The CNN Effect and The Question of Media and Foreign Policy in Bosnia and Syria

Reflective Essay

Introduction

“ I can’t tell you how many people come up to me and say, ‘The international community needs to do more.’ But all they can do is wring their hands on the sidelines and issue condemnations.” (Vogue, 2021).

Famed war journalist and correspondent Clarissa Ward spoke to British Vogue about how once the cameras were turned off, so too was the worldwide attention. While maintaining impartiality is essential, it is argued that the media not only shapes public opinion but also plays a role in shaping foreign policy. This is called the “CNN effect.” This is defined as CNN’s emotional coverage that influences Western policymakers to choose intervention over inaction (Jakobsen, 2000). It has been argued that many of the policies shaped by this influence are often changed or reversed due to conflicts with the judgments of foreign policy officials (Aho, 2004). This paper explores the prevalence of this influence through two case studies, the Bosnian War and the Syrian Civil War. These two examples explore how this influence shaped US foreign policy before and after 9/11.

The Bosnian War

The Bosnian War from 1992 to 1995 was a part of the breakup of Yugoslavia post the collapse of the USSR. The crucial actors of the war were Serbians, Croatians and Bosniaks. The conflict arose from the unanimous vote for independence from Yugoslavia by both Bosniaks and Croatians which led to the eventual Serbian siege of the capital, led by Radovan Karadžić.

Our coverage of the war in Bosnia was the first of its kind, and our coverage of the Sarajevo siege produced iconic names in journalism such as CNN’s Christian Amanpour, the BBC’s Kate Addy, and Reuters’ Kurt Schok (Morrison, 2021). Amateur and freelance journalists have also built careers through consistent siege reporting (ibid.). This was due to advances in technology and the use of armoured vehicles, which provided a constant communication range. By directly observing human atrocities, especially those against children, journalists also developed an emotional connection to Bosnia (Konrad, 2022).

Furthermore, sensitive reporting became common after the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, in which more than 8,300 Bosniaks were killed (Al Jazeera, 2015). The report included graphic images of Bosniak men and boys held in concentration camps and of women being raped (ibid.). This prompted the United States, under the leadership of President Bill Clinton, to take action against a serious humanitarian crisis. This division, commonly called the agenda-setting division, elicits empathy through emotional and persuasive reporting on atrocities and humanitarian crises, thereby reshaping foreign policy priorities (Livingston, 1997). However, the response was tactical and superficial rather than strategic (Gowing, 1994). This was reinforced by the way television cameras show Bosniaks being well-fed and cared for while ignoring those who starved or died from shelling. As shown, it can be demonstrated through the lens of a television screen (ibid.)

On the other hand, reporting on the war also made possible the trials of war criminals such as Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, who were central figures in the Bosniak genocide and ethnic cleansing. However, the United Nations was unable to stop the genocide due to failed peacekeeping operations, an illegal arms embargo, and a failure to protect safe areas (Ahmad, 1998). CNN’s effectiveness and agenda-setting role in reporting and humanizing crises is evident in shaping foreign policy. This could have been due to policymakers being susceptible to the CNN effect (Livingston, 1998).

While it is not possible to be neutral in a genocide, the role of journalists is to remain neutral and distance themselves from the conflict by being observers rather than participants. Journalists must set the media agenda without being dominated by other influences (Gravengaard, 2012). In this case, these other influences were the emotional attachments that correspondents had to the cause.

The Syrian Civil War

The Syrian war is an ongoing conflict that began during the Arab Spring of 2011 between the government of Bashar Al-Assad and counter-protestors of the regime. Since the start of the civil war, an estimated 306,887 civilians have been killed. As a result of the embargo on the entry of foreign correspondents into Syria, the dissemination of news in the country has been handled distinctly, resulting in a significant reliance on citizen journalism to counteract propaganda that was spread by the regime and Assad into denying human rights abuses to the Kurdish people and Syrian citizens.

As a result, reporting on Syria has put tremendous pressure on influential actors in the West to choose intervention over inaction. During Donald Trump’s presidential term, attacks on children profoundly influenced him and shaped his foreign policy approach (Doucet, 2018). This international pressure led to sanctions and ultimately to the occupation of much of the territory by Assad and his forces. Unlike Bosnia, where media influence proved effective in fighting war criminals but failed to take adequate measures to prevent genocide, in the case of Syria, this effectiveness proved unsuccessful due to a lack of understanding of Syrian politics and society.

In the post-9/11 world, the perception of the Middle East has completely changed, and so has the coverage of the region. As for Syria, it was not about ridding the country of Assad’s atrocities, but rather of the terrorists that emerged from the war, such as ISIS and al-Qaeda. Mainstream media in the West has moved away from reporting on the rebels and focused on human aspects, such as depicting the plight of children (Doucet, 2018). Not only has coverage of the Syrian civil war been reductive, reproducing power imbalances and discursive power imbalances (Mattar, 2020), but the war on terror has also turned news organizations into propaganda institutions and as a result, there was a lack of partiality.

As with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, people saw intervention in these wars as nothing more than suppressing terrorism. Therefore, it was argued that the CNN effect ceases when the level of coordination regarding perceptual control increases (Robinson, 2013). This cognitive control should not serve to promote an effective foreign policy, but rather an ideological narrative (ibid.). In this case, it is almost impossible to maintain impartiality due to the demands of stakeholders such as media organizations and the general public to ensure that positive content is produced (Gravengaard, 2012).

Conclusion

This essay emphasised the essential role of the media in shaping foreign policy, especially international conflicts, before and after 9/11. The CNN effect is pervasive in the news world, demonstrating the impossibility of maintaining impartiality. While this influence in journalism is becoming increasingly covert especially after 9/11, to be truly impartial we need to eliminate this biased legacy.

This essay was for a module Digital Storytelling and Production (MLAC4099) which was convened by Dr Joanne Lim.