In recent years, the United States has significantly expanded its use of drone warfare. Experts are divided: some defend drones as a legal, effective way to target terrorists while others suggest drones are inaccurate and contribute to anti-Americanism. In addition, international public opinion differs starkly with Americans largely supportive of the program while publics across the globe condemn it. Suspecting news coverage might play a pivotal role in these differences, the authors explored the framing of the US drone program in American, British, and Arab news coverage. Consistent with research on social identity theory and ethnocentrism in news, they find that US coverage was more likely to frame the policy favorably – emphasizing its legality, strategic value and technological sophistication while downplaying civilian deaths – while British and, to a greater extent, Arab coverage was more critical. The authors discuss how these findings build on existing theory and explore the implications for US drone policy.
Al Arabiya.net (2009a) U.S., Pakistani officials meet in bid to oust Taliban, 15July. Retrieved from LexisNexis.
2.
Al Arabiya.net (2009b) U.S. missiles hit Taliban hideout in Pakistan, 2July. Retrieved from LexisNexis.
3.
AndersonB (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
4.
AuerbachYBloch-ElkonY (2005) Media framing and foreign policy: The elite press vis-a-vis US policy in Bosnia, 1992–95. Journal of Peace Research42(1): 83–99.
5.
BanduraA (1990) Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues46(1): 27–46.
BennettWL (1994) The news about foreign policy. In: BennettWLPaletzDL (eds) Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 149–163.
8.
BennettWLEdelmanM (1985) Homo Narrans: Towards a new political narrative. Journal of Communication35: 156–172.
9.
BennettWLLawrenceRGLivingstonS (2008) When the Press Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
BrennanJO (2013) Remarks prepared for delivery to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 30April. Available at: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/04/brennanspeech/ (accessed 14 April 2014).
15.
ButlerMJ (2012) Selling a ‘just’ war: Framing, legitimacy, and U.S. military intervention. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
EntmanRM (1991) Symposium framing U.S. coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran air incidents. Journal of Communication41(4): 6–27.
24.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
25.
EntmanRM (2004) Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and US Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
EntmanRM (2008) Theorizing mediated public diplomacy: The US case. International Journal of Press/Politics13(2): 87–102.
27.
FishmanJMMarvinC (2003) Portrayals of violence and group difference in newspaper photographs: Nationalism and media. Journal of Communication53(1): 32–44.
GamsonWAModiglianiA (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95: 1–37.
30.
GansHJ (1980) Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Vintage.
31.
GellnerE (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
32.
GreinerB (2010) War without Fronts: The USA in Vietnam. London: Vintage.
33.
HafezK (2000) Islam and the West in the Mass Media: Fragmented Images in a Globalizing World. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
34.
HallinDC (1989) The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press.
35.
HallinDCManciniP (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
HuntingtonS (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster.
37.
HurdI (2007) After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
HutchesonJ. (2004) U.S. national identity, political elites, and a patriotic press followingSeptember11. Political Communication21(1): 27–50.
39.
InglehartRCarballoM (1997) Does Latin America exist? (And is there a Confucian culture?): A global analysis of cross-cultural differences. PS: Political Science and Politics30(1): 34–47.
40.
InglehartRNevitteNBasanezM (1996) The North American Trajectory: Cultural, Economic, and Political Ties Among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
41.
InglehartRWelzelC (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
InglehartRWelzelC (2010) Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and democracy. Perspectives on Politics8(2): 551–567.
43.
International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (IHRCRC) at Stanford Law School and Global Justice Clinic at NYU School of Law (2012) Living under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians from U.S. Drone Practices in Pakistan. Joint report, available at: http://www.livingunderdrones.org/ (accessed 14 April 2014).
44.
IyengarS (1994) Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
JonesTSheetsP (2009) Torture in the eye of the beholder: Social identity, news coverage, and Abu Ghraib. Political Communication26: 278–295.
46.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1984) Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist39(4): 341–350.
47.
KolmerCSemetkoHA (2009) Framing the Iraq War: Perspectives from American, U.K., Czech, German, South African, and Al-Jazeera news. American Behavioral Scientist52(5): 643–656.
48.
KraidyM (2008) Al-Jazeera and Al-Jazeera English: A comparative institutional analysis. In: KugelmanM (ed.) Kuala Lumpur Calling: Al-Jazeera English in Asia. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 23–30.
49.
McNabMMatthewsM (2011) Clarifying the law relating to unmanned drones and the use of force: The relationships between human rights, self-defense, armed conflict, and international humanitarian law. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy39(4): 661–694.
50.
MercerJ (1995) Anarchy and identity. International Organization49(2): 229–252.
51.
NisbetECMyersTA (2011) Anti-American sentiment as a media effect? Arab media, political identity, and public opinion in the Middle East. Communication Research38(5): 684–709.
52.
NorrisPInglehartR (2011) Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide, 2nd edn.New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
ObamaB (2013) Remarks at National Defense University, 23May. The American Presidency Project. Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ (accessed 10 April 2014).
RadsanAJMurphyR (2011) Measure twice, shoot once: Higher care for CIA-targeted killing. University of Illinois Law Review4: 1201–1241.
60.
ReeseSDLewisSC (2009) Framing the War on Terror: The internalization of policy in the US press. Journalism10(6): 777–797.
61.
RivenburghNK (2000) Social identity theory and new portrayals of citizens involved in international affairs. Media Psychology2(4): 303–329.
62.
RobertsonN (2009) Pakistan: Taliban buying children for suicide attacks, 7July. CNN.com Retrieved from LexisNexis.
63.
RowlingCMJonesTMSheetsP (2011) Some dared call it torture: Cultural resonance, Abu Ghraib, and a selectively echoing press. Journal of Communication61: 1043–1061.
64.
RowlingCMSheetsPJonesTM (2013) Frame contestation in the news: National identity, cultural resonance, and U.S. drone policy. International Journal of Communication7: 2231–2253.
65.
SchwartzSH (1999) A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology48(1): 23–47.
SheaferTGabayI (2009) Mediated public diplomacy: A strategic contest over international agenda building and frame building. Political Communication26(4): 447–467.
69.
SheaferT. (2014) Relative political and value proximity in mediated public diplomacy: The effect of state-level homophily on international frame building. Political Communication31(1): 149–167.
70.
SingerPW (2009) Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. New York: Penguin Press.
71.
SlatteryKDoremusM (2012) Suppressing Allied atrocity stories: The unwritten clause of the World War II censorship code. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly89(4): 624–642.
72.
TajfelH (1982) Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology33: 1–39.
73.
TajfelHTurnerJC (1986) The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In: WorchelSAustinWG (eds) Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, 7–24.
74.
TirmanJ (2011) The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America’s Wars. New York: Oxford University Press.
75.
TransueJE (2007) Identity salience, identity acceptance, and racial policy attitudes: American national identity as a uniting force. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 78–91.
WohlMJABranscombeNR (2008) Remembering historical victimization: Collective guilt for current ingroup transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology94: 988–1006.
78.
WolfsfeldG (1997) Media and Political Conflict: News from the Middle East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
79.
WolfsfeldG (2004) Media and the Path to Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80.
WolfsfeldGFroshPAwabdyMT (2008) Covering death in conflicts: Coverage of the Second Intifada on Israeli and Palestinian television. Journal of Peace Research45(3): 401–417.
81.
YarchiM. (2013) Promoting stories about terrorism to the international news media: A study of public diplomacy. Media, War & Conflict6(3): 263–278.
82.
ZallerJChiuD (1996) Government’s little helper: US press coverage of foreign policy crises, 1945–1991. Political Communication13(4): 385–405.
83.
ZengLTahatK (2012) Picturing terrorism through Arabic lenses: A comparative analysis of Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. Asian Journal of Communication22(5): 433–448.
