International Reaction

From American Gulag

[edit] Press Coverage of the Global War on Terror

FRAMING

The Media helps to create the reality in which it functions, choosing to focus on certain stories or to approach a given story in a certain way. The latter is known as framing. As media experts Maria Teresa La Porte Alfaro and Teresa Sadaba state in their essay "September 11 in the Spanish Press", "the theory of framing explains how it is not enough for frames to organize meanings: Meanings also have to be understood socially. An interaction occurs between a journalist and his/her audience. On the one hand, thanks to media discourse, individuals build meanings, and on the other, public opinion is part of the process through which journalists develop these meanings (La Porte 106)."

In other words, international coverage of the War on Terror is a window not jut into the inner workings of different nations' news media but into the public opinion of those countries. In the case of the Global War on Terror, different countries have varied in their news coverage based on their pre-existing feelings towards the United States, incorporating new events into old paradigms and occasionally modifying these paradigms to accomodate developments.

WESTERN EUROPEAN COVERAGE

News coverage of the war within Europe largely varied based on pre-existing attitudes towards the United States and degree of participation in the war. Over 30 countries are members of the so-called Coalition of the Willing, or nations that agreed to help the United States fight in Iraq despite the failure to obtain the approval of the United Nations. A comparison of the French and British print media is enlightening here.

France

The French press has been consistently critical of the War on Terror since it began. Missteps and ignorance in the wake of 9/11 quickly confirmed France’s worst ideas about the United States. A strong sense that the attacks on 9/11 were justified at least in part by American actions began to pervade news coverage; while the French media was writing stories about the socioeconomic realities fueling terrorism and historical precedent, George Bush chose to approach the new conflict as a Biblical narrative of good and evil. This lack of intellectual nuance, combined with the use of massive force, terrified many French commentators. A mere 4 days after 9/11, Le Figaro published a prescient open letter to the President from Jean d’Ormesson: Your demoniac enemies have not only hit the symbols of all that they hate in this world… your own reaction is part of their plan…they count on your repression for bringing to their side the still vacillating masses. If I dared, Mr. President, I’ll pray you not to be for the Islamic masses from Morocco to Indonesia what Ariel Sharon has been for the Palestinians (d’Ormesson 2001).

Due to the very limited role of France in Afghanistan, and its later refusal to cooperate in Iraq, the French media approaches the conflict from the outside, with a tone is often caustic to sarcastic. Detached incredulity pervades many of these pieces, as if French journalists are marveling that such people are allowed to run countries in this day and age.

Beneath this affectation of resignation is a very real fear about the consequences of American might being unleashed in the Middle East. As Hubert Vedrine expressed it, “the United States have spent much more in the military domain than any other country… Such an exceptional power feeds a permanent anxiety for partners of the United States” (Vedrine 2002). France sees the United States as acting in an exceptionally unilateral manner, without pausing to ask for advice or consider the lessons of history (Portes 89). And because France has no role in the war, it feels like a very vulnerable bystander.

Britain

Since 9/11, Britain has found itself identifying more strongly with the United States. Still, long-held anti-Americanism was voiced in some left-wing news publications. The day after 9/11, The Guardian published an article by Derek Brown blaming the attacks on anti-Americanism in the Middle The following day, Seumas Milne published an article in the Guardian entitled “They can’t see why they’re hated”.

The British press have a sardonic take on the events that have followed 9/11, but they also have a personal stake in the matter. The urgency with which many journalists cover the war belies a sense of betrayal at the role that their government has played in violating international law. The perception that both their national sovereignty and moral fabric is unraveling in order to serve the will of an indifferent and often irresponsible foreign power has driven the British press to pursue stories like extraordinary rendition with a particular zeal, taking relish in exposing British officials as frauds.

One story in particular defines of the British media’s self-perception of its role in covering the war, and surfaces repeatedly in comparisons of British and American media coverage. The first major story broken by the British press occurred in December 2001 in Kama Ado, a village that lies along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In an effort to uncover the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, American warplanes dropped bombs near the town, accidentally killing 115 civilians. While CNN failed to mention the deaths, deterred by their editors, The Independent ran the story, along with a denial issued by the US State Department (CJR 2004). Given their nation’s highly visible involvement in the myriad abuses that have occurred during the fight against terrorism, the British media see themselves as champions of European values and the humanist tradition.

British newspapers were uniformly more bold (and colorful) in their critique of both Blair and Bush than most American news sources. Mainstream journalists traffic in the kind of punditry usually left to media outlets like Fox News in America, but manage to cultivate reputations as both journalists and celebrities. The proliferation of name-brand, proudly opinionated celebrity journalists also shapes coverage, as the reporter becomes the story.

Guantanamo was the true turning point. Among the detainees held without charge at the U.S. military base in Cuba were seven British nationals. The British public was appalled, and at this point even many Blair supporters began to question the wisdom of lending support to a campaign that so impinged upon the rights of British citizens. The failure of Blair to strongly denounce the base further infuriated his critics. And so when further abuses were revealed, the press zealously pursued them, keeping stories like Abu Ghraib in the public eye.

MIDDLE EASTERN COVERAGE

Middle Eastern coverage of 9/11 is virtually unique in that many news outlets responded to the event not by sympathizing with Americans but rather by denying that the event occurred. Many people in the Arab world firmly believe that 9/11 is an American conspiracy perpetrated in order to justify invading Afghanistan and then Iraq. This reflects upon a long legacy of distrust of America due to its foreign policy in the region.

A video from Al Jazeera's English-language channel discussing conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11:

[edit] Questions

Every country seems to have incorporated the events following 9/11 into their pre-existing outlook towards the US. What was the relationship of the American news media to the American government before 9/11, and how did the media’s perception of the government help or hinder journalists covering the Global War on Terror? How has this perception changed over the course of the war? What does international coverage show about our own strengths and weaknesses when covering the War on Terror?

Is objectivity helpful when covering the war, or does adhering to an ideological bias make it easier to find the real story? Is objectivity even possible?

Do so-called ‘name’ journalists actually serve a useful function within the news media, or do they exist only to reinforce the notions of their supporters and accumulate fame? Does high profile indignation actually mobilize people to care about issues that they might not otherwise consider?

How did America come to be perceived as so deceptive that many people believe that September 11th was a hoax? How can the United States change the way it is perceived by much of the Arab world? How lasting will the damage done by Iraq be? Is there anyway to help create a free media within Iraq?

[edit] Additional Readings

The British See Things Differently George Kennedy explains why the British Press has been quicker to criticize its own government and the Bush administration during the War on Terror.

They Can't See Why They are Hated Seumas Milnes published this critique of American hubris in The Guardian 2 days after September 11th.

Worldviews 2002 The annual public opinion survey conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the US to examine attitudes about US-European relations for 2002.

Transatlantic Trends 2006 The annual public opinion survey conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the US to examine attitudes about US-European relations for 2006.

Is Paris Seething? Mark Hunter chronicles the rise of anti-American sentiment in France.

The Real Threat We Face in Britain is Blair John Pilger, one of the UK's most famous 'name' journalists, berates Tony Blair.

Brits vs. Yanks The Columbia Journalism Review facilitates a debate about the differences between the American and British News Media.