How an Elite-Engineered Moral Panic Led to the U.S. War on Iraq

Abstract

Critics argue that the G.W. Bush administration deliberately misled the U.S. public about an Iraqi threat after 9/11 but empirical evidence that presidential deception influenced public support for war has been lacking. An examination of presidential rhetoric concerning Iraq in the U.S. media revealed that it changed in tone after 9/11, consistent with moral panic processes. Logistic regression analysis of public opinion leading up to the war revealed that shifts in support for invasion directly mirrored presidential rhetoric. The findings of this study suggest that the Bush administration engineered a moral panic over Iraq with the support of the media.

What can government talk tell us about punitiveness? The case of Norway post 22 July 2011

“…In this study, although government talk surrounding the Breivik case shows both constraints and facilitators on punitiveness, it is worth noting the prominence of language calling for restraint in the handling of the Breivik case. Scholars such as Bonn (2011) and Rothe and Muzzatti (2004) point to the importance of political tone and rhetoric in shaping public opinion and media coverage, illustrating ways that government talk can serve to escalate or de-escalate responses to high profile events. The contrasts between US and Norwegian governmental talk shed light on the Scandinavian Exceptionalism debate by drawing attention to the divergent tone and rhetoric of Norwegian leaders in the aftermath of terrorist tragedy.…”

“…Given the noted importance of government talk in shaping media discourse, public opinion, and public policy (Bonn, 2011; Hawdon, 2001; Mythen and Walklate, 2006; Roberts and Hough, 2002), it is important to consider how the Norwegian government has presented itself. Commentary released by government agencies in English was specifically sought as the choice to publish in English hints at the intention to share information with audiences beyond those who speak Norwegian.…”

“…One way to better understand the Norwegian response to the Breivik case is to review what agents of the government have to say. Analysis of political discourse provides a way to study the social construction of key events such as the 22 July 2011 bombing and shooting in Norway (Bonn, 2011; Mythen and Walklate, 2006). Government talk not only provides a window into how the government hopes to portray itself, it also aspires to set the tone for media discourse and public opinion (Hawdon, 2001; Roberts and Hough, 2002).…”

“…The attacks in Norway provide a unique opportunity to examine an act of terrorism that has not yet ignited a panic, exceptional measures, and/or rapid policy changes as seen elsewhere (Bonn, 2011; Rothe and Muzzatti, 2004). The present case study focuses on the culturally contingent nature of state responses to problems and the need to pay particular attention to the ways in which societies are organized.…”

A Two‐Tiered Method for Identifying Trends in Media Framing of Policy Issues: The Case of the War on Terror

“…To understand how and why framing of the war may have shifted in patterned ways over time, we need to examine the issue-specific and generalizable frame data together. In this case, our two-tiered coding method reveals that, in the lead-up to the Iraq war, news coverage increased the use of "fear" frames-the combined use of loss frames (portraying the war in terms of realized or potential loss) and self-referential frames (portraying the war in terms of how it affects Americans)-but not in the way we might have thought based on criticisms of the media's fear-mongering (Altheide, 2006(Altheide, , 2007Barber, 2004;Bonn, 2011;Bonn & Welch, 2010). At the issue-specific level, these fear frames were primarily not driven by reminders of 9/11, nor by a focus on the threats of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism more broadly.…”