Media\'s Role in the War

Media's Role in the War on Terror: How Mainstream Media Serves as a Gatekeeper to Shape Public Thought

Many observers were heard to venture that following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, "things would never be the same," but the ongoing war on terrorism has its roots in events that occurred long before the Twin Towers collapsed and the Pentagon was struck that day. Due in large part to the manner in which the media had failed to cover the fateful events unfolding in the Middle East and interpreting them in meaningful ways, the American public was in fact startled out of a complacency that was the result of having won the Cold War and enjoying the unprecedented economic growth that followed as the world's only remaining superpower. The post-9/11 world has in fact been significantly different, but for reasons that might also startle many Americans, such as the so-called "culture of fear" that is being cultivated by the mainstream media to promote the government's agenda while generating additional sales in the process. To determine how and why the media has contributed to the prosecution of the war on terror in recent years, this paper provides a review of the relevant literature, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

Just one day after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2002, then-President George Bush announced to the U.S. Congress, the American people and the international community that the war on terror would be "a monumental struggle of good vs. evil," with many world leaders expressing similar characterizations of the nature of the struggle (quoted in Crockatt, 2003, p. 93). By framing the war on terror as "good vs. evil," the administration ensured that whatever military actions were taken in response to the 9/11 attacks were viewed by the American public and the rest of the world in this light and this approach has remained a keystone of American foreign policy throughout the war on terror (Crockatt 2003). This immediate characterization of the war on terror being a battle of "good vs. evil" was also intended, in some part at least, to divert the American public's attention away from the reasons for the terrorist attacks, which were well-known in much of the rest of the world. According to Crockatt, "American insulation may be put down in part to the presentation of news in the broadcast media in the United States" (2003, p. 16). As an example, Crockatt cites the case of a BBC journalist who made the point that "Americans settled for second best in their news broadcasting, which is why millions were so shocked by the terrible mass murder of September 11. Their journalists hadn't prepared them to understand the great swings of history that are going on, the rage and frustration that exists in some parts of the world when people see an Israeli pilot in an American F-16'" (quoted in Crockatt, 2003, p. 16). The mainstream media in the United States quickly lined up in support of this characterization of the war on terror being a battle of "good vs. evil," and "us vs. them" for some important reasons which are discussed further below.

First, American political leaders recognized the influence that the mainstream media has on shaping public thought and took pains to ensure that major media sources supported the war on terror in their coverage. For instance, according to Billeaudeaux, Domke, Hutcheson and Garland (2003), "No other profession has such close, consistent interactions with government and military leaders as the press; further, political leaders are fully aware of their reliance on the press to communicate with the mass public" (p. 166). As a result, during the turbulent period that followed in the immediate aftermath of September 11 and even since that time, American public leaders have seized the opportunity to press their case for the war on terror through the media. In this regard, Zalman and Clarke emphasize that, "News outlets, both print and electronic, played a crucial role in developing the global war on terror narrative. Long after the 2001 attacks, and especially in the run-up to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, terror-related news dominated the front page of the New York Times and Washington Post as well as the political news of the Wall Street Journal" (2009, p. 101).

The vital gatekeeping function played by the mainstream media certainly came into play in recent years as well as the media sources selected just the right mix of coverage to reinforce the image of righteousness on the part of America and its allies. In this regard, Zalman and Clarke add that, "News organizations predisposed to positive coverage of the Bush administration, such as Fox, shielded Americans from viewing the negative fallout of U.S. actions throughout the rest of the world by heeding Rumsfeld's calls for good news about the efforts overseas. Rarely a good medium for presenting complexity, television tended to promote the image of 'us vs. them'" (2009, p. 102). In fact, it has become dangerous and even tantamount to treason for journalists to express a contrary opinion such as the terrorist forces may have had good reasons for their attacks on America and its allies, and most lines of inquiry along these lines have ceased (Crockatt, 2003). In its place has been a steady stream of news coverage that has carefully followed the government's agenda for prosecuting shooting wars in Afghanistan and until very recently, Iraq by highlighting any glimpse of "progress" while downplaying the serious consequences that have resulted from this preemptive approach. The U.S. government has some sound reasons for using this approach based on some hard-learned experience during the second half of the 20th century. According to Dettmer (2002), "As every successful antiterrorist expert knows, an essential ingredient in defeating an insurgency or terrorist group must involve mounting an effective, two-pronged, hearts-and-minds strategy that aims, on the one hand, to wean supporters away from the terrorist opponent and, on the other, to maintain the morale and backing of your own people" (p. 47).

Second, while it is reasonable to suggest that some of this government-influenced media coverage of the war on terror was the result of growing interest on the part of the American public concerning what their government was doing to protect them from further attacks, it is also reasonable to suggest that the mainstream media knew what generated sales and exploited the opportunity to their advantage. This assertion is supported by Zalman and Clarke note that, "Through such reporting, as well as through incessant television coverage of the attacks and their aftermath, the evolution of homeland security, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and policies and statements issuing from Washington, the media helped create the atmosphere of an ever-breaking story. Sheer repetition helped to weave the war on terror into the collective imagination" (2009, p. 102).

Moreover, the need for an "ever-breaking story" by mainstream media has become even more pronounced in recent years as these outlets have found themselves in deep financial trouble as a result of declining audiences as a result of the Internet and cable news programs. According to Beale (2006), "The number of Americans who report that they read a newspaper or watch local or national news has dropped precipitously and online and cable news outlets have gained a significant share of the market. Between 1993 and 2002, local television news consumption dropped from 77% to 57% of all Americans, nightly network news consumption dropped from 60% to 32%, and newspaper consumption dropped from 58% to 41%" (p. 397). In this challenging environment, keeping the American public nervous and even scared about the war on terror represents a good marketing tactic that can help generate increased interest as well as increased sales and profits. As a direct consequence, Dettmer suggests that, "The media and the terrorists became locked in a symbiotic relationship. The terrorists needed the coverage; reporters and TV producers needed the stories" (p. 47).

This is not to say, of course, that mainstream media is responsible for this trend in highlighting the positive and downplaying the negative (i.e., the Bush administration's longstanding policy that prohibits broadcast or photography of flag-draped coffins being unloaded from Air Force transports returning from the Middle East), but it is to say that the mainstream media has a lot at stake in how the war on terror is presented to the American public, and the more sensational the news or claims of terrorist threats by government officials, the better. In this regard, Dettmer cites a number of examples of federal officials using outright scare tactics in collaboration with, and in some cases collusion with, the mainstream media that have defined the framework for the media's subsequent role in the war on terror. .According to Dettmer, "It isn't all the media's fault. In recent weeks, the administration, led by Attorney General John Ashcroft, appears to have done everything it could to ratchet up the scare factor, too" (2002, p. 47).

The attorney general also made sure that the mainstream media had plenty of scary stuff about terrorists to cover in a dramatic fashion. For instance, Dettmer notes that, "The manner of the announcement by a live TV linkup for Ashcroft in Moscow and a star-studded news conference at the Justice Department added massive drama. With the surprising exception of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, aides and officials appeared determined to talk up the dirty-bomb threat" (2002, p. 47). With the terrorist alert standing at orange today, and riveted up to red tomorrow, who knows where it will be next Tuesday? Indeed, Ranum (2004) emphasizes that, "The media, of course, doesn't really want definitive answers to the problems of homeland security. In fact, the media is probably happier with unanswered or unanswerable questions since these make for better stories and provide a good forum for endless pundits to discuss endless questions endlessly" (p. 13). In this atmosphere, it is little wonder that the American public is rightfully jittery as a result of this type of hyperbolic media coverage of the war on terror and why they need to support the effort. The media's role in promoting and sustaining this culture of fear was made evident early on. According to Dettmer, "Ashcroft subsequently was criticized for hyping the radioactive menace by the White House (via off-the-record briefings to the press, of course). But the disclosure nonetheless fits into a recent pattern of dramatic statements from senior administration figures that have only added to widespread public alarm" (2002, p. 47).

Because the gatekeepers at the mainstream media have the ability to select what the public sees, hears and reads, and how this information is interpreted, presented and timed, it is apparent that the media is in a uniquely powerful position to shape public thoughts concerning the war on terror and the national government has taken advantage of this influence to justify massive expenditures of resources based on spurious but sensationalized reports of new terrorist threats. In this regard, Dettmer cites the role of the media thusly: "Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and FBI Director Robert Mueller all have made startling comments of late. All have endorsed the idea that it is inevitable terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weapons. The media, of course, add to the hype" (2002, p. 74).