‘success’ , nevertheless, is that whilst the public dealingss run may hold worked in footings of pull stringsing the American populace, the run lost the United States many protagonists abroad ( for illustration, Jo et Al. ( 2008 ) show via cross-cultural studies, that the PR run merely generated positive public sentiment in the US and the UK ) . It besides led to a state of affairs where the American populace expected struggle to be over ‘nicely and cleanly’ ( like in Operation Desert Storm which was presented in an about Hollywood-like mode to the American populace, many of whom believed the things they were fed via the intelligence ) ( Jo et al. 2008 ) .

This has set up a state of affairs where the electorate may merely accept ‘short, clean’ struggles and struggles that are longer or ‘messier’ may take to state of affairss in which the electorate become disillusioned and get down to retreat their support for the struggle. This is instead a complex state of affairs for the US authorities to be in, given the constantly insidious and complex nature that any future struggle would hold to presume ( with terrorist administrations such as ISIS, whose kineticss are ill understood and who act from geographically scattered bases ) .

Hawkynss ( 2002 ) discusses the ‘CNN factor’ . The ‘CNN factor’ describes the manner in which the media has influenced credence of foreign policy through guaranting that coverage evokes certain responses in viewing audiences by demoing emotionally reactive content ( Hawkins, 2002 ) . Intense coverage of one struggle, nevertheless, can intend that other struggles, which are possibly more urgent in nature, are left without being to the full reported. As the Hawkins ( 2002 ) survey shows, through analyses of the per centum of coverage dedicated to the Afghan struggle, across France ( Le Monde ) , the United States ( New York Times ) , Japan ( Yomiuri ) and the UK ( BBC ) . It was found that the per centum coverage in the UK and the United States was much higher than in France and Japan, as the UK and US authoritiess were invested in utilizing the media for PR and propaganda intents ( Hawkins, 2002 ) .

Thussu ( 2000 ) explores the kineticss that lie at the intersection of Western public diplomatic negotiations and the mediation of international military struggles by planetary telecasting intelligence channels, many of which are owned by the United States. Thussu ( 2000 ) looks, in peculiar, at the telecasting coverage of the 1999 Kosovo crisis, reasoning that merely conflicts that are strategically of import for the West are covered in any item by these channels and that, even when they are covered, they are presented in such a manner that furthers the strategic purposes of Western authoritiess. The intercession of NATO in the 1999 Kosovo crisis, for illustration, was presented as a necessary human-centered aim, given the human-centered jobs the Kosovo crisis had caused ( Roberts, 1999 ) . CNN, in peculiar, reproduced the docket set by the United States, systematically saying that the NATO intercession was a human-centered necessity when, in existent fact, the NATO intercession represented “…a case in point for military intercessions in the internal personal businesss of a autonomous province outside of its country of operation” ( Thussu, 2000 ; 12 ) .

Thussu ( 2000 ) notes that the propaganda utilised by CNN during the 1999 Kosovo crisis was, by virtuousness of the planetary nature of CNN, a manner for the United States to foster their ain docket and coerce their ain, dominant, positions on a struggle that, in world, had small to make with the United States. In add-on, Thussu ( 2000 ) argues that the propaganda utilised by the United States, via CNN, influences the ways in which diplomatic negotiations is handled and packaged. Diplomacy became, through CNN’s handling of the 1999 Kosovo crisis, little more than public information being packaged into ‘bite-sized’ visually sharp pieces that could be used to make full the intelligence to foster the purposes and aims of the United States. As Thussu ( 2000 ; 14 ) provinces, telecasting webs, “…often operate in a symbiotic relationship with the governments and tend to conform to the geo-political dockets set by powerful governments” . Harmonizing to Kumar, it is refering that the bulk of the public receives its cognition about struggles and international affairs through companies that are so extremely influenced by predominating political dockets ( Kumar, 2006 ) . Furthermore, Kumar argues that the coverage of struggles is non nonsubjective and is extremely biased, with the intelligence being little more than a public dealingss run for the authoritiess who control the planetary media companies in control of presenting the intelligence to the multitudes ( Kumar 2006 ) .

Kumar ( 2006 ) besides points out that another illustration of this is the United States authorities, led by George Bush ( from 2001-2009 ) , which used false information to warrant the Iraq struggle, with the mainstream media helping in this by propagating these prevarications to the public. Kumar ( 2006 ) argues that there was a government-military-media composite formed before the Iraq struggle, which decided what the struggle should be and so put about roll uping information that would be needed as ‘evidence’ to back up the demand for the struggle. The narrative that was constructed was so fed to the public by the media, as a manner of deriving support for the struggle ( Kumar, 2006 ) . This attack is used across many different domains, non merely in footings of earning support for pro-war statements ( Kumar, 2006 ) . Furthermore, Kumar ( 2006 ) states that it is of import, given this failure of the media to carry through the democratic rights of the public ( to objective news media ) that intellectuals and bookmans provide instruction and cognition that is nonsubjective, through which the ‘real story’ can be gleaned and understood. He besides suggests that there is no justification for authoritiess, in a democracy, to utilize the media as a public dealingss tool or, worse, a propaganda machine ( Kumar, 2006 ) .

Kellner ( 2004 ) discusses this position farther, in relation to the September 11Thursday2001 onslaughts in New York. These onslaughts have been represented in one dominant manner in the Western media, which, Kellner ( 2004 ) argues, is similar to the scheme employed by Islamic Jihadists. Both schemes rely on the usage of violent images to do ‘shock and awe’ doing anguish and disgust in the viewing audiences, taking them to back up the cause being presented to them. As Kellner ( 2004 ) notes, the United States authorities has used ‘spectacles of terror’ to advance its ain military and to foster its ain geopolitical aspirations. In the 1990-1991 Gulf War, the Afghanistan struggle of 2001 and the 2003 Iraq struggle, the United States authorities employed daze tactics across the media, as a manner of advancing its ain political docket ( Kellner, 2004 ) . These eyeglassess of panic became arms of mass persuasion, a PR tool so powerful that it had the whole state convinced of the demand for United States military engagement on foreign dirts ( Kellner, 2004 ) . The eyeglassess of panic, when combined with discourses of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ ( AmericansV.‘the terrorists’ ) and ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘absolutist’ discourses, have meant that the United States militarism has been normalised in the heads of the American public ( Kellner, 2004 ) .

It is non the function of the media to indoctrinate people, instead to inform people of the facts, leting them to make up one’s mind for themselves. The cardinal ethos of news media appears to hold been lost in the aftermath of progressively fundamentalist Western political dockets and increasing Western militarism. Kellner ( 2004 ) argues that one can non, now, expression to mainstream media for indifferent coverage and suggests that the cyberspace, which is non capable to propaganda and to bias introduced by public dealingss, is one of the most dependable beginnings of information for happening out about complex events such as international struggles. Given that major sections of the mainstream media are little more than a propaganda instrument, it is fortunate that the cyberspace still provides a democratic beginning of information that people can seek to inform themselves of the facts ( Kellner, 2006 ) . Finally, Kellner ( 2006 ) argues, that the ‘politics of the violent spectacle’ has many restrictions and can take to equivocal, negative and extremely unpredictable political effects.

The rise of Isis, for illustration, can be traced straight back to struggles such as the 2001 Afghan struggle and the 2003 Iraq struggle and the possible effects of a ‘war on terror’ with a group like Isis terrorizing in their capriciousness and possible range. The haughtiness of public dealingss is no step for the capacity for immorality of such persons ( who, through pictures such as the decapitation of the 12 Christians which, in its presentation appeared to be stage-managed much like a Tarantino movie, supply their ain really clear PR-fuelled messages about their purposes and capacities ) . As Powell ( 2011 ) notes, intelligence coverage of international terrorist act instils fear in the public whilst offering no comfort ; labelling a state of affairs via absolutist footings ‘Christian American’V.‘Muslims/Arabs/Islam’ is of small usage in practical footings, neither for describing the facts, understanding the cardinal job or offering solutions to a panicky public.

Owens ( 2014 ) looks at this issue from another position, reasoning that whilst authoritiess actively attempt to command the public by utilizing the media for PR and propaganda intents during periods of international struggle, authoritiess are really fighting to command the narrativewithinmodern struggle. Communication, fuelled by electronic mail, Twitter, smartphones and other technological developments, has been revolutionised over recent old ages. Governments have attempted to utilize this increased degree of communicating connectivity to their advantage, but the manipulability of communications in modern struggle means that the conflict lines have been shifted radically, with struggle in the present twenty-four hours significance that warfare is asymmetric, against persons and non-state participants ( Owens, 2014 ) . When there is no clear ‘good guy’ and ‘bad guy’ in a state of affairs on the land, in an international struggle state of affairs, and when soldiers on the land are capable to leaks via societal media ( such as those that led to the Guantanamo horrors being exposed ) , it is of import for reputes to be managed.

A specific subdivision of PR is, hence, going of import in the representation of international struggles: repute direction ( Owens, 2014 ) . Many authoritiess now attempt to pull off repute as a manner of commanding the media: embedded journalists, for illustration, are expected to describe on what they have experienced ( within the confines of what they were shown ) ( Owens, 2014 ) . This is an effort by authoritiess to get the better of the wearied attitude that the public has developed in position of the PR indoctrinating they have been subjected to: it is an effort to demo the world of life for soldiers on the land in the struggle. It is hypothesised, by the authorities PR machine, that if the public is exposed to images of day-to-day life for the soldiers ( good and bad ) , the war will go existent to them, via an apprehension of the adversities that soldiers face and the forfeits they make ‘for their country’ ( Owens, 2014 ) . Furthermore, it is a manner of doing the narrative credible once more and of doing this narrative available as far and every bit broad as possible. It is a new ‘social media friendly’ signifier of government-led PR and propaganda that is besides built with a position to reacting to new communication-led ways of struggle.

In decision, in footings of what importance authoritiess have placed on public dealingss in recent international struggles, and how this has affected the manner in which wars have been reported, this essay has argued that authoritiess have attempted to command the public, in Western states such as the UK and the US. They have done this by commanding the narrative that planetary media conveys, in this manner basically indoctrinating the public by feeding them false information and ‘spectacles of terror’ that frighten them into allowing international struggles, through taking their objectiveness. Recent authoritiess have made PR and propaganda portion of their ‘war machine’ , enabling them to bring forth support for the international struggle from the electorate. This has had major negative effects on the ways these struggles have been reported, basically taking journalistic objectiveness. As Philo ( 2002 ) notes, when describing international struggles, in order for indifferent and nonsubjective intelligence coverage to be achieved, it is necessary to guarantee that there is a high degree of account of the economic and political links to the state of affairs, which would let viewing audiences to contextualise the struggle and, through this, better understand it. By neglecting to supply such accounts, the intelligence basically acts to corroborate the prevailing attitudes amongst its viewing audiences and to keep the position quo amongst the public. Whilst this may be convenient for authoritiess who are utilizing PR and propaganda to fuel their ain docket, this is arguably non convenient for either democracy or for news media.

Word Count: 2586


Carruthers, S.L. ( 2011 ) .The Media at War.Palgrave Macmillan.

Fisk, R. ( 2001 ) .Pity the State: Lebanon at War.Oxford University Press.

Hawkynss, V. ( 2002 ) .The other side of the CNN factor: the media and struggle. Journalism Studies 3 ( 2 ) , pp. 225-240.

Hiebert, R. ( 1991 ) .Public dealingss as a arm of modern warfare.Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies 12 ( 1 ) , pp. 93-105.

Hiebert, R. ( 2003 ) .Public dealingss and propaganda in bordering the Gulf War: a preliminary reappraisal.Public Relations Review 29 ( 3 ) , pp. 243-255.

Jo, S. , Shim, S.W. , & A ; Jung, J. ( 2008 ) .Propaganda or public dealingss run?Internationalcommunicating on the war against Iraq.Public Relations Review 34 ( 1 ) , pp. 63-65.

Kellner, D. ( 2004 ) .9/11, eyeglassess of panic and media use.Critical Discourse Studies 1 ( 1 ) , pp. 41-64.

Kumar, D. ( 2006 ) .Media, war and propaganda: schemes of information direction during the 2003 Iraq War.Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 3 ( 1 ) , pp.48-69.

Macarthur, R.J. ( 2004 ) .Second Front: Censoring and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War.University of California Press.

MacAskill, E. ( 2008 ) .Former Bush imperativeness secretary claims Iraq war fuelled by propaganda.Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: // [ Accessed 20ThursdayApril 2015 ]

Owens, J. ( 2014 ) .Comms in struggle: how Governments are fighting to command the narrative in modern warfare.PR Week, 27ThursdayMay 2014. Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: // [ Accessed 9th April 2015 ] .

Oxford Dictionary. ( 2015 ) . Definition ofpropagandain English. Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: // [ Accessed 20ThursdayApril 2015 ] .

Oxford Dictionary. ( 2015 ) . Definition ofpublic relationsin English. Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: // [ Accessed 20ThursdayApril 2015 ] .

Philo, G. ( 2002 ) .Television intelligence and audience apprehension of struggle and catastrophe.Journalism Studies 3 ( 2 ) , pp. 173-186.

Powell, K.A. ( 2011 ) .Framing Islam: an analysis of US media coverage of terrorist act since 9/11.Communication Studies 62 ( 1 ) , pp. 90-112.

Puddephatt, A. ( 2006 ) .Voices of war: struggle and the function of the media.Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //[ Accessed 9th April 2015 ]

Roberts, A. ( 1999 ) .NATO’s ‘Humanitarian War’ over Kosovo.Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: // [ Accessed 9th April 2015 ]

Rodgers, J. ( 2012 ) .Reporting Conflict.Palgrave Macmillan.

Taylor, P. M. ( 1992 ) . War and the media. Propaganda and persuasion in the Gulf War. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Thussu, D.K. ( 2000 ) .Media wars and public diplomatic negotiations.Javnost – the public diary of the European Institute for communicating and civilization 7 ( 3 ) , pp. 5-17.

White, M. & A ; Whitaker, B. ( 2003 ) .UK war dossier a fake, say experts.Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: // [ Accessed 20ThursdayApril 2015 ]