The Iraq War 2003 in Western media and public opinion - Essay Example

 The Iraq War 2003 in Western media and public opinion When the US and UK invaded Iraq in 2003, opinion polls in both countries indicated varying levels of support for the invasion before, during, and after the war. For instance, in the US, polls conducted in mid-March indicated that 56% of the respondents supported the war while 41% opposed it (Hafez 2003, p. 9). In the UK, opinion polls conducted during the same period indicated that 26% of the public supported the war while 63% opposed it. In April, opinion polls in both countries indicated a dramatic shift in public support of the war. For example, in the UK, public support rose to 56% while opposition dropped to 38% (Lewis 2004, p. 297). Although opinion polls indicated a shift in the British public opinion about the war, the public opinion did not actually change during the entire period. Though the polls conducted by different agencies in the UK indicated an increase in the level of support for the war, it did not reflect the true opinion of the public. The public opinion only appeared to change because of the shortfalls in the polling process. In any opinion poll, there are priority issues that can alter the respondents’ answer depending on the way they are presented. If such priority issues are overshadowed by time or other events, the pollsters can ignore them in subsequent polls. For instance, in the British case, the pollsters left out the key issues because of time and other events that had occurred. Thus, if it were possible to incorporate the key events in the polls disregarding other events that had occurred, the polls could have otherwise suggested a different result. Apart from ignoring the real issues that initially determined people’s attitude, opinion polls possibly misidentified the respondents’ support for related issues as the support of the war. For instance, a respondent could have identified with one side of the conflict for personal reasons without necessarily supporting the war. In such situation, the polls deceptively indicated the support of the war. As a result, the outcome became unreliable. Literature Review According to Baines and Worcester (2005), the public opinion changed during the war because of three major reasons. They include patriotism, government communication protocol, and extraneous factors. Patriotism prejudiced the public opinion; the British felt that their troops were in real danger. Thus, in order to motivate them, they decided to side with the troops. However, siding with the troops did not reflect a true change of attitude towards the war. It was only a way of helping the UK troops out of the difficult situation. Indeed, when the war ended and the public was certain that the troops were out of danger, a change of opinion occurred again. Those who had supported the troops but opposed the government decision resumed their initial attitudes (Baines & Worcester 2005, p. 16). The government communication protocol also played a key role in changing the public attitudes towards the war. Although opinion polls had indicated that the public was against the war, it provided the government with a timely opportunity to look for other strategies of selling the unpopular policy. The government exploited the people’s trust in the media; most people believe that the information from the popular media is always correct. Since the government was aware of this loophole, it manipulated it in its favour. For instance, it hijacked the media freedom by embedding journalists in frontline units overseen by media relationship officers. Although it was safe for journalists to cover the events with the troops, the entire embedding process limited their freedom. Thus, the journalists could cover the events from the perspective of the military. As a result, the media aired positive pro-war stories, which changed people’s opinion (Baines & Worcester 2005, p. 8, 16). Extraneous factors also helped to manipulate the public attitudes towards the war. Initially, most people had supported or opposed the war because of various reasons. For instance, some felt that the war could expose British troops to unnecessary risks that could be solved by diplomacy. However, when the U.K. and U.S. troops won the battle, most people wanted to be associated with the victory. As a result they changed their attitudes towards the war as a way of rejoicing the reflected glory (Baines & Worcester 2005, p. 8, 16). According to Lewis (2004), the public opinion might have shifted during the war because of some changes in question wording in the opinion polls. Before the actual invasion, the British public could only support the war if two preconditions were met. First, the public wanted a proof that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Second, the public wanted a UN backing of the invasion and an approval of military action. Indeed, the opinion polls conducted in mid-March addressed the two issues, which showed that public support for the war was low. However, in the April polls, there were no such preconditions in the question wording. As a result, the public opinion shifted dramatically because the opinion polls had failed to incorporate the key issues. It should be noted that the poll agents did not manipulate the outcome by simply putting aside the two preconditions in the April polls. The war had been fought without a UN backing and proof of WMD (p. 297-298). Because the US and UK entered the war without a proof of WMD and UN backing, it was needless for any opinion poll question to reemphasise the significance of the two issues. Therefore, if indeed the British supported the war, they must have changed their thoughts about the relevance of the two conditions. However, a significant section of the public was undecided on the position they could take when the April polls were conducted. Since the undecided respondents may have expressed their doubts by limiting their support to specific issues, it may have been their way of expressing uncertainty in the matter. Thus, although one can conclude that there was no change of attitude because of the uncertainties, the question wording might have prompted undecided respondents to answer the questions in a particular (Lewis 2004, p. 298). Although the proof of WMD and UN backing determined the public attitudes, they were overshadowed by two key events. First, the House of Commons voted in support of the Prime Minister, diffusing initial uncertainties that surrounded the policy. Second, France had threatened to veto any UN resolution on the matter irrespective of the number of countries that supported it. Indeed, there were speculations that the February 26 vote could go against the PM given the number of Labour MPs who rejected the decision to invade Iraq. Eventually, the PM won the vote, leaving the anti-war groups with no choice but to support the war (Baines & Worcester 2005, p. 11). Because France repeatedly threatened to veto the UN resolution, a section of the anti-war campaigners perceived it as a deliberate way of blocking diplomacy. Thus, they blamed France for noncompliance with the peaceful strategy of resolving the issues. Nonetheless, the France’s decision became their justification for military action against Iraq (Baines & Worcester 2005, p. 12). Therefore, those who had initially based their opinions on a UN backing of military action had a good reason to change their minds. As a result, the public support for the war increased. The public opinion falsely shifted in April 2003 because the opinion polls had failed to differentiate between the support of war and the support of British troops. Since the war had been fought without a proof of WMD and UN backing, such preconditions did not matter anymore. Thus, the British public opinion shifted to the support of the troops in Iraq rather than the war itself. The Britons who had previously opposed the war chose to support the troops because they felt it was patriotic to do so. However, this situation was mistaken for the support of the war. It can be argued that the public opinion never changed during the war because those who had supported the troops continued with their initial position of opposing the war when they realised that the government had exaggerated the Iraqi threat to international security (Lewis 2004, p. 300-302). The public attitude towards the war deceptively changed because the British media reproduced claims of the presence of WMD rather than questioning them. The British broadcasters frequently cited speculations from the government, military, and correspondents about the presence of WMD in Iraq instead of focusing on other reports that could suggest their absence. Thus, the speculations created an impression that such weapons could eventually be found, undoubtedly reinforcing the public support for the war. Although such weapons were never found, a significant number of the broadcasters still assumed their possible existence, distorting public opinion about the issue (Lewis 2004, p. 303). According to Hafez (2003), the public opinion was largely shaped by media reports. Before the war, a section of the British sensationalist media took different sides; some supported the war while others opposed it. For instance, the Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid press was largely pro-government throughout the pre-war and war periods. When the war started, the anti-war media underwent a steady shift in opinion, which influenced people’s attitude towards the war. For example, The Independent, which had initially focused on the humanitarian aspects of the war, started concentrating on pro-war sentiments. On the other hand, The Times concentrated on patriotism; it published reports depicting the British troops as heroes. The move undoubtedly reinforced the people’s support of the military rather than the war (Hafez 2003, p. 3-5). The public opinion changed during the war because the people were influenced by the way the events occurred. Those who were against the war had predicted high costs in terms of human and financial resources. Since the British casualties were not as high as previously anticipated, there was no reason for anyone to object the war. The complicit media also helped to improve the picture by covering the events in a different way during the war. For example, the media only covered the British version of events by avoiding the ugly side of the war (Baines & Worcester 2005, p. 8-10). The public opinion shifted during the war because of the influence of opinion polls. The polls initially indicated a high level of disapproval of the war. However, as the number of people supporting the war increased, more people were pulled by the wave of change. Most people felt that there was no need of opposing a campaign that several people supported. Therefore, most people changed their attitudes towards the war because the war was increasingly becoming popular. However, when it became clear that there were no WMD, the public support for the war declined (University of Texas at Dallas n.d., p. 7-8). The public opinion changed during the war because a number of factors created a favourable climate, which made pro-war positions more relevant and reasonable. The factors included television coverage, opinion polls, government communication, and military victory in the battlefield. It should be noted that the television coverage was not a crude form of bias, but the creation of news values that favoured certain narratives and assumptions than others (Lewis 2004, p. 295-296). Hypotheses Although several opinion polls suggested a rising level of public support for the war, they did not represent the true attitudes of the people towards the war. What was considered a dramatic change in public opinion was possibly a temporary shift in public attitude, which did not imply a long-term change of heart. The then dramatic change can be explained by testing the following hypotheses: 1. The British public opinion about Iraq War did not change during the war. 2. The pollsters misinterpreted the British public opinion during the war. Reference List Baines, Paul and Worcester, M. Robert. 2005. ‘When the British ‘Tommy’ went to war, public opinion followed. Journal of Public Affairs, pp. 4-19. Available from: John Wiley & sons. [2 December 2014]. Hafez, Kai. (2003), The Iraq War 2003 in Western media and public opinion: a case study of the effects of military (non-) involvement in conflict perception. Available at: [Accessed 2 December 2014]. Lewis, Justin, 2004, ‘Television, public opinion and the war in Iraq: the case of Britain’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 295-309. Available from: World Association for Public Opinion Research. [2 December 2014]. Pew Research Centre. (2008). Public Attitudes Toward the War in Iraq: 2003-2008. Available at www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/: [Accessed 2 December 2014]. University of Texas at Dallas. (n.d.), Tony’s war. Available at: http://www.utdallas.edu/epps/hclarke/pdf/PerformancePoliticsch4.pdf [Accessed 2 December 2014]. Read More