Framing the Iraq War

Kolmer, Christian; Semetko, Holli A.

doi:10.1177/0002764208326513

Cited by 22 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Existing cross-country comparisons tend to focus on English-speaking countries or media networks. Some notable exceptions include a study by Kolmer and Semetko (2009), where the authors looked at how the Iraq War was framed in the main TV news programs in the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Germany, South Africa, the United States, and in the Arab-language Al-Jazeera network. Dimitrova and Strömbäck (2005) looked at the framing of the 2003 invasion of Iraq in prominent Swedish and US newspapers, and Dimitrova and Connolly-Ahern (2007) analyzed the online websites of the elite newspapers in the US, UK, Egypt, and Qatar to understand how they framed the Iraq War.…”

Section: Framing Of Armed Conflictsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blaming it on NATO? Framing the role of NATO in the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine on Twitter

Kobilke,

Kulichkina,

Baghumyan

et al. 2023

Front. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionSince social media has become a significant tool for conflict communication amid the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, researchers have grown more interested in the digital content citizens are exposed to.MethodsTo further investigate the role of social media in the ongoing invasion, we conducted a manual content analysis to examine tweets in English, Russian, and German that explicitly mentioned NATO in the context of the full-scale invasion during February to May 2022. Our analysis explored how these language-specific Twitter communities framed NATO's role in the conflict.ResultsWe found that English-speaking tweeters were more likely to hold NATO responsible for finding a solution and least likely to blame NATO for the war compared to German and Russian speakers. We also observed that the Russian-speaking Twitter community exhibits a comparatively lower tendency to hold NATO accountable for the ongoing war as compared to their German-speaking counterparts, and they are also notably the least likely to expect NATO to bring an end to the war. Finally, English-speaking Twitter users who attribute blame to NATO for the ongoing war tend to adhere to a preconceived notion, rather than arriving at an interpretation based on the situation at hand. This is in contrast to the Russian-speaking community, where the opposite is true. German-speaking users fall somewhere in between these two perspectives.DiscussionOur research contributes to the literature by providing a novel integration of conceptual and methodological perspectives on the framing and stance-taking of social media users during wartime, addressing known research gaps in the comparative analysis of these discussions, i.e., adding “non-English” perspectives. It also highlights the importance of cultural and linguistic sensitivity when addressing responsibility in armed conflicts and the need to consider the diverse perspectives derived from divergent problem definitions and evaluative standards.

show abstract

Section: Framing Of Armed Conflictsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blaming it on NATO? Framing the role of NATO in the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine on Twitter

Kobilke,

Kulichkina,

Baghumyan

et al. 2023

Front. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The overt emphasis on these two frames is apparent in numerous academic studies on the administration's drive to shape public opinion (Gershkoff and Kushner ; Zarefsky ; Schmidt and Williams ; Kaufmann ; Western ; Cardaras ; Foyle ; Pfiffner ; Masters and Alexander ; Freedman ; Feldman, Huddy, and Marcus ). Research on media framing and coverage took a predominant interest in how news institutions adopted those two frames as means to shaping public attitudes to the war (Rojecki ; Bennett, Lawrence, and Livingston , 22–24; Dimitrova and Strömbäck ; Spielvogel ; Schwalbe ; Kolmer and Semetko ; Aday, Cluverius, and Livingston ; Kull, Ramsay, and Lewis ; Calabrese ). Research and advocacy groups further elevated these two arguments in their examinations of the war…”

Section: Recounting the War Rhetoricmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rhetoric and Recollection: Recounting the George W. Bush Administration's Case for War in Iraq

Bahador¹,

Moses²,

Youmans³

2017

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

President George W. Bush and his administration presented a variety of justifications for the 2003 Iraq war. Academic literature and journalism about the communication campaign emphasized two reasons: Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program and links to terrorism. Drawing on the first systematic content analysis of the administration's official speeches and statements, this study recounts a more complex, changing campaign with surprising findings. Other justifications, such as international law, human rights, and freedom, were at times more common than the most recalled reasons. This article also explores individual officials' arguments and changes over time in response to key events.

show abstract

“…al., 2005;Ravi, 2005;Walgrave & Verhulst, 2005;Ghanem, 2006;Hanley, 2007;Murray, et al, 2008;Cortell et. al., 2009;Kolmer & Semetko, 2009;Hayes & Guardino, 2010;Johnson & Fahmy, 2010;Barker, 2012;Johnson & Fahmy, 2012;Gou et al, 2015). It can be argued that none of the previous studies had specifically focused on the U.S. propaganda in international news magazine coverage of the war.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Media, War and Propaganda: A Content Analysis of U.S. Propaganda in Time and Newsweek Coverage of the Iraq War

Nwankpa¹

2021

AJIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The study analyses the propagandistic manipulations embedded in the U.S.-led war in Iraq in 2003. The aim is to ascertain how America used propaganda in her attempts to shore up support for the war and sway her targets. Methodology: Quantitative and qualitative content analysis was applied to analyse the propagandistic manipulations of the U.S. government during the build-up to the war (the threat of war) and the actual war. Two U.S.-based news magazines, Time and Newsweek, were studied. The period of the study spans from February to April 2003. Findings: the findings showed that Washington applied propaganda to an unusual degree in search of global support for the war. Research question two probed into the extent and degree of Washington’s propaganda printed by the Time and the Newsweek magazines. We uncovered that the Time transmitted a total of 35 propaganda (64.8%); while the Newsweek churned out only 19 representing 35.2% of total coded propaganda techniques. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: The study concluded that in spite of the heavy dose of propaganda America administered on the world, she failed to win the UN and world support for the war. The military operation it led in Iraq was an unpopular one.

show abstract

Framing the Iraq War

Cited by 22 publications

References 17 publications

Blaming it on NATO? Framing the role of NATO in the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine on Twitter

Blaming it on NATO? Framing the role of NATO in the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine on Twitter

Rhetoric and Recollection: Recounting the George W. Bush Administration's Case for War in Iraq

Media, War and Propaganda: A Content Analysis of U.S. Propaganda in Time and Newsweek Coverage of the Iraq War

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About