This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements of the BA (Hons)

Journalism in the School of Journalism, Media and Communications at the University of

Central Lancashire.

1

James Connor28/05/10

Ideological dissemination and the separation of state and press.

Abstract

A general consensus exists amongst many media theorists who suggest that the majority of

hard news articles appearing in newspapers contain information influenced by dissemination

in the form of hegemony from a ruling class of elites such as government, white middle-class

professionals or those in positions of power. This belief is not held by all media theorists and

a discrepancy of views exists between these two schools of thought. This dissertation

attempts to carry out research into the separation of state and media within two separate

western democracies within the context of the invasion of Iraq carried out mainly by US and

UK troops in 2003. The purpose of the paper is an attempt to reach a conclusion by

researching claims made by the two groups based upon whether quality press outlets in two

separate countries reflected the views of the government in each country. The study was

designed to provide a conclusion based on quality press coverage of both the UK and Canada

in the build up to the invasion. Canada was the only country English speaking country not to

support the US based invasion of Iraq. A hypothesis which suggests ideological propagation

of information from ruling elite exists in western democracies would expect to see a

correlation between ideas expressed in the country’s national press and its government. The

dissertation is unique in that finding a comparison study between the two countries within the

aforementioned context was not possible.

2

Table of Contents

Title, Abstract and Table of Contents..........................................................................................1-3

Introduction....................................................................................................................................4

Methodology..................................................................................................................................7

Literature Review..........................................................................................................................10

Context and Findings....................................................................................................................20

Analysis........................................................................................................................................42

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................49

Bibliography.................................................................................................................................53

3

Introduction

Noam Chomsky is one of the leading intellectuals who propose theories, writings and

arguments pertaining to the idea of an elite systematic, but almost invisible control system of

the media from the top down. Whether he is correct or not, it is evident that his writings and

theories have been a strong catalyst for debate, with many people supporting the case for and

against his arguments.

Chomsky’s views in summary are that despite the media in westernised democracies

purporting to have freedom of speech, the reality of the situation is that they defend political,

economic and social agendas of a ruling elite who control ‘domestic society, the state and

global order.’ In other words, Chomsky is claiming that the media and government within

democratic societies are an inextricably linked entity whose existence is to control thoughts

and dominant ideologies within the general population (Chomsky, 2002).

Chomsky cites George W. Bush’s ‘new imperial grand strategy’ which he claims is a Bush

doctrine for United States world dominance, challenging any opponents who might stand in

its way, (Chomsky 2007:85,86) . Chomsky effectively places links between the US media

and what he terms ‘US imperialism’, arguing that Bush’s 2003 ‘freedom agenda’ hailed in the

US media had, according to western polls been dismissed by ‘virtually everyone’ with the

underlying motive being control of Iraqi’s natural resources and reorganisation of the Middle

East to Washington’s advantage. The question of the Iraq of invasion is not the topic of

discussion; however it may be used to demonstrate Chomsky’s belief that the US

Government uses the media to disseminate its ideological view into a world view, including

4

the UK’s press. The dissertation will use military action to assess theories alluding to

hierarchical dissemination of ideology from what are termed the ‘ruling classes.’

Although Chomsky does talk about global news, his work is mostly concentrated on the

United States media. He makes great use of content analysis, yet mostly talks about how

foreign policy is distorted within the US press.

The dissertation question I am proposing attempts to look at the role the media played in the

2003 invasion of Iraq and assess whether, as media theorists suggest, that government

influenced the media by supporting the government line, or whether governments were

subservient to media influences. By looking at the position the quality press took in either

favour of supporting the war, remaining neutral or being against military action in a

comparison study of two similarly ideologically and politically aligned countries it is

conceivable that an insight may be gained into how separated press and the state are . Both

the UK and Canada have a parliamentary democratic systems and prime ministers. Both are

English speaking countries and both countries have similar structures of quality press. If

Chomsky and supporting theories which suggest a direct link between the role of government

and press, we would expect to see a broad correlation between the support of the war within

the UK press and a broad disquiet from the Canadian press who chose not to provide support

in the Iraq invasion of 2003. Similarly if as other media theorists suggest that the media has

an influencing effect or has degree of independence as other theorists who suggest

independence and freedom of press are a reality, then one would see many examples of

opposing disquiet views to those of the government on either side.

Such an undertaking is relevant to the course as Chomsky is a widely quoted and respected

media theorist, yet little work has been done on comparative analysis within this field of

research in respect of similarly aligned countries to strengthen the case for or against the idea

5

of ‘news filters’ or pointing to the idea of a ‘propaganda model’ being exercised by a ruling

elite in all democratic societies. On researching comparative studies, I was unable to find one

which sought to undertake such a study in relation to Chomsky’s theories and could not find

evidence of even a study which with either of the aforementioned countries in terms of press

in a comparative study.

6

Methodology

I am proposing a critical discourse content analysis which will analyse five key events

leading up to the invasion of Iraq from two quality Canadian newspapers and two quality

British newspapers. Five key incidents which were of journalistic and international political

diplomatic importance have been chosen on what has been called a controversial issue.

Two of the newspapers will be from the UK , The Times and The Guardian and two will be

from Canada, The National Post and The Globe and Mail. The National Post and the Times, it

could be argued, have a similarly aligned demographic readership, as they are both

considered to be conservative by nature. The Guardian is a more left leaning newspaper and

the Globe and Mail was seen to have a more liberal voice in the early 2000s. Media theorists

have opposing views on the relationship between government and journalism within western

democratic societies as seen in the literature review. Some believe newspapers are in effect

ruled by an elite class, others believe that journalists and governments are inextricably linked,

or one and the same, whilst others believe that journalism acts as a fourth estate. In reference

to the methodology, both countries had a similar political alignment, however unlike the UK,

Canada decided eventually not to support the invasion. Therefore any reporting which could

be regarded in a positive light regarding the US and UK’s decision to invade Iraq in Canadian

newspapers may constitute as ideological misalignment with that of the government.

Similarly any negative reporting pertaining to the UK’s support for the US invasion within

the UK’s press at the time could be interpreted as a break away from the ideology which is

supposedly dissipated down from what theorists refer to as the ruling class.

7

8

The five key events leading up to the invasion will be:

16th February 2001 – Britain and the US carry out bombing raids to try to disable Iraq's air

defence network.. (Inc Icon Group International, 2008 :48)

12th September 2002 - US President George W Bush tells the UN General Assembly session

to confront the "grave and gathering danger" of Iraq - or stand aside as the US acts. In the

same month British Prime Minister Tony Blair publishes a dossier on Iraq's military

capability. (Cerf, et al 2003: 309)

8th November 8 2002 - the Security Council passes Resolution 1441(Malone, 332:2006)

3rd January 2003 - President Bush addresses troops at Fort Hood Texas stating that the US is

ready and that a US led operation will be a noble one. (Kelley 217:2006)

20th of March 2003 United States Government invades Iraq.

Lexis Nexis, a content information subscription service provided to students by the

University will be used to access relevant newspaper articles. Within this the system it is

possible to search through appropriate articles which appeared in the quality newspapers

being analysed.

9

The content analysis will look at language used and the styles of writing which may contain

nuances of western cultural values which could be said to subtly support the idea of war even

though it may on the surface appear to be. It will also take into account where the sources are

coming from. If only a US government source is being used for example, it could be said that

the article is unbalanced. Similarly if the source of information used is mainly from the

government within the publication’s origin it could be argued that the article is practicing

ideological dissemination of elitist indoctrination, for which theorists such as Chomsky et al

argue. Prominence of where the article is placed on the page will also be noted. As discussed

before it was not possible to discover research journals or papers containing a comparison

study such as the one proposed here. Therefore such a study containing the only two English

speaking countries in the world whose government took opposing decisions would produce

positive contributions towards viewing the relationship between press and government within

western democracies.

10

Literature Review

In studying theories and research around the relationship and influencing effect of the media

on the government and government on media, there appear to be different schools of thought.

One of the schools of thought is the idea that media and government collude to act as a tool

of repression in order to diffuse one set of ideological values decided by a select few who are

at the top of a societal pyramid. Such theorists are Chomsky and Herman who propose the

idea of a ‘propaganda model’ (Chomsky 2002: 2). They argue that a ruling ‘elite’, usually

represented by an elected government and businesses within democratic society are able to

marginalise and suppress dissident or independent thoughts, getting their messages to the

general public through a system of the following five news filters: 1) size and concentration

of ownership, owner wealth and profit orientation of the dominant mass media 2)

advertisements being the dominant source of revenue for media outlets 3) information being

gathered from government, business or ‘expert’ sources who are financed and given approval

by primary sources and dominating elites (4) ‘flak’ as a disciplinary body used to control the

media and (5) anti-communism ‘as a national religion and control mechanism’ (Chomsky

2002:2). Chomsky, et al, argue that raw news must pass through all five filters respectively,

only leaving ‘cleansed residue in order to be fit for print’ (Chomsky, 2002:2). Chomsky, et

al, argue that the domination of media and the marginalizing of dissidents is so deeply

ingrained within the system of a democracy itself that journalists are able to convince

themselves that they are functioning within the parameters of fairness and goodwill, yet in

reality that the constraints and views of the filter system render any independence from the

filter effect impossible. Although possibly a gross oversimplified interpretation of Chomsky,

et al’s views, the propaganda model’s premise appears to be that of an elite ruling class who

are able to indoctrinate society and the media in order to impose their views and ideology

11

through an almost undetectable system of checks and verifications. He seems to imply that it

is a veritable system of indoctrination within a democratic society and that the media and the

ruling elite are the same entity.

The idea of government control over the media would have to suggest that, as Chomsky has

suggested, the general public are unaware of a subtle framing of the situation.

Lippmann(1922) put forward the theory of the masses , or ‘outsiders’ being communicated to

through mass media, suggesting that any media of a democracy was a false idea, and any

election results were simply a cause and effect system of ‘symbols codes and stereotypes

‘designed by insiders’ suggesting that any notion of choice or freewill was a ‘manufacture of

consent’.This is arguably a coupling of the media system, but it is clearly one which is very

much in the minds of many academics and intellectuals. The idea was first proposed by

Lippmann in 1922 and was the basis much of Chomsky’s propaganda model. Both writers are

of the opinion that governments use the media as a tool of working class repression and that

any illusion of a democracy remains just that.

Other theorists suggest similar views to that of Chomsky, however Chomsky appears to be

the most radically left wing in suggesting that society, media and governments are all

interlinked. Such less radical, but still left wing views include that of Gitlin’s study of

American journalism and how it portrayed left wing ideology argued that journalism was

ruled by a hegemonic non forceful domination by the ‘ruling classes’. (Zelizer, (2004:75).

Gitlin concluded that coverage of war protesters during the Vietnam War provided

stereotypical representations of left wing ideologists making them appear dangerously

'violent and silly.' Zelizer concluded that media hegemony worked in two ways, through the

12

newsroom and though the format of the news story, thus prevailing news values were strong

enough to perpetuate the hegemony, yet maintained flexible enough to perpetuate the illusion

of appearing open, Zelizer (2004:75). Gitlin's study seems to suggest an asymmetrical

relationship between Chomsky's ruling classes in favour of the ruling elites. It appears to be

consistent with Chomsky's conclusions in maintaining the concept of cultural hegemony

being fed from top downwards, yet unlike Chomsky or McQuail, it does not portray the idea

of a ruling elite and the press having an equally balanced relationship. Gitlin implies that that

the ruling elites are the dominant party, unlike Chomsky's conclusion of a dominant ruling

elite.

The term ‘agenda setting’ was first used by McCombs and Shaw to describe a process which

occurs in election campaigns when politicians try to influence public opinion through

broadcasts, (McQuail 2007: 512). A study into the media’s influence of public opinion was

conducted by Trenaman and McQuail (1961:178) . They collected evidence which suggested

a correlation between importance of issues reported by the media and the importance of the

same issues when put in order of importance by the public and politicians, (McQuail

2007:512) . This might also allude to a correlation to Chomsky, et al’s theory of the

‘propaganda model’, as there appears to be a link between all three entities: media,

government, that Chomsky et al would term as the ‘ruling classes’, and the general

population, however they pointed out that whilst the evidence suggests that people are told

what to think about, it does not on any level imply they believe what they are told, (McQuail

2007:512) . McQuail goes on to say that research is required and merely suggesting a link

between ‘agendas’ does not go into sufficient detail and that the more one goes into

researching whether media shapes cognitive thought through the process of ‘agenda settings’

the more unclear it is to substantiate that such a phenomenon exists. McQuail may say that it

13

is difficult to prove the theory of agenda setting, and question the very presence of an effect,

however the research presented by Trennaman, et al, does suggest a cognitive correlation

between what the media are reporting, what politicians are thinking and what the general

population consider to be important within the context of important issues. Such theories

would also suggest a toothless state led media organisation whose purpose is to conform to

the wishes of a government through an arguably autocratic system.

Gans appears to be from a more conventional school of thought which believes that

relationships between government, or ‘ruling elites’ , media and society are separate entities.

Gans argues an opposing point of view on presenting his conclusions from a comparison

study of the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time magazine. He

argues news organisations are not ‘subservient to powerful individuals or groups and that

news outlets are not simply ‘compliant supporters of the elites or the establishment’, citing

that news organisations judge their behaviour against a ‘set of news values’. He goes on to

say that ‘values invoked in moral disorder stories are often set by elites and that in his study,

news stories tended to focus on leaders and those who held power in various national or

social strata’, arguing that it would not be usual to see the president’s policies viewed from

the viewpoint of a low to mid-income household just as it would not be the norm to see

university presidents judged by the values of campus janitors, (Gans, 2004: 61,62). Gans also

states that news tends to support ‘social order of public, business and professional, upper

middle-class, middle-aged and white male sectors of society’ (Gans, 2004: 61,62). It is

arguably a contradiction to state that news organisations are not compliant, subordinate

followers of the elite, whilst acknowledging that the news mainly focuses on views and

expert opinions held by, what could be called the dominant or ruling classes. Following on

14

the continuation of Chomsky’s theory of the propaganda model, it could be argued that Gans

is acknowledging the 3rd filter of elitism and opinions heard by news organisations from

those in a dominant position of power, yet he is still of the opinion that news organisations

are not subservient to a dominant hegemony.

McNair points out that other theorists do not agree with the idea of a ‘dominant ideology’ or

‘ruling elite’ in the context of journalism, but that the situation may be more complex

(McNair 2007: 24) , pointing out that theorists such as Stuart Hall in the United Kingdom

and Umberto in Italy, use the political sociology of Antonio Gramsci to argue that there might

be a dominant ideology, but this does not automatically mean that it is conveyed to an

audience and cites that journalists are merely mirroring current beliefs regarding social norms

(Ericson, et al, 1990: 19) . According to Curran, news organisations take a ‘site of contest

between social forces rather than as a conduit for social classes’(Curran, 1990:142) . For these

theorists it appears that a dominant ideology may be present, but they see it is a concept too

weak to be filtered from the top down when considering its influence on broadcasts or

publications. They consider the media to be more of a complex and fluid struggle between

many different social forces rather than a rigid set of ideologies disguised as a free press. This

is an argument that appears to maintain that the press has freedom of expression and is not

under an invisible propagandist control from ruling elites or government.

Willis indicates that there are differing views on whether media influences government or

vice versa. He suggests that the role of the media is to make sure that governments play it

straight, acting as the fourth estate within the public interest as illustrated with the example

of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s uncovering of the break in and subsequent bugging of

15

the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington,

D.C. eventually leading to the resignation of President Nixon in 1972. This coverage and

reporting eventually led to Woodward and Bernstein being awarded the Pulitzer Prize,

(Willis, 2007: 139,140) . However Williams suggests that marketing forces may go a long

way towards diminishing the effects of the fourth estate with vested interests of share holders

and the threat of libel actions from companies that have a interests in negative stories not

being published. Another inhibiting factor is the cost of investigative reporting. Such large

costs may suppress stories of otherwise national interests in terms of the public’s ethical right

to know. Willis calls this the “Critical/Cultural Theory” by which elites of society use the

media to further their ‘powers and influences’ with the popular phrase ‘The power of the

press belongs to those who own one’ referring to idea that the elite use the media to dominate

or influence the working classes. This theory clearly echoes the thoughts of Chomsky’s

propaganda model, however Willis points out that history has examples of where the press

and other media have brought down the government and are clearly in contradiction of the

idea of the elites or dominant ruling classes using the media as a tool of oppression, Willis,

2007:144).

Willis appears to be recognising the media’s role in holding public figures, institutions and

governments to account, whilst recognising that it is working in an environment that is not a

vacuum, as external forces do not always create ideal environments for ethical, investigative,

or objective journalism. The desire to make a profit and please shareholders is just as much a

driving factor as is publishing impartial or hard hitting investigatory work, as produced by

Bernstein and Woodward in the 1970s. In the United Kingdom , the United States and

Europe, newspapers are said to be going through a crisis period of decline in sales. White

points to the fact that many newspapers are struggling to cope with pressures, including a

16

large loss of revenues which have led to a significant reduction in editorial staff. Stringent

training methods and investigate methods all but disappearing, with many specialist sectors

of journalism being ‘outsourced’ to other news providers (White, 2002:12) . Willis does not

mention this in referring to market forces; however this could be a strong determining factor

in the lack of independent and objective journalism thus leading to elite ruling classes gaining

a stronghold of influencing factors. Although the Watergate scandal is an important example

in history of the role of the media as a fourth estate, there are few examples in history of

exposing governments in a similar fashion. A clear contemporary example of this is the

Members’ of Parliament expenses scandal, as outed by the Daily Telegraph in 2009 (Luce et

al 2009:31). However this could be argued as an attempt to instigate sensationalist

journalism, as such expenses had been claimed for many years and it is a situation which

could have been leaked many years before. It was only when journalists were able to use the

Freedom Of Information Act to reveal precise facts and figures that information was relayed

in the Press.

Other media theorists appear inclined to see the argument from both stances, that is one of a

media which has freedom of speech, yet one in which a dominant voice is still heard.

Increasing mergers and conglomerate buyouts resulting in many previously separated news

organisations being in the hands of a few owners have become an issue which raises concerns

regarding varied viewpoints and objectivity in reporting. It also raises questions regarding

influence from dominating groups within positions of power, such as multinationals or

government organisations. Yoemen and Tench explain many media academics agree with

the idea of ‘Liberal Pluralism,’ an idea which suggests that media in society will provide a

sufficient availability of facts and opinion thus dismissing the idea that media concentration

17

in the hands of the few will result in a narrow view arguing that competition between various

media outlets will lead to a variety of many different sources. They point out that liberal

pluralists argue various opinions and would only be adversely affected in cases of extreme

media concentration (Yeoman, et al , 2009:70) . Yeoman et al cite the opposing view of

political economy theorists who see a concentration of ownership as having a negative

impact, arguing this creates a situation with a distinct lack of diversity of views. Theorists

such as Mosco (1996).

believe that a reduction of ownership will produce a contrived situation whereby elite

minorities decide which opinions and points of view are selected and rejected in the press.

It is arguably easy to see why a situation in which media groups are concentrated in the

hands of the few as opposed to many would create a situation whereby if theorists such as

Chomsky et al are correct, voices of opinions and experts in various fields could be

syndicated across many newspapers which once would have contained a larger variety of

differing opinions. Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, Thomas Hanitzsch (2009: 244) cite Barnett and

Gaber’s (2001:2) writings, advocating that journalists and news organisations are

insufficiently critical of ‘political elites’ suggesting that the industry is going through a

“twenty first century crisis in political journalism” series of political , economic and

technological pressures.” 24 Hanitzsch notes that Gaber et al said these practices were likely

to lead to a situation which would “prove supportive to incumbent governments” due to lack

of criticism surrounding the reporting of government actions. It is clear from the writings of

many journalists and academics that a link between dwindling ownership and subservience

can arguably be made. The theories argue that strengthening of conglomerates with mergers

between media groups go hand in hand with a weakening of journalist integrity, leading to an

easier manipulation of media organisations because of the decreased use in sources. The

theorists neglect to mention that wire services such as Associated Press (AP) are able to be

18

transmit copy of text and audio across the world to subscribing news organisations in

milliseconds often meaning that news agencies neglect to verify facts before they are used,

thus publishing copy in newsrooms all over the world from one source. If theorists who

suggest that the media is a propaganda tool for governments are correct, this single source

reporting is a situation which may exacerbate the problem .

Durham and Kellner of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research argue that a cultural

hegemony is always contested by a counter cultural hegemonic force and argue that an

example of this would be the conservative rule of the 1980s, that is Ronald Reagan and

Margaret Thatcher being replaced by the more liberal democratic movement in the 1990s in

the form of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. They state however, that such liberal movements

would need to adopt an underlying conservative stance on issues such as welfare cuts within

the social sector and taking military action, (Kellner et al, 2005:8). The theory seems to

imply that opposing governments are in a double helix position of popularity and that during

one party’s descent, and another power’s ascent, the more populist political power is able to

control or manipulate the media through systematic use of ‘new media technologies, cultural

institutions’, such as ‘think tanks’ and ‘political action groups’, (Kellner et all, 2002:8). As

with Chomsky and other theorists, this idea of dominant ideology is very much a recurring

theme.

It is clear from researching various media theorists that different conclusions are reached. All

of the theorists seem to be stating that there is some sort of relationship between governments

and / or the media on some level. Chomsky argues that the media, the ‘ruling elite’ and the

general population are the same entity and that journalists do not realise the narrow scope

19

which they are reporting under. McQuail and Gitlin arguably believe in a less radical point of

view seeing a separation between media state and the people. Their writing concludes that the

two are not as intertwined as the propaganda model may suggest. McQuail and Gitlin still see

the link between a hegemony disseminated by an elitist form of control. Their research

implies that the situation of an ideological control over the general public, but it is not as

irreversible or deeply ingrained within society as a whole. Gans however sees no proof of a

ruling elite, yet appears to acknowledge that expert views are from a mainly white upper-

middle class middle aged perspective. Theories of total hegemonic control are clearly

contrary to beliefs held by many theorists and arguably are not a point of view that

Bernstein and Woodward and many other journalists would agree with. Clearly not all these

points of view are compatible, so it would be useful for research purposes to see if reporting

bias, as suggested by media theorists would match the general outcome of decision taken by

both the Canadian and United Kingdom governments on military action during the second

Gulf War. Open criticism or support of a situation contrary to either respective governments

would suggest a marked degree of independence during a time when one would expect

government ideological or open criticism of policy to be controlled by Chomsky’s

propaganda model.

20

Context and Findings

Event 1, the Globe and Mail - US carry out bombing raids to try to disable Iraq's air defence

network – Feb 16 th 2001

On the February 16th 2001 the UK and US air forces carried out 16 bombing raids in Iraq in

order to disable Iraq’s air defence network for breaching the terms of a no-fly zone. The

attacks appeared to receive little international support. (Shah 2002)

The first event is given prominence on the front page and is framed in the context of

international news. This effectively distances Canada from the event politically. Actual

content pertaining to the event of the raids is minimal, with just 86 words out of 737 giving a

factual account of the raids. The article does detail important events however like the 11

injuries and 1 death caused by the raids. However the rest of the article takes the tone of an

international observer giving a historical account and context of events leading up the raids.

In western cultures it is a sign of disrespect to refer to a person by their first name within a

professional context unless both parties concerned have a close diplomatic relationship.The

article’s headline refers to the situation as ‘Bush against Saddam yet again’ and not ‘George

against Saddam’ or ‘Hussein against Bush’. This places the two leaders in an unequal position

within western semantics, painting Bush in an arguably more favourable light.

“The sanctions have been widely criticized for making life brutally harsh for poor Iraqis,

while having little impact on Mr. Hussein.” (Nolen 2001)

21

This language appears to separate Iraq and its president, portraying Iraqi citizens as the

victims. The Globe and Mail have used one source originating from Iraq in 86 words of the

article which reports the injuries and death tolls, but the newspaper uses two sources for the

other 737 words. The two sources used were a Middle East expert employed by the United

States Institute of Peace, a partisan institution funded by United States Congress and a

research professor at the National Defence University in Washington.

Event 1, The Guardian UK and US carry out bombing raids - Feb 17 th 2001

The first event here is not given as much prominence with being on page 3. The framing here

is in the context of home news, clearly citing that Britain’s agenda is very much involved

with that of the United States. The 594 word article appears to be an openly critical article

questioning the idea of British involvement with United States over Iraq.

“The bombing of Baghdad: For Bush and Blair, raids an act of male bonding” (M. White

2001)

This is a critical analysis of the situation inferring to the raids to be an attempt by Tony Blair

to appear “Macho and as loyal to Washington”, that Blair is Bush’s most “docile ally” within

NATO and that Blair is acting in a subservient way in allegiance to the United Sates.

The tone appears to be very much anti-military action within the context of Britain joining

the United States. It is also interesting to note that whilst being critical of the raids, the article

makes no mention of the death toll and does not refer any information other than an actual

raid has taken place.

Sources used by the Guardian include left leaning Tony Benn who called for an end to the

bombings and Liberal Democrat spokesperson Paul Keeth who appears supportive of the

22

raids. The Guardian refers to ‘Mr Saddam Hussein’ once and then refers to Robin Cook

believing that sanctions imposed by the US are less harmful than ‘Saddam’ would have us

believe. This is not a direct quote from Robin Cook and it shows a disparity between the two

leaders, as President Bush is always referred to by surname. The article closes by warning of

potential damage to the US and Europe’s economy with rises in oil prices and possible

damage to the Middle East peace process. Whilst the overall tone of the Guardian appears to

be negative towards the raids, it is clear that inherent use of language can arguably reproduce

subtle negative connotations which are mirrored by politicians.

Event 1, The Times - UK and US carry out bombing raids - Feb 17 th 2001

This is a very short article. It is also placed in the Home News section, which clearly

recognises that the events are linked to domestic policy.

“The sight of Britain and America once again standing together against a "rogue state" such

as Iraq will speak louder than any words of warning about the problems facing the special

relationship between the two nations.” (Baldwin 2001)

The term ‘rogue state’ is a controversial phrase mostly used by the United States to refer to an

autocratic regime which abuses human rights, attempts to procure weapons of mass

destruction and supports terrorism. The term ‘rogue state’ has come under criticism from

theorists such as Chomsky who argue the term is an extension of US imperialism used for

propaganda purposes. Iraq was referred to as a ‘rogue state’ in February in a speech made by

former president Bill Clinton in 1998 within the context of being a country which possessed

23

weapons of mass destruction , being ready to use them, provide them to terrorists or

organised criminals who travel the world undetected.

This phrase could arguably lean towards a political ideology which has been used by both

allies in government. The tone of the article appears to be fairly balanced but with an

underlying critical viewpoint. An example of this is the headline “Bombing boosts special

alliance”, saying that the bombing could not have been timed better to coincide with a visit to

Washington by Tony Blair. These statements appear to subtly trivialise the UK’s decision to

join the United States by citing them as an exercise to form closer bonds between the two

counties rather than actions which are based upon real humanitarian motivations.

Although the article’s tone is subtly critical, it does not mention the deaths and injuries

sustained by Iraqis. The article also only makes use of one source, a quote from the Prime

Minister Tony Blair. This is probably because the article was written by The Times’ political

deputy editor who had a substantial knowledge of events at the time, however the article does

appear to be slightly critical overall.

24

Event 2 The Globe and Mail – Bush’s Address to UN General Assembly - September 13 th

2002

On the 12th of September 2002 President Bush addressed the UN assembly stating that the

world must act against “Saddam Hussein’s regime” declaring it to be a “grave and gathering

danger”. (Garamone 2002)

The article which is only 671 words in length is again framed within an international political

context as it is placed within the international news section and appears on page 13, not very

high up the news agenda. The article appears to take a less than neutral stance even within

the first paragraph by referring to Canada as a ‘reluctant ally’. Much of the article uses

Bush’s speeches to the UN as a primary source, paraphrasing it in both direct and indirect

speech.

“The President, aware of widespread international apprehension about the sole remaining superpower becoming the world's bullying cop, offered a strictly limited choice of options: Join the posse and - perhaps - save the United Nations, or understand that the United States will act alone.” (Koring, Stern challenge posed to reluctant allies 2002)

This section of text is not a paraphrasing of Bush’s speech and refers to the United States as a

dominating bullying power, highlighting that his options are inflexible in relation to either

being with or against his decisions. This is evidently not a neutral stance and is arguably a

criticism of American foreign policy regarding Iraq.

25

The article could be interpreted as being subtly critical of US policy as it refers to the Iraq

president by first name and last name. This shows evidence for a possible distancing from

the political stance of the US.

The article goes on to accuse the United States of acting out of self-interest rather than in the

interests of promoting democracy through liberation of oppressive regimes, suggesting that

this “Irritates even some of America’s closest friends and outrages its rivals”. This is, again

open criticism of United States foreign policy on Iraq and whilst the main body of the text

talks about Bush’s addresses and ultimatum to the UN. The underlying tone of the article is

that of a negative and critical stance.

Event 2 – The Guardian - Bush’s Address to UN General Assembly – 13 th September 2002

The large 959 word article features prominently on page one under Home News. The article

appears to discuss Bush’s addresses to the UN in a matter-of-fact tone. The article cites both

Russian public opinion and the Russian President’s opposition to war, yet unlike the Globe

and Mail does not include mentions of indignation from any other countries on the invasion

of Iraq apart from Iraq itself.

"The longest series of fabrications" and an attempt to divert attention from the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict.” (Traynor 2002)

Unlike the Globe and Mail, this statement from Iraq’s ambassador to the UN at the time

seems to be the only negative connotation pertaining to British foreign policy in accordance

with the United States and Iraq.

The journalists make heavy use of quotations of Bush’s speeches and include expert opinions

from government sources including the Foreign Secretary at the time Jack Straw stating that

the U N were imperative in any decision made by the US and the UK to invade Iraq. Richard

26

Holbrooke, former American ambassador to the UN was quoted stating that the UN was

irrelevant and the most important diplomatic opinion was that of the Russians. Iraq’s

ambassador to the UN, Mohamed Aldouri is quoted and also Rear Admiral Stephen Baker, a

former commander in the Gulf is quoted stating that it would take one to two months to form

an army to invade and interpreting President Bush’s comments to mean a war would occur if

weapons inspectors are not allowed into Iraq.

The article refers to Saddam many times rather than Hussein. As previously stated this could

be seen as a sign of disrespect in giving both presidents unequal respect in referring to the

Iraqi President by first name, hence subtly showing favour of a western ideology.

The article’s use of mainly US and UK government sources renders the tone of the article to

be broadly in favour of supporting the war.

Event 2 The Times - Bush’s Address to UN General Assembly - 13 th September 2002

Interestingly the article appears to distance the UK from the Bush speech by framing the

news as overseas news rather than home affairs. The 728 word article contains a mix of

several sources which appear to make the text rather more balanced than other articles in the

context of arguments for an against invasion. Sources which questioned the invasion

included a paragraph reporting Iraq’s UN Ambassador as shaking his head during Bush’s

address to the UN and included the following text :

"He chooses to deceive the world and his own people by the longest series of fabrications that

have been told by a leader of a nation." (Watson 2002)

27

Another paragraph includes a quotation sourced from Kofi Annan’s warning against

unilateral action also saying that there is no substitute for the UN’s legitimacy over the

situation. Another paragraph alludes to a war on Iraq hinting at the personal involvement of

President Bush:

“Mr Bush also gave a glimpse of the personal element of confronting Saddam, basing his case in part on the Iraqi dictator's attempt to assassinate his father. He did not name the former President Bush, referring to Saddam's 1993 attempt to kill the Emir of Kuwait "and a former American president". (Watson 2002)

This could be arguably alluding to the idea of a personal vendetta from Bush against

Saddam’s attempt to assassinate his father. This adds a question of legitimacy in terms of

invasion for the liberation of a repressive regime.

The article also goes on to say that senior administration officials in the White House had

warned Bush against entangling himself within the workings of the UN and also cites that he

did not produce any new evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear threats.

The article repeatedly refers to Iraq’s President as ‘Saddam’. Only referring to the President’s

full name once, and constantly refers to President ‘Bush’ thus again presenting the two

leaders in an unequal position, elevating Bush’s status to an arguably more respectable one.

Whilst the tone of the article appears to be critical on US policy, it could be argued that the

use of Iraq’s president’s first name is a subtle dissemination of ideology.

The article appears to include sources which question the decision of invading Iraq within

219 words of the 728 word article. The remainder of the article remains neutral, quoting

Bush’s UN speech. It is arguable that sources referred to in the article give a negative tone to

28

the discussion. It is also of importance to note that no British sources have been used here and

the article remains framed within the context of international news.

Event 2 – National Post - Bush’s Address to UN General Assembly - 13 th September 2002

The National Post frames the event under general news and not international affairs. This

story takes prominence on the front page. Similarly to The Times, this article heavily features

Bush’s speech, paraphrasing and directly quoting important elements from the speech for

the first 526 words. The remaining 674 words are from a mixture of various sources. The

article points out that many European countries insisted on no authorisation of attack unless

given permission by the UN. Other sources include the French Foreign Minister who said the

role of the United Nations was a “very good thing” and made sure that the crises weren’t

added to. Other sources include the Norwegian Prime Minister saying he felt that Bush’s

speech was unilateral, the head of the Security Council stating that he would do his best to

make sure the matter was resolved through the UN, and Germany’s Chancellor, Gerhard

Schroeder who had voiced the strongest criticism at the time:

"We need more peace, not more war," he said. "And that's why, under my leadership,

Germany will not participate." (Edwards 2002)

The article makes many references to ‘Saddam’ by first name, including a direct quote from

President Bush using his first name:

"We know Saddam pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his

country," Mr. Bush said. "Are we to assume that he stopped when they left?" (Edwards 2002)

29

It could be argued that the referring to Iraq’s president by first name President Bush

(something which would be usual unless a close relationship was present in western culture

as previously preferred to) is seen to be repeated throughout the Post’s article. The article

makes several direct quotes from President Bush referring to Saddam but mostly uses the

word Saddam which is not being quoted directly and is being used to refer to Iraq’s president.

Further sources used include Senator Trent Lott who called for a swift congressional backing

and Democrat Senator Tom Daschle who suggested that he didn’t think anyone was

committed to a course of political or military action at the time and Jack Straw who had cited

Bush’s speech as “Tough and effective”. The article is not one of overt criticism of invasion

within paraphrasing, yet the sources used pertain to serious questioning of the invasion of

Iraq. The overall tone of the article is neutral, bringing president Bush’s concerns over

chemical, biological and weapons of mass destruction yet balancing this with concerns from

more critical voices. Although article is framed in the context of general news, it is still in the

vain of an international news story.

Event 3 Creation of the 1441 resolution

On November 8th 2002 Resolution 1441 was unanimously adopted by the United Nations

Security Council offering Iraq’s President a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament

obligations related to breaches of the terms set out in previous resolutions regarding weapons

of mass destruction (WMD), prohibited armaments and missiles. (United Nations 2002)

30

Event 3 – The Globe and Mail –November 9 th 2002 - Creation of the 1441 Resolution

The 864 word article is still framed within the international news section. Again the article

does not make use of internal Canadian sources. The tone of the article is broadly neutral and

is generally an account of Bush’s ultimatum to Iraq in addressing the UN Security Council on

going to war if Iraq fails to disarm through several sources. The article makes a brief

mention of the 55 times Iraq and Britain have attacked air-defence targets, but does not go

into detail of any casualties , deaths or outcomes of the raids.

The article mentions an anonymous Bush administration source which claims France and

Russia had pressured Syria, the only Arab state in the UN council to vote yes to a resolution

rather than abstaining in order to give Iraq a stronger signal to disarm.

The first 182 words of the article are a paraphrase of Bush’s speech to the UN. Another

source used is Iraq’s UN Ambassador , Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix stating that

inspectors are to visit Iraq, France’s United States Ambassador arguing that a decision to go

to war should be taken at the last minute, the United States Ambassador saying that a Iraq

will be disarmed one way or another. The article is pointing out the rift between most of

Europe and the US by saying that the United States refuses to ‘budge’ from European

demands.

Interestingly the Globe and Mail refers to Iraq’s president mainly as ‘Mr. Hussein’ rather than

‘Saddam’ which is seen in the National Post and British papers. The use of the President’s last

name is used in general writing rather than direct quotations.

The article does not make open criticism of United States policy to go war. It does however

use voices which might have expressed more concern if they had been quoted more, but does

31

not frame sources in the context of expressing outright worry on United States foreign policy.

Therefore the article appears to be written in a generally neutral tone by that of an outsider .

Event 3 - The Guardian 7 th November 2002- 1441 Resolution

This 1075 word article takes a less than neutral approach towards United States involvement

with the creation of the 1441 resolution. The article appears in the home pages of the paper.

The story does not take front page prominence, and is on page 4.

“The resolution Secretary of state clipped wings of hawks and doves” (Burkeman 2002)

The headline is openly critical of the US Administration and is suggestive of the US

Secretary of Sate bringing together disagreeing members within the UN Security Council.

“'If you're looking for a hero in all of this, there's really only one - Powell," a senior western diplomat at the United Nations said yesterday. He was explaining the emergence of a resolution on Iraq that appeared to have pulled off the feat of satisfying Bush administration hawks while placating the French and dragging Russia and China along behind.” (Burkeman 2002)

This opening statement is clearly critical of the Bush Administration, calling them Hawks,

separating them from the secretary of state at the time, Colin Powell and portraying Dick

Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz as warmongers who were willing to do

anything to wage war on Iraq even if it meant ignoring concerns from UN members. The

article then goes on to claim that one of the main reasons for Bush’s negotiation with the UN

was down to the relationship between the Bush Administration and Tony Blair. The article

refers to the distance between the United States and France as a division between “Hawks

and Doves”. The article does not contain any directly sourced interviews but appears to be

32

direct quotes. The tone of this article is critical in the United State’s approach presenting the

US Administration in a bullish light whilst portraying the UK as being supportive of the

Unites States, but that it is playing more of a diplomatic go-between role between the US and

the UN.

Event 3 - The Times – 7 th November 2002 - 1441 Resolution

The placement of this article at page 19 suggests that the issues raised in this Times article

were not deemed as highly prominent as other stories at the time. The short 436 word article

seems generally supportive of the US and the UK’s involvement.

Unlike the Guardian, The Times places this story under international news. It is clear from

other articles however that Britain was one of the key players involved in heavy negotiations

between the UN and the US and other countries that supported and opposed the war at the

time of going to press.

“These intrusive measures are designed to make Saddam think hard over the coming 30 days, when he must reveal all aspects of his nuclear, chemical, biological and ballistic missile programmes to the UN. Iraq denies that it retains any weapons of mass destruction, but US and British sources are convinced that substantial stockpiles remain hidden around the country, many of them in residential areas around Baghdad.” (Beeston 2002)

The article appears in contrast to the Guardian’s article, stating that Saddam must ‘think

hard’ in revealing ‘his nuclear, chemical and biological’ weapons. This implies that despite

the leader’s denial he is actually in possession of the materials. This paragraph seems to be

directly following the government line and does not seem to take the overtly critical tone

taken by the Guardian. The article does not make use of directly interviewed or extensively

quoted sources from other third parties in the context of primary sources.

33

Iraq’s President is referred to as ‘Saddam’ within the headline of the article. The use of first

name terms is perhaps suggestive again of unequal parity. Although the article does not refer

to the US President, it would be unusual and unexpected to see the term ‘George’ in the title.

The general tone of this article appears to be supportive of the US and UK’s stance with the

creation of the 1441 resolution in context of imposing restrictions, terms and monitoring of

Iraq. It is interesting to note that the article refers to America and Britain as the ‘authors’ of

the resolution, yet the story is placed within the frame of international news written by the

Time’s diplomatic editor.

Event 4 – The Globe and Mail - President Bush’s troops at Fort Worth January 3 rd 2003

On January 3rd 2003 President Bush addressed more than 60,000 troops at Fort Worth in

Texas stating that military force may be necessary to protect the freedom of the United States

if Iraq refused to disarm is WMDs. (2003 Transcript of George W. Bush speech. 2003)

Event 4 – The Globe and Mail

The 956 word article uses the first 404 words using direct quotations from the speech made to

the troops at Fort Worth.

The article points out that the view in Iraq was a very different one:

“Mr. Bush was denounced as "the master of evil-doers" by the al-Iraq newspaper, one of the regime's official mouthpieces, while Mr. Hussein's right-hand man,

34

Tariq Aziz, accused the U.S. President of "imperialist designs" with plans to invade and occupy Iraq irrespective of the conclusions of UN weapons inspectors.” - partial quote and paraphrasing of Tariq Aziz and the al-Iraq newspaper in January 2003”. (Koring 2002)

Whilst this is a partial quote, the fact that the newspaper is used as source could be seen as a

negative stance on US foreign policy towards Iraq.

The Globe and Mail then goes on to say:

“They have said little so far about what, if anything, they have discovered after visiting

dozens of sites.” (Koring 2002)

This comment ‘if anything’ is not neutral and implies that the weapons inspectors may not

have found anything alluding to finding weapons of mass destruction, which was the basis for

going to war on Iraq.

The article then goes on to compare the situation with North Korea. Bush’s original speech

also mentioned Korea :

“In the case of North Korea, the world must continue to speak with one voice, to turn that regime away from its nuclear ambitions. In the case of Iraq, the world has already spoken with one voice. The Iraqi regime has a duty under Security Council resolutions to declare and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction. That's what the world has said. That's what the United States expects from Saddam Hussein.”(Transcript of 2003 Bush Speech at Fort Hood)

In President Bush’s original speech he says “The leader in Iraq has publicly proclaimed”

(2003 Transcript of George W. Bush speech. 2003), however the article leads into the quote

by saying “Mr. Hussein has publically proclaimed”. Referring to a leader of a country and

not by name could be seen as a sign of distancing from diplomatic relations, whereas the

Globe and Mail’s usage of ‘Mr Hussein’ could be said to be more respectful.

It is of interest to note that the article makes reference to Korea as an ‘axis of evil’, a term

adopted by the United States in 2002 similar to ‘rogue state’. The article refers to North

35

Korea as a rogue state, however in his original speech President Bush did not use the term

when talking about the country. The article points out that action against North Korea is not

being contemplated even though they are considered an ‘axis of evil’ with weapons of mass

destruction . This could also be seen as a subtle disagreement with the regime. The general

tone of the article is an international framing which appears to be critical of US foreign

policy.

Event 4 - The National Post - President Bush’s address to 60,000 troops at Fort Worth 4 th

January 2003

The article is framed as world news. The story on the surface of reading appears to be written

in the style of straight reporting within the context of US military operations, however it only

uses government sources and quotes heavily directly from the speech given at Fort Worth by

President Bush. Unlike the Globe and Mail, the article does not contain any tone of criticism

which questions Iraq’s foreign policy. It is perhaps interesting to note that in Bush’s original

speech of approximately 2,334 words he made reference to Saddam Hussein only 3 times.

The 692 word article does not make reference to Iraq’s President once. The original address

to troops appears have been a patriotic or jingoistic speech with members of the military with

references to 21 ‘Hooahs’ by the 60,000 at various intervals. The National post seems to

mirror this mood by adding:

“His voice swelling with emotion, the President quickly added that force remains a last

choice.” (Aldinger 2003)

This could be construed as reflecting a patriotic sentiment towards war. Without having any

sources other than the US government, it could be said that the article is broadly supportive

of an invasion of Iraq.

36

Event 4 The Guardian - President Bush’s address to 60,000 troops at Fort Worth 4 th January

2003

The article is framed as home news and is given prominence on the front page. The article

appears to be written mainly in just a matter-of-fact approach. The first 630 words are a

mixture of paraphrasing and direct quotations from President Bush’s address at Fort Worth.

The article describes Bush’s speech as ‘bellicose’, an adjective described by the Oxford

English Dictionary as meaning ‘aggressive and ready to fight’. This could be interpreted as a

slightly negative comment.

The Guardian uses an anonymous military source from Washington which stated that “most

agree that the Bush administration has committed too many troops and resources to accept

anything less than the removal of the Iraqi leader” (Borger 2003)The article then continued in

the next paragraph to say:

“The tone of the president's speech made it clear that the US would not accept a UN report due later this month if that report amounted to an admission that weapons inspectors failed to find evidence of banned weapons. Instead, Washington or London may produce its own dossier of evidence pointing to secret Iraqi weapons programmes.” (Borger 2003)

This statement which although is not a direct quote appears mirror the sentiments of Bush’s

original speech. The phrase is then juxtaposed against a quote from UN weapons inspector

Hans Blix : “Everything is not coming out just from the visit of an empty place, but there are

also samples being taken and analysed and so forth," (Borger 2003).

The juxtaposition of these paragraphs implies that Bush is proposing a war, yet analysis of

the research on the evidence compiled for the weapons inspectors had not been completed

yet. This could be seen as a subtle questioning of US foreign policy.

37

The president of Iraq is referred to as ‘President Saddam’, in an indirect quote. This is seen as

a sign of disrespect within the context of professional relationships. President Bush referred

to the Iraqi president as ‘Saddam Hussein’ throughout his address.

The tone of this article is not one of overt criticism. It is interesting to note that the article

makes no mention of the UK, even though they had at the time expressed their support. The

story is treated in an international context. The sources used in this article are entirely US

based.

Event 5 – Start of Invasion on Iraq

After cutting short UN weapons inspections with Iraq and months of build-up to an invasion,

US missiles hit targets in Baghdad making the start of a US led invasion to bring the end of

Saddam Hussein’s leadership. British and US troops entered the south of Iraq within several

days of the strikes. (BBC News Online 2010)

Event 5 - The Globe and Mail 20 th March 2003

An article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on the day of the Iraq war is insightful. I

was unable to find any other articles expressing outright worries of legality in the run up to

and after the invasion. The article appeared on page 10 of the newspaper and was a medium

sized article. The article appears in the framing of national news, something which was not

prevalent throughout most of the Iraq war coverage. The journalist uses mainly Canadian

sources including the then Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien:

“Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has stopped just short of condemning Washington's war as

illegal, saying instead that it is "not justified”. (Sallot 2003)

The article then cites the signing of an open letter to the newspapers by 31 University law

professors from 15 different law faculties from ‘coast to coast’ and Liberal MP and Professor

38

of International law Irwin Cotler expressing their view that invasion is a breach of

international law. The article goes on to say that the UN Charter forbids countries to wage

war in self defence and that an act of war against Iraq cannot be justified as evidence of an

attack is not imminent. The article only briefly makes a direct two word quotation of Jean

Chrétien and is mostly makes direct quotes and paraphrases from a Cotler and the 31 law

professors. The tone of the article is a very negative openly critical response to the invasion.

It is clearly not written in a neutral matter-of-fact style.

Event 5 - The Globe and Mail 20 th March 2003 – Start of Invasion on Iraq

A second article which appeared on the same day on page 8 has a similarly negative tone

about the invasion of Iraq. The first paragraph directly quotes and paraphrases UN Secretary-

General Kofi Annan – “In the short term, the conflict that is now clearly about to start can

make things worse, perhaps much worse”. Without naming the United States and Britain, he

said international law makes occupying powers responsible for civilians. (Knox, Paul 2003)

By mentioning Britain and the US in the paraphrasing Annan’s quotes, The Globe and Mail

directly implicate Britain and the US’s reasonability towards Iraq civilians following the

invasion.

The article then cites UN Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri’s ‘sarcastic and bitter’ response

to US and Britain’s $60 million dollar aid contribution with the use of paraphrasing and direct

quotes by saying that they are "promising dozens of millions of dollars for the Iraqi people to

save them" as they are about to attack”. (Knox, Paul 2003)

The article also points to Syria’s dismay of the attacks: Syria lashed out at the U.S. decision

to go to war. "The last thing our region needs is another war," said Bouthania Shaadan,

spokeswoman for the Syrian Foreign Ministry. "What we need is peace." (Knox, Paul 2003)

39

The text concludes by quoting Hans Blix’s efforts provided “only limited new information”

and that opponents of the United States on the Security Council said there was no

justification for war.

The text makes use of mainly UN sources and sources other than the US whilst making no

reference to the Iraqi President. The tone of the article is a negative one which is in line with

the Canadian government’s decision not to go to war. The article appears to separate itself

from the conflict by framing the story in international news, but it is a clear condemnation of

the US and UK’s invasion on Iraq.

Event 5 - The National Post - 20 th March 2003 – Start of Invasion on Iraq

The article appears to be in a ‘matter-of-fact’ straight reporting style within the context of US

and British troops beginning the invasion. The article is given prominence on the front page

and is framed within the context of general news. It is worth noting that Iraq’s President is

alluded to as ‘Saddam’ and the US President is referred to as ‘Bush’ once again. As stated

before this can be interpreted as showing an unequal parity in favour by displaying more

respect to President Bush. The first direct quote here is from former White House Press

Secretary for George Bush, Ari Fleischer in a syndicated one line quote from a news

conference on the night of the invasion.

US Colonel Gary Crowder is then quoted by saying that dawn attacks were designed to shock the Iraqi regime into ‘submission’ and “The effect that we are trying to create is to make it so apparent and so overwhelming at the very outset of potential military operations that the adversary quickly realizes that there is no real alternative here than to fight and die or to give up." (Wattie 2003)

The text then Quotes an Iraq Civil Servant “Tonight, we shall be awake waiting for the

bombs to fall, but we will also remember that God is stronger than oppression. Wars come

and go, but Baghdad will remain." (Wattie 2003)

40

This only quote from Iraq seems to be very different to that of Iraq’s UN Ambassador and

seems supportive of the invasion.

The article then quotes Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s then Deputy Prime Minster : "It is not going to be a

short war, unless he [Mr. Bush] decides to end his aggression. It is not going to be a picnic for

him.” (Wattie 2003) And then goes on to quote Captain Darrin Theriault with the US Army’s

account of Iraq soldiers laying down their weapons and expecting the situation to continue,

which directly contradicts this first statement.

The tone of the article is not critical and is very different in style to The National Post’s

article which uses mainly US military sources and United States sources with no references

used from within the UN. It could be argued that the text is broadly supportive of the

invasion.

Event 5 - The Guardian - 20 th March 2003 – Start of Invasion on Iraq

With using sources from mainly British and US military, this could arguably resemble a

Ministry of Defence military press release. This 966 word story is given prominent position

on the first page The article goes on to report that “Mr Bush legitimised the apparent

assassination attempt against President Saddam. In a state of war, the congressional

prohibition on the assassination of leaders is lifted.” (Borger et al 2003)

The article states that Bush has ‘legitimised’ the assassination attempt. The article contains

quotes almost exclusively from British and US sources, for example:

"It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign. We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow."- Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Collins. (Borger et al 2003)

41

The Guardian’s language has changed to being in favour of supporting the war and certainly

does not juxtapose the British Lieutenant’s phrase with any negative comments as may have

been the case with former articles appearing in the Guardian. The article uses US and UK

military sources almost exclusively.

Event 5 – Editorial The Times - 20 th March 2003 – Start of Invasion on Iraq

It’s interesting to note the position which an editorial takes on the day of the Iraq invasion:

“The space between the "surgical" attempt to decapitate the Iraqi leadership and the start of the military campaign proper was bound to be exploited by Saddam Hussein and his entourage. They duly employed those several hours to present the dictator, or a version of him, on television, hurl what missiles they could assemble across the border towards Kuwait and obstruct the advance of US and British troops by allegedly setting light to oil fields on the route to Basra.” (The Times Editorial 2003)

This paragraph of the text could said to be distancing itself from the fact that one country is

invading another by terming the invasion as though it is a surgical procedure. The terms

‘exploit’ and ‘dictator, or a version of him’ paints Hussein in a negative light.

“The strike against Saddam Hussein personally might not have succeeded but that in itself did not make the attempt a failure. It was certainly trying to curtail the war by eliminating the small group who are primarily responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people and the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction” (The Times Editorial 2003)

This section of the text which refers to the attempt at an assassination of the Iraq President

being unsuccessful but not being a failure appears to show an overt ideological predisposition

which shows support towards the war. It is an editorial and is not a comment or letter written

in by a reader. The newspaper could therefore be seen to take a positive stance towards

invasion of Iraq.

42

Analysis

The analysis will be a chronological discussion of each newspaper’s stance within the context

of its political alignment regarding its country of origin over the 14 month period leading up

to invasion of Iraq. This will allow a more clearly defined view as to whether each

government is in agreement with the political decisions which were eventually made in both

countries.

The Globe and Mail

Initially the political stance seemed to be that of an international observer giving a historical

account of the situation leading up to the UK and US bombings on Iraq airspace. As noted,

the language used was arguably disrespectful by referring to the Iraq president by first name

terms. This was probably not intentional on behalf of the journalist but it could be said that

this might point towards dissemination of ideologies, as President Bush referred to Iraq’s

president as ‘Saddam’ many times. The article appears to be distancing Iraq from its leader. It

does not take a political stance on the bombings and relates to them in a rather neutral

manner.

A year and a half later we see a critical stance being taken with Bush’s address to the UN

assembly. The tone is openly critical, referring to United States’ foreign policy as being

bullish and dominating on the world stage. It was interesting to see constant reference to the

Iraq’s leader by first and last name here. The article represented a somewhat anti-American

Republican stance on US foreign policy on the world stage which could arguably be in line

with Canada’s Liberal leader at the time, Jean Chrétien .

43

November’s passing of the 1441 Resolution sees a less aggressive stance towards US policy.

Possibly a result of the resolution passing by ta unanimous 15-0 vote from the Security

Council. The article has more of an international than a domestic basis perhaps because of

the various countries involved in passing the Resolution. The article is somewhat critical of

US foreign policy by pointing out the rift between the United States and Europe. The general

tone however tends to be that of a neutral international observer.

By January the 3rd however The Globe and Mail make open criticism by using sources from

an Iraq newspaper. It is quite obvious that an Iraq newspaper would have taken a stance

against US foreign policy at the time and the quote referring to the US President as a ‘master

of evil-doers’ is a reference towards WMDs not being found by the inspectors. The Globe and

Mail take an anti-Iraq invasion position by pointing out North Korea is considered part of the

‘axis of evil’ with nuclear weapons yet invasion isn’t being contemplated there. This is clear

overt questioning of the decision to invade. Again this could be considered in alignment with

Canada’s liberal government who were seen as the ‘reluctant ally’.

On the day of the invasion two heavily critical articles appeared in the Globe and Mail. The

first had links to the Canadian Prime Minister , expressing his concern of an unjustified war.

This was coupled with reported open letter written by 31 law professors concluding that the

invasion of Iraq was illegal under the UN Charter and international law. This is clearly a very

strong protest against invasion which appears to mirror the position of the Canadian

Government.

The second article equally agrees with the Canadian Government’s viewpoint. The text

directly diplomatically and politically distances itself from the UK and US invasion by using

a Kofi Annan quote citing the US and UK’s responsibility for Iraqi Civilians following the

invasion. The article also quotes UN Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri’s bitterness of the

44

US’s promise of funding whilst preparing to attack. The article’s reference to Syria’s dismay

of the attacks coupled with the other Middle Eastern quote expressing concern could be seen

a criticism of US foreign policy.

The Globe and Mail’s political stance initially started out as that of an international observer,

as was the Canadian Government’s. The newspaper however took an increasingly anti-

invasion position which mirrored the government’s eventual decision. The stance became

evermore hostile towards actions which became apparent with the increasing lack of US

sources and voices of those who would clearly express negative opinions regarding invasion.

The National Post

Similarly as with the Globe and Mail, the context of political alignment in terms of a US and

UK invasion is one of an observational role in the first article. The first article featuring

Bush’s address to the General Assembly appears to take on a view shared with that of

Germany’s concern regarding the need for peace, not war, and France’s view that the UN was

best placed to make decisions regarding international invasion on Iraq. The balancing out of

this however with President Bush’s concerns over WMDs and a quote from Jack Straw

calling President Bush’s address tough and effective. This appears therefore to be a generally

neutral article and could said to be politically align to the views of the Canadian Government

at the time.

The tone changes however in the fourth incident and appears to go in a different direction to

the Globe and Mail’s coverage. The article uses only US sources. This is interestingly an

ideological split in beliefs between the Canadian Government and the National Post. This

differs from the liberal views of Canada’s Government at the time and could arguably be seen

45

as more of an alignment with United States Republicanism. This is indicative of the National

Post’s supposedly conservative tendencies.

The tone in the third article seems almost jingoistic in alignment with the US’s patriotism

with support for invasion. This is evident with the first quotation in the article appearing from

George Bush’s press secretary at the time being placed with a subsequent quote from an Iraqi

Civil Servant who appears to welcome the US invasion. This appears therefore to be

supportive of an invasion.

The National Post seems to take an opposite stance to The Globe and Mail’s questioning of

legality regarding International Law and the invasion and reaches the opposite conclusion to

that of the Canadian Government and Canada’s only other national quality newspaper.

The Guardian

Unlike the Canadian newspapers the Guardian did not start out to distance itself from the

invasion of Iraq. This is clearly the result of British Government’s decision for proximity and

closeness with US foreign policy. The political stance from the outset appears to be openly

critical and arguably insulting towards the British Prime Minister, referring to the event as a

‘male bonding’ exercise. The Guardian’s tone is that of an open protest towards the Labour

Party’s involvement with the US which can be seen from the quotation from Tony Benn who

had formed a ‘Stop the War Coalition’ in 2001. The Guardian is appearing to go against the

government line pertaining to the raids.

Nineteen months later the Guardian appears to have taken a less negative response towards

the UK’s alignment with US foreign policy on Iraq with regards to the 1441 resolution. The

article seems to be more inclusive of sources from the UK and US which were inclined to be

46

supportive of the invasion. An example of this includes the UN Ambassador for the US who

argued that the UN was irrelevant in any decision making regarding the invasion. With only

one negative quote from Iraq’s former UN Ambassador the article seems to be arguably more

supportive of the UK’s Government with invasion than the previous year.

By November the Guardian appears to distance itself from the UK Government’s alliance

over invasion and expresses concern over the situation by referring to France as doves and

the US administration as hawks. This is also prevalent when the article refers to key members

of the Bush Administration as warmongers. The article appears to make the UK Government

appear to play a diplomatic appeasing between the US, Europe and Russia. This does not

arguably portray the UK in a positive manner and it could appear to be a distancing of the

UK’s supportive role towards the US.

January’s article regarding President Bush’s address to troops does not openly distance itself

from UK Government foreign policy on Iraq. This is however an article surrounding the

President’s speech and thus uses entirely US based sources. The juxtaposition of a quote from

President Bush which was suggestive of weapons inspections in Iraq being a failure. The

qquote from Hans Blix indicates that the analysis of samples was still an ongoing process

could conceivably be a subtle questioning of US policy. Given the close proximity of US and

UK opinion regarding Iraq, this could be a seen as a negative stance. The tone of the article is

not as critical as earlier articles however and could be seen as being somewhere between

neutral and slightly negative in alignment with UK Government’s position.

Interestingly on the day of the invasion we see a marked change in the political stance taken

by the Guardian. The article states that President Bush had “legitimised” assassination of the

Iraq President through the use of congressional wartime rules. A direct quotation from a UK

Colonel stated that dead troops would be sent back in sleeping bags and that there would be

47

no time for sorrow. Fourteen months earlier this comment may have been met with criticism,

however there were no negative comments regarding these quotes. The culmination of these

quotes and the almost exclusive use of UK and US military sources could debatably put the

Guardian’s political stance in favour of the Iraq invasion.

There is a distinctive difference between the first and last articles. Both stories deal with a

very similar subject matter, yet with the clear commitment the UK gave the US seems to

correlate with the Guardian’s political position when the UK started the invasion.

The Times

Unlike the Guardian’s first article, the Times appear to be more supportive than the Guardian

by making reference to Iraq as a 'rogue state.' This could indicative of supporting a western

ideological term which has been argued by media theorists as having a propagandist

connotation, and thus could be construed as supporting the UK Government’s stance on the

raids, however the article’s headline purporting the raids to boost the UK’s special alliance

with the US could be seen as slightly critical. The article is more in line with the UK

Government’s decision than of the Guardian but still has subtle critical undertones.

A year and a half later the Times’ article appears to use sources which question President

Bush’s address to the UN General Assembly with the a quotation from former Iraq UN

Ambassador accusing President Bush of fabricating the threat of Iraq. The article also hints at

a personal vendetta from President Bush against President Hussein’s attempt to assassinate

his father. Around a third of the article questions the invasion, whilst the remainder of the

article paraphrasing President Bush’s speech is suggestive of a negative tone, this could be

seen as being slightly negative considering the UK’s support of the US.

48

November sees a shift in support for the invasion suggesting that the Iraq President must

‘think hard’ in revealing nuclear and biological weapons. The article cites the UK and the US

as authors of the 1441 resolution, a solution designed to impose restrictions on Iraq against.

The Times also appears to suggest that Iraq are in possession of WMDs and other weapons.

The article is threfore suggestive of support for the UK and US invasion and appears to

mirror the UK Government’s stance at the time.

On the day of the invasion a revealing editorial seems very suggestive of a correlation

between the UK Government’s political desire to support the invasion of Iraq, terming it as a

‘surgical’ procedure. Referring to the assassination attempt as not being a 'success' arguably

squares the newspapers' position firmly with that of the UK Government.

The Times appears to take a broadly positive stance and could arguably said to be supportive

of the UK and US alliance throughout most of the 14 month period leading up to invasion.

49

Conclusion

The UK press

Chomsky’s concept of the propaganda model and his theories which imply an inextricable

linking of controlling elites. or government and media being one of the main entities within a

system of ideological propagation are considered to be radical by many. My findings

however appear to support Chomsky’s hypothesis in part within the context of the

dissemination of ideology from the top downwards. The Iraq war was chosen for its

particularly controversial aspect which created visible factional differences of opinion within

the UK’s Government at the time.

It is clear from the findings that the quality UK newspapers appeared to go through an

ideological and political transitional internal struggle which seemed to mirror conflicts within

the Labour Party. The viewpoints of the newspapers appeared to shift from opposition and

rejection towards invasion to supporting it, concluding in what could arguably considered as

political alignment with the government’s position. The eventual decision of the UK

Government to invade was mirrored in a supportive tone, a pattern which appeared to be

symmetrical across both newspapers. This was particularly prevalent within the Guardian’s

traditionally liberal political stance and appears to show support for aspects of Chomsky’s

theory which allude to dissemination of an ideology and the propaganda model. It was also

clear that Chomsky’s third rule in the propaganda model was being adhered to within the

UK’s press; that is the use of experts in government or white middle-class professionals as

sources of information.

The apparent ideological shift of the two newspapers in showing support for invasion would

show a correlation with McQuail and Durham et al who also argue the case for hegemonic

dissemination from a ruling elite, yet would counteract the main arguments of Gans who sees

50

no proof for an ideological elitist systemic control within the media. The findings also negate

Yoemen’s idea of ‘liberal pluralism,’ the suggestion that the media will display an array of

different facts and opinions. This idea clearly is not reflected in the fact that two separate

newspapers displayed similar initial misgivings and eventual agreement with the

government’s stance on the invasion Iraq despite their supposed differing liberal and

conservative values.

My analysis is not an exhaustive look at every single newspaper article covered in the British

quality press. The apparent syndication of political views I encountered is however echoed in

Barnett’s suggestion of a 21st century crisis in journalism, alluding to a struggle originating

from economic problems and a decrease in ownership causing subservience to government

views.

Despite this apparent hint towards plural liberalism, the question of ownership raises some

interesting questions and was not covered in the scope of the analysis. It would be of use to

conduct further research taking this into account. It would also be of further use to undertake

such research within the context of a much larger number of newspapers and articles from

quality and perhaps mid-market and tabloid newspapers. This would give a clearer indication

across a much larger spectrum of the British press. It is also a difficult and perhaps abstract

concept to summarise media theory based upon external analysis of media content. It would

be useful to do an observational study from within the newsroom itself. There seems to be an

element of disconnect between media theorists and journalists. This could perhaps be

remedied by empirical evidence based on the study of internal workings within newsroom

juxtaposed against content which they produce.

51

In summary of the UK press, the analysis showed a consistency with theorists who argue the

case for hegemonic control from a ruling elite, however further research taking into account

more variables would shed more light on such concepts.

The Canadian Press

The situation with Canada’s press in relation to opposing of the Canadian Government by the

National Post contradicts Chomsky’s idea of the dissemination of ideology and the

propaganda model. The National Post initially took an international observational stance yet

concluded to show support for an invasion of Iraq. It is important to note Chomsky’s notion

of Western media outlets as being propagators of western imperialism. The situation may

arguably have been different if Canada had chosen to politically and militarily support the

invasion of Iraq. The polarisation of the two newspapers may have been due to the lack of

ideological pressure felt on behalf of the Canadian Press to support a government at war.

Ideas of dissemination of ideology from various media theorists cannot be completely

discounted here as it is still the case that 50% of Canada’s national quality press decided to

support the government’s line and indeed appeared to take a more radical anti-invasion stance

than the Canadian Government.

Perhaps further research on this area in combination with a more varied study on ownership

would expand the scope of conclusions which can be reached from the analysis. A study

which takes into account both quality and tabloid press and also one which can look into

many more articles across the time period would exponentially give a greater depth of

understanding on the issue of media and hegemony.

52

It is evident that the methodology was perhaps limited and may have benefited from a much

larger use of sources and perhaps decoding of language within a qualitative capacity.

It is still the case however that three out of the four newspapers analysed across the research

appeared to mirror the view of the governments they operated under. Therefore the

conclusion is that the findings can be said to broadly support those who argue the idea of

hegemonic control from an elite class. Despite such arguably supportive evidence for a

propagation of ideologies from the top downwards, there is still a lack of conclusive enough

evidence to suggest, as Chomsky does, that government and the media work in collusion to

suppress a largely unsuspecting and subservient proletariat.

53

Bibliography

"2003 Transcript of George W. Bush speech." Leading To War. January 4th, 2003. http://www.leadingtowar.com/Transcripts/2003_01_03Bush.php (accessed May 21st, 2010).

Aldinger, Charles. "We will win, Bush tells soldiers as more troops ordered to Gulf: 'You'll be fighting not to conquer, but ... to liberate people'." National Post. January 4th, 2003.

Baldwin, Tom. "Bombing boosts special alliance." The Times Newspaper. London, February 17th, 2001.

BBC News Online. Iraq Timeline. April 28th, 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/737483.stm (accessed May 20th, 2010).

Beeston, Richard. The Times Newspaper. London, November 9th, 2002.

Borger, Julian. "Bush rallies troops for war." The Guardian Newspaper. London, January 4th, 2003.

Briton Hadden, Henry Robinson Luce. "Volume 161." In Time, 15. Time Inc, 2003.

Burkeman, Oliver, Ewen MacAskill and Jon Henley. "The resolution Secretary of state clipped wings of hawks and doves." The Guardian Newspaper. London, November 7th, 2002.

.

Chomsky, Edward S. Herman and Noam. Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 2002.

Chomsky, Noam. "Interventions." Light City Books, 2007.

Conlin, Joseph R. The American Past: A Survey of American History . Clark Baxter Publishers, 2009.

Curran, James. "The New Revisionism in Mass Communication Research: A Reappraisal." European Journal of Communications, June 1990.

Durham, Meenakshi Gigi. Media and cultural studies: keywork. Wiley-Blackwell, 2005.

Edwards, Steven. "Bush to UN: take on Iraq or I will." The National Post Newspaper. September 13th, 2002.

Exploring public relations By Ralph Tench. Liz Yeomans: Published by Pearson Education Limied , 2006.

54

Fenton, Neil. Understanding the UN Security Council: coercion or consent? MPG Books Ltd. Bodmin Cornwall, 2004.

Gaber, Steven Barnett and Ivor. Westminster Tales: The 21st Century Crisis in British Political Journalism. Continuum International Publishing, 2001.

Gans, Herbert J. Deciding What's News: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek, and Time . American Press, 2004.

Garamone, Jim. "Iraq 'a Grave and Gathering Danger,' Bush Tells U.N." United States Department of Defense Web Site. September 2002 13th, 2002. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43466 (accessed May 22nd, 2010).

K.Jorgensen and T Hanitzsch. The handbook of journalism studies. Routledge, 2009.

Borger, Meek and Taylor. "Bid to assassinate Saddam: Missile attack on Iraqi leader: Bush." The Guardian. London, March 20th, 2003.

JBL, Ericson R.V. Baranek PM and Chan. Representing Order: Crime, Law and Justice in the News Media. Open University Press , 1990.

Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, Thomas Hanitzsch. The handbook of journalism studies. New York: Sage Publishings, 2008.

Kelley, Christopher S. Executing the Constitution: putting the president back into the Constitution. State University of New York Press, 2006.

"Knox, Paul." The Globe and Mail Newspaper. March 20th, 2003.

Koring, Paul. U.S. President rallies troops for war, The Globe and Mail. January 4th, 2003.

Koring, Paul "Stern challenge posed to reluctant allies." The Globe and Mail Newspaper. September 17th, 2002.

Lendman. Stephen, J. J. Asongu. The Iraq Quagmire: The Price of Imperial Arrogance. Greenview Publishing Company , 2007.

Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. Original Publisher Unknown, 1922.

Malone, David M. The International Struggle Over Iraq: Politics in the UN Security Council . Oxford University Press , 2006.

Malone, David. The UN Security Council: from the Cold War to the 21st century. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2004.

McNair, Brian. News and journalism in the UK. Routledge Publishings, 2007.

McQuail, Denis. Mass Communication Theory. Sage Publications, 2007.

55

McQuail, Joseph Trenaman and Denis. Television and the political image: a study of the impact of television on the 1959 general election. London: Methuen Publishings, 1961.

Micah L. Sifry, Christopher Cerf. "The Iraq war reader: history, documents, opinions ." Simon & Schuster International Publishing, 2003.

Mosco, Vincent. The Political Economy of Communication. London: Sage Publishings, 1996.

Nolen, Stephanie. "It's Bush Against Sadadm." The Globe and Mail Newspaper. February 17th, 2001.

Sallot, Jeff. "Legal experts say attack on Iraq is illegal." The Globe and Mail Newspaper. March 20th, 2003.

Segell, Glen. Disarming Iraq . Glen Segell , 2004.

Shah, Anup. Iraq Was Being Bombed During 12 Years of Sanctions. April 05, 2002. http://www.globalissues.org/article/107/iraq-was-being-bombed-during-12-years-of-sanctions (accessed May 22nd, 2010).

The Times Editorial. "Opening Shots." The Times Newspaper. London, March 20th, 2003.

Thurber, James A. "Rivals for power: presidential-congressional relations ." Rowman and Littlefield Publishers , 2006.

Transcript of 2003 Bush Speech at Fort Hood. January 3rd, 2003. http://www.leadingtowar.com/Transcripts/2003_01_03Bush.php (accessed May 15th, 2010).

Traynor, Julian Borger and Ian. "Bush sets the war clock ticking: Iraq gets last chance to comply with UN: US starts military build-up in Gulf." The Guardian Newspaper. London, September 13th, 2002.

United Nations. United Nations Web Site. November 8th, 2002. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement (accessed May 22nd, 2010).

Watson, Roland. " Bush calls the world to arms." The Times Newspaper. London, September 13th, 2002.

Wattie, Chris. "The opening stages of the disarmament of the Iraq regime have begun,' White House says after attack on a 'target of opportunity'." National Post (Canada) Newspaper. March 20th, 2003.

Webster's Quotations. "Easing: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases ." 2008. Inc Icon Group International Printing.

White, Adrian. To Tell You The Truth: The Ethical Journalism Initiative. The International Federation of Journalists , 2008.

56

White, Michael. "The bombing of Baghdad for Bush and Blair." The Guardian Newspaper. London, February 17th, 2001.

William Clinton, Text of President Clinton's address to staff at Pentagon. Clinton Iraq transcripts. February 17th, 1998. http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/ (accessed May 14th, 2010).

Willis, William James. The media effect: how the news influences politics and government. Praeger Publishers , 2007.

Yoemens, R. Tench and L. Exploring Public Relations. Pearson Education Limited, 2009.

Zelizer, Barbie. Taking journalism seriously: news and the academy . Sage publications , 2004.

Barbie Zelizer, Stuart Allan, Reporting war: journalism in wartime. Routledge, 2004

57