Search results
This book analyses British news media coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It describes the analytical framework that serves as the basis for theoretically informed and systematic analysis of wartime media performance. The book synthesises a range of models, hypotheses and explanatory variables to set out a framework composed of three models of news media performance: the elite-driven model, the independent model and the oppositional model. It provides three case studies which, in different ways, illuminate each model of news media performance in wartime. The three case studies include the case of Jessica Lynch, the case of Ali Abbas and the case of the anti-war movement. The book then presents an account of how the relationship between foreign policy, news media and war might be expected to operate, based on current theoretical understanding. In order to place British coverage of the invasion in context, the book offers brief summaries of the structure and character of Britain's television news services and its press. The book provides an analysis of the ways in which the news media's visual depictions of the war reinforced supportive coverage. It is devoted to documenting and analysing evidence for negotiated and oppositional coverage. The book also examines the representation of civilian casualties, military casualties and humanitarian operations across both television and press, three subject areas that generated a good deal of media criticism.
composed of three models of news media performance: the elite-driven model, the independent model and the oppositional model. We describe carefully the explanatory and descriptive aspects of each of these models, and discuss their normative basis. We also give an account of how the relationship between foreign policy, news media and war might be expected to operate, based on current theoretical understanding. The second objective of this chapter is to operationalise this framework, so we describe the methodology that was developed in order to implement it.1 Models of
. Through his Facebook page, established in March 2012, he created a brand that projects himself, his directorial work and his treatise on surveillance, foreign policy, empire, terrorism and drugs.6 The entries in 2012 were dominated by information on the progress of Savages and Untold History. However, in-between these updates, Stone referenced a range of his concerns, some longstanding, some new. A plug for the republication of Jim Garrison’s On the Trail of the Assassins, and a posting of an op-ed piece about JFK written by Stone and first published in the New
wound of a rotten field in Vietnam.1 Oliver Stone penned these words, not as part of some reflective memoir of his experiences as a soldier in the Vietnam War, but immediately upon return from his first trip to Saigon in 1965 where, during a year away from his studies at Yale University, he had done nothing more dangerous than work as an English teacher in a Catholic school. US forces had begun arriving in Vietnam during that year as part of a dramatic escalation, although the ground war that would engulf American foreign policy for the next decade was not yet
), an international film distribution service with primary hubs in London and New York and the supply of information officers to selected international trade posts and embassies that were proliferating as part of Australia’s increasingly independent approach to foreign policy. The new bureau’s responsibilities included making Australia better and more favourably known internationally: to this end the
mobilized into action, leading to mass protests, including a constant rotation of women chained to the fence outside the military base, and sit-ins outside the missile site. These protests helped raise awareness about the imminent danger of the Thatcher government's alliance with the United States and its hawkish foreign policy of Communist containment. Fears of nuclear annihilation, which the Home Office had attempted to alleviate by releasing a civil defense leaflet, Protect and Survive , which, based on outmoded radiation data, falsely promised that one could survive
during the decade. From the condemnation of Central American foreign policy in Salvador (1986), to the inexorable rise of ‘shock jock’ celebrity culture in Talk Radio (1988), by way of the financial ‘masters of the universe’ satire at the heart of Wall Street (1987), Stone took pot- shots at every angle of Reagan’s political philosophy. That the man left the White House in 1989 as one of its most popular ever incumbents, and that films such as Born on the Fourth of July seemed to capture for some audiences the essence of Reagan’s idealism (in as misguided a way as the
more than a right-wing political bias lurking in the shadows, although that inference disintegrated in the face of what was to follow.10 With Salvador, Stone’s examination of Reagan-era foreign policy in Central America shifted gears and confirmed a radical intent in his work. The visceral writing found an outlet in Stone’s directing that was at least as combative and aggressive in its focus as his screenplays had been up to this point. Moreover, having directorial control, he discovered, gave a much-needed clarity to his evolution as a filmmaker. Salvador
much quieter film politically, essentially an exercise in McNamara’s defensive reflexivity and Morris’s subtle judgements, and unlikely to have an initial appeal for people not already oriented towards the continuing debate about US foreign policy in the period it examines.11 Nightmares, seeking a national television audience, works with its own, strong version of a ‘television of attractions’12 at the level of visual design, and it keeps its commentary clear and emphatic, if necessarily complex in some of its historical and theoretical content. Despite the visual
became the subject of his own franchise). In the work of Yvonne Tasker and Susan Jeffords, the rise of these ultra-masculine stars is often read as a response to the aggressive foreign policy and free market politics of the Reagan administration, as well as to a male backlash against the perceived influence of Second Wave Feminism in the wider society. The emphasis on polished