The document discusses the role of media in times of war from a normative and empirical perspective. It analyzes media coverage and the relationship between the media and government during WWII, Vietnam, Grenada, Gulf War I, and the Iraq War. It notes that the media often relies on official government sources and is restricted in what it can report during wars. The media's role often shifts from watchdog to being more aligned with the government perspective.

1. Mark Peffley
PS 475 Politics and Media

2.  Normative:What is the appropriate role of
media in times of war? Mirror? Watchdog?
Lapdog?
 Empirical:What role do the media play in
times of crises and war? How can we explain
changing roles?

3.  WWII, Korea
 Vietnam
 Grenada (almost no independent coverage,
based onThatcher’s news management
strategy in Malvinas/Falkland Is. Conflict)
 Censorship in GulfWar I
 “Embedded” reporters in IraqWar;
censorship

4. ▪ Small no. of hand-picked journalists forced to rely on
Pentagon briefings; not free to select stories or sources.
▪ Barred from filming war dead arriving at Dover Air Force
Base.
▪ Barred from reporting, interviewing:
▪ soldier in shock
▪ soldier wounded
▪ soldier criticizing the war effort
▪ Required to talk to soldiers in presence of public affairs
officers

5. Iraq War: Military Coffins:
The Photos You're Not Supposed to See

6.  The chairman of CNN ordered his staff to
“balance” images of civilian devastation in
Afghan cities with reminders that theTaliban
harbors murderous terrorists

7.  2000 election:
 After 9/11:

8.  “Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-
examining the claims as new evidence emerged - or failed to
emerge” ---The NewYorkTimes
 The NewYorkTimes' editors say the paper relied too much on reports
from Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein without challenging their
claims.
 They say that in a number of cases the paper had also relied on US
officials who were intent on invading Iraq.
 The editors say they were not aggressive enough in questioning some
of the claims made before the Iraq war about weapons of mass
destruction - by Iraqi informants and at times by Bush administration
officials.
 They say some of the articles they published made alarming
allegations, that were either discredited or never verified.
 The editors say that while the original stories were covered
prominently, the follow-up stories that called them into question
were all too often buried in the back pages.
 They say they were partly to blame for perhaps being too intent on
getting scoops for the paper when they should have been challenging
reporters.
 The executive editor at the time these stories were written, Howell
Raines, resigned.
 Judith Miller traded scrutiny and criticism for access to Dick Cheney’s
office, where she was a willing tool for presenting the
administration’s view as “news”.
Judith Miller speaks with the press
while Bill Keller, then-Executive Editor
of the New York Times, listens
(Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images)

9.  After the invasion of Kuwait, Kuwaitis, with the
help of the Bush administration, retained the
services of a the large PR firm, Hill and
Knowlton, who gave the Kuwaitis the story of
how Iraqi soldiers has removed infants from
incubators so the machines could be removed to
Iraq.
 Before her congressional testimony, the woman,
the daughter of the Kuwait ambassador to US,
rehearsed in front of video cameras in the firm’s
Washington headquarters.Similar testimony
from another woman identified only as a Kuwait
refugee who turned out to be the wife of the
Kuwaiti minister of planning and was a well-
known television personality.
 Kuwaitis instructed to wear traditional dress vs
business suits.
 Reported after the war.

10.  Jessica Lynch: Media myth-making
 “Intelligence estimates:”
 “Sadam can arm a weapon in 12 minutes;
 “we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom
cloud."

11.  Official sources: executive branch, no
opposition voices.
 EX: Judith Miller
 News experts, backdrops
 Visuals
 Dramatization, Personalization biases
 Role shift fromWatchdog to Patriot

16. Patriot missiles’ pinpoint accuracy
vs. casualties

17. Daniel Hallin, The UncensoredWar

18. PENTAGON OFFICIALS:
 The media lost the war by
turning the public against it
with hyper-critical
coverage and slanted
images.
PRESS:
 Crusading journalists
uncovered lies and
distortions of the U.S. govt.
about the failures of the
war that the government
tried to cover up.

19. Vietnamese Monk's Self Immolation Protest Against Diem

23.  Violate military secrets?
 Diplomatic damage?
 Domestic front signaled weakened resolve to
enemy?
 Comparing public approval of wars in Korea
andVietnam
 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

24.  Neither the Pentagon nor the Press’s view of
the news media’s role inVietnam is accurate.
 The news media followed official sources’
expressed views of the war.

25.  American journalists “index”
the range of voices and
viewpoints according to the
range of views expressed in
government debate
 Testing the theory: Jonathon
Mermin (DebatingWar and Peace,
1999) examined coverage in NYT,
ABC and Lehrer News Hour in 8
post-Vietnam interventions

26.  Jonathon Mermin examined coverage in NYT,
ABC and Lehrer News Hour in 8 post-VN
interventions to Bosnia, 1974-1993.
▪ Range of debate quite narrow
▪ Criticism never questioned the wisdom of the policy, only strategy
and execution and impact on the president’s approval .
 Concludes: In post-VN, press never made an independent
contribution to foreign policy debate in the U.S.

28.  Reliance on official sources makes it very difficult for
the press to independently question war policy. At
best, the press can cover criticisms voiced by the
opposition party.
 And, under many conditions, criticisms from the
opposition party are too little, too late.
 Presidential control over information makes criticism from
the opposition party extremely risky and difficult.
▪ EX: Romney’s criticism over Benghazi: Accusing the president of
apologizing for American values and appeasing Islamic extremists.
▪ Obama: “Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first
and aim later.”
 Under some conditions the administration can stifle
dissent.

29.  December 2001: In response to Democratic plans
to question parts of the USA Patriot Act during a
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, John
Ashcroft (Att. Gen.) suggests that people who
disagree with the administration's anti-terrorism
policies are on the side of the terrorists.
 “…my message is this:Your tactics only aid
terrorists, for they erode our national unity and
diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to
America's enemies, and pause to America's
friends.They encourage people of good will to
remain silent in the face of evil."

30.  February 2002: Senate Majority LeaderTom Daschle expresses mild disagreement
with US anti-terror policies, saying US success in the war on terror "is still somewhat
in doubt." In response, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) says that Daschle's "divisive
comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing
them to exploit divisions in our country.“
 May 2002:After the disclosure that President Bush received a general warning about
possible AlQaeda hijackings prior to 9/11, Democrats demand to know what other
information the administration had before the attacks. In response, White House
communications director Dan Bartlett says that the Democratic statements "are
exactly what our opponents, our enemies, want us to do.“
 May 2004:After Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) said "the direction [in Iraq] has got be
changed or it is unwinnable," Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) said Democrats are
"basically giving aid and comfort to the enemy." Similarly, when House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi called President Bush an "incompetent leader," House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay (R-TX) said Pelosi "apparently is so caught up in partisan hatred for
President Bush that her words are puttingAmerican lives at risk.“
 September 2004:As John Kerry steps up his criticism of the Bush administration's
handling of Iraq and the war on terror, Republicans repeatedly suggest that he is
emboldening the enemy. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) says that "while young
Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our
nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic
obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." President Bush says, "You can
embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message...You send the wrong message to
our troops by sending mixed messages." And Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claims
that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the
election to try and elect Kerry," adding that Democrats are "consistently saying
things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over
there.

31.  July 2005: Senator Dick Durbin states that a description of US interrogation procedures at the
Guantanamo Bay detention facility sounds like something "done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or
some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others." Presidential adviser Karl Rove responds by suggesting that
Durbin and other liberals seek to put US troops in danger, saying that "Al Jazeera now broadcasts the
words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs
to be said about the motives of liberals.“
 November/December 2005: With critics of the war in Iraq growing increasingly vocal, Republicans lash
out, suggesting that Democrats are encouraging the enemy and want to surrender to terrorists.
President Bush says that "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy
that is questioningAmerica's will." Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) states that "Many on the Democratic side
have revealed their exit strategy: surrender" and Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) says that "[T]he liberal
leadership have put politics ahead of sound fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done
is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies."

32.  February 12, 2006: GOP chairman Ken Mehlman claims
the GOP doesn't question Democrats' patriotism
 "We do not and we never should question these Democrat
leaders' patriotism, but we do question their judgment and we
do question their ability to keep the American people safe," he
said. "These are people we know love their country, the
question is: Can they protect it?"