Suchergebnisse

The CNN Effect examines the relationship between the state and its media, and considers the role played by the news reporting in a series of 'humanitarian' interventions in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Rwanda. Piers Robinson challenges traditional views of media subservience and argues that sympathetic news coverage at key moments in foreign crises can influence the response of Western governments.

AbstractThe Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is a significant component of the global governance structure and considered a gold standard international body with 193 member states and scientific divisions expected to adhere rigorously to objectivity and political neutrality. However, OPCW's reputation has recently been tarnished. Dissenting scientists from within the organization have raised serious questions about the integrity of an OPCW fact‐finding mission (FFM) investigating the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria on April 7, 2018. The OPCW FFMs are tainted in three ways: (1) they rely upon information provided via intermediaries connected to states that are belligerents in the war in Syria; (2) the organizational structure of an FFM excludes scientific and verification divisions of the OPCW; and (3) control of FFMs is held by a bureaucratic office staffed by career diplomats who are from states involved with the Syrian war. Furthermore, officials involved with the Douma FFM investigation report the following anomalies: (a) an original interim report was secretly altered in order to make an unsubstantiated suggestion that an alleged attack had occurred; (b) A U.S. delegation was allowed to brief the FFM, an action prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention; and (c) formal attempts by the inspectors to obtain transparency and dialog was rejected by the OPCW. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies have dismissed questions as Russian "disinformation" or as a "conspiracy theory." Overall, analysis of the alleged Douma attack and the OPCW's FFM supports the thesis that key international organizations have been effectively captured, or at the very least heavily influenced, by particular states that assume their own impartiality. This shortcoming poses a risk to international peace and security.

Abstract
The 2016 Iraq Inquiry Report (the Chilcot report) was highly critical of the British government and its involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation. Drawing upon the authoritative material in the report, this article provides the most comprehensive and conceptually grounded post-Chilcot assessment of the empirical evidence now available regarding whether deception and propaganda were used to mobilize support for the invasion of Iraq. Employing a conceptual framework designed to identify deceptive organized persuasive communication (OPC), it is argued that the Chilcot report supports the thesis that, through distortions and omissions, deceptive OPC campaigns presented a misleading impression of both the threat posed by Iraqi WMD and Britain's commitment to a peaceful resolution via the 'UN route'. Moreover, based upon UK-US communications in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Chilcot report also provides suggestive but highly significant evidence of a broader and covert geo-strategic policy, including action against Syria and Iran, and which was underpinned by a 'close knit propaganda campaign'. In light of this, it is argued that a major expansion of scholarly inquiry is necessary involving sustained analysis of the establishing phase of the 'War on Terror', the role that deception and propaganda might have played with respect to its enablement, and, more broadly, the implications of this for our understanding of propaganda and deception in liberal democratic states.

"The Media and Foreign Policy" published on by Oxford University Press.

"This chapter offers a critical introduction to research on the importance of communication processes in war and international politics. The chapter starts by outlining key theoretical political science perspectives (i.e., realism, liberalism and critical) and how these relate to questions of political communication. The remainder of the chapter sets out key debates and arguments that have dominated research on media and conflict. This is done in three stages: the first explores the elite-driven orthodoxy that has traditionally informed the understanding of war-time media-state relations; the second explores neo-pluralist accounts of media-state relations; and the third maps out contemporary debates about the new information environment, the 'war on terror' and state-led "perception management" strategies. The chapter concludes with a discussion of important issues confronting political communication scholarship on media and war. Among other things, the chapter calls for a clear normative discussion about how journalists should cover war." (publisher's description)

This article provides an overview and critical assessment of the ways in which political communication scholarship has sought to understand and explain the importance of news media vis-a-vis war and international politics. It reviews existing approaches that have shaped debates over the last 30 years and critically evaluates the significance of new communication technologies and organised persuasive communication in this context. The central objective is to assess both the extent to which the orthodox elite-driven paradigm remains relevant to the 21st century and the major questions now facing attempts to theorise the relationship between war and media. It is argued that existing theoretical accounts retain significant purchase, despite the emergence of the Internet-based contemporary media environment, and that greater academic attention needs to be paid to organised persuasive communication. Adapted from the source document.