Profits and patriots: US media coverage of the Iraq war

For its part, the major U.S. media were easily manipulated. There was no sustained media coverage that questioned the evidence used by the administration regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) or the connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda, the two principal reasons offered to justify the invasion of Iraq. The media’s failure to provide informative and accurate coverage of the government’s arguments for war contributed to the majority of Americans giving blind support to the administration. Based on a series of seven surveys of Americans on the subject of media and the Iraq war, the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) analyzed the relationship between American misperceptions about the government’s claims and levels of support for the war (Kull et al., 2003).

The report begins by examining the weak or complete absence of evidence to support the Bush administration’s repeated assertions of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, and of Iraq’s possession of WMDs. Besides the lack of evidence about Iraq’s link to Al Qaeda or its WMD threat, PIPA also highlighted the lack of world support for a U.S.-led war that was not sanctioned by the United Nations. The primary focus of the surveys, however, was how that misinformation was received by the American public, including an exploration of the connection between misperceptions and the likelihood of support for the war.

In January 2003, ‘68% expressed the belief that Iraq played an important role in September 11, with 13% even expressing the clearly mistaken belief that ‘conclusive evidence’ of such a link had been found’ (Kull et al, p. 2). The end of major bombing in Iraq, or what is generally referred to as the war’s end, was declared on 1 May 2003. Following that time, in June-September 2003, PIPA found a slight decline in perception of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, but the figure remained at a remarkably high 57%. Another striking finding was that even immediately after the war had ended, with no WMDs found nor evidence produced of an ongoing WMD program, 34% of Americans said they believed that the U.S. forces had ‘found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction’ (Kull et al, p. 4).1

The PIPA surveys also assessed the degree to which Americans misperceived world opinion about the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. In the period leading up to and during the Iraq war, world opinion polls were taken in many countries by Gallup International and by the Pew Research Center to assess the level of support/lack of support for the United States launching a war without UN approval. The findings strongly indicate the very high level of world opposition to U.S. unilateral action against Iraq (Kull et al, p. 8). Reporting on Americans’ perceptions of world opinion about foreign support for the war, the PIPA researchers found in March 2003 that only 35% of Americans correctly perceived that the majority of the people in the world opposed the U.S. decision to go to war. Even after the war ended, findings in June, July and August 2003 revealed that only 38-42% correctly perceived that the majority of the people opposed the U.S. war against Iraq (Kull et al., p. 6). Although no single misperception was held by a majority of respondents, the PIPA report notes that ‘a large majority has at least one misperception’ (p. 2). In a composite analysis of all three misperceptions, PIPA found a cumulative effect: 53% of those with one misperception supported the war, 78% of those with two misperceptions did so, and 86% of those who held all three misperceptions favoured war (p. 11).

Explaining the role of the media
Apart from the administration’s role in generating these misperceptions, how do we explain the role of the media? The answer to this question is complex, although the PIPA study and other data yield important insights that seem to contradict any assumptions that the effects of the media were neutral. One notable finding was the degree to which misperceptions varied according to news source. A striking comparison is the difference between those who got most of their news from the Fox News TV network and those who relied mostly on the U.S. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). According to data collected in June, July and August of 2003, 80% of Fox TV viewers had one or more misperceptions, whereas only 23% of the audience for NPR/PBS had one or more misperceptions. Of course, this finding does not enable us to draw conclusions about causality, that is, whether a given news source determines the likelihood of misperception, and the interactions between preferences for particular news sources and the effects are not reported. However, the study did control for demographic variables, and it was found that demographic differences within an audience for a particular news source are consistent with findings of misperceptions held by the aggregate audience for that source (Kull et al., p. 15). For example, more educated Fox viewers were as likely to hold misperceptions as less educated Fox viewers.

The heavy reliance on official sources by the major U.S. television news networks during the war was documented in a study conducted by the media watchdog organization, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). The study covered news programs during a three-week period following the first day of bombing in Iraq (20 March 2003) on six television networks and news channels: ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume, and PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Leher. The following are among the notable findings of the study, which focused exclusively on news stories about Iraq:

? A total of 1,617 on-camera sources (interviewees) appeared in the stories.
? 63% of all sources were current and former government employees, either civilian or military, more than half of whom were current or former U.S. officials.
? U.S. sources comprised 76% of the total.
? 64% of all sources, and 71% of U.S. sources, supported the war.
? 10% of all sources were opposed to the war, but only 3% of U.S. sources did so. The latter finding contrasts with polls that found 27% of U.S. citizens opposed the war.

The study also found that only one anti-war group leader appeared as a source. Although a specific number is not given in FAIR’s report, it states that anti-war sources ‘were almost universally allowed one-sentence soundbites taken from interviews conducted on the street. Not a single show in the study conducted a sit-down interview with a person identified as being against the war’ (Rendall & Broughel, 2003). Also noteworthy is the fact that peace groups attempted to purchase time to broadcast advertisements for peace, but they were refused by all of the major television networks. The reason given for the refusal by the president of CBS was that ‘informed discussion comes from our programming’ (Rampton & Stauber, 2004, p. 172). Of course, the range of ‘informed discussion’ was limited significantly by the bias in favor of pro-war sources. But then, like the other networks, CBS makes no apology for its pro-war bias. In an interview on CNN’s Larry King Live interview show, CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather stated:

‘Look, I’m an American. I never tried to kid anybody that I’m some internationalist or something. And when my country is at war, I want my country to win, whatever the definition of “win” may be. Now, I can’t and don’t argue that this is coverage without a prejudice. About that I am prejudiced.’ (quoted in Rendall & Broughel, 2003).

The pro-war bias that is documented in the FAIR study’s findings was a function of the networks’ selection of interview sources. But the networks also aimed to distinguish themselves by ‘branding’ their news reports. CBS titled its reports ‘America at War,’ while CNN used the heading ‘Strike on Iraq.’ Fox used the same title for its newscasts as the Pentagon’s official name for the invasion – ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ – which was subsequently also adopted by NBC and MSNBC. In addition to titles for their newscasts the networks wrapped their stories in red, white and blue, including by use of computer-generated images of the American flag waving at the bottom of the screen during reports. Overall, the networks went to great lengths to seamlessly blend their patriotism, technological prowess and professionalism, which in the long run has the potential to yield market advantages. Although the extraordinary expense of war reporting cannot be sustained indefinitely, the investment during such a period can enable a network to build ‘brand loyalty.’

Overt nationalism
Unlike in the Gulf War, when CNN was the unchallenged cable news source, Fox held that distinction in the Iraq War. In the first 21 days of the Iraq War, Fox had an average share of 42% of the cable news audience, whereas CNN had 34%, MSNBC had 18%, and CNN Headline News had 6% (Greppi, 2003). What explains the strength of Fox News? One clear distinction is that Fox taps into the large and receptive American audience for conservative political viewpoints. As one writer claims, ‘Fox has two things going for it. It has a political agenda that many people find attractive, and it has an entertainment value that many people find attractive. And the other networks have neither’ (Joe Angotti, quoted in Greppi, 2003).

Fox News, which is owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, surpasses its competitors by its overt displays of nationalism. The head of Fox News is Roger Ailes, a Republican who worked on the presidential campaigns of Nixon, Reagan, and the senior George Bush. Ailes reportedly takes a vengeful attitude towards what he considers the predominantly liberal media establishment in the United States. According to a former Fox News Channel (FNC) producer, Charlie Reina, FNC staff consider the channel to be ‘“Roger’s Revenge” – against what he considers a liberal, pro-Democrat media establishment that has shunned him for decades.’ Reina also notes that the FNC newsroom is ‘under the constant control and vigilance of management.’ Every day, an ‘executive memo’ reportedly is circulated, ‘addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered.’ According to Reina, ‘The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it… The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration’s point of view consistently comes across on FNC’ (Reina, 2003).2
Murdoch’s Fox News set the standard for patriotic television with an editorial policy that echoed the Bush administration’s official stance, making any challenge to the White House’s plans for war seem tantamount to treason. As the ratings leader during the war, Fox became the model for the other US commercial networks. While chasing after Fox in the ratings wars, the other networks also shifted more closely towards Fox’s ideological terrain. For example, when ABC talk show host Bill Maher referred to ‘lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away’ during the war in Afghanistan as ‘cowardly,’ he became a target of strong criticism, eventually resulting in the withdrawal of major advertising sponsorship from the show by Sears and FedEx. The network eventually cancelled the show rather than risk the further financial and image losses that could result from keeping the show on the air (‘Bill Maher Says the Unsayable,’ 2001; see also Rothenberg, 2001).

Likewise, just before the Iraq War began, MSNBC cancelled its highest rated show, hosted by left-liberal Phil Donahue, while at the same time citing low ratings for the show as its reason. According to a leaked internal NBC report, the Donahue show was recommended for cancellation because it gave a ‘difficult public face for NBC in a time of war… He seems to delight in presenting guests who are antiwar, anti-[George H.W. Bush] and sceptical of the administration’s motives’ (AllYourTV.com, quoted in Rampton & Stauber, 2003).

In a study of British and American newspaper and magazine coverage of WMDs that has obvious relevance for evaluating television coverage, Susan Moeller found that most journalists failed to differentiate among various types of weapons – chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological – and consequently were unable to raise vital questions regarding Iraq’s capabilities or the risks posed by the use of the various types of weapons. Moeller also observed that the media generally accepted the Bush administration’s framing of the ‘war on terror’ in terms of unsupported claims about Iraq’s WMD threat. The failure to question the terrorism-Iraq-WMD connections was symptomatic of the expedient approach reporters took to covering the story, relying heavily on unverified ‘off the record’ anonymous sources, and ‘findings’ about WMDs by the Bush administration. Journalists tended to report the same stories, giving the same emphasis and primacy to the administration’s lead in terms of the selection and framing of stories. Moeller concludes that the reporting on WMDs was ‘classic scandal coverage,’ emphasizing ‘breaking news’ and ‘partisan contests,’ rather than ‘technological or scientific debates or the policy ramifications – especially the international ramifications’ (Moeller, 2004, p. 20).
One of the lessons Moeller draws from her analysis is that weak reporting results from reliance on ‘off the record anonymous sources’ (Moeller, 2004, p. 20). The problem of relying on such sources became evident recently in revelations about how New York Times reporters had been responsible for misleading and sustained front-page coverage of WMDs that was based on ‘anonymity-cloaked assertions of people with vested interests’ (Okrent, 2004; see also Scheer, 2004; and Shafer, 2004). But the news media cannot be held entirely to blame. In the interest of patriotism, especially in times of crisis, journalists sometimes accept the words of their leaders, making it tempting for leaders to justify national security decisions with arguments that are, in the words of one writer, ‘clearer than the truth’ (Schwarz, 2004; see also Englehardt, 2004; and Dreyfuss & Vest, 2004). Many journalists covering the lead-up to the Iraq war relied heavily on unsubstantiated and unverified administration ‘findings,’ and on Iraqi informants who were more intent on removing Saddam Hussein from power than on telling the truth. News organizations and journalists should not be excused for suspending their ethical responsibilities because of patriotic zeal. Even worse, however, is the deliberate deception by government leaders intent on manipulating patriotism in pursuit of empire.
The Bush administration used the media to tap into public fear and sentiment among Americans following 9/11 to create a public discourse that would support an imperialist war, and in pursuit of that aim open and healthy political debate have suffered. During times of war, the failures of the media to adequately represent the political differences contribute to a stifling atmosphere for political dissent. Now that the American president has declared that we are in a permanent state of war — a ‘war against terrorism’ — the pressure felt by the commercial media to not appear ‘unpatriotic’ is intense and indefinite. Although the pressure comes from two directions, the government and the market, it is the latter that is far more forbidding.

The American television industry enjoys broad protection under the First Amendment, but it must answer to commercial sponsors. And the commercial television networks must always fear that by taking controversial political positions that deviate from the majority, they will be at risk of losing advertisers who do not wish to be associated with those views. And commercial advertisers do exert their power of the purse by withdrawing their sponsorship of programs that they feel may harm the brand identity of their products and the public image of their corporations. Commercial advertisers generally do not wish to be associated with a programme that presents, much less advocates, a minority political viewpoint on a matter as controversial as war, let alone a view that is widely held but which runs counter moneyed interests.
The consequence of this condition is that those who dissent find it difficult to make their voices heard. But the censorship they face is not that of the government, at least not directly. Rather, it is market censorship. American commercial television provides a near-perfect form of repression, because it does so by touting the seemingly wholesome principle that it responds to what the audience wants.

By uncritically following Bush to war, the networks tailored their respective brand identities to complement the White House strategy for ‘brand America.’ In the process, they predictably avoided presenting any sustained challenges to the Bush administration’s failure to produce credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction or links between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda. Moreover, the mainstream U.S. media neglected to give American citizens an adequate picture of the scale of the anti-war movement at home or abroad. Whether or not the United States fits a technical description of an imperial power, the mainstream media consistently obscure from the view of the American people the reasons why much of the rest of the world sees America as a less than benevolent empire.

Notes
1. PIPA did not begin asking about perceptions regarding WMDs until May 2003.
2. It should be noted that, although Fox may be extreme in how it regulates editorial viewpoints expressed on its channel, it is not the only channel to do so. For example, during the war in Afghanistan, the head of CNN ordered that images of civilian casualties must be balanced by reminders that the Taliban harbored and supported terrorists. This story became news when some CNN reporters complained publicly that they were being forced to have a ‘‘pro-America’ stamp on their reports’ (Kurtz, 2001).

References
‘Bill Maher Says the Unsayable,’ The Guardian, 5 October 2001. Available at: http://proquest.umi.com.
Angotti, Joe, quoted in Michele Greppi, ‘Fox Setting the News Agenda,’ Television Week, 21 July 2003. Available at: http://proquest.umi.com.
Dreyfuss, Robert, and Jason Vest, ‘The Lie Factory,’ Mother Jones, January/February 2004. Available at: www.motherjones.com.
Englehardt, Tom, ‘Keeping Secrets,’ Mother Jones, January/February 2004. Available at: www.motherjones.com.
Greppi, Michele, ‘War Brings Cable News Share Shifts,’ Television Week, 14 April 2003. Available at: http://proquest.umi.com.
Kull, Steven, Clay Ramsay, Stefan Subias, Evan Lewis, and Phillip Warf., Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War. Report by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). 2 October 2003. Available at: www.pipa.org.
Kurtz, Howard, ‘CNN Chief Orders ‘Balance’ in War News,’ Washington Post, 31 October 2001. Available at: www.washingtonpost.com.
Moeller, Susan D., Media Coverage of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Report of the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland. 9 March 2004. Available at: http://www.cissm.umd.edu, p. 20.
Okrent, Daniel, ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or Mass Distraction?’ New York Times, 30 May 2004. Available at: www.nytimes.com.
Rampton, Sheldon, and James Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception (New York: Jeremy Tarcher/Penguin, 2004),
Rampton, Sheldon, and John Stauber, ‘Trading on Fear,’ The Guardian, 12 July 2003. Available at: http://proquest.umi.com.
Reina, Charlie, ‘The Fox News Memo,’ dated 30 October 2003, posted by Jim Romenesko at Poynteronline on 31 October 2003. Available at: http://poynter.org/forum/?id=thememo. Accessed on 8 January 2004.
Rendall, Steve and Tara Broughel, ‘Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent,’ Extra! May/June 2003. Available at: www.fair.org/extra/0305/warstudy.html. Accessed on: 30 December 2003.
Rothenberg, Randall, ‘For Country in Need of Laugh, Joke Ends up Being on Maher,’ Advertising Age, 8 October 2001. Available at: http://proquest.umi.com.
Scheer, Robert, ‘Chalabi’s Long, Costly Charade,’ The Nation, 25 May 2004. Available at: www.thenation.com.
Schwarz, Benjamin, ‘Clearer than the Truth,’ Atlantic Monthly, April 2004. Available at: www.theatlantic.com.
Shafer, Jack, ‘Judy’s Turn to Cry,’ Slate, 25 May 2004. Available at: www.slate.com;

Andrew Calabrese is (PhD) is Associate Professor, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA. Recent publications include: Toward a political economy of culture: Capitalism and communication in the twenty-first century (edited by A. Calabrese and C. Sparks) Rowman & Littlefield; and the Foreword to Many voices, one world: Towards a new, more just and more efficient world information and communication order (Twenty-fifth anniversary edition of the ‘MacBride Report’) Rowman & Littlefield.