This article argues that online news coverage of foreign conflict depicts Britain as holding special responsibilities on the world stage, reproducing its status as a ‘great power.’ Taking a discourse–theoretic approach – focusing on meaning making – the article examines British coverage of Libyan government violence in response to pro-democracy protests during the 2011 civil war. The Libyan people are constructed as aspiring democrats ultimately unable to ‘do’ democracy correctly, while Muammar Gaddafi (who led the country for 42 years following a coup) is shown to be a ‘tyrant’ and a ‘dictator.’ In contrast, Britain is shown to have a special responsibility to champion human rights and democratic processes abroad, especially during conflict. Overall, in a context in which British military power is often perceived to be declining, an emphasis upon special responsibilities (re)confirms Britain’s status as a great power, with a core role on the world stage.
AdelmanRA (2014) Atrocity and aporiae: Teaching the Abu Ghraib images, teaching against transparency. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies14(1): 29–39.
2.
ÅhällLBorgS (2013) Predication, presupposition, and subject-positioning. In: ShepherdL (ed.) Critical Approaches to Security: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. Routledge, pp.196–207.
3.
Al NahedS (2018) Breaking the language barrier? Comparing TV news frames across texts in different languages. Media, War & Conflict11(4): 407–420.
4.
AliSRFahmyS (2013) Gatekeeping and citizen journalism: The use of social media during the recent uprisings in Iran, Egypt, and Libya. Media, War & Conflict6(1): 55–69.
5.
Aydin-DüzgitS (2012) Constructions of European Identity: Debates and Discourses on Turkey and the EU. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
6.
BaspehlivanU (2024) Theorising the memescape: The spatial politics of Internet memes. Review of International Studies50(1): 35–57.
7.
BeechMMunceP (2019) The place of human rights in the foreign policy of Cameron’s conservatives: Sceptics or enthusiasts?British Journal of Politics and International Relations21(1): 116–131.
8.
BogainA (2020) Understanding public constructions of counter-terrorism: An analysis of online comments during the state of emergency in France (2015–2017). Critical Studies on Terrorism13(4): 591–615.
9.
BullH (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Macmillan.
10.
CampbellD (1992) Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. University of Minnesota Press.
11.
ChungCJNamYStefanoneMA (2012) Exploring online news credibility: The relative influence of traditional and technological factors. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17(2): 171–186.
12.
ClaytonA (1986) The British Empire as a Superpower 1919–39. Macmillan.
13.
CretaS (2021) I hope, one day, I will have the right to speak. Media, War & Conflict14(3): 366–382.
14.
CrilleyRGillespieM (2019) What to do about social media? Politics, populism and journalism. Journalism20(1): 173–176.
15.
DaviesSETrueJ (2017) Norm entrepreneurship in foreign policy: William Hague and the prevention of sexual violence in conflict. Foreign Policy Analysis13(3): 701–721.
16.
DiCiccoJOneaT (2023) Great-power competition. In SandalN (ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Oxford University Press.
17.
DotyRL (1993) Foreign policy as social construction: A post-positivist analysis of U.S. counterinsurgency policy in the Philippines. International Studies Quarterly37(3): 297–320.
18.
DückE (2023) Diplomacy and foreign policy in the digital era: A case study of the 2015 ‘refugee crisis’ in Germany. In: OnditiF, et al. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Diplomatic Thought and Practice in the Digital Age. Springer International Publishing, pp.413–433.
19.
EnglishRKennyM (1999) British decline or the politics of declinism?British Journal of Politics and International Relations1(2): 252–266.
20.
ErikssonJGiacomelloG (2007) International Relations and Security in the Digital Age. Routledge.
21.
FaircloughNMulderigJWodakR (2011) Critical discourse analysis. In: Van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, 2nd edn.Sage, pp.357–378.
22.
GilmoreJ (2015) Still a ‘force for good’? Good international citizenship in British foreign and security policy. British Journal of Politics and International Relations17(1): 106–129.
HagströmL (2021) Great power narcissism and ontological (in)security: The narrative mediation of greatness and weakness in international politics. International Studies Quarterly65(2): 331–342.
25.
HansenL (2006) Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. Routledge.
26.
HarmerESouthernR (2020) Is digital news really that digital? An analysis of how online news sites in the UK use digital affordances to enhance their reporting. Journalism Studies21(16): 234–248.
27.
HerrerosF (2006) ‘The full weight of the state’: The logic of random state-sanctioned violence. Journal of Peace Research43(6): 671–689.
28.
HopfT (2002) Social Construction of International Politics: Identities & Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 & 1999. Cornell University Press.
29.
HoughtonDPSandersD (2017) Losing an Empire, Finding a Role: British Foreign Policy Since 1945, 2nd edn.Red Globe Press.
30.
HowarthD (2000) Discourse. McGraw-Hill Education.
31.
HowarthDTorfingJ (2004) Discourse Theory in European Politics: Identity, Policy and Governance. Springer.
32.
JacksonST, et al. (2021) Forum: Militarization 2.0: Communication and the normalization of political violence in the digital age. International Studies Review23(3): 1046–1071.
33.
JesterN (2025) Methodological Challenges of Using Online News as Data: Lessons from an Examination of State Identity and Foreign Conflict. In: Sage Research Methods: Data and Research Literacy. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781036215392 (accessed 24 September 2025).
34.
JokelaJ (2010) Europeanization and Foreign Policy: State Identity in Finland and Britain. Routledge.
35.
KressbachM (2022) Found footage horror and the evidentiary effect. Quarterly Review of Film and Video41(4): 539–559.
LarsonDW (2021) Policy or pique? Trump and the turn to great power competition. Political Science Quarterly136(1): 47–80.
38.
LeikenRBrookeS (2007) The moderate Muslim brotherhood. Foreign Affairs86(2): 107–121.
39.
LipingX (2001) China: A responsible great power. Journal of Contemporary China10(26): 17–25.
40.
MaiaRCM (2009) Media visibility and the scope of accountability. Critical Studies in Media Communication26(4): 372–392.
41.
MillikenJ (1999) The study of discourse in international relations: A critique of research and methods. European Journal of International Relations5(2): 225–254.
42.
MishraS (2008) Islam and democracy: Comparing post-9/11 representations in the U.S. prestige press in the Turkish, Iraqi, and Iranian contexts. Journal of Communication Inquiry32(2): 155–178.
43.
MitzenJ (2006) Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations12(3): 341–370.
44.
MorrisJ (2011) How great is Britain? power, responsibility and Britain’s future global role. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations13: 326–347.
45.
NickelsHC, et al. (2012) De/constructing ‘suspect’ communities: A critical discourse analysis of British newspaper coverage of Irish and Muslim communities, 1974–2007. Journalism Studies13(3): 340–355.
RuscianoFL (2010) The ‘right to know vs knowing what’s right’: Tabloid ethics and news reporting in the Iraq War. Media, War & Conflict3(3): 245–260.
50.
SadowskiY (1993) The new orientalism and the democracy debate. Middle East Report 183: 14–40.
51.
SeibP (2003) Weaving the web: The internet’s effect on international news coverage and international relations. Millennium32(3): 617–641.
52.
ShepherdLJ (2006) Veiled references: Constructions of gender in the Bush administration discourse on the attacks on Afghanistan post-9/11. International Feminist Journal of Politics8(1): 19–41.
53.
SpencerA (2019) Narratives and the romantic genre in IR: Dominant and marginalized stories of Arab Rebellion in Libya. International Politics56(1): 123–140.
SteeleBJ (2007) Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State. Routledge.
56.
StivachtisYA (2023) Great power diplomacy in the digital age. In: OnditiF, et al. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Diplomatic Thought and Practice in the Digital Age. Palgrave Macmillan, pp.287–310.
57.
TaureckR (2006) Securitization theory and securitization studies. Journal of International Relations and Development9: 53–61.
58.
ThompsonG, et al. (2012) Olympic Britain Social and Economic Change Since the 1908 and 1948 London Games. House of Commons Library.
59.
TurnerBS (2011) The LSE, Machiavelli, and prudential wisdom. Society48(4): 293–296.
60.
WheelerNJDunneT (1998) Good international citizenship: A third way for British foreign policy. International Affairs74(4): 847–870.
61.
Wickham-JonesM (2000) Labour’s trajectory in foreign affairs: The moral crusade of a pivotal power? In: LittleRWickham-JonesM (eds) New Labour’s Foreign Policy: A New Moral Crusade?Manchester University Press, pp.3–32.
62.
WilliamsMC (2003) Words, images, enemies: Securitization and international politics. International Studies Quarterly47(4): 511–531.
63.
WohlforthWC, et al. (2018) Moral authority and status in International Relations: Good states and the social dimension of status seeking. Review of International Studies44(3): 526–546.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
