Media and the U.S. Foreign Policy: The CNN Chilling Effect

Media and the U.S. Foreign Policy: The CNN Chilling Effect
Your Name here
POLS 4460: Social Science
Dr. Gabardi & Idaho State University
March 7, 2015
An axiom of contemporary discourse on international communication is that global-reach media organizations produced images of countries inform, shape, and contribute to people's understanding- or misunderstanding -of these countries. Consider this image: U.S. military personnel off-loading combat vehicles at a foreign seaport fill the TV screen as the scrolling marquee reads: “CNN DEPLOYS U.S. TROOPS TO MIDDLE EAST. TOTAL CASUALTIES EXCEED 153!” Consider how Americans would react if they discovered that the Cable News Network (CNN), or Fox News, or News Corporation, or ABC, or NBC News to name just a few media organizations, were responsible for the deployment and subsequent deaths of American soldiers in foreign lands. The words “angry” and “mob” come to mind. If proponents of the CNN Chilling Effect theory are right and mass media actually do influence foreign policy decisions, then media corporations are, to some extent, liable for such U.S. foreign policy actions.
Although at first glance, one might think this suggestion of intentional CNN persuasion and unrestricted political power both absurd and conspiratorial, this essay discusses several well-documented, historical incidents to determine if there is a connection between CNN media coverage and subsequent U.S. foreign policy actions. The purpose of this essay is to discuss a set of conditions (if extant) under which CNN media organizations can have sufficient impact on U.S. foreign policymakers to cause them to commit U.S. military assets to overseas operations in which they would otherwise not be involved. The goal of this essay is to support or refute the concept that CNN has a chilling influence to U.S. foreign policy makers.
The way in which the media corporations imagines and represents other countries has been of significant interest because such representations are generally acknowledged as having an important influence on the political-economic and cultural relations between nations. 2 For the country or nation-state with the media-power to imagine and disseminate images of a foreign country, these images often serve as the reality against which that nation’s military and political action can be planned, legitimated, and executed. For the country or nation being imagined or represented by the mass-media, these images serve as a useful counter-balance to its localized and national view of self, and often help the country to evaluate and understand itself from a more “objective” or international perspective. Furthermore, these mass-media images typically entail a number of biases and stereotypes, all of which play a vital role in shaping the foreign policy of the government imagined.
In order to more fully comprehend the complex nature of the media-government relationship, one must be aware of the numerous components of this relationship. These critical components include a number of competing factors between the media and the government, the separate media and foreign policy actors, the distinct media and foreign policy agendas and motivations, and the different means by which the media influence.
There are many facets to the complex topic of media influence of U.S. foreign policy, including: 1) the subversion of the American democratic process, 2) the illegitimate use of TV during foreign policy formulation, 3) the incompatibility of media’s “for profit” objectives and governmental “for policy” objectives, 4) the wrongful association of media outlets with specific nations and its negative effect on foreign affairs, and 5) the use of media as a mouthpiece for governmental leaders.
To start with, if the media do influence U.S. foreign policy makers, then the first part of the problem seems obvious - the media circumvents American citizens’ constitutional rights. The American democratic system is based on its citizens electing officials to represent their interests and govern the country, in general, and execute U.S. foreign policy, specifically. Since the American people do not elect mass media outlets, such outlets are not in a position legally to speak for American constituent interests or to impact American policy. American citizens should no more expect mass media to influence American government officials’ decisions any more than say, any foreign government or any other non-governmental organization. Although one could argue that Americans can select which media stations, programs, or products to view, read, or listen to, this selection does not discount the fact that mass media tools are inherently influential nor that the media are not a legitimate contributor to U.S. foreign policy formulation.
The second aspect of the problem is the crucial timing of any media influence. According to Dr. Steven Livingston (1997), an administrations’ most dangerous time for media to choose a side on a foreign policy matter (and frame its coverage to support this chosen side) is before the U.S. government formulates or decides on its policy regarding that matter.3 Dr. Livingston, in researching his variation on the CNN Effect Theory, states that if the administration has already formulated its policy, regardless of whether this policy has been publicized or not, even overwhelming media coverage that focuses public opinion against the current U.S. policy can rarely cause the policy to be changed. 4Each U.S. President outlines his administration’s pre-determined foreign affairs policies and objectives in his National Security Strategy; each recognized international relations threat, challenge, and opportunity is contained in this unclassified and straight-forward document. Even decades old alliances and other still significant foreign policies are mentioned in the National Security Strategy. If the National Security Strategy does not discuss a country, ally, enemy or threat, then beware of the media. If the U.S. does not have a policy, then media coverage (theoretically) could raise awareness of the matter, put the issue on the public agenda (by informing people and changing their attitudes), and thereby pressure U.S. policy-makers to hastily develop a policy (in other words, change behavior). Hastily formulated policy usually means ill-conceived or not well-researched policy and this oftentimes means a bad policy. This critical period before policy formulation is fleeting since administrations today will respond quickly to their changing policy environment. If the media are positioned to exploit this vulnerability before the government responds or disseminates its foreign policy, then media coverage can cause this foreign affairs policy vacuum to be filled with public cries for governmental action and foreign policy-makers will feel pressure to show resolve, a desire for solutions, and will quickly develop a policy.5
Alas, Presidents have never gotten in trouble politically for being surprised by a good opportunity. They get in trouble for being surprised by national threats and dangers.
Some in the media see it as their responsibility to identify weaknesses in America’s foreign policy system and, if given the opportunity, will expose U.S. foreign policy vacuums. Although it is impossible to make all foreign policy decisions in advance of a crisis (as it is impossible to foresee all possible perils to America), if the U.S. government does not have smart, dedicated, forward-looking planners constantly thinking of new or emerging challenges and developing foreign policies to address them, it should.
Another facet of this problem is the ‘for profit’ model used by mass media; media outlets do not provide information out of benevolence or philanthropy - they are in the business of making money, not merely relating stories and news. In the political arena, American foreign policy is designed to advance the causes of the nation and protect U.S. interests and people; in other words, to do what is in the best interest of America and the American people. Although history is full of examples of U.S. national objectives met to the obvious benefit of one industry or another, media objectives and national objectives are more often than not mutually exclusive.
For instance, when American troops deployed to conduct combat operations in Afghanistan in 2001,6 the foreign policy intent was to protect the homeland, not expand the global reach of CNN. Likewise, when U.S. forces invaded Panama in 1989, one could argue that it was done to maintain a favorable world order (from the U.S. perspective, of course), without any consideration to increasing the market share or bankrolls of CBS. Although one could surely make a counter-argument by suggesting that economic well-being is a U.S. interest; this argument would likely fail with the revelation that said economic well-being only extended to the news and entertainment industries.
Another dimension to the problem of media involvement in U.S. foreign policy comes from the fact that media outlets are inevitably associated with specific nations and thus many often perceive the media to be tools or mouthpieces of those countries. The citizens of many countries perceive CNN, Fox, and CBS, to name just a few world-renowned TV news services, to be U.S. broadcasters, even though these organizations are independent outlets with no U.S. government affiliation - they are non-governmental organizations with global reach and therefore amazing power to influence well beyond the American domestic audience. By way of further example, the reporters at al-Jazeera claim it is an independent media organization, but right or wrong, many Westerners perceive it to be a propaganda tool of Islamic extremism.8 Predictably, there will be disagreements between what the media think is good policy and what the government thinks is good policy.
Although then Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Thomas R. Pickering, made the following statement in response to a question about bipartisan politics relationship to foreign policy-making, it applies just as well to the media’s relationship to foreign policy-making.
If a foreign nation’s leaders perceive a global TV corporation as a U.S. entity, and that same media outlet broadcasts messages (whether intentionally or not) that are counter to U.S. policy, this causes added confusion and doubt to the inherently uncertain foreign affairs arena (which by most accounts is more art than science). “One-sided stories, not checked or thoroughly researched, provide a disadvantageous optic for foreign affairs, because in the long run, foreign policy succeeds if it has the support of the national publics, which are very much influenced by the media” (Pickering 2000, 4).9
On the other side of the same coin, both the U.S. and others have used the media as an informal high-level diplomatic communication means by (consider the televised CNN messages between President George H.W. Bush and President Saddam Hussein before the Gulf War). In fact, U.S. government leaders often desire this form of media usage. “In many ways, the media is a remarkably important instrument. Not that the government manipulates the media, but they perform an essential function by treating as news what the government is saying about a particular foreign policy function” (Pickering 2000, 4).10 On the other side, an independent media and can always choose not to cover or broadcast such messages if they want. When these global-reach media corporations do cover an issue or foreign event, it is therefore understandable for U.S. allies and enemies to perceive this coverage as a foreign policy demarche or message (whether it is one or not). “Nobody expects the media to be the mouthpiece for the government, but we expect that the media at least will know and understand what government views are and be fair in conveying them” (Pickering 2000, 4).11Aside from overt, intentional government communications via the media, a term exists for covert, intentional government communications using the media. The term “leaking” to the press means the intentional delivery of information or messages to the media to facilitate the broadcast of the “leak” to the American public and beyond. As one can see in the preceding section, the problem of media influence is complex and substantial. Although they certainly do understand the problems present in the media-government influence arena, the high-level actors that operate in this environment have numerous, competing concerns.
Today, the topic ‘CNN Chilling Effect’ is a very popular one in the United States of America (U.S.); the matter is regularly and repeatedly discussed in the academic world, the main stream press, and the general public. Regardless of the truth of the matter, conventional wisdom and modem conspiracy theory suggest a perception that the media intentionally influence decision-makers and ultimately alter U.S. foreign policy. In order to determine the validity of this supposition, the research question for this study is as follows: “Under what conditions or circumstances, if any, do CNN and other media organizations (herein after referred to as the media) influence U.S. foreign policy?” Although, domestic and foreign policy can affect media, this essay will discuss the chilling effects that CNN have on U.S. foreign policy. The thesis is as follows: There is a positive relationship between U.S. foreign policy and the media influence. Put another way, when America’s media choose to focus on or ignore a specific issue, it can, by this very emphasis or lack thereof, effect a change to U.S. foreign policy. In other words, CNN chilling effect is a power or an influence that affect U.S. foreign policy.
The literature reviewed is full of incidents in which contemporary media organizations appear to have directly influenced U.S. foreign policy and intervention with foreign nations. Obviously, this form of perceived influence is dangerous for at least two reasons. First, media organizations are ‘for profit’ businesses and therefore can be expected to communicate the news that sells, whether it is for America's good or not, and second, media people are not elected by the American people and consequently are not legally bound to work for American citizenry’s common good. As former Special Advisor to the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Edward Bickham, once observed:
Foreign policy should be made by democratic governments, accountable to Parliament, not in reaction to which trouble spots the news-gathering organizations can afford to cover from time to time....Reactions to the priorities of the news room are unlikely to yield a coherent or a sustainable foreign policy.12
Since the essay question is, “Under what conditions or circumstances, if any, do CNN and other media organizations influence U.S. foreign policy?”, the author will explore four basic schools of thought on the question of whether or not CNN or other media influence Americans: 1) the media are unbiased providers of news information and have no intent to influence people, 2) the media have an agenda and tell Americans what to think about, but not what to do with the information, 3) the media influence or are used to influence policymakers and ultimately U.S. policy, and 4) the media are a tool of the U.S. government and corporate American elites. These
schools of thought basically span the “effects of exposure to communication [which] are generally catalogued as: Awareness-^ Information -> Attitudes -> Behavior,” as outlined in Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw’s 1977 book, The Emergence of American
Political Issues: The Agenda-Setting Function of the Press. 13 Since this essay`s thesis is that media do influence U.S. foreign policy, these particular schools of thought either support or counter this thesis and therefore directly relate to this research; this thesis paper further investigates the ‘media influence’ school of thought.The first school of thought is that the media are unbiased providers of news information and have no intent to influence the American people or policy. According to t...