Assessment of Conflicting Findings on Media Influence on Policy - Essay Example

?Media, Public Policy and International Politics Assessment of conflicting findings on Media Influence on Policy Case Analysis: Media’s Influence on US Foreign Policy Introduction The media have grown exponentially powerful over the past decade. Advances in technology have really helped the industry especially since the reach of the internet has been tremendously increased and the opportunities it present was effectively taken advantage of by new products and services made possible through the major advancements of technology for the communication sector. Likewise, big media outfits have been able to expand globally establishing news bureaus on major corners of the world. This has provided them with an effective platform to launch news coverage on almost any part of the world. Indeed, the media industry has been one of the early takers of globalization. Logically, since big news events can happen on different countries, establishing a global presence has been a very important strategy for the media industry. As with other companies and industries, the media companies have been able to access talents globally. Likewise, the global competition has also increased the level of service quality given by these firms. Indeed, as with any other industry, globalization has been able to help raise the bar of quality products and services to consumers (Khatri & Nanyang 2000). However, has this really been the case for all members of the media industry or has some utilized their power for influencing various policies. Likewise, has some media outfits been remiss of their duties to provide balanced reporting and has indulged too much in politicking. Part 1: Effect of Media: “The Fox on the Bush” After the September 11 terrorist attack, the Bush administration saw the chance to launch the new policy which was the National Security Strategy of the United States. This had been more famously known as the pre-emptive strike policy which was launched by the Bush administration as a means of deterring future terrorist attacks by the simple principle of being able to attack first so that enemies will not be able to launch an attack on all US interests. Shah (2004) reports that under this policy, the US military has been granted the go signal to strike at states perceived to be harbouring threats to national security to ensure that these are neutralized before they become capable of launching an attack on US soil or US interests. This policy has raised many eyebrows since this crosses the line of existing international obligations and treaties including the pull out of the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. This likewise paved the way for possible use of nuclear force against perceived threats. It is interesting to note that this policy has been in the works prior to the September 11 attacks as reported by Donnelly (2000) wherein four pillars have been established for the US military such as the basic homeland defense. However, the strategy also calls for the capability to wage and win big theatre wars which clearly indicates that as a global police, the US must be capable of pacifying different enemies worldwide. Furthermore, it calls for administering security in areas that are critical. These would not have been possible though had it not been for the terrorist attack and the media blitz that accompanied it. Thus, the timing for launching the policy embodying these ideals have been quite perfect especially since public opinion have been swayed so much by the hysteria generated by the much publicized attack on American soil as well as the subsequent retaliatory strategies. Drumming up the War After the September 11 terrorist attack, the rhetoric of the administration has intensified to shore up public support for the war. This was further advanced through the efforts of various media that have portrayed the horrors of the attack so effectively that people have been moved to ask for actions. Although the protection of the innocent citizens as well as the need for justice to be served for the victims, the media mileage have been stretched further in order to be able to promulgate a foreign policy that enables the US to ensure that its superpower status continue to stretch all over the world. Nacos (2003) showed how the terrorism attack have changed the way people think wherein the concern for their safety has really been raised to a higher level. This heightened awareness has been an effective platform to launch various polices that have global impacts, the most significant of which was the pre-emptive strike policy of the United States. The fear experienced by the Americans and the drama emanating from the ground zero has provided excellent news for media outfits. These have been repeated, commented and even compounded growing louder with the preparations being done towards the invasion of Iraq. The pre-emptive strike policy of the United States was instrumental in the invasion of Iraq. This policy has legitimized military action against another sovereign nation. The hysteria from the terrorist attack was still high fuelled by the excellent media coverage of the US broadcasting networks notably Fox and to some extent NBC. Carr (2007) described it as a stunning display of force wherein the skies of Iraq had been lit up as though there is a massive fireworks display. The sophisticated attack have been boosted significantly by the media mileage that it generated and the strength as well as the wide reach of US media have been able to present the war on the lenses of the administration as war for freedom – effectively stamping out the angle of invasion or occupation presented by the other media outfits most specifically those that are from the Middle East. In effect, Fox and the other US broadcasting networks generated a sort of media shock and awe of their own. Years after the war the dazzling pre-emptive strike that showcased the might of the US military, US forces remained in Iraq. The United States, much more President Bush, have taken quite some flak regarding the validity of this military mobilization. Kellner (2004) criticizes the blatant coverage of US broadcasting networks, most notably Fox, of the war on Iraq. The showmanship of the media that helped brought to fruition the plotting of the pre-emptive strike strategy as well as its initial use in the war on Iraq and aftermath have shown the power of the media to influence events to historical proportions. The problem was that the confluence of media and Bush forces had been instrumental in gaining approval from the citizens of a democratic country to launch a military overkill on a much weaker nation in a supposed crusade for peace and justice. Part2: Critique of the Media’s role in Foreign Policy Balanced, fair and accurate news reporting characterizes a good broadcasting network. These are also the basic responsibility of every news network. More so, these companies are not reporting just because it is their job and it keeps the business growing. The media is a very important aspect of a democracy since it is the medium that enables the people to know what is going on in their country. At times, the media also reflects the opinions of the masses. Thus, more than just business, the media and its news reporting are a form of public service, a service that stems from the trust of the masses (Herman 1993). However, in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the United States and towards the build up of the war on Iraq, media outfits seem to have been turned into mediums for advancing propaganda. More importantly, the media served as a very effective channel for the passage of the pre-emptive strike policy through the media blitz that compounded the terror attack and maintained the hysteria generated by that watershed event in US history. Moreover, the paranoia that enveloped the media has likewise been carried over to one of the staunchest ally of the US when the British media seem to pick up on the lines being relayed by their US counterpart. As a result, minority Muslims in Britain had been quite uneasy with the prevailing manner of reporting being conducted by the media (Poole 2006). In a wicked twist of fate, the media that should have been a force for democracy has been an avenue for oppression that has troubled minorities. As mentioned, the media has been instrumental in drumming support and even maintaining it towards the conduct of the war on Iraq. Cottle (2002) shows the shift in journalism after the terrorist attack. Although it is undeniable that the magnitude generated by the attack had really been a game changer for basically all of the industries in almost all of the countries worldwide, it still does not warrant a one sided view of reporting just to ensure that the policies of governments continue to enjoy the support of the citizens. This has been criticized by Potter (2003) when the truth about the rescue of an American servicewoman have been distorted significantly to play out a more interesting story that further cements the machismo of the US war effort. This is a very crucial and delicate matter especially when lives are at risk or lost. However, this does not warrant in any way the alteration of true events. Thus, Kellner (2004) seeks to make the people, especially the media understand what has really happened as well as the result of the media propaganda and supposed cover up has done to the democracy the United States have been flaunting every time it goes to war. Thus, in this chapter of US history, the media has seemingly been a strong contributor to the actions of the government and the military. Through the manner of reporting, the media has stirred up public emotion that has been instrumental in bringing forth the policy of pre-emptive strike by the Bush administration which, unknown to most Americans, has had its roots long before the first airplane struck the World Trade Center tower. Willing Accomplice or Masterminds for Profit? The terrorist attack had been a very big media event and as mentioned has stirred much emotion from the American people as well as from all citizens of the free world. The general consensus that time was to demand for action against the terrorists that have orchestrated the attack. Thus, every time news about the attack was played as well as the subsequent mobilization and the promulgation of the first strike policy, Americans seem glued to their screens. It is easy to see how much profit these media outfits may have raked in over these news. This opens up a more disturbing discussion as to whether these media outfits have just been playing along or are playing a big part in order to have a better bottomline at the expense of fair and balanced media coverage. This kind of coverage by the media intensified when the pre-emptive strike policy was used to attach Iraq. Kellner (2004) writes about how the US media stifles the reports showing the carnage brought about by the war. In the end, it seems that the big bucks from the big news have been the primary motivation of the manner of reporting and coverage by the big US media outfits. Hence, it seems that from merely being willing accomplices, the media has an agenda of its own. Barker (2005) notes that the media play an important role in the formation of social context from which policies are forged thus, highlighting further the public service aspect of the media. Amongst the myriad of responsibilities by the media is the fact that companies in this industry provides people with the needed information on how the various policies of their government can affect their daily lives. Vice versa, it is also through the media that governments are able to gauge the effect of their policies and programs as well. However, because of this, the media has likewise been a crucial enabler for those that might want to sway these policies, in this case the Bush administration in favour of The National Security Strategy of the United States which have been more famously known as the pre-emptive strike policy. Hence, it is interesting to note that the power of the media is so strong that its capability to influence policy and sway public opinion can be used to forge various results in history. However, it is also troubling to note that media entities have stake in these policies that may open up the possibility of conflicts of interest. Doherty (2005) brought forward the fact that the BBC is a state run media outfit and that the board of governors is appointed by “her Majesty” herself. This complicates the issue even further which shows how much the media can be swayed to help bring about policies advantageous to the British government and probably to her US allies. Furthermore, Edwards and Cromwell (2005) portrays the media as means to perpetuate power wherein, contrary to the belief that the media is free from influence, they imply that the mantle of liberalism is inexistent on media. Basically, the foregoing information about the BBC already implies that one of the biggest news networks in the world is not as free as one would have wanted media to be. Hence, this presents a very disturbing fact that has been unveiled when the cruise missiles of the United States and the fighter planes of the Royal Airforce rained terror on Iraq. Is there good news here? Apparently, the case of the media’s influence on the foreign policy of the United States has considerably shown serious flaws showing how the big broadcasting companies have been remiss of their duties to the public. Mansell (2004) tries to explain this behaviour since the media of the new century is bent of analyzing the conditions that may forge a power distribution and its effect on the people of the country. It is interesting to note that although the media is the traditional speaker of the masses to communicate their dissent to their government, the excessiveness brazenly displayed by the major US broadcasting networks have likewise garnered much flak from the public. History has been a fair judge and the problems that dragged on after the war clearly demonstrate the follies of the pre-emptive strike policy. The passage of this policy was greatly helped by the media and was instrumental all the way to the sending of the troops as well as the aftermath of the war. Recently though, it was also through media that people are demanding these soldiers to be sent safely home. If the media can be utilized by the government, as shown in this foregoing case study, to promulgate policies that are in accordance to its whims, the people can likewise show their dissent through it. Conclusion The media is very powerful and, aside from this case, there are various evidences that attest to the overwhelming power of the press. It is no wonder how various networks charge exorbitant fees for advertisements since the media is very effective in reaching the target market of a product or service. Television, radio, internet and cinemas reach far into all the corners of the civilized world. Thus, they are able to touch the masses and deliver easily the messages they want to reach the people. How in the world can different nations see the tremendous force unleashed on Iraq if these had not been reported through media? Also, through repeated exposure, the media has been effective influencers of decisions since people are subjected to the same line of thinking over and over again. It is therefore easy to see why companies invest in media exposure – it simply works. Thus, Zyl (2008) recognizes the power of the media to influence the policies of governments thus it is easy to see why various policy makers and lobbyists turn to the media for the needed exposure of their propositions to try to sway public opinion in order to rally support for their policies. As it turns out, the media has played a considerable part in the promulgation of the pre-emptive strike policy. The case has shown how low the media has stooped and seemingly set aside the values and ethics of fair and balanced reporting for various reasons. Some outfits such as the BBC are obviously locked in a strangle hold by the state while some like Fox seem to revel under the company of the Bush administration. The criticisms initially brought forward by Kellner (2004) have shown the bias of these big names in the media industry. It is disheartening to note that for the most part of the years from the terrorist attack to the war as well as its aftermath, these media outfits seem to have been willing accomplices that have been instrumental in forging oppressive policies by a state that supposedly espoused the values of democracy. However, it is encouraging to note that despite the initial propaganda, the people will always prevail. Though the media has been used by the Bush administration to advance the pre-emptive strike policy, it was also through the media that the people have come to realise the excessiveness of the policies behind the war as well as the inadequacies of that government. This cost the republicans the presidential election as well as the majority in congress. References Barker, M 2005, “Manufacturing policies: the media’s role in the policy making process”, Journalism Education Conference, Griffith University, 29 November – 2 December 2005. Carr, P 2007, “Shock and awe and the environment”, Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice. Available at: http://lakeheadu.academia.edu/PaulCarr/Papers/91107/_Shock_and_Awe_and_the_Environment. Cottle, S 2002, ‘Television Agora and Agoraphobia Post-September 11’ In Zelizer, B & Allan, S (eds) Journalism after September 11. Routledge, London. Doherty, A 2005, Propaganda and the BBC. February 7, 2005, Zmag.org. Available at: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=7189. Donnelly, T 2000, “Rebuilding America’s defenses: strategy, forces and resources for a new century”, a report of the project for the New American Century, September. Available at: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf. Edwards, D & Cromwell, D 2005. Guardians of power: the myth of the liberal media. London: Pluto Press. Herman, E. S. 1993. The media’s role in United States foreign policy. Journal of International Affairs, vol. 43, pp. 23-45. Kellner, D 2004 'Media propaganda and spectacle in the war on Iraq: a Critique of U.S. Broadcasting Networks' in Cultural StudiesCritical Methodologies, vol. 4, pp. 329-338. Khatri, N & Nanyang, OPN 2000, Managing human resources in a global era. Management Available at: http://www.anpad.org.br/periodicos/arq_pdf/a_1117.pdf Mansell, R. 2004, Political economy, power and new media. New Media & Societ, vol. 6, pp. 96-105. Available at: http://www.newinfluencer.com/mediapedia/global-political-economy/. Nacos, B 2003, "Terrorism as breaking news:attack on America" in political science quarterly. New York: The academy of political science, vol. 18, no. 1, pp.23-52. Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xvvPh-ob6OQC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=terrorism+as+breaking+news:+attack+on+america+by+nacos&source=bl&ots=zWlZialFCJ&sig=2lmkV5kh0YZwwj0a_9m0UreJ-Ac&hl=en&ei=nnZ7TarEItSZhQf8-v3sBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=terrorism%20as%20breaking%20news%3A%20attack%20on%20america%20by%20nacos&f=false. Poole, E 2006, ‘The effects of September 11 and the war in Iraq on British newspaper coverage’ in Poole, E. (ed) (2006) Muslims and the News Media, pp.89-102. Tauris, London. Potter, M 2003, The real “saving Pte. Lynch.” Toronto Star, p. A01. Shah, A 2004, “The bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes: A global pax Americana”, Global issues, social, political, economic and environmental issues that affect us all. Available at: http://www.globalissues.org/article/450/the-bush-doctrine-of-pre-emptive-strikes-a-global-pax-americana. Zyl, G V 2008, “Engaging the media to influence policy”, Healthwrite. Available at: http://scienceincommunity.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/engaging-the-media-to-influence-policy/. Read More