Media Democracy
How the U. S. Press System Works…
Why It Failed on the Iraq War
What Citizens Can Do When It Fails
Lance Bennett, Director
Center for Communication and Civic Engagement
University of Washington
www.engagedcitizen.org
lbennett@u.washington.edu
Media in American Democracy

Ideally, public opinion:



But the leading opinion-shaping institutions -- news
organizations – are often dependent:



is independent of pressures from government & business
so that public may influence government & business
on government for information
on business/advertising for profits (for private media)
Which results in problems for independent public
opinion:

opinion is often shaped via public relations from
government and business elites -- because they have
best access to news media and other info. channels
The U.S. Press System

High private ownership – commercial media
Strong journalism norm of politically balanced
(objective) reporting

Results:



official viewpoints become authoritative (objective)
reference on stories
homogeneous reporting of politics across mainstream
news
A Simple Model of the Press and
American Democracy

Journalistic norm of objectivity/neutrality means that most
news is shaped by government authorities



Voices and views in the news are INDEXED – referenced – to the
degree of conflict in government policy circles
High conflict/opposition in government => more diverse
voices & information enter the news
Low conflict in government => fewer voices and ideas in
the news
 even if evidence from credible sources challenges
government positions
 even if strong public opposition exists in society
Range of Voices and Ideas in News
varies with government policy conflict

Diverse: Abortion -- taxes – religion


high policy conflict in government => more groups &
ideas represented in news
Limited: Iraq War debate in 2002-2003

dominated by Bush administration claims



weapons of mass destruction & 9/11 - Al Qaeda connections
to Saddam
Democrats took a pass
Result: Independent information challenging these
claims was not given strong emphasis in the news
Even mentions of the protest movement
were linked to moments of elite opposition
“Polls show that a substantial portion of
the electorate is unconvinced of the need
for an immediate war…A grass roots
antiwar movement is beginning to
make itself heard. Some Democrats are
starting to warn assertively against a “rush
to war,” as Senator John Kerry of
Massachusetts put it.”
--The New York Times, Jan 26, 2003
But the Democrats decided that the war was a
poor election issue
And so, the war
was told as a
Hollywood story
written by the
Bush media
team…..
….A fantasy of
American
triumph against
the evil
Saddam…
…..with the Iraqi
people awaiting
their liberation
with flowers and
democracy
After the war, leading papers admitted
problems with their coverage
WASHINGTON - The Washington Post became the
latest prestigious US newspaper to question its
own coverage of Iraq leading up to the US-led war,
saying it underplayed stories questioning White
House claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons
of mass destruction.
Published on Thursday, August 12, 2004 by the Agence
France Presse
Washington Post Reporters and Editors Look Back
"The paper was not front-paging stuff," said Pentagon
correspondent Thomas Ricks. "Administration assertions were
on the front page. Things that challenged the administration
were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There was an
attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we
even worry about all this contrary stuff?"
In retrospect, said Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., "we
were so focused on trying to figure out what the
administration was doing that we were not giving the same
play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to
war and were questioning the administration's rationale.
…That was a mistake on my part."
"the voices raising questions about the war were lonely ones,"
Downie said. "We didn't pay enough attention to the minority."
The New York Times Looks Back
FROM THE EDITORS
The Times and Iraq
Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight
on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the
failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of
Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international
terrorists…. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves...
… we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as
rigorous as it should have been.
In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems
questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand
unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in
re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to
emerge.
Published: May 26, 2004
Despite this self-criticism…indexing
predicts that the same news pattern
will happen again …when the same
conditions exist in government

NEXT CASE:


The treatment of prisoners in Iraq
There was strong evidence that the Bush
administration developed an informal policy of
torture – that was applied in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Cuba – a policy that:



violated international and national laws
was inflicted on innocent civilians wrongly arrested
created an international image disaster –undermining
claims to democracy--inviting comparisons to Saddam
With all the photos, memos, human
rights reports…. How did the U.S.
press frame the story?
A: based on administration claims that Abu Ghraib was an
unfortunate case of abuse at low levels of command
OR
B: based on evidence that torture practices were authorized (with a legal rationale developed by the White House and
adapted by the Defense Department for use in prisons)
 Which frame was dominant?
 Key condition: In an election year, the Democrats decided not
to accuse the administration of supporting torture
 Prediction: Press reports would emphasize abuse – and
minimize the evidence of torture
 Test: – content analysis of the newspaper that led the story –
Washington Post – and 10 other national papers
Primary news frames used to describe Abu
Ghraib. Washington Post, April 1, 2004 –
September 29, 2004
News (n = 242)
Editorials (n = 52)
Abuse
Torture
81%
(188)
61%
(32)
3%
(9)
17%
(9)
Mistreatment
3%
(7)
3%
(2)
These data are based on the first label used in each article.
Numbers in parentheses are the counts for each cell;
percentages are not rounded.
Scandal
12%
(29)
13%
(7)
The first or the second frame. Washington Post,
April 1, 2004 – September 29, 2004
Abuse
Torture
Mistreatment
Scandal
News (n = 242)
91%
(222)
11%
(28)
16%
(40)
33%
(80)
Editorials (n =
52)
82%
(43)
30%
(16)
13%
(7)
36%
(19)
These labels were used as either the first or second label in each article. Numbers in
parentheses are the counts for each cell; percentages are not rounded.
News and Editorial (opinion) Frames: “abuse,” “torture” and
other names for what happened at Abu Ghraib. National
newspaper sample, April 1, 2004 – January 19, 2005
300
250
200
All Labels
No torture
150
Other + Torture
Torture only
100
50
1/6/2005
12/23/2004
12/9/2004
11/25/2004
11/11/2004
10/28/2004
10/14/2004
9/30/2004
9/16/2004
9/2/2004
8/19/2004
8/5/2004
7/22/2004
7/8/2004
6/24/2004
6/10/2004
5/27/2004
5/13/2004
4/29/2004
4/15/2004
4/1/2004
0
News Story Frames: “abuse,” “torture” and other
names for what happened at Abu Ghraib. National
newspaper sample, April 1, 2004 – January 19, 2005
300
250
200
All Labels
No torture
150
Other + Torture
Torture only
100
50
1/6/2005
12/23/2004
12/9/2004
11/25/2004
11/11/2004
10/28/2004
10/14/2004
9/30/2004
9/16/2004
9/2/2004
8/19/2004
8/5/2004
7/22/2004
7/8/2004
6/24/2004
6/10/2004
5/27/2004
5/13/2004
4/29/2004
4/15/2004
4/1/2004
0
Torture did become a news frame
in one chapter of the story…

The White House memos:



The White House SPIN: the memos were only ideas -- not put
into practice



that defined torture narrowly as acts leading to death or organ failure –
and said that terrorism made the Geneva convention obsolete
later investigations linked them to interrogation procedures in Cuba/Iraq
The Senate confirmation hearings for White House legal
counsel Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General raised questions
about his role in the group that developed the memos
Both Republicans and Democrats wanted Gonzales to say that
he did not support torture –

he said he did not support torture – he is now the US Attorney General
BUT, when news reports explained why this mattered, Abu Ghraib was
mentioned as involving the ABUSE of prisoners
Conclusions



Leading US news organizations cannot
sustain critical reporting without support from
within government
If government sources for critical stories do
not exist, government is left to police itself
When the US democracy most needs an
independent, critical public voice, the
American press often cannot provide it
What Citizens Can Do

Develop better information

Be the media – help produce information

Join a news/action network

Support the media reform movement
1. Develop better information

Aggregate the world of news on your desktop


Blogs got you down?


tame the blogosphere aggregate them too!
Get inside the spin


download a news aggregator
discover journalism about journalism (mediachannel.org)
Chart events along with other citizens

Center for Media and Democracy (source watch)
2. Be the media – produce
information

Citizen journalism




Join sourcewatch and help construct the big
picture
Read common times and create your own
news channel with your political network
Watch One World TV – become a reporter
Read more about citizen journalism and see if
you think it makes sense
3. Join news/action networks





Moveon.org
Free Republic
BBC Action Network more
Chuck Muth
American Family Association
4. Support the media reform
movement

Freepress.net

Reclaimthemedia.org

Support CCCE (www.engagedcitizen.org)
Center for Communication & Civic
Engagement
Lance Bennett, Director
www.engagedcitizen.org
Information ~ Technology ~ Community
@