Global Policy Forum

By Eric Leser

On the other side of the Atlantic, news channels prepare public opinion for armed intervention in Iraq. The battle for the audience pushes them to a certain dramatization.

For six months, the prospect of a war on Iraq has imposed itself little by little onto American television screens. The news channels continually multiply their "breaking news" and other "news alert"s in an ever more serious and feverish atmosphere. This dramatization is frequently a little gratuitous. CNN suddenly interrupted its programs because "two universities were among the sites visited by the UN inspectors"; Fox News alerted its listeners because, "the American campaign to connect with the Iraqi generals via email seemed to succeed". It's a matter of keeping the television-watcher breathless, to keep him from "zapping" or watching elsewhere.

The coverage of September 11 and the war in Afghanistan was less premeditated. This time, military preparations, scenarios, strategies, inspections, diplomatic differences of opinion, key moments at the UN, are all staged.

"The listener must have the feeling of being a privileged witness to history on the move," explains Tod Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology at New York University. This is true for the big general networks ABC, CBS, NBC, but even more so for the permanent news media such as Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. "The unbridled competition between the channels, the martial tone, the multiplication of special broadcasts, the tension, all of that tends to reinforce for the public the inevitable character of the war," judges Graham T. Allison, Harvard professor, who adds that, " one must be aware that this atmosphere also pushes journalists to make a little more out of it."

The commercial stakes are considerable. Image professionals remember with envy the planetary notoriety acquired in only a few days by CNN in 1991 during the Gulf War. Since then, the competition between the news channels has taken on another dimension. CNN lost its aura, outflanked in the United States for a year by Fox News (Le Monde 28 January). Launched in 1996, Rupert Murdoch's channel never ceases to see its lead increase. Fox owes its position to both its conservatism and its patriotic claims, to an appearance, a tone, and a rhythm different from the others. Fox News invented screaming logos filling the width of the screen, aggressive "jingles", a constant parade of text at the bottom of the screen, slogans, titles, and summaries beside or below images. For the last few months CNN and MSNBC have been inspired by them.

CNN's STAGE EVEN BIGGER

MSNBC doesn't skimp on staging. A countdown to January 27, date of the UN inspectors report to the Security Council was permanently posted on the screen. MSNBC broadcasts a nightly show, "The Showdown Lowdown", dedicated in large part to Iraq. Lester Holt, the show's journalist host, goes so far as to pose questions to the television audience in a style that recalls, "Who wants to be a millionaire?" So, several days ago, Mr. Holt asked: "How many scud missiles were fired by Iraq at Israel in 1991? Answer a: 29, Answer b: 39, Answer c: 49."

MSNBC, jointly held by Microsoft and NBC (a General Electric subsidiary), counts on a war to catch up with CNN and Fox News. It could lean on the teams and the resources of NBC. Nearly 125 journalists and technicians from this big generalist network have been trained to face a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack. In the case of a conflict, they will be sent to the Gulf.

CNN, from the AOL Time Warner Group, takes staging one further. The unexpected announcement on January 13th of the resignation of its president, Walter Isaacson and the departure of six correspondents illustrate its difficulties. "Intoxicated by its success, CNN simply forgot to define its mission and get to know its public better," explains Frank Sesno, former Washington bureau chief and presently a professor at George Mason University. CNN consequently has a goal: to regain its preeminence by reestablishing itself as the reference during periods of crisis. A supplementary budget of $35 million is dedicated to the preparations for a conflict. If it erupts, the channel will send more than a hundred people to Iraq and surrounding countries. "We are truly determined to reappropriate this story for ourselves", emphasizes Eaton Jordan, the news chief. "The channel is rolling up its sleeves," he adds. CNN has, for example, spent $200,000 to modernize its video telephones and has also sent its teams for training in survival camps. "We've made a big investment in training nearly 500 people. American officials have promised us more cooperation and freedom than in 1991."

But if CNN hopes to be able to follow the American army closely, its situation in Baghdad is less simple than it was twelve years ago. Iraq expelled its Baghdad bureau chief and prohibited its famous special envoys Wolf Blitzer and Christiane Amanpour from entering the country. At that, CNN reached an agreement with the Qatari station, Al-Jazeera, to use its footage.

30 MILLION TELEVISION SPECTATORS

Paradoxically, the strategy of Fox News Channel appears less ambitious. Outside of the U.S., the channel's resources are not comparable to those of CNN or the big generalist networks. Moreover, Fox does not reveal how many people will be deployed in the case of a war in the Gulf. But Fox has a secret weapon, its patriotism- and privileged connections with the White House. During the war in Afghanistan, the channel spoke of "our troops" when discussing the American army. American television spectators approved.

It is hard to know what the actual impact of the news channels on public opinion is. In 2002, between 8 and 11 PM, an average of 1.3 million people watched Fox News, 900,000 CNN, and 360,000 MSNBC. The early evening news programs of NBC, ABC, and CBS have a total audience of 30 million. But these numbers do not reflect accurately the new channels' influence. Many people watch them only minutes a day. Above all, they have considerable weight within government circles and among other journalists: those whose eyes are permanently riveted to the screen.

Translation: TruthOut French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher

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 § 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.