Media Coverage as Foreign Policy Intervention Factor: The CNN-effect Concept, [w:]

Communication in the Millenium. 9th International Symposium, red. E. Yüksel,

Anadolu University, Anadolu 2011, p. 237-252.

MEDIA COVERAGE AS FOREIGN POLICY

INTERVENTION FACTOR

THE CNN EFFECT

Ewa NOWAK, Ph.D.

Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, Lublin, Poland

terewa@gmail.com

Ewa NOWAK, a Doctor of Political Science, graduated from Maria Curie-

Sklodowska University in Lublin, lecturer at the Political Science Faculty of MCSU

and Higher School of Enterprise and Administration in Lublin. Her academic and

research activity focuses on political communication, electoral behavior, agenda setting,

media effect and European public sphere. These are areas which she covered in her

books and articles.

ABSTRACT

The CNN effect concept is settled in the area of media effect studies and is especially

connected with the topic of political decision making in international relationships.

These days, the CNN effect concept has the status of an assumption which has not been

ultimately confirmed. The lively academic debate on the degree of media influence on

making politics remains current today and based on the assumptions, that the media

have an impact on public opinion and power of shaping policies. That public opinion,

which is informed and stimulated by the media, has significant influence when policy

goals are being considered (Louw 2007). A more critical view is presented by P.

Robinson, who claims that generally the media follow politicians and their policy

making, but there are some meaningful exceptions when media coverage exert pressures

on political elites to force them to make certain decisions. The proposed study combines

the theoretical basis within the agenda setting theory, as regards the interrelationships

between the media and policy agenda and empirical seeking using the methodology,

covering case studies. The main assumption grounds on the opinion that previous

model of relationship between media agenda and policy agenda, in which media agenda

generally follows the policy agenda, is changing, so that the media has a growing role

in making politics. The detailed hypothesis which is going to be proved in the study

implies that media coverage should be considered as an intervention factor within the

political decision-making environment.

MEDIA COVERAGE AS FOREIGN POLICY

INTERVENTION FACTOR

THE CNN EFFECT

INTRODUCTION

The CNN effect concept is settled in the area of media effect studies and is

especially connected with the topic of political decision making in international

relationships. The CNN effect concept emerged in the early 1990s, when 24-

hour Cable News Network became a kind of diplomatic channel between G.

Bush and S. Hussein during the first bombing of Baghdad. The most significant

studies devoted to this concept were conducted by P. Robinson (2002), E. Louw

(2007) and J. Willis (2007), but the first work convincingly proving that media

coverage is able to change the course of political events and decision-making

process was written by G. Lang and K. Lang in 1983. This study, devoted to

Watergate, also indicated the need of conducting theoretical and empirical

research as far as the problem of media influence on foreign policy decision

making is concerned. At present, the CNN effect concept has the status of an

assumption which has not been ultimately confirmed. The majority of works

based on case studies and theoretical background is not sufficiently developed.

However, we can find several dozen of studies on this topic, published mainly

in the USA and Great Britain (for example: Livingston 1997; Freedman, 2000;

Jakobsen 2000; Wheeler 2000; Belknap 2001; Jamieson, Waldman 2004; Gilboa

2005).

The lively academic debate on the degree of media influence on making politics

remain current today and is based on the following assumptions: the media

have a power of shaping policies; public opinion, which is informed and

stimulated by the media, has significant influence when policy goals are

considered (Louw 2007). A more critical view is presented by P. Robinson

(2002), who claims that generally the media follow politicians and their policy

making, but there are some meaningful exceptions, when media coverage exert

pressures on political elites to force them and to make certain decisions. P.

Robinson specifies the circumstances when the media are able to influence

politics – especially humanitarian and environmental disasters, military

conflicts and other crises in which the interest of a massive amount of peoples is

involved. These are quoted as situations when political elites are the object of

media pressure. Furthermore, P. Robinson (2002) determines the types of

policy-media interactions, which favor the influence of media coverage on

making politics.

The Robinson’s model of policy-media interaction model (see Tab. 2.) is the

starting point of the study, whereas the essential part of theoretical basis is

settled in the stream of media effects studies and the agenda setting theory,

when it comes to the interrelationships between the media and policy agenda.

The empirical seeking uses the popular methodology within these area,

covering case studies. The study is not causal but only exploratory research,

because the concept of CNN effect has not been clearly and ultimately

formulated in previous studies of the subject The main assumption grounds on

the opinion that previous model of relationship between media agenda and

policy agenda, in which media agenda generally follows the policy agenda, is

changing, so that the media has a growing role in making politics. The detailed

presumption implies that media coverage should be considered as the

intervention factor in the decisive political situation. The need of preparing the

study is reasonable, firstly because of the progressive mediatization of political

life, and secondly because there are only a few studies devoted to the shifting

salience between media and policy agenda, including also CNN effect as

significant and developing media effect concept.

THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH

The CNN effect – does it really exist?

The CNN-effect concept arises a lot of controversies. First of all, they are

connected with the question whether this effect really exists, that is, whether the

media coverage of global TV networks can have an influence on the course of

political events and decision making. Secondly, the key moment of this

influence is being debated.

It is still uncertain since when we can speak about so called CNN effect. There

is no agreement among scholars about a few important problems. For example:

is it the time of Vietnam war, when in fact television (an impressive images of

war atrocities) changed political and social thinking about American

intervention in Vietnam (although CNN did not exist at that time yet) or not

until the early 90., and the Gulf War when global television networks were

given access to the events and impact on public opinion and politicians

(Tungate 2004).

However, there is a relative consensus about the nature of CNN effect, which

is mainly connected with changes within foreign affairs and international

political communication of post-Cold War era. At this time, the abolition of

international rules in force opened a no-man’s-land in global sphere and a field

of uncertainty – who, when and how should act in international relations. As a

result, global media became an important actor in global political

communication and politics as such. In his famous statement Butros Ghali

declared the CNN as the sixteenth member of the United Nations Security

Council (Minear, Scott, Weiss 1996, p. 4).

The scholars confirmed that we can observe a transformation in global politics

(Ammon 2001). Also, the term of telediplomacy was introduced, based on the

assertion that global public opinion, represented mainly by television and 24-

hours news networks, democratized international policy making. Ted Turners’

CNN channel played, in particular, an important role in the deconstruction of

so far conventional politics, by bringing new principles and channels into

communication (M. O’Neill 1993; R. Ammon, 2001; L. Edwards 2001; E. Gilboa

2005).

During the 90., the academic debate devoted to the role of media in

international relations was very vivid. The opinion that media coverage can

have, as often happens, a strong and decisive impact on the course of real

world events (and decision making) initially prevailed, especially as no verified

CNN-effect was considered. The bravest thesis is the one of B. Cohen (1994),

which says that media has the power to ‘move and shake’ the governments (B.

Cohen, 1994, p. 9).

The opinion of T. Cook is quite similar, he claims that media should be

regarded as a powerful political institution, but at the same time this scholar

perceives a strong chain of cause-and-effect relationship between media and

politics: ‚The two are so intertwined that it is preferable to study, first, the news

media’s interactions with political actors, including the perspectives from both

the political and the journalistic spheres in the process, and, second, the effects

that those interactions and negotiations have on the kind of news that appears

and the kind of policies that are thereby encouraged‛ (T. Cook, 1998, p. 13).

What is more, the politicians themselves see the power of mass media as

growing and excessively influential. For example, Tony Blair in his speech

during the war against Serbia in 1999, stated that politicians were still: ‚Fending

of the danger of letting wherever CNN roves be the cattle prod to take a global

conflict seriously‛ (P. Robinson, 2002, s. 11).

Quite a different view on the role of the media in politics is presented by the

scholars connected with environment and humanitarian lobbies. They believe

that non-state members of the international relations, especially media, broaden

political debate beyond diplomatic and army domains, which makes global

public sphere more democratic (E. Girardet, 1995).

In opposition to the CNN effect concept we can find theories regarding media

as an instrument used by political elites to realize their goals. Indexing

hypothesis is one of them. According to this concept, journalists make efforts to

adapt their points of view and the interpretation of the events (intentionally or

not) to the distribution and direction of judgment of the mainstream society

elites (Bennet, 1990, p. 103-125; Entman, Page, 1994, p. 82).

Similarly, the manufacturing consent theory presumes that media is a power

which supports government policies and mainstream or predominant elite’s

standpoints (Herman, 1993, p. 25).The aforementioned concepts have many

supporters among scholars, as opposed to the CNN effect, although this

situation can cause some misperceptions about the role of media in

international politics. Especially manufacturing consent theory omits the

political activity and independence of journalists as public opinion

representatives (Herman, Chomsky, 1998; P. Robinson 2002, p. 15).

Critical stream within the concept of CNN-effect is represented by Piers

Robinson. At the same time it should be regarded as a realistic view, supported

by sophisticated and methodologically reliable analyses and studies. He claims

that in politics - almost always - elite’s standpoint or strategy of action gain

dominant position. Media usually take or support the ‘executive version’,

because media and government have usually the same or very similar interests

in foreign affairs. The media follow the executive power or dominating political

elites. At the same time, the ‘elite version’ claims that media interests are often

consistent with political and social elites interests as well (particularly in

international politics). In this situation, it is quite easy to make an agreement

and consequently, media does not aspire to influence political decisions

(Robinson 2002, p. 13).

D. Hallin is of the same opinion. For example, he considers critical media

involvement during Vietnam war as a reaction consistent with the opinion of a

part of Washington political elites, opposing the war. Consequently, the media

coverage was only a reflection of real political division and media simply

supported one of the options. (D. Hallin, 1986).

In conclusion of the considerations above it should be stated that even though

the media generally cover government policies rather critically, they are

constrained with the issues and topics the government and parliament or elites

deal with, and they rather follow, than influence politics and policies. However,

the important exception is that, there appears to be an opportunity to change

routine manner of media activity , when the conflict among different groups of

political elites turns up, and when it is connected with ‘focusing events’

(Birkland 2007; compare: triggering events, Cobb, Elder 1972/1983) or problems,

which attract great publicity (‘driving public opinion’). Then the way for the

media, to influence the course of events and political action, becomes open.

CNN effect - concepts and definitions

CNN effect (also called CNN-curve or CNN-factor; S. Livingston, 1997, p. 291)

concept is placed into the media effect field of studies, but it is also strongly

connected with the first stage of agenda-setting theory, where the relationships

between media agenda and policy agenda are considered . So far, there are very

few studies devoted to CNN-effect, and what is more, hardly ever do we find

one that explains the essence of this phenomenon precisely and profoundly (S.

Livingston 1997, p. 292).

There is no agreement to the conditions when CNN effect appears. Apart from

that, it is rather studied within foreign affairs or war topics, domestic issues are

not included, however, it seems that, in a way, CNN effect concept could also

be operationalized, so that it adapts to the domestic politics.

When the CNN effect is being considered as an element of media agenda –

policy agenda relationships (within agenda setting theory), the following

regularities can be observed: 1) media coverage has an impact on the matters

that politicians deal with (political agenda); 2) politicians try to shape news

agenda with varying degrees of effort and success, depending on the system in

which they operate; 3) agenda power has not only positive but also negative

components, meaning that some stories or aspects of stories may be neglected

in the press because political actors refuse to address them publicly, or because

certain actors are ignored by the press; 4) dramatic events remain beyond the

immediate control of political actors, and that is the way they may grab more

media attention than ordinary events in order to set he political agenda

(Walgrave, Van Aelst, Bennet, 2010, p. 3-4).

These dramatic, focusing events should be regarded as a key moment within

media agenda – policy agenda relationships, which explains the essence of

political power of media. These problems are presented and analyzed in the

CNN effect concept.

T. A. Birkland defines focusing events as: ‚*<+ an event that is sudden,

relatively rare, and can be reasonably defined as a harmful or revealing the

possibility of potentially greater future harms, inflict harms or suggest potential

harms that are or could be concentrated on a definable geographical area or

community of interest and that is known to policy makers and the public

virtually simultaneously‛ (Birkland 2007, p. 22).

These events, in certain circumstances get (and exercise) agenda setting power,

which is obtained from their nature and specific feature. The changes in agenda

setting hierarchy, made by focusing events cause – again in certain

circumstances – policy changes. Focusing events plays a role of impetus

element or accelerator of changes within policy domain which open the

window of opportunity for new ideas and solution proposed by certain parts of

political elites or lobby groups. But focusing events are also used by groups and

leaders to mobilize support for change (Birkland 2007).

Making summary about the scholarly ideas covering the CNN effect, a few

categories can be pointed, which unite mass communication and international

relations approaches (E. Gilboa 2005):

1) notions that point out that media accelerate and mobilize political action:

- CNN-effect as a result of media coverage that stimulates to undertake

humanitarian interventions;

- media coverage as the influence on initiating political action (and

changing the course of political processes);

2) notions emphasizing the effect of change:

- CNN effect as a way for the ‘breaking news’ to change foreign affairs;

- CNN effect as an approach within international decision making, for

example S. Feist’s definition based on an assertion that a convincing

media coverage (for example television images of war, humanitarian

crises and casualties) is a factor which causes the USA government to

intervene - in a situation, when it might not be in the US national interest

(S. Feist 2001, p. 715; E. Gilboa 2005, p. 29).

3) notions stressing pressure and predominant media impact on politics:

- CNN effect as a function of media allowing to compel political

institutions to undertake action by using the pressure of public opinion,

moved by images of victims, disasters, humanitarian crises (‘do

something coverage’; Robinson 2002);

- the phenomenon of losing control over public policies by politicians in

favor of the news media;

- the state of permanent tension between 24-hours news media and

politicians, in which media have the advantage and influence on making

politics;

4) the notions which take into account the role played by the media as well as

the one played by public opinion in accomplishing an influence on political

decision making;

- CNN effect as an interaction between three objects: media, public

opinion, political elites, realized through a model as follows: ‘focusing’,

tragic events, covered by media, influence public opinion; emotionally

moved public opinion brings pressure ‘to do something’ (survey results),

which is recorded and presented by news media; politicians

(government) become afraid of strong criticism of media and public

opinion (PR disaster) in case they did not take an action or took it against

media and public opinion;

5) CNN effect concept as the element of agenda setting theory which explains

relationship between media agenda and political agenda;

- concept in which it is supposed that, intensive media coverage about

issue plays key role in process of policy agenda setting, especially on the

stage of problem definition and formulation. This concept is being

developed, among others, by S. Livingston (Livingson 1997; see also:

Walgrave, Van Aelst, Bennet 2010). Using vast scope of literature, the

scholar suggested three (conceptually distinct) analytically useful

understandings of the media effects (in the policy process).

Table 1. Conceptual Variations of CNN-effects

Role of the media in political

process

Specification of the media activity

1. Accelerant – to the policy

decision-making

Policy implementation stage

Shortening political decision making time (in response

to the event)

Media as a force multiplying method of sending

signals about the event

2. Impediment – to the

achievement of desired policy

goals

Policy implementation stage

Global real-time media constitute a threat to

operational security in a warfare

Emotional, terrifying coverage from battle area or

about civil casualties can undermine troops morale

3. Agenda-setting agency -media

as policy agenda setting agent

Initial stage - formulation of

the problem

Emotional, compelling coverage of atrocities or

humanitarian crises reorder policy priorities (Somalia,

Bosnia, Haiti as the examples)

Raising prominence of the issue on the agenda

Source: Own study based on: S. Livingston (1997), Beyond the ‚CNN Effect‛. The Media-

Foreign Policy Dynamic, In P. Norris (ed.), Politics and the Press. The News Media and their

Influences, London: Lynner Rienner Publishers Inc., p. 292-293.

When the problem of CNN effect is studied, and providing it actually occurs,

we have to take into account several types of media – political leaders

relationship. The political power of the media and journalists depends

especially on whether the elite consensus exists or not (when it comes to the

way of solving problems), policy certainty or uncertainty within the executive,

and the degree of the criticism of media coverage towards policy and decisions.

Tab. 2. The policy-media interaction model

Level of elite consensus Media-state relationship Role of the Media

1. Elite consensus The media operate within ‘sphere

of consensus’ and coverage

reflects elite consensus on policy

The media remain

uncritical and help build

support for official policy

2. Elite dissensus The media operate within ‘sphere

of legitimate controversy’, but

overall coverage does not favour

any side of the elite debate

The media reflect elite

dissensus, but remain

non-influential

3. Elite dissensus but

policy certainty within

executive

The media operate within ‘sphere

of legitimate controversy’, but

coverage, overall, becomes critical

of government policy

Although coverage

pressures government to

change policy, policy

certainty within executive

means that media

influence is resisted

4. Elite dissensus plus

policy certainty within

government

The media take sides in political

debate and coverage becomes

critical of government. The media

are now active participant

influencing elite debate

The CNN-effect: in

conditions of policy

uncertainty, critical media

coverage provides

bargaining power for

those seeking a change in

policy or makes policy-

makers feel pressured to

respond with a policy or

else face a public relations

disaster. Here the media

can influence policy

outcomes

Source: P. Robinson (2002). The CNN Effect. The Myth of news, foreign policy and intervention,

London-New York: Routledge, p. 31.

Therefore, media impact on decision making in politics depends mainly on two

variables. Firstly, the level of integrity within political elites, referring to current

political goals; secondly, the determination and certainty of specific activities

and enterprises. When a conflict emerges inside the political elites and a lack

of determination occurs, then the space for media activity and pressure

becomes open. What is more, it is then possible for the mainstream media (by

using intensive media coverage ) to motivate government to take, to stop or to

make some modifications about an action. Then the CNN effect can occur,

which results in media engagement into making politics and shaping policies.

Consequently, CNN effect is possible in circumstances of the policy uncertainty,

when critical media coverage provides bargaining power for seeking a change

in policy, or causes policy makers feel pressured and afraid of PR-disaster.

CNN effect can have different forms and levels, depending on the media

power. In particular, we can mention strong CNN effect and weak CNN effect

(P. Robinson 2002, p. 37; E. Gilboa 2005, p. 35).

1) Strong CNN effect:

– media coverage mobilizes and directs key political leaders to take a

preferable way of action and to choose certain options;

- media impact is significant – media coverage is a sufficient or

necessary (essential) factor for taking political action – if there is no

media coverage given, the decision will not be taken or will be realized

in a different way;

- it certainly does not mean that media force political leaders to do

particular things ; media coverage is just an effective way of bringing

pressure;

- the issue is reported as a headline for at least a couple of days;

2) Weak CNN effect:

- media coverage accelerates, enables or facilitates certain political

decisions;

- if there is no media coverage given, the decision will be taken (or will

not be taken), but media reports create a favorable environment for

taking (or not taking) the decision (P. Robinson 2002, p. 38);

To sum up, it seems reasonable to assume that, when the CNN effect is

considered, the most significant variables are: political environment and

decision-making situation (conditions), and the way media report and frame

the event and bring news about the event.

Hipothesis

As the study is exploratory, I do not formulate any formal hypotheses,

however, I present some of the factors that I expect to be connected to the

presence of CNN effect. Firstly, the general assumption is that, the CNN effect

is connected with the progressive mediatization of politics, which makes the

role of mass media grow (especially 24-hours global news networks) in making

politics. Secondly, the detailed presumption implies that media coverage

should be considered as the intervention factor within the political decision-

making environment and political process, firstly as policy agenda setting

agent, secondly as an accelerant of decision making (because of the specifics of

case, media as the impediment, has not been taken into account).

The empirical data are analyzed by using a case study method. The analysis is

designed to establish: whether within the analyzed case the CNN effect

occurred or not; to determine in what way media coverage intervened (disturb)

into political decision-making environment (agenda setter/accelerant); to

determine whether this case represents the strong or the weak CNN effect.

MATERIALS, PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

Within the case study presented below, the analysis was conducted by using a

model as follows: time; issue; media coverage devoted to the issue; political

response of the government/party to the media coverage; reaction of world

public opinion and the governments of other countries; the consequences of

media coverage for political/policy decision making and the course of the real

world events (Willis 2007) . The analysis was conducted on the basis of media

reports (press and official web pages of CNN and BCC) about the issue of

General Stanley McChrystal, as well as available literature devoted to the topic.

Case study – general Stanley McChrystal’s dismissal

Time: June the 23th 2010.

Issue: the statements and behaviors of the top commander in Afghanistan -

general Stanley McChrystal, and his staff, about senior administration officials

from president Barack Obama’s environment.

Media coverage devoted to issue:

-the main coverage – the story The Runaway General by Michael Hastings,

published in „The Rolling Stone‛ magazine (June the 25th 2010); the article

quoted General McChrystal and his aides speaking critically of almost every

member of the president’s national security team, dismissing Vice President

Biden as ‚Bite Me‛; calling the national security adviser, General James L.

Jones, a ‚clown‛; and disparaging other top officials;

- the preceding media reports of June the 23th and the 24th about the main

article by M. Hastings (H. Cooper, J. Healy, 23.06.2010);

- in the period 23-25th of June 2010, McChristal issue became the dominant

topic in the American and British news media (for example CNN and BCC

and other mass media, also in such countries as for example Poland; Bosacki

2010; Rittenhouse 2010);

- official web page of CNN published over 400 news during a few days since

McChrystal’s issue was revealed, and over 50 news during 24-hours (CNN

news about McChrystal issue, official CNN web page 2010);

- similarly, the official BBC web page presented over 20 news within the next

few days after the 23th of June (BBC news about McChrystal issue, official

BBC web page 2010);

- the issue became very popular also in Eastern Europe, in Polish daily press

and news programs McChrystal’s issue was present as the headline;

Political response of the government/party/public opinion to the media coverage:

- the reaction of President Barack Obama who relieved General Stanley

McChrystal of his command of international forces in Afghanistan with

relatively little deliberation (less than 40 hours had passed between the time B.

Obama read ‚The Rolling Stone‛’s article, "The Runaway General," and the

moment he met that general for a private Oval Office meeting on Wednesday

morning); the personal reaction of the president was probably emotionally

influenced, because the observers called B. Obama’s behaviour as ‚furious‛,

especially because of the McChrystal’s statement about their first meeting

(which took place not before than several months after General’s oath;

Woodward 2010; Alter 2010); McChrystal said that President seemed to be:

"uncomfortable and intimidated by the roomful of military brass‛ (Hastings

2010) and also looked not engaged, as he did not know who McChrystal really

was (Weisman 2010; Cooper, Healy 2010).

- however, in the article General McChrystal and his aides did not overtly

criticize the administration policy, the differences revealed were rather

personal; but the statements of McChrystal and his staff should be described as

arrogant and disregarding, for example in the dialog quoted beneath:

- "Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with

a laugh.

- "Who's that?"

- "Biden?" suggests a top adviser.

- "Did you say: Bite Me? (Hastings 2010).

- the news about the issue publicized in „The Rolling Stone‛ aroused many

commentaries among the President’s advisers. They claimed that leaving

McCrystal on his post would mean tolerance for a future insubordination and

different opinions about the war strategy in the Middle East; advisers said that

leaving Gen. McChrystal in command would be seen as a sign of presidential

weakness (Rosen 2010; Woodward 2010);

- consequently, the President officially stated that General ‘s pronouncement

revealed in ‚The Rolling Stone‛ does not meet standards required for a

commanding general ,and that: "This mission demands unity of effort across

our alliance and across my national security team. And I don't think that we can

sustain that unity of effort and achieve our objectives in Afghanistan without

making this change" (McChrystal relieved of command, Petraeus chosen to take

over, 2010).

Reactions of the world public opinion and the governments of other countries:

-the Afghan President Hamid Karzai regarded McChrystal’s dismissal as an

unpleasant surprise, because he thought of General as one of the very few allies

of Afghan nation; what is more, General also had some supporters in

neighboring Pakistan (Woodward 2010);

- the British Prime Minister David Cameron expressed his anxiety about

General’s dismissal and whether the mission in Afghanistan would not ‚miss

a beat‛ (Bates 2010);

- according to the public opinion survey conducted by Angus Reid Global

Monitor just after the decision, 53 percent of Americans supported President

Obama’s decision of dismissing General McChrystal (Americans agree with

McChristals dismissal, 2010);

The consequences of media coverage for political/policy decision making and the course

of the real world events:

- dismissal of the U. S. Forces in Afghanistan Commander - general Stanley

McChrystal;

- the General’s release was connected with the press article The Runaway

General, which was to be published two days later; consequently, it can be

regarded as a leak effect;

- the sequence of events indicates the power of media reports, as the prior

dismissal took place in order to anticipate and mitigate the negative (PR and

political) effects of revealed arrogance and not meeting standards by General;

- quick dismissal was designed not let a PR-disaster to happen and not allow to

deteriorate President Obama, as well as American mission in Afghanistan

images;

- the appointment of General David Petraeus, Commanding General of

Multinational-Force in Iraq as Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan;

- replacing McChrystal by G. Petraeus was not connected with changing the

strategy of intervention in Afganistan; the decision was motivated only

personally and the effects were also connected with human relationships;

- General McChrystal entered into good relations with Afghan elites and

president Hamid Karzai; the Afghan President appealed for keeping General on

his position (23.06.2010), calling him the best commander of this war. H. Karzai

also stated, that general was the only American partner he fully trusted,

because McChristal understood Afghan culture and mentality; the loss of this

American partner meant problems with fighting corruption and even more

trouble with the improvement of governing standards (Dymisja dowódcy wojsk

w Afganistanie generała Stanleya McChrystala *q&a+ 2010).

DISCUSSION

Taking into account the theoretical basis presented above and the proposed (not

formal) hypothesis, the case of general McChrystal should be described and

qualified as follows:

1) with regard to whether within the quoted case the CNN effect occurs or not –

the CNN-effect occurred, because of the type of relationship between the media

and the President (government). Firstly, because media coverage was focused

on criticizing US military’s administration, especially the top commander of the

Afghan mission. Then, the media made an effort to be an independent player in

the political game, putting US administration under pressure. Secondly, the

government’s uncertainty regarding the military policy in Afghanistan, could

be observed (the lack of the expected effect of intervention), as well as

President B. Obama’s anxiety connected with the mission and his position in

the political elites. For example, the opinion of political scientist E. Luttwak

was as follows: ‚Obama is seen as weak president, who no sufficiently controls

the position of USA within global political environment, and for this reason he

is strongly criticized or even attacked. If he did not dismiss McChrystal, we

would face very serious political crisis‛ (M. Rittenhouse, 2010; see also:

Bayefsky 2009, Gardiner 2009, Bremner 2009; ). In the situation above, media

bring pressure by creating the threat of a PR-disaster.

2) When the presumption about media coverage as the intervention factor

within the political decision-making environment and political process - is

considered, we can undoubtedly affirm, that article of M. Hastings, not only set

the McChrystal’s case in executive – policy agenda, but also raised it on the top

position (as mentioned above, MChrystals’s issue became headline in American

and also European media for couple of days).

3) As regards media coverage as accelerant factor, which sped up making the

decision about dismissal, the finding can be deduced from the sequence of

events, as well as circumstances under which the decision was made. It can be

presumed that, if ‚The Rolling Stone‛’s coverage about McChrystal had no

serious meaning for President’s political image and position, the dismissal

would not be taken even before the 25th of June, when article was published.

What is more, very significant decision (for the state and foreign affairs) about

firing general, should have another, I suppose more serious justification, not

just some arrogant statements of General. Then, if the serious reasons existed, it

would be announced. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded, that media coverage

about issue made only an excuse in order to dismiss McChrystal, what was

prior planned (see for example: D’Souza 2010, p. 192). The mainstream media

and also popular literature described great tensions, at that time, in the White

House about McChristal issue (Cooper, Sanger 2010; Woodward 2010, p. 371),

With regard to whether it is a weak or a strong CNN-effect, General S.

McChrystal’s case should be qualified as the weak CNN-effect, because we

actually do not know of one significant factor - whether President B. Obama

would have made the decision about General’s dismissal if he had found out

about McChrystal’s disrespectful behavior without the atmosphere of media

publicity. Then, we have to take into account the real world factor, that is the

real statement of General S. McChristal and its possible impact on the decision

of dismissal. Consequently, the media coverage should be recognized as an

intervention factor in the political decision environment. It is highly probable,

that if there was not any media exposure (resonance), the decision would be

made by using different, usual procedure (as it is to be supposed, other reasons

of dismissal would be given, for example changes in the a war strategy).

Summarizing, the CNN-effect occurred, because if there were not media

coverage in ‚The Rolling Stone‛, the decision about the dismissal of General

McChrystal would not happen or would be made in another time or another

way (weak CNN effect). The media coverage played the role of agenda setter

toward policy agenda and the role of accelerator as regards making the

decision.

However, this statement should not be regarded as confirmed and proved

result of investigation, rather as outcome of observation of events and

decisions making and also an effort of reflection about causality. As I

mentioned, my study is exploratory, firstly because the literature and research

of the subject did not worked out proper methods and ways of studying media

impact on political decision making, as well as media impact on the course of

events; secondly because I had not access to official documents; thirdly because

it was not possible to make reviews with people who made the decisions.

Nevertheless it does not mean that on this field research efforts should not be

undertaken, especially as theoretical basis requires broadening and also

working out sophisticated methodology is needed.

Of course, studies about the media effect and the CNN effect has been

undertaken since 90., (as it was presented above), but they do not provided

conclusions which are commonly acknowledged. During the last two decades

media-politics relationships changed very visibly. It was caused, among others,

by the development of the 24-hours news channels and its growing role and

scope in public sphere. These days, we cannot avoid discussion about the

problem of real impact of media coverage and journalists’ activity on making

politics and deciding on policies (domestic and foreign).

Undoubtedly, the phenomenon of CNN effect is strongly connected with

mediatization of politics (medicalization, mediation) and the outcome of

mediatization. The mediatization is a central topic in current debates on the

role of media in society and culture (Wijfijes 2009). Mediatization represents a

long-term trend that affects society, everyday life, religion, culture and also

politics. It means social change process in which media become increasingly

influential (Strömbäck 2011). The mediatization of politics has been recently

developed as concept (or a theory). Among others, studies of Mazzoleni and

Schulz belongs to the most theoretically advanced. They claim that: ‚To

characterize politics as being mediatized goes beyond a mere description of

system requirements. Mediatized politics is politics that has lost its autonomy,

has become dependent in its central functions on mass media, and its

continuously shaped by interactions with mass media‛ (Mazzoleni, Schulz

1999, quoted by: Strömbäck 2009, p. 368).

The development of mediatization concept evoked also the changes in media

effect approaches. Mediatization of politics is the phenomenon in which media

gradually gains greater control over politics, and, on the other hand, because

the whole social life is mediatized, there is very hard to isolate pure media

influence on politics. Conventional theories of media effect failed to recognize

the reciprocal effects of the media (and media coverage) on the subjects and

processes in social and political life, as the media coverage and its influence

cannot be isolated from its social context.

The task of studying media effects in mediatized social and political

environment is then not simple, especially as regards working out adequate

methods. However, the topic is theoretically and empirically very interesting

and meaningful, because the result of investigations can reveal the real factors

which shape making politics. Particularly, the real and ‘practical’ role of media

within politics should be continuously studied.

As J. Kingdon claims, the role of media in politics is like blood circulation in

human body, which unites various parts of social system. The media nowadays

are omnipresent and take central position in political environment (J. W.

Kingdon, 1984, p. 77). They have quite often an indirect impact on making

politics, through public agenda setting (Protess, McCombs, 1991), but

sometimes also direct influence on making political decision (policy agenda

setting, CNN effect concept).

The case studies of M. Linsky, conducted among Washington policymakers,

revealed that they deduce about the public agenda from the media agenda. For

example if the issue is intensively reported by the media (especially as

headline), they regard the topic as meaningful for public opinion. As M. Linsky

also found, media coverage affects the ability of policymakers to get their

policies successfully adopted and implemented. Finally, it was also settled, that

media has larger impact on the process of policy making, than on the content of

decisions. It means that media coverage can, for instance, accelerate or delay the

decision (M. Linsky 1986; Dearing, Rogers 1996).

Walgraave, Aelst, Bennet, (2010, p. 6) present the study conducted in

Netherlands, which revealed that about six out of ten written parliamentary

questions (2003/2004) were inspired by media coverage. They also claim that,

politicians always think about possible media coverage when they undertake

something. Media logic has become part of every single decision the politicians

take. But they are not just influenced by specific media content, but rather adapt

to the way the media operates (Walgraave, Aelst, Bennet 2010, p. 10).

For this reason, nowadays media should be regarded not only as the fourth

estate, but also as the fourth branch of government (Jamieson, Waldman 2004).

This view is shared both by journalist and scholars. For example Douglas Cater,

‚The Reporter‛’s journalist and presidential adviser, argued that journalist are

not only observers of political life, but also independent and important

participants, which can exercise political power (D. Cater 1959, quoted by

Jamieson, Waldman 2004, p. 95). Also T. Cook acknowledges that American

media are part of government (T. Cook 1998, p. 3; compare: K. H. Jamieson, P.

Waldman 2004, D. A. Graber 2006).

To sum up, it seems reasonable to affirm, that generally media have an indirect

impact on making politics, but in under some conditions they can influence

political decisions also directly. The direct influence is strongly connected with

mediatization of politics, what, on the other hand, causes troubles with isolating

pure influence of media coverage on making political decisions. The media

coverage about issue should be regarded as not determining, but rather

intervention factor in political decisions environment, but its impact on the

timing and the way the decision is make is larger, than on the content of the

decision.

References

ALTER J. (2010). The Promise. President Obama, Year One, New York: Simon &

Schutser.

Americans agree with McChristals dismissal (2010), 29.06.;

http://www.angusreid.com/polls/39172/americans_agree_with_mcchrystalaas_

dismissal/, 21.04.2011.

AMMON R. J. (2001). Global Television and the Shaping of World Politics.

CNN, Telediplomacy and Foreign Policy, Jefferson: McFarland & Company.

BATES D. (2010). ‚Axed for speaking out: a year after giving him the job,

Obama sack his hardman Afhgan general‛, 24.06.,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1289163/Obama-

dismisses-Stanley-McChrystal-Rolling-Stone-wimps-White-House-article.html;

21.04.2011.

BAYEFSKY A. (2009). ‚A Weak American President‛, Forbes, 23.06.,

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/23/obama-iran-press-conference-elections-

opinions-contributors-bayefsky.html, 21.04.2011.

BBC news about McChrystal issue, official BBC web page (2010).

http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?go=toolbar&tab=all&q=McChrystal&start=1&sco

pe=all; 24.06.2010.

BELKNAP M. H. (2001). The CNN Effect: Strategic Enabler or Operational Risk?

U.S. Army War College, Strategy Research Project, Carlisle Barracks,

Pennsylvania 17013

BENNET W. L. (1990). ‚Toward a theory o press-state relations in the United

States‛, Journal of Communication, Vol. 40.

BIRKLAND T. A. (2007). After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy and

Focusing Events, Washington: Georgetown University Press.

BOSACKI M. (2010), „Gen. McChrystal stracił pracę‛, Gazeta Wyborcza, 23.06.

BREMNER C. (2009). ‚Sarkozy snipes at ‘dim’ Spanish PM and ‘weak’ Barack

Obama‛, The Sunday Times, 17.04.2009,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6106250.ece,

21.04.2011.

CATER D. (1959). The Fourth Branch of Government, Boston: University of

Michigan.

CNN news about McChrystal issue, official CNN web page (2010),

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/06/24/bts.obama.mcchrystal.afgha

nistan.cnn; Zob. także inne relacje, m. in.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/24/p-security-brief-3/;

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/24/readers-sound-off-military-code-and-

mcchrystal/;

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/06/24/bash.petraeus.mcchrys

tal.cnn; http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/24/security-brief-why-blackwater-

wont-die/;

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/06/24/petraeus.new.job.cnn;

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/24/mullen-had-physical-reaction-

to-mcchrystal-article/;http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/24/moving-on-

media-focuses-on-petraeus-afghan-

war/;http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/24/mullen-backs-obama-

decision-mulls-centcom-options/;

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/24/petraeus.afghanistan/index.html;

http://edition.cnn.com/search/?query=McChrystal&primaryType=mixed&sort

By=date&intl=true; 26.06.2010.

COBB W. ELDER C. D. (1972/1983). Participation in American Politics: The

Dynamics of Agenda Building, Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.

COHEN B. (1994). The View from the Academy, [w:] ed. W. L. BENNET, D. L.

PALETZ, Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion and US Foreign Policy in

the Gulf War, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

COOK T. (1998). Governing with the News, London-Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

COOPER H., HEALY J. (2010). ‚Obama Relieves McChrystal of Command‛

New York Times, 23.06.

COOPER H., SANGER D. E. (2010), ‚Obama says Afghan policy won’t

change after dismissal‛, The New York Times‛, 23.06,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/politics/24mcchrystal.html,

21.04.2011.

DEARING J. W., ROGERS E. M. (1996). Agenda-Setting. Communication

Concepts 6, Thousand Oaks-London-New Delhi: Sage.

D’SOUZA D. (2010). The Roots of Obama’s Rage, Washington: Regnery

Publishing.

Dymisja dowódcy wojsk w Afganistanie generała Stanleya McChrystala (q&a),

(2010),http://www.stosunkimiedzynarodowe.info/artykul,717,Dymisja_dowodc

y_wojsk_w_Afganistanie_generala_Stanleya_McChrystala_?_q_and_a,

21.04.2011.

EDWARDS L. (2001). Mediapolitik: how the mass media have transformed

world politics, Washington: The Catholic University of America Press.

ENTMAN R., PAGE B. I. (1994), The News before the Storm. The Iraq War

Debate and the Limits to Media Independence, In W. L. BENNETT, D. L.

PALETZ eds., The Media, Public Opinion and US Foreign Policy in the Gulf

War, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

FEIST D. (2001). Facing down the global village: The media impact, In R.

KUGLER & E. FROST eds., The global century, Washington: National Defence

University Press.

FREEDMAN L. (2000). ‚Victims and Victors: Reflection on the Kosovo War‛,

Review of International Studies, Vol. 26 (3).

GARDINER N. (2009). ‚The UN loves Barack Obama because he is weak‛, The

Telegraph, 23.09.2009,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/6221379/The-UN-

loves-Barack-Obama-because-he-is-weak.html, 21.04.2011.

GILBOA E. (2005). The CNN Effect: The Search for a Communication Theory of

International Relations, ‚Political Communication‛, Vol. 22(1).

GIRARDET E. (1995) ed. Somalia, Rwanda and Beyond: The Role of the

International Media in Wars and Humanitarian Crises, Geneva, Crosslines

Global Report.

GRABER D. A. (2006). Mass Media and American Politics, Washington: DC

Congressional Quarterly Press

HALLIN D. (1986). The Uncensored War, Berkeley: University of California

Press.

HASTINGS M. (2010). ‚The Runaway General‛, The Rolling Stone, 25.06.

HERMAN E. (1993), ‚The media’s role in U.S. foreign policy‛, Journal of

International Affairs, Vol. 47

HERMAN E., CHOMSKY N. (1998). Manufacuring Consent, New York:

Pantheon.

JAKOBSEN P. V. (2000). ‚Focus on the CNN effect misses the point: the real

media impact on conflict management is invisible and indirect‛, Journal of

Peace Research, Vol. 37(2).

JAMIESON K. H., WALDMAN P. (2004). The Press Effect. Politicians,

Journalists, and the Stories that Shape the Political World, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

KINGDON J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Boston:

Little, Brown.

LINSKY M. (1986). How the press affect federal policy making, New York:

Norton.

LIVINGSTON S. (1997). Beyond the ‚CNN Effect‛. The Media-Foreign Policy

Dynamic, In P. Norris (ed.), Politics and the Press. The News Media and their

Influences, London: Lynner Rienner Publishers Inc.

LOUW E. (2007). The media and Political Process, Los Angeles, London, New

Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications.

McChrystal relieved of command, Petraeus chosen to take over (2010);

http://articles.cnn.com/20100623/politics/general.mcchrystal.obama.apology_1_

afghanistan-coalition-forces-civilian?_s=PM:POLITICS); 21.04.2011.

MINEAR L., SCOTT C., WEISS T. (1996). The news media, civil war, and

humanitarian action, Bouldier: Lynne Rienner.

O’NEILL M. (1993). The roar of the crowd: how television and people power

are changing the world, New York: Times Books.

Protess D. L. , McCombs M. E. (1991). Agenda-setting: Readings on media,

public opinion and policymaking, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rittenhouse M. (2010), Nie liczcie na wdzięczność (interview with E. N.

Luttwak), „Tygodnik Powszechny‛, 29.06.,

http://tygodnik.onet.pl/1,48579,druk.html , 03.11.2010.

ROBINSON P. (2002). The CNN Effect. The Myth of news, foreign policy and

intervention, London-New York Routledge.

ROSEN N. (2010) Following the Bloodshed of America’s Wars in the Muslim

World, New York: Aftermath, Nation Books.

STRÖMBÄCK J. (2011) Mediatization of Politics. Toward a Conceptual

Framework for Comparative Research, In: ed. P. BUCY, R. L. HELBERT, The

Sourcebook of Political Communication Research. Methods, Measures and

Analitical Techniques, New York: Routledge.

TUNGATE M. (2004). Media Monoliths. How great media brands thrive and

survive, London: Kogan Page Limited.

WALGRAVEN S., VAN AELST P., BENNET L. (2010). ‚Beyond agenda-setting.

Towards a broader theory of agenda interactions between political actors and

the mass media‛, Washington: Paper prepared for the 2010 APSA Annual

Meeting.

WEISMAN J. (2010). ‚Decision to Dismiss McChrystal Came Swiftly‛, The Wall

Street Journal, 24.10.

WHEELER N. (2000). Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in

International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

WIJFIJES H., VOERMAN G. (2009). Mediatization of Politics in History, Vol. 35.

Gronigen Studies in Cultural Change, Leuven: Peeters.

WILLIS J. (2007). The Media Effect. How the News Influences Politics and

Government, London: Praeger.

WOODWARD B. (2010). Obama’s Wars, New York: Simon & Schuster.