The War Of Iraq And The Buildup Was A Press Success

The Bush administration's National Security Strategy was a product of America’s belief in American interventionism and exceptionalism, and marked a dramatic shift in the United State's foreign policy. In addition, it showcased the Bush administration’s push to find answers to 9/11. In the few years after the tragedy, the US would seek to strike a blow in the war on terror in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein and his Ba’athist regime had supposed ties to terror groups such as Al-Qaeda. The nation quickly moved to war, and invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003. However, even though the war was quickly declared over, the continued deaths of American troops in Iraq gave rise to powerful protests. Artist Joe Wezoreck’s collage War President, critiques the continued stay of American troops in Iraq. Once Iraqi accounts of the war, such as Wendell Steveanson’s collection of stories “Dispatches from Iraq” surfaced, the American public truly began to question the real purpose behind the Iraq war. These sources initiated the changing perception of the American identity as a bastion of freedom and democracy as a result of the Iraq war. In the end, the Iraq war ultimately failed to provide answers to a post 9/11 nation, and instead revealed the flaws of interventionism and muddled American foreign policy to the disillusioned American

By nature, the role of the media is to tell the people what is going on. In the case of the Vietnam war, the most important role became to inform the people ‘at home’ how the boys in Indochina were doing. The current consensus is � with the restrictions imposed on the US troops in Vietnam � that the US never had a realistic chance in the Vietnam conflict. As one Vietnam veteran puts it: it was the “politicians [who] lost the war in Vietnam, by declaring we couldn’t go into Cambodia and Laos, which is where the NVA strongholds were.” (Melnick 2002)

The Vietnam War proved to governments all over the world that, in order to have a successful military campaign, some form of censorship needs to take place. The Washington Post has reported that due to the effects of the media in Vietnam, “every U.S. military engagement since… has featured attempts to control the media” (Hajela 2006, para. 13) which demonstrates how, since Vietnam, governments have been trying to avoid a similar reaction. Journalists who also reported in Vietnam recall interviewing generals with media handlers present in later conflicts, and mention, in relation to the censorship in Vietnam that, “[they] don't think that in our lifetimes we will ever see that kind of freedom again.” (Hajela 2006, para. 14) The Vietnam War not only made people aware of the need for censorship, but also the power the media holds, which was made clear in the changing attitudes of the media. This is made clear through public reactions and the timing of which they began to support withdrawals from Vietnam. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs, of the Australian government, highlights the power of the media, stating that, “opposition to the war, as the ALP had learnt to its cost in 1966, was not a vote winner… [however in] 1969… it was electorally popular to oppose the war,” (Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs 2015, para. 2) This emphasises the power of the

Following the attacks in America on September 11, 1999, there was a public outcry for justice throughout the country. Even with significant public support to wage war against Iraq, there was not enough reason to persuade congress. Over the course of two years, President George W. Bush proved that there was a purpose in the war, not only seek vengeance against terrorism; but, gift a people freedom from dictatorship. Yet, there were still downsides to war including inevitable loss of American life and damaged reputation for our country. For that reason, the United States of America should not have gone to war with Iraq in 2003 due to the extensive federal funding for undesirable warfare which took away from domestic prosperity, the preventable injury to veterans as well as violence against civilians, and the country’s damaged reputation achieved due to the illegitimacy of the war.

In chapter 10 of Writing Today, by Richard Johnson-Sheehan, Charles Paine, Cathi Shaw, and Jordan Stouck, an essay titled, The CNN Effect Revisited, written by Piers Robinson, details the “CNN Effect” and contrasts the changes after the events of 9/11. Robinson explains that during the 90’s, the media had a much larger influence and impact with the United States foreign policy and would emphasise coverage on topics to push politicians to make change. If a government policy doesn’t gain the support it requires to be put into action, “[...] the news media influence increases” (P 234), while the ones that do, “[...] the influence of news media coverage is reduced.” (P 234) The media catered to their own self interests and agenda, using the audience

This paper will look at and discuss the presidency’s actions involving Iraq from Reagan to Obama. Each and every president during this time has used different strategies and formats to get their agenda across, to not only convince the public, but the international community as well. We will show how Iraq has gone from an ally to overthrowing the government, to the ensuing turmoil that this created for everyone involved, from ours and their citizenship, governing bodies, and other world leaders. With over 35 years of intervention, we will determine if there has been a consensus of actions among our presidents, and see if there is a cohesive US strategy and long term goals that have been reached for all our effort and actions to all of this.

The methods that people nowadays use to get news of any kind, whether it be sports, weather, or global, have changed drastically from the time where news was only available through newspapers and radio stations. Regarding terrorism, the media is the only source of information, unless it is a primary account of a soldier who had been at war. However, the media is able to manipulate any story to make someone or something either look good or bad. This is exactly what happened after the occurrence of 9/11. The media, along with the government, caught the wave of nationalism sweeping across the country and built news stories favoring America. For example, not many people talk about how the American government in 1990, intervened in the Middle East after Iraq invaded Kuwait, which could be a possible cause for the attacks of 9/11. This event and many other instances of American intervention in the Middle East have been swept under the rug by the U.S. government through the media. These incidences were all put forth as necessary steps to protect “our” best interests in the region. John Steinbrink, a professor of education and Jeremy Cook, a doctoral candidate at Oklahoma State University, used the media’s coverage of the aftermath of 9/11 as an example for education in media literacy, which is “the ability to read, understand, and interpret the influence of all forms of media in one’s life” (284). Using

What this paper seeks to address are the differences and underlying reasons in media coverage and national perceptions, as demonstrated by the case of Bergdahl and Shalit. Despite the remarkable similarities between the two stories of their captivity and release, why did each play out so differently in their countries’ respective media outlets? These two cases can help us understand what role the media plays in delivering the news and how certain news is framed and for what purpose. It also demonstrates the role that partisan coverage plays in the current media environment and how those narratives define perceptions of the event and essentially tell the viewer what to believe, instead of giving them information to make their opinions.

Carlson, Timothy and Katovsky, Bill, _Embedded: The media at war in Iraq_, The Lyons Press, Guilford, 2003.

For my issue I will be focusing on the influence of the American mainstream media after the September 11th attacks and during the United States’ international military campaign known as the ‘War on Terror’. On September 11, 2001 otherwise known as 9/11, a series of terrorism where committed in which the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda devised four bomber attacks on U.S landmarks killing 2,977 people (CNN). Shortly after the events of 9/11, George W. Bush enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorist (AUMF) and from his administration declared their own definition and objectives regarding the war on terror. The declaration would create not only a mass media indolent but insight a decade long conflict of fear of security

(Oates, 20 p. 135) Likewise, Nacos criticised the media for failing to scrutinise governments or present non-violent options for public debate instead favouring official discourse by focusing on counterterrorism and military action. She notes, “All Americans would have benefited from comprehensive, balanced, probing reporting and editorializing” allowing them “to make well-informed decisions…. such as the question of whether to torture known and suspected terrorists” (Nacos, 2007, p172) In a subsequent study, Nacos also observed the mass media were reluctant to label the abuse and degradation at Abu Ghraib as torture, once there was evidence of such, instead choosing other terms such as “alleged abuse” and “mistreatment.” (Nacos, 2011, pp. 289-290) Jamail furthered this observation, stating, “The media try hard to place the spotlight on a minor issue thereby attempting to obfuscate the larger violation. This was clearly visible in the case of the Abu Ghraib reports.” (Jamail, 2012, p. 301) Oates attributes this failure to the patriotic constraint experienced by the media post 9/11 which “limited acceptable debate and challenge”. (Oates, 2008, p.40) However, in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, Nacos subsequently found that media practices had altered, exemplified by ample coverage and scrutiny being provided when the Patriot Act was due to be

Firstly, the “war on terror” had reduced the humanitarian concerns down, and the foreign policy. Furthermore, media coverage had become more deferential and constrained: therefore, reducing the chances of media influencing policy. The “war on terror” most importantly provided journalists with a guide in which they could understand global events and policy makers with the ability to justify a more aggressive foreign policy plan. At last, the “war on terror” had constructed an ideological bond between journalist and policy makers which created stronger media management. Techniques developed to display coverage of certain issues over others to frame stories that support official

The established freedom within this uncensored war, unleashed an unprecedented amount of evidence, thus allowing the media to become a tool for oral and visual communication for the masses, ultimately changing the method of historical approach. The ‘nature of evidence’ significantly changed during the television age as the intensity of war coverage changed. Professor Phillip M. Taylor ascertains that the role of the media enabled the general public to be "take a front seat at the making of history on the shirt-tails of journalism”. Therefore, the public became histories witnesses - albeit indirect participants - through the media. Many theorists argue that the media did not create or script any events that played out in the war, rather the

This historic event was marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall and with that came the end of a structured way of decision-making for US policy makers (Potter, et al., 2010). This lack of structure was the result of the US no longer having the policy of containment to rely upon for policy direction as they had for the previous 50 years. CNN became more relevant through their ability to deliver coverage globally as they became “a center of gravity” for US foreign policy which caused US foreign policy to become very crisis oriented (Livingston, 2005). This new direction in foreign policy was in large part the result of coverage of the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990’s. During the Persian Gulf War CNN delivered the first live, 24/7 war news coverage and did so exclusively from Baghdad (Gunther, 2001). This live coverage affected not only the general population but the eye of political leaders as well. This was the case because CNN’s coverage allowed for a constant feed of updates on what was occurring on the ground so that people of all levels could stay informed. As stated by former US Congressman Markey, “CNN has provided instantaneous coverage that is watched by everyone from Saddam himself to analysts in the Pentagon (U.S Communications Policy, 1991).” This result not only was evident in the early 1990’s but carried over as this was seen in the 9/11 attacks. While the

In times of War, the media plays a crucial role both in reporting, monitoring and giving updates. During the Vietnam War of 1955-1975, the American press played crucial roles of reporting until it ended up shifting its tone under the influence of occurrence of some events like the Tet Offensive, the My Lai Massacre, the bombing of Cambodia and leaking of Pentagon papers resulting into lack of trust in the press (Knightly 1975). From the beginning of the war up to present times there have been undying debates over the role of media in the war. The have been various criticisms over the American News Media’s actions and influences on the outcome of the war. The debate is embedded on the particular political assumptions perceived across the