In the decade since the US-led invasion of Iraq, think tanks and scholars have discussed the profound, distorting effect that media coverage appears to have had on public understanding of the decision to go to war in 2003.
The question: is today’s news media coverage of Iran’s nuclear capability falling into the same trap?
Two experts at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland delved into the issue with a report released this week. It analyzed U.S. and U.K. coverage of Iran’s nuclear program between 2009 and 2012 and said media coverage failed in some ways to keep the public in the loop.
Four periods of heightened coverage in Iran’s nuclear timeline were selected for the analysis of six influential, English-language newspapers – the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, the Guardian, and the Independent.
Semantics took center stage in the breakdown. Co-authors Jonas Siegel and Saranaz Barforoush calculated the “average nuclear phrase frequency per article” – or how often certain phrases were used to characterize the situation.
The study found that phrases that implied both the presence of and absence of nuclear weapons were used interchangeably – in some cases giving the impression that Iran was building nuclear weapons without actual proof.
“There was a very vague and inconsistent use of terminology over time,” Siegel said.
The phrases “nuclear weapon(s)” and “nuclear program” far exceeded the use of any other phrase. The co-authors argued that about half of writers assume that nuclear weapons are in the picture and the other half do not – muddling the overall message.
“What term is used and in what context matters quite a deal. It matters in that it affects that assumption made by the newspapers and the public who consume them,” Siegel said.
The report also found that journalist placed a heavy reliance on government officials, which constituted almost 70 percent of the sources used in the articles. The largest category was unsurprisingly US officials. Researchers found that Iranian sources were relied upon far less often.
“Ayatollah Khomeini was rarely quoted – despite his centrality to the Iranian domestic policy,” Siegel noted.
Susan Moeller, director of the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda, agreed that there was a sourcing problem.
“Many journalists and many news outlets tended to ignore what the White House ignored, and vice versa,” Moeller said. “Stories tended to be calibrated as important in the same way the executive branch did.”
Researchers also noticed an abundance of overhyped commentary and opinion articles on the subject.
“The opinion pieces emphasized the more sensational aspects of the dispute – especially the risk,” Moeller said. The profusion of commentary pieces often led to an underlying attitude of suspicion and hostility toward Iran, according to the report.
But researchers were clear to note that they found “no evidence that newspaper editors and writers were trying to deceive anyone” and gave journalists like longtime Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus an opportunity to respond to the findings.
“This is a political issue inside both Iran and the U.S.,” said Pincus, who recognized many of the report’s findings through his own news consumption. “If there’s one thing that solidifies political support – it’s talking about a threat.”
He also argued that there were different attitudes on the subject even within the same paper, and said research like this generalizes across the board unfairly.
“Newspapers can’t provide depth on every side, in deep depth, on every issue,” Pincus said. “There’s an underlying implication that we’re supposed to go deeply into every side. But it’s not the responsibility of press to settle these arguments.”
