Abstract
Media's role in wartime has long been the subject of controversy, marked by claims that media promote, or indeed constrain, military action, and over the impact of patriotism and new technologies on wartime levels of media autonomy. Based on a detailed examination of U.K. press and television coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and of the U.S./U.K. coalition's media briefings, this report summarizes initial findings concerning media management and press content. We show that the coalition consistently promoted the humanitarian case for war, humanitarian operations and ? slow but sure' military progress, while U.K. press coverage largely reflected this focus upon military progress, accepting and even promoting the broader humanitarian rationale for war. Nevertheless, we uncovered a degree of media criticism that emerged in response to events outside the coalition's control, such as civilian and military casualties. We also direct readers to further outputs from the project analyzing various aspects of British media coverage of the invasion in greater detail. © 2009 Sage Publications.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 678-688 |
Number of pages | 10 |
Journal | American Behavioral Scientist |
Volume | 52 |
Issue number | 5 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jan 2009 |
Keywords
- Iraq war
- Media
- Media-management
- Media-state relations
- Press