DOG EAT DOG MEDIA

On September 11th, 2001, America was changed forever. The ensuing months saw the U.S. invading Afghanistan, then the debate of invading, and eventual invasion of Iraq, in March 2003. Much controversy surrounded the decision of whether or not to go into Iraq in fear that it may over-extend our forces or that it may be a wild goose chase. Supporters of the invasion said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (or WMDs), and could use them on the United States. Furthermore, he was harboring terrorists, and allowing them to pass through his borders freely. Therefore, to prevent the spread of terrorism, the invasion of Iraq, and eventual capture of Hussein was necessary. However, one of the largest contributors to the national agenda weighed in before and during the war (and also after, if "Mission Accomplished" meant the war was actually over).

The national media played a significant role in the formation of public opinion throughout the war. Given the gradual downward slope of public support (other than the spike that occurred when Saddam Hussein was captured in his spider hole), I would have to say that the media contributed greatly to diminishing support of the war and the Bush Administration's policies. Therefore, the media must be of the attack dog variety. When studying the Washington Post, one of the most well known, and respected, newspapers in the country, it should become clear that the media, and its clear opposition to the current administration, led to the eventual decline in public support of the Iraq War.

In this study, I intend to test the hypotheses that the Washington Post used a disproportionate amount of articles highlighting casualties on the American and allied forces side to sway public opinion away from the support of the war effort. Furthermore, I believe the Post will be more likely to be critical of procedural matters and strategic moves on the ground in Iraq, and also give disproportionate coverage to setbacks and unfortunate events (i.e. IEDs, ambushes, costly firefights, insurgent attacks, etc.). Also, I believe that I will see quite a bit of coverage given to the failures and setbacks occurring in the Bush Administration, due to their handling of the war. Finally, I expect the negative coverage of the events in Iraq to increase as public opinion for the war decreases.
As for the methodology I shall use when testing these hypotheses, I think it should be rather easy test the casualty coverage by counting the individual articles that include mention of an allied soldier being killed by an IED, friendly fire, combat, or any other way a soldier can be killed. As for the on-the-ground criticisms, I shall count up every word in the paragraphs where the Post criticizes, quotes someone criticizing, or stating anything that is sure to reflect negatively on the forces and troops on the ground, in Iraq. The same procedure as I use for the on-the-ground coverage is what I will use for the coverage of the Bush Administration. Finally, to test the effect of time on the coverage, I will compare the results from the first three studies over a period of four years (articles from April 2003-2006). And, considering that these are all negative indicators, I expect the numbers to increase from one year to the next. For this final calculation, I will use a somewhat elaborate formula. I will first take the percentage of positive opinion and subtract the percentage of positive words, and then take the percentage of negative words and subtract the percentage of negative opinion. Next, I will find the average of the two numbers. A positive result will mean that the Post has been more critical than the public opinion would indicate, and a negative reading will mean that the Post is more supportive than the public. However, if the number were very close to 0, then it would mean that the Post goes along with public opinion in their coverage of the Iraq war. I am going to say that a leeway of 15% either way would indicate the watchdog, below that 15% would indicate a lap dog press, and above that 15% would indicate an attack dog.

It may seem somewhat ambiguous as to what I mean when I say "disproportionate". In an ideal world (as well as in the watchdog camp), the news would come out with an even 50:50 split between positive and negative coverage in all aspects of the news. Unfortunately, we don't in a perfect world, so statistical variance can lead to appropriate coverage given, even though the stories may not be even. In order for there to be a "disproportionate" amount of coverage to be shown, I would say that approximately a 2:1 ratio in either direction would indicate tendency toward that side. Finally, it should be noted that sometimes the news coverage could sway one way or the other given certain events. For example, it would be expected that during the fall of Baghdad, the news coverage would naturally lean toward the administration and its successes. Meanwhile, during the Abu Gharaib prison debacle, the coverage would lean against the president, and be more critical of the procedures on the ground, in Iraq, that during the fall of Baghdad, the news coverage would naturally lean toward the administration and its successes. Meanwhile, during the Abu Gharaib prison debacle, the coverage would lean against the president, and be more critical of the procedures on the ground, in Iraq.
After I did all my research, I found some very interesting trends. Things weren't as cut-and-dry as I would have thought. Many times, I would find articles that would speak negatively about the Bush Administration, yet speak positively of the troops and what was going on on the ground in Iraq. For example, my first hypothesis which tested the theory that more coverage would be given to failures and negative events that happened on the ground in Iraq than supportive words and coverage of successes, I found that more coverage was given to negative events (mostly troop deaths and ambushes), but not enough to be considered disproportionate. As you see in the chart below, it comes out to roughly 57 percent of the stories covering negative events on the ground in Iraq.

Positive Negative Ratio: N:P, P=1 Percentage N
2003 307 629 2.05 67.2%
2004 1514 2506 1.66 62.3%
2005 1804 1645 0.91 47.7%
2006 323 523 1.62 61.8%
Total 3948 5303 1.34 57.3%
(Measured in words)

Oddly enough, most coverage of negative events occurred during the first period (April 1-10, 2003), when the U.S. troops were having their biggest successes, and the support for the war was at its highest. It was at a time when the U.S. forces were rumbling toward Baghdad, with nothing to get in their way, except a speed bump in Basra, called Iraqi troops. There does not appear to be much of a bias toward covering negative events in any year. It seems as if the Post tended to cover the troops and on-the-ground decisions and events in Iraq equally with respect to the positive things said. This was not true for the coverage given to the Bush Administration, the decisions made from the White House, Department of Defense, as well as the overall decision of whether or not we should have gotten into this war in the first place, as we will clearly see in the next hypothesis.

The next hypothesis we will look at is the chart of how much coverage was critical compared to how much coverage was supportive or favorable toward the Bush Administration and the DOD's handling of the War in Iraq. What I found was that it seemed to be a tale of two time periods, when it came to the April 2003 coverage compared to the April 2004-2006 coverage. In 2003, the coverage would have suggested that the White House was filled with the most brilliant minds of the century. The Post could not have said many more good things about Bush Administration, with almost a 4:1 ratio of positive to negative stories. But, as you will see in the chart, the coverage, by the next year, had turned the other way negatively.

Supportive Critical Ratio: C:S, S=1 Percentage C
2003 1028 295 0.29 22.3%
2004 715 3096 4.33 81.2%
2005 133 2153 16.19 94.2%
2006 273 3302 12.10 92.4%
Total 2149 8846 4.12 80.5%
(Measured in words)

As you can clearly see, these numbers are dismal. When the support for the war was at its highest, not too much, in comparison, was said in terms of negative statements. However, in 2005 and 2006, over 90 percent of the coverage was negative. There were several articles that spoke entirely poorly of the Bush Administration. This would seem to suggest that the media is taking on an attack dog approach. This, however, will be discussed later.

My third hypothesis was about the troop death tolls. If an article mentioned the death of a Coalition Forces troop, I would count it. Looking at the articles, and then charting them, there seems to be no real trend, as you can see in the chart.

Yes No Percentage Y
2003 3 5
2004 6 2
2005 6 2
2006 3 5
Total 18 14 43.8%

The statistics seem to be a little all over the place. In retrospect, this does not seem to be much of an indicator at all. It is all too likely that my random draw could have drawn eight articles that just happen to have made mention of a death in Iraq or of no death in Iraq. This is not to say that this would not be a very good indicator, but that in this case, there are too few articles to gather any solid data. There is not much that would explain these numbers. Maybe if I looked at 25 or fifty articles, it would produce a more precise depiction. However, just eight articles in a given year will create too much variance.

Finally, I said that I would compare the events in Iraq against the public opinion polls. It may be useful to look back at my methodology, as this table may be somewhat confusing. Looking at the chart, it seems that the Washington Post leans slightly toward the attack dog camp. In 2003, it seems to be within my 15% range of the watchdog, but in the remaining years (especially 2004 & 2006) it is well outside the 15% rule, making it an attack dog.

Percentage Negative Percentage Positive Approval Disapproval Approval Difference Disapproval Difference Average
2003 40.9% 59.1% 68.3% 27.5% 9.2% 13.4% 11.3%
2004 71.5% 28.5% 57.3% 40.9% 28.8% 30.6% 29.7%
2005 66.2% 33.8% 51.0% 46.0% 17.2% 20.2% 18.7%
2006 86.5% 13.5% 42.0% 57.0% 28.5% 29.5% 29.0%

As you can clearly (or maybe not so clearly) see, the attack dog is quite prevalent in the news coverage of the War in Iraq. The Washington Post always seems to be at least a little bit more critical of the War in Iraq than the public opinion would suggest.

As I have demonstrated through the use of tables, there seemed to be an attack dog presence all throughout The Washington Post. This statement, however, is somewhat misleading, because the Post, at times, can be rather supportive of policies, the president, and the troops. In 2003, there was quite a bit of support shown for the president, and less criticism of the War in Iraq. However, it would have been hard to criticize the president after the great successes of the military, that was cruising into Baghdad, with the discovery of WMDs still looking like a "slam dunk." By the following year, it would have been much easier to slam the Bush Administration for follies it had made since the fall of Baghdad, such as the failure to plan for the postwar violence and insurgency. It was quite a far way from the flowers and sweets that Donald Rumsfeld had promised. I would not say that my findings are enough to dismiss the lap dog and watchdog theories, but that the attack dog theory is the dominant mode of operation for the media, given what I have experienced with the Post. Meanwhile, the other camps cannot be completely dismissed because there are still times where the watchdog camp is most prevalent (e.g. the coverage from 2003).

What must be kept in mind, however, is that I am using relatively few articles. This can lead to statistical variance. If there is one article that speaks glowingly of a troop, or even of a policy, it can tip the scales against the other articles, which may have had some rather potent criticisms of the Bush Administration or discussion given to firefights in Iraq. To eliminate this variance, one of two methods can be applied. First, severity of story can be added, and then multiply the number of words by the intensity of the story. A soldier getting a bullet in the leg would not carry the same weight as an IED killing three and wounding five. Another, and more practical, method could be applied, and that would be to just read more articles. Instead of reading eight articles, read thirty or fifty. This would cut down on the variance, and increase the precision to which you could measure the bias in a given news source.

Over the course of this paper, I have shown that the media has a clear attack dog mentality, and that the lap dog theory does not apply at all. Furthermore, although the watchdog rears its head from time to time, the attack dog is the dominant force in play when it comes to the national media.

In an ideal world, the press would not sway too far to one way or the other. Personally, I believe that the facts in this case just seem to go against the Bush Administration. I am of the school the President really dropped the ball on Iraq, and that he should be taken to the woodshed by the major media outlets for the wrongs he has committed. As for the media's impact on the war, I generally think that what the media is doing now is a good thing. The media acts as a de facto check on the government, so that they don't go into an ill-advised war, and that they try to keep us out of another Vietnam. The American media is always rooting for the United States to come out victorious in any war. To suggest anything else would be outlandish. However, I believe the media actually does act as a watch dog over U.S. affairs, and that the investigative reporting that sometimes hurts the White House, only hurts it because the White House was doing something that it ought not be doing, like wire-tapping, secret prisons, and other abuses of human rights. If the elected officials are the watchmen, who watches the watchmen? Aside from periodic elections, the media needs to step in and look out for the general interest of Americans, and investigate when those in high places partake in wrongdoing.

I suggest reading War in the Media Age by A. Trevor Thrall.

Bibliography

2003
For Wolfowitz, a Vision May Be Realized; Deputy Defense Secretary's Views on Free Iraq Considered Radical in Ways Good and Bad, The Washington Post, April 7, 2003 Monday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A17, 2655 words, Michael Dobbs, Washington Post Staff Writer
Battlefield Is A Showcase for Defense Firms; Arms Exporters Could Thrive On Televised Success in Iraq, The Washington Post, April 1, 2003 Tuesday, Final Edition, FINANCIAL; Pg. E01, 1579 words, Renae Merle, Washington Post Staff Writer
In Berlin, TV Bolsters Opposition to Iraq Conflict, The Washington Post, April 2, 2003 Wednesday, Final Edition, STYLE; Pg. C01, 1065 words, Robert J. McCartney, Washington Post Foreign Service, BERLIN April 1
Arabs Wary of Role in a New Iraq; Hesitancy Due to Internal Squabbles and Antiwar Stances, The Washington Post, April 3, 2003 Thursday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A32, 764 words, Emily Wax, Washington Post Foreign Service, CAIRO April 2
Powell Urges 'Leading Role' for U.S. After War; Foreign Ministers Fail to Reach Consensus on U.N. Involvement in Rebuilding Iraq, The Washington Post, April 4, 2003 Friday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A31, 1003 words, Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writer, BRUSSELS April 3
For U.N. Humanitarian Agency, Big Worries and Major Challenges in Iraq, The Washington Post, April 9, 2003 Wednesday, Final Edition, A SECTION; DIPLOMATIC DISPATCHES NORA BOUSTANY; Pg. A33, 919 words, Nora Boustany
Democratic Hopefuls Split on War in Iraq; Presidential Candidates Attack Bush Tax Cuts and Vow Remedies, if Needed, in Mich. Case, The Washington Post, April 10, 2003 Thursday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A08, 883 words, Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writer
Hispanics Split Over War in Iraq; Views Diverge Between Immigrants, U.S.-Born, The Washington Post, April 9, 2003 Wednesday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A33, 528 words, Darryl Fears, Washington Post Staff Writer

2004
Bush's Low Profile Questioned as Violence Flares in Iraq, The Washington Post, April 10, 2004 Saturday, Final Edition, A Section; A01, 1693 words, Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei, Washington Post Staff Writers
The Facts We Must Face; There's No Turning Away From Iraq's Harsh Realities, The Washington Post, April 4, 2004 Sunday, Final Edition, Outlook; B01, 1646 words, Anthony Cordesman
Bush Credibility on 2 Wars -- Iraq, Terrorism -- Under Challenge, The Washington Post, April 8, 2004 Thursday, Final Edition, A Section; A11, 1127 words, Dan Balz and Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writers
General May Bolster Force in Iraq; Militias Kidnap a Dozen Foreigners; Fighting Continues; Troop Deployments May Be Extended, The Washington Post, April 9, 2004 Friday, Final Edition, A Section; A01, 1955 words, Thomas E. Ricks and Sewell Chan, Washington Post Staff Writers, BAGHDAD April 8
Showing Mettle, Earning Medals Under Fire in Iraq; Lawyer and Army Reserve Captain Survived a Bloody Ambush, The Washington Post, April 1, 2004 Thursday, Final Edition, Prince George's Extra; T14, 1633 words, Ruben Castaneda, Washington Post Staff Writer
U.S. Civilians Mutilated in Iraq Attack; 4 Die in Ambush; 5 Soldiers Killed By Roadside Blast, The Washington Post, April 1, 2004 Thursday Correction Appended, Final Edition, A Section; A01, 1059 words, Sewell Chan, Washington Post Foreign Service, FALLUJAH, Iraq March 31
In Iraq, Without Options, The Washington Post, April 7, 2004 Wednesday, Final Edition, Editorial; A31, 803 words, Harold Meyerson
In Iraq, Looking Through The Unfiltered Lens of Hatred, The Washington Post, April 1, 2004 Thursday, Final Edition, Style; C01, 1067 words, Philip Kennicott, Washington Post Staff Writer

2005
Soldier Killed in Iraq Gets Medal of Honor; Sergeant Repelled Attack, Saved 100 Americans, The Washington Post, April 5, 2005 Tuesday, Final Edition, A Section; A01, 1226 words, Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writer
Panel: Work of U.N. Arms Inspectors Was Ignored by U.S. Before Iraq War, The Washington Post, April 3, 2005 Sunday, Final Edition, A Section; A06, 1024 words, Dafna Linzer, Washington Post Staff Writer
Pentagon Blamed for Lack of Postwar Planning in Iraq, The Washington Post, April 1, 2005 Friday, Final Edition, A Section; A03, 1209 words, Bradley Graham and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writers
Honoring a Woman Who Returned to Serve; Ex-Captain Died in Iraq as a Civilian, The Washington Post, April 2, 2005 Saturday, Final Edition, Metro; B03, 669 words, Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post Staff Writer
Iraq War Deaths Total number ..., The Washington Post, April 7, 2005 Thursday, Final Edition, A Section; A24, 173 words
Car Bomb Kills Four Near Shrine in Northern Iraq; Violence Disrupts Observance of Shiite Holy Day, The Washington Post, April 1, 2005 Friday, Final Edition, A Section; A21, 514 words, Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post Foreign Service, BAGHDAD March 31
Zarqawi Said to Be Behind Iraq Raid; Assault on Abu Ghraib May Signal New Tactics, The Washington Post, April 5, 2005 Tuesday, Final Edition, A Section; A01, 866 words, Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post Foreign Service, BAGHDAD April 4
Iraq War Deaths Total numbe ..., The Washington Post, April 6, 2005 Wednesday, Final Edition, A Section; A16, 336 words

2006
Merits of Partitioning Iraq or Allowing Civil War Weighed, The Washington Post, April 30, 2006 Sunday, Final Edition, A Section; A18, 1364 words, Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writer
Blundering to Baghdad; Two military experts argue that the Bush administration never had a viable Iraq strategy., The Washington Post, April 9, 2006 Sunday, Final Edition, Book World; T03, 1083 words, Reviewed by Andrew F. Krepinevich
A Different Model for Iraq; Forget the Vietnam analogies. Korea's a better parallel., The Washington Post, April 9, 2006 Sunday, Final Edition, Outlook; B03, 1371 words, Robert Killebrew
Projected Iraq War Costs Soar; Total Spending Is Likely to More Than Double, Analysis Finds, The Washington Post, April 27, 2006 Thursday, Final Edition, A Section; A16, 1142 words, Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer
Zarqawi Taunts U.S. in Video; Leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq Vows to Thwart New Baghdad Government, The Washington Post, April 26, 2006 Wednesday, Final Edition, A Section; A01, 1434 words, Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer
The Battle for Baghdad's Future; Three Years After Its Fall, Capital Is Pivotal to U.S. Success in Iraq, Officers Say, The Washington Post, April 9, 2006 Sunday, Final Edition, A Section; A17, 1655 words, John Ward Anderson and Jonathan Finer, Washington Post Foreign Service, BAGHDAD April 8
Dedication and Danger in Iraq, The Washington Post, April 29, 2006 Saturday, Final Edition, Editorial; A17, 991 words, Joseph E. Robert Jr.
Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals; Ex-Iraq Commander Calls for Resignation, The Washington Post, April 13, 2006 Thursday, Final Edition, A Section; A01, 985 words, Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writer

The article has been written by friend Kyle Schafer for his Politics & Media Course.

Bobby Jindal for Vice Presidency? McCain-Jindal Ticket?
Hillary Clinton for Vice President