August, 2002
Journalists covering the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and their aftermath were unwittingly complicit to government and military communication strategies to rally public support, according to findings by University of Washington researchers.
A content analysis of news coverage in the five issues of Newsweek and Time published immediately after the attacks found that the newsmagazines minimized voices of opposition and instead focused on American unity, highlighted the importance of core American values, shifted blame away from the U.S., emphasized the U.S. role as the only superpower on the international stage, and demonized the enemy. David Domke, an assistant professor of communication, and the three graduate students who conducted the analysis refer to such language as national-identity rhetoric. The Bush administration, they say, used such language to restore public confidence and rally support for a war on terrorism.
Further, they found that while government and military officials used this nationalistic language more than people in other segments of society, journalists' reports closely mirrored those comments and, relatively speaking, ignored the comments of non-government opinion leaders - interest group leaders, think-tank researchers and university professors - who were more apt to offer critical analysis.
"I would encourage journalists to seek out and pay attention to non-government opinion leaders," Domke said. "These individuals are still within the culture, which I think makes them realistic sources, but they have a range of viewpoints that won't be found in government."
A total of 210 stories were analyzed over five weeks of coverage and a significant majority of the national-identity rhetoric could be attributed to U.S. government and military sources. For example, 94 percent of U.S. government and military sources placed blame for the attacks squarely on the terrorists compared to only 58 percent of non-government opinion leaders and 80 percent of average U.S. citizens. And of discourse that made reference to American values, 81 percent of U.S. government and military sources affirmed those values whereas only 51 percent of non-government opinion leaders referred to American values in a positive manner, 29 percent were neutral and a full 20 percent were critical. The pattern of more positive and affirming statements by government and military officials continued throughout each of the national-identity topics Domke and the students identified and analyzed.
The fact that journalists' language paralleled that of the government and the military rather than the critical analysis offered in other circles is alarming, Domke says, given what we now know about official communication practices during previous conflicts like Vietnam and the Gulf War.
"When there's not anybody else in government who will be a voice of opposition," he said, "our evidence suggests that the press is essentially a conduit for the government to say whatever it wants and get that information to the public."
Based on public opinion polls in the weeks and months after Sept. 11, which showed unprecedented approval levels for President George W. Bush and sustained support for a war on terrorism, the strategy seems to have worked well.
Journalists' language paralleled that of government and military officials for at least three key reasons, Domke says. First, most journalists at U.S. news outlets are American citizens and likely to possess many of the same cultural values and beliefs that others in the nation possess. Any reporting they do is filtered by this cultural perspective.
A second factor, Domke says, was that a high level of political bi-partisanship for the American effort led to a one-sided discourse among government elites, offering the news media fewer than normal alternative perspectives within government. And, finally, industry economic pressures and the need to engage the public likely encouraged the news media to echo nationalist sentiment. Consider, for example, the number of news outlets that incorporated the colors of red, white and blue into their promotions during this period.
"You can't expect journalism to be in deep contradiction with other democratic institutions, particularly at a time of crisis. If it's not a time of crisis you might expect a little more critical evaluation. Unfortunately, though, it is exactly the times of crises when we need journalism to keep a wary eye on government."
Domke presented the findings at a recent Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication conference in Miami. Co-authors were graduate students John Hutcheson, Andre Billeaudeaux and Philip Garland.
More Information on Media
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
