The mediatization of the military

Abstract

Through an examination of military media management strategies, this article argues that the military are increasingly ‘mediatized’ where the media act as both a rationale and interface for communication within the military, and between the military and their audiences. Informed by ethnographic work with the British military, it is argued that military media management strategies are increasingly organised to appeal to, reassure and elicit support from multiple audiences – particularly the state and the military’s own internal personnel. In an attempt to move beyond conceptualisation of military media management as merely state propaganda, the author explores the degree to which the military, as a relatively autonomous institution, attempts to harness the power of media influence – whilst also protecting against it – in a manner that may be transforming the media–polity–military relationship and is reflective of the processes of mediatization.

Social media, gender and the mediatization of war: exploring the German armed forces’ visual representation of the Afghanistan operation on Facebook

“…2 At least for those not immediately caught up in it, and this certainly applies to the majority of people living in 'Western' societies, war is experienced only indirectly through its representation in different media. Thus, many people's understanding of specific conflicts, their causes, actual or potential consequences and justification (or lack thereof) is influenced by particular and unavoidably partial representations of war (Cottle 2006;Hoskins and O'Loughlin 2010;Maltby 2012). Given the importance of public support for states' ability to (legitimately) wage war (e.g.…”

Capability in the digital: institutional media management and its dis/contents

“…This is because in contrast to the MoD we recognize the British Military is a complex institution engaged in a range of activities (diplomatic, political and institutional), with its own goals, culture and working practices and, consequently, its own distinct identity. By making a distinction between 'Institutional' (military) and 'Political' (government) then we are doing three things: paying due heed to the complexities of 'Institutional' communication strategies that are designed to appeal to multiple publics -one of which is the political; attempting to avoid a simplification of the media-polity-military relationship where 'Institutional' communications are understood as simply a continuation of state politics (see Maltby, 2012a); and attempting to consciously reflect on the way that the social shaping of digital data methods corresponds to digital findings (see Kennedy, Moss, Birchall, & Moshonas, 2015).…”

A metatheory of mediatization and globalization?

“…Institutional logics are more attuned to 'the media' Á how their goals and actions are represented by the media, and how they can use the media to further their interests. The obsession with the media has been found across institutions in the West, such as politics (Stromback 2008), religion, policy-making (Hajer 2009), the military (Maltby 2012), law (Peleg andBogoch 2012), health (Obregon andWaisbord 2012), and sports (Whannel 2013).…”