The CNN Effect - Fact or Fiction - Essay Example

The CNN Effect: Fact or Fiction The printing press had a significant impact on mans ability to communicate both rapidly and on a massive scale. Politicians quickly discovered that the power to sway public opinion and coerce government action was through mass communication. The electronic inventions of the 19th and 20th centuries saw an even greater presence of the media in the business of government affairs. Newspaper publishers, radio networks, and television news have all competed for the publics patronage, often while promoting a social or political agenda. As the world enters the 21st century and the era of globalization, media outlets have become even more massive and concentrated. They have the ability to reach billions of viewers and present up to the minute images and editorial comment. Can a news organization forge our nations foreign policy? Stephen Hess, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and others have described the medias influence as the CNN Effect. Hess says, "Its usually thought of as the effect that continuous and instantaneous television may have on foreign policy, in the making of foreign policy and the conduct of war" ("CNN Effect"). While media executives have the same legal obligations that any business owner would have that reports to a board of directors, they have the additional power to highlight the need for social justice, initiate social change, and influence foreign policy in a symbiotic relationship with their own private agenda and the will of the political elite. The images of Vietnam, Tiananmen Square, the Berlin Wall, and the War in Iraq become burned into the American psyche as live broadcasts from embedded reporters portray the reality of the event in real time. Natural disasters and humanitarian crises are brought to the publics attention and can result in a ground swell of charitable activity as well as provoke the government into making financial commitments to the cause. Globalization, the end of the Cold War, and Americas hegemony in the world has left large news outlets freer to criticize Americas foreign policy (Robinson 301). Known as the CNN Effect it is the concept that "real-time communications technology could provoke major responses from domestic audiences and political elites to global events" (Robinson 301). When government official are faced with real-time reporting on an issue such as genocide or famine, they are forced to make an immediate response to the issue. This action can have the ability to move foreign policy in a general direction based on the story. The public requires information on pending issues around the world that may have the need for military or financial intervention. The need for military intervention into a local conflict for political, national security, or humanitarian reasons is one of the basic tenets of US foreign policy. In Americas established democracy, public opinion is an important component of the decision making process. The public gets their information from both official (governmental agencies) and unofficial (private news outlets) sources. The recent crises in Kosovo, East Timor, and Somalia were largely under the publics radar until CNN began reporting on the events there (Boettcher 335). Once reporting began, the government was forced to confront the issue and publicly frame their policy. Likewise, Boettcher reports that the genocide in Rwanda was largely unnoticed because CNN did not have a news crew on the ground there (335-336). From the standpoint of information availability, private news outlets are more able to highlight and bring attention to an issue or situation that the official information outlets. By the selective reporting on an international event, the media is able to force the government to make a public announcement and generate an official response to the problem. The media report is free to set the agenda and tone of the situation and have an immediate impact on public opinion. This effect is most apparent in the early stages of a crisis when officials are expected to present an immediate reaction and response. Robinson states that "...when policy is unclear or ill defined the media can indeed have some influence on policy; on the other hand, the media effect on policy decreases as the clarity of strategic interest increases" (305). While an international event may be brought to the publics attention through unofficial outlets, in the long term the process may actually reverse as elite government officials begin to use the news outlets to shape public opinion. As a situation unfolds, the news agencies will rely on government officials as an inexpensive source for news as well as protect themselves from liability for inaccurate reporting (Hawkins 227). At this point, the media outlets become spokespersons for the government attempting to sway public opinion. According to Robinson, the theory of manufacturing consent claims that, "... news media coverage conforms with the interests of political elites, where elites are defined broadly as members of the executive, legislative or any other politically powerful group" (304). This effect was seen as the government used news outlets to sell the War in Iraq to a skeptical public through a series of media events. The more durable impact of the CNN Effect may be the ability of the government to sway public opinion in favor of an unpopular policy. Whether the CNN Effect is being used to formulate policy based on personal or private agendas or is being exploited to sell the policies of the political elite, there is little disagreement on the importance of major news outlets in the conduction of foreign policy. However, research has been inconclusive in attempting to link public opinion and the influence it has on significantly altering foreign policy (Jacobs and Page 109, 121). The effects of these phenomena also overlap into the soft news programming. While CNN and network coverage will generally stick to covering the military strategies and political fallout of the event, the 100 million viewers exposed to soft news outlets such as Inside Edition, Dateline, and Extra will tend to get a more human interest and entertaining angle (Baum 116). Government officials will tend to use this platform to emphasize issues that may not appeal to the audience that has a greater interest in the geopolitical aspects of a crisis. The soft news outlets tend to be less factual and more sensational than the traditional news outlets and are in a position to sway public opinion through innuendo and association. As important as reporting on an event can be to the formulation of foreign policy, the events that are not reported are also shaping the policies. Though the content and the presentation may have some limiting effect on generating a rapid policy response and shaping public opinion, the news outlets have near total control over the items televised. They control the selection of the issues that they deem important and that selection may be based on social and cultural factors such as location and race. Humanitarian aid may reach North Koreas based on their coverage, while areas in southern Africa may go ignored. Boettcher reports that it was generally accepted that, "...the United States was willing to save White Kosovar Albanians but not Black Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda" (337). This effect is further illustrated by our concentration on the was on terror at the expense of covering humanitarian crises around the world (Boettcher 337). The issues that are covered by a large news outlet such as CNN are decided by a remarkably small group of people. According to Judy Woodruff, senior anchor and correspondent for CNN, the decisions on what and how much of an issue that is to be broadcast is decided by as few as a half dozen senior executives ("CNN Effect"). The CNN Effect may be more accurately described as the news cabals that decide what we think about more than how we think about it. In conclusion, there is little doubt or disagreement about the extent and sphere of influence that technology, communications, and the media has had on the way we think about foreign policy. News outlets have the ability to bring graphic images into our home to spotlight an issue or illustrate an international crisis. However, the term CNN Effect is often misunderstood or overrated. While news outlets have the ability to prompt some degree of immediate government response, the longer term effect is that the elite public officials will use the media to shape public opinion. However, research has been inconclusive on the effects of public opinion on foreign policy as illustrated by the continuing War in Iraq. It is more likely that special interests that are not influenced by news events have a far greater influence on the formation of policy. What is certain is that there are a limited number of network executives that determine what we think of as newsworthy. Is the nuclear crisis in Iran more important than the genocide in Darfur? Are white Albanians of greater news importance than black Rwandans? These are the decisions that come about as the result of the CNN Effect. When presented with accurate reporting politicians and the public will make a deliberate and reasonable policy to deal with the issue. The danger of the CNN Effect lies in the concentrated control of the issues that are presented and deemed important enough to be considered newsworthy. Works Cited Baum, Matthew. "Soft News and Foreign Policy: How Expanding the Audience Changes the Policies." Japanese Journal of Political Science 8.1 (2006): 115-45. Cambridge University Press. 10 June 2007. Boettcher, William . "Military Intervention Decisions Regarding Humanitarian Crises: Framing Induced Risk Behavior." Journal of Conflict Resolution 48.3 (2004): 331-55. Sage Publications. 10 Jun. 2007. Hawkins, Virgil. "The Other Side of the CNN Factor: The Media and Conflict." Journalism Studies 3.2 (2002): 225-40. Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Benjamin I. Page. "Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?" American Political Science Review 99.1 (2005): 107-23. Robinson, Piers. "The CNN Effect: Can the News Media Drive Foreign Policy?" Review of International Studies 25 (1999): 301-09. EBSCO. 10 Jun. 2007. "The CNN Effect." U.S. Politics. 23 Jan. 2002. The Brookings Institution . 10 June 2007 . Read More