Patriotism meets plurality: reporting the 2003 Iraq War in the British press

Abstract

In this article, the authors draw upon the results from a substantial content and framing analysis of the British media's treatment of the 2003 Iraq War to show how Britain's national press managed their coverage of the initial combat phase of the war against the background of substantial public and elite opposition. They show that reporting was dominated by coverage of the ongoing battle, that newspapers offered a similar subject agenda to one another and that coalition actors were prominent and likely to be reported neutrally. But the article uncovers a substantial diversity of opinion and tone across the British press and identifi es fi ve different editorial approaches to the confl ict which are sustained across the news and editorial pages of different newspapers. Through a closer examination, the authors attempt to account for the existence of these approaches in relation to the effects of public opposition to the war, patriotism and newspapers' longstanding political allegiances. Finally, they suggest that, in the British press at least, this plurality of opinions and forms of coverage offers a challenge to longstanding assumptions about the extent to which the media have tended to offer support to offi cial positions in relation to war.

The Public and Media Coverage of the War on Iraq

“…During the war itself, the tone of coverage shifted to some extent towards a more supportive tone, but this was often restricted to reporting of the actions of the military in Iraq. A number of news outlets continued to challenge the justification of the war (Goddard et al, 2008). Despite this conflict within the reporting, news sources were dominated by coalition spokespersons while the voices of Iraq were seldom heard (Robinson et al, 2005).…”

“…Furthermore, the government line on weapons of mass destruction was accepted in many reports (54% on television and 61% in newspapers). At the same time, the war on terror rationale for the invasion was challenged in many press reports (40%) though by fewer television reports (15%) (Goddard et al, 2008;Robinson and Goddard, 2006).…”

“…It is interesting to compare these audience perceptions of trust in news sources with the tone of newspapers during the 2003 Iraq war as indicated by content and framing analysis (see Goddard et al, 2008). In all, 53% of ITC survey respondents perceived The Sun as displaying a procoalition bias, and 64% of war reports in The Sun plus News of the World were found to show a pro-coalition tone.…”

“…Research on the nature of wartime coverage in major national newspapers indicated degrees of variation in tone that for some reflect a continuation of positions adopted before the outbreak of war and for others an attempt to remain faithful to their original position while at the same time proffering support towards those directly involved in the conflict where such support was due. While there was support for the military at an aggregate level after conflict had begun, a number of newspapers were critical of the war itself and challenged the legitimacy of the coalition invasion of Iraq (Goddard et al, 2008;Robinson and Goddard, 2006).…”

“…The Daily Mirror and The Guardian pulled no punches in this context, while the Independent was generally critical but adopted more muted tones. The Daily Mail adopted a more ambiguous position about the war in that although inclined to back military action, experienced some dissonance in doing so because this position amounted to providing support for a Labour government to which it was in general opposed (Goddard et al, 2008).…”