Faculty of Languages

The Influence of the CNN Effect and the Al Jazeera

Effect on American Foreign Policy

Graduation Project

Course: Mass Media and American Politics

Skopje, June 2014

 2

Faculty of Languages

The Influence of the CNN Effect and the Al Jazeera

Effect on American Foreign Policy

Graduation Project

Course: Mass Media and American Politics

Mentor:
Asst. Prof. Benjamin Shultz

Performed by:
Shqipe Palloshi, 1011.E.27
E-mail: shqipepalloshi@hotmail.com

Skopje, June, 2014

 3

Content

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………4
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………..5
SCOPE………………………………………………………………………………………….6
CHAPTER 1: GLOBAL MASS MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT POLICY
1.1.CAN MEDIA AFFECT GOVERNMENT POLICY AT ALL............................................7
1.2. HOW CAN MEDIA AFFECT GOVERNMENT POLICY................................................8
CHAPTER 2: THE CNN EFFECT AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
2.1. THE ORIGINS OF THE CNN ............................................................……...………….10
2.2. WHAT IS THE CNN EFFECT?.......................................................................................11
2.3. DOES THE CNN EFFECT INFLUENCE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY?...........................12
2.4. CASE STUDY: INTERVENTION IN SOMALIA.........................................................14
2.5. THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE CNN EFFECT.......................16
CHAPTER 3: THE AL JAZEERA EFFECT AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
3.1. ‗THE RISE OF THE REST..............................................................................................17
3.2. THE ORIGINS OF AL JAZEERA..................................................................................18
3.3. THE IMPORTANCE OF AL JAZEERA ........................................................................19
3.4. WHAT IS THE AL JAZEERA EFFECT?.......................................................................19
3.6. DOES THE AL JAZEERA EFFECT INFLUENCE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY?...........20
3.7. THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE AL JAZEERA EFFECT........22
CHAPTER 4: THE FUTURE
4.1.THE FUTURE OF THE CNN EFFECT AND THE AL JAZEERA EFFECT................23
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................... 25
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................27
 4

Abstract

This thesis explores the relationship between both American mass media and foreign
international news channels on United States foreign policy. Initially, the paper examines the
ability of contemporary global mass media to influence governments‘ policy making. Then, it
focuses on the ability of American mass media to influence the foreign policy decision making
at the White House. The last part of this thesis examines the influence that foreign global mass
media (in this case, Al Jazeera) can or cannot have on U.S. foreign policy decisions. Finally, the
thesis ends with an assessment of both the CNN Effect and the Al Jazeera Effect in terms of the
significance and the benefits and/or drawbacks of their influence. The thesis is concluded with
thoughts on whether the United States government has the ability to control this media influence
and use it to support its policy agenda, and with an accessment of the future of the CNN effect
and Al Jazeera effect.

Key words: U.S. Foreign Policy, Media, CNN Effect, Al Jazeera Effect;
 5

Introduction

With the advent of geosynchronous satellites, first launched by the US government in

1965, the ability of governments to exclusively control information came to a slow but profound
end (Price 2002), and the process of foreign decision making has become more of a theater. The
public now receives information about international events as they happen, leaving little time
for policymakers to consider their options. According to Philip Seib, author of The Al Jazeera
Effect, it is entirely possible that the politically aware public be able to control, or at least
influence, foreign policy decisions. In our era, the prestige and power of a state are not
determined by military power, but by media influence. It is true that the media are one of the
most powerful and effective means to achieve a certain goal these days, but do media really
have the ability to affect a government‘s policies, or are they the mere conveyors of what
governments decide?

American media have proven themselves to have an influence on the public that is
worthy of being taken into consideration when analysing American politics, and it has often
seemed that they have pushed the government into undertaking something to resolve a
particular issue, but do American media truly have the ability to shape Washington‘s policies
toward other countries? And finally, the rise of non-American and non-Western media, or the
‗rise of the rest‘, to use Fareed Zakaria‘s phrase, has significantly changed the balance of news
flow in the international market, introducing a different perspective to the so-far-dominant
Western perspective. But, can these new media – Al Jazeera, in particular – influence the
Pentagon‘s responses towards international events and developments?

Scholars and media observers alike maintain that both networks are able to influence
politics and society. According to Belknap (2001) the advent of real-time news coverage has led
to immediate public awareness of policies. Baker (1995) says the CNN Effect forces
policymakers to respond to events and developments, while former Secretary of State Hilary
Cliton firmly claimed that Al Jazeera is effectively changing people‘s minds (The Huffington
Post 2011). To explain the phenomenon of this influence, scholars have designated both a
―CNN Effect‖ and an ―Al Jazeera Effect‖. The CNN effect was ackowledged during the 1990-
91 Gulf War, while the Al Jazeera Effect builds upon its predecessor and was recognized after
September 11, 2001. These terms refer to the ability of these two networks to affect foreign
policy through their covering and broadcasting of international events.
 6

Scope
The primary question of this thesis is: Do the CNN effect and the Al Jazeera effect
influence the foreign policy decisions made by the United States government? In order to
answer this question, it is necessary to assess whether global mass media have the ability and
capacity to be an important actor in domestic and international politics. More importantly, it is
also necessary to discern whether they have the ability to influence American public opinion
and government strongly enough as to generate policy responses that are in line with the media
interpretation of issues.
The following subquestions are posed to further illucidate this topic:
Do global mass media in general influence governments‘ foreign policy making?
Can the CNN effect influence U.S. foreign policy decisions?
Can the Al Jazeera influence U.S. foreign policy decisions?
What are the possible benefits and detriments that the CNN Effect and the Al Jazeera Effect can
bring to international communications and politics?

The answers to these questions will be provided by reviewing what scholars have found
about this issue, as well as by analysing concrete cases of media involvement in politics and
how this relates to or influences foreign policy decisions of the U.S. government. The ‗CNN
Effect‘ and ‗Al Jazeera Effect‘ phenomena refer to a wide range of Western media, as well as
new media from the Middle East, Latin America and Asia. This thesis focuses on the CNN and
Al Jazeera because they are the prime examples of these phenomenon and currently the two of
the most important news outlets globally.
 7

CHAPTER 1: Global Mass Media and Government Foreign Policy

1.1. Can media affect foreign policy at all?

Media influence on policy, foreign and domestic, has been the subject of some research,
but is not generally taken seriously in the relevant disciplines. So far, there is a lack of
systematic research and acknowledgement of media influence on policymaking Arnold (2011).
This may be due to the indirect nature of the media‘s effects. The media do not influence
policymakers directly. Rather, they shape the opinions and beliefs of the public and the way
they see and think about foreign politics. Their framing of issues and events influences the
electorates willingness to approve of the policymakers decisions (Arnold 2011).

Seib (2008) argues that the media are able to influence foreign policy by shaping
international and public opinion. According to him, international media such as Voice of
America and Deutsche Welle are relevant tools of foreign politics. His main idea is the ―virtual
state‖: dispersed communities achieve an unprecedented cohesion that puts them on the political
map internationally. In this way, global mass media create a ―virtual sovereignty‖ by cultivating
a shared identity among dispersed members of ethnic and religious communities. Real-time
coverage of crises has made the public a party of policy discussions that used to be conducted
behind the closed doors of foreign ministries, consulates, and executive offices. This has not
abolished the high diplomatic discussions altogether, but it has created a global scene for this
discussions on which to take place. In her review of Seib‘s The Al Jazeera Effect, Arnold
(2011) upholds the relevance of the ‗virtual state‘ theory for foreign policy. In her opinion,
virtual states can affect the stability of traditional states. Furthermore, the media can alleviate
tensions and conflict by providing new perspectives to audiences.

Mody (2010) argues that media influence foreign policy by putting issues on the public
agenda and by framing them in a way that catches the attention and sympathy of a large
audience, which then demands action from their elected representatives. She argues that the
Somalian famine and the Darfur genocide were included in the international public agenda only
after the media began covering them. She terms this phenomenon as ‗mobilizing conscience‘ –
media making policymakers uncomfortable for not reacting to a crisis. However, Arnold (2011)
argues that the media face multiple constraints, such as geopolitical history, national interest,
state ownership, and audience demands. These constraints may hinder the media‘s ability to
become an important factor on the political scene, domestic and international alike, as well as
their ability to shape public opinion and drive policymakers into formulating a policy based on
what the media promote. Still, Arnold (2011) cites evidence that the media shape foreign policy
by shaping public opinion. Mody (2010) adds to this argument by maintaining that an informed
citizenry is necessary for preventing conflict and humanitarian crises. O'Neill (1993) maintains
that global television has a decisive and dominant role in international politics, adding that it has
completely changed the conventional diplomatic system that determined political and
diplomatic outcomes.

Ammon (2001) has coined the term ‗telediplomacy‘ to describe the emergence and
growing in influence of the global news system which has brought dramatic changes to the
 8

international politics scene. In his opinion, ‗telediplomacy‘ has the power to drive policy and
determine diplomatic outcomes. However, other scholars claim that despite the great potential
and capacities the media possess, when it comes to foreign policy, leaders enjoy an information
advantage over the media (and the public too). Since the policymakers are the primary traders of
information in the marketplace of foreign policy, the media have to use them as their primary
source of such information (Baum & Potter 2007). As a result, the government has the ability to
state its desired perspective of an issue.

However, the media are very important in the process of foreign policy because their
role as the mediator between officials and the public prompts officials into sharing this kind of
information with the public. Playing the role of the mediator can sometimes be troublesome for
the media. The leaders and the public often have opposing interests, and the media, as
mediators, should please both. On the one hand, they should preserve elites‘ preferred framing
of information in order to continue to be able to use them as information source, i.e. to preserve
their willingness to share their valuable information. On the other hand, they should frame the
news in such a way as not to seem to supportive of political elites and lose the support of the
public. Thus, the media walk a fine life-paying enough deference to elite frames to maintain
access, while deviating enough to generate and maintain public interest in thes news (Baum &
Potter 2007).

The most accurate way to explain the relationship between the media and foreign policy,
is by acknowledging the potential that the media have to influence international politics due to
their role as the connecting bridge between public opinion and foreign policy makers, but also
being aware of the impediments that they face due to economical factors or the compromises
they have to make in order to ensure their existence, to preserve their information sources and
the public‘s trust. They can often be manipulated by political elites, whose official rhetoric they
must follow, or are sometimes forced to index their coverage to the official line of policy
direction in order to avoid being labeled as unpatriotic, especially in cases of a war that is
widely supported by the public.

1.2 How can the media affect government policy?

According to Livingston (1997), Bahador (2007) media‘s effect on government policies,

or in politics in general, can be divided into the following categories: the accelerant effect, the
impediment effect, the agenda-setting effect, the force-multiplying effect.

1.2.1 The Accelerant Effect - The accelerant effect refers to media‘s ability to
indirectly influence government decisions by shortening the time for government officials to
consider an event and to come up with a policy response. Instanteous reporting of events
demands instant analysis by governments (Burns 1996). Real-time coverage demands that
responses be formulated in a relatively short period of time (Livingston 1996). Therefore, even
if unable to affect policy responses directly, the media can exercise indirect influence by
creating the conditions under which these responses are formulated. Real-time media shortens
the decision-making time which can lead to policymakers formulating a policy response without
having a detailed report of the issue, and thus come up with a wrong decision.
 9

Real-time media have also influenced the way foreign bureaus and intelligence agencies
operate. Intelligence agencies now have to compete with news organizations in gathering
important information, because obtaining this information before the media does is crucial for
State Department officials to have enough time to consider and formulate a policy response to
present to the public.

1.2.2 The Impediment Effect - The impediment effect describes the media‘s ability to
undermine public support for an action or policy, and thus hinder the implementation thereof.
This is particularly true for cases of war. Broadcast pictures of dead American soldiers fighting
in a war where no major U.S. interest is at stake can seriously diminish public support for the
war. An example of the impediment effect are the complaints made by the Bush administration
after the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The administration complained that the negatively
biased media coverage was creating a bad image of the war in the eyes of the public. This role
of the media relies on or uses the public‘s emotions to impede a government action. Another
aspect of this media effect is the ―threat to operational security,‖ which refers to the media
making a mission impossible to carry out simply by exposing it. The threat to operational
security effect is closely related to military operations and conventional warfare which is
beyond the scope of this paper.

1.2.3 The Agenda-Setting Effect - Formally developed by Dr. Max McCombs and Dr.
Donald Shaw in their study on the 1968 presidential election, this theory suggests that an issue
that is frequently covered by the media ends up being perceived by the public as being
important. Consequently, policy makers are forced to respond to it. The most frequently cited
example of media‘s agenda-setting role is the case of the Somalia famine. Supporters of the
existence of this effect claim that media‘s pervasive coverage of the famine pushed the Bush
administration to intervene with humantarian aid and U.S. troops. A full analysis of the agenda-
setting effect in the case of Somalia will be presented further in this paper.

1.2.4 The Force-Multiplier Effect – Television is all about compelling pictures

Sardesai (2009). If one has a story where pictures tell the work, it makes all the difference. The
force-multiplying effect is the media‘s ability to consolidate and strengthen support for a
government policy by speaking in its favor, or it can be government using the media to repel the
opponent by magnifying its power. In 1996, China threatened to stop the elections in Taiwan
even with military force. As a response, President Clinton sent U.S. aircraft carriers to the seas
of Taiwan. The navy ships were accompanied by reporters who sent pictures to the Chinese
government. The role of the media in this case stands for an example of the force-multiplying
effect, which demonstrates that the media are not an obstacle for the government by default and
that they can just as well be an asset.
 10

CHAPTER 2: The CNN Effect and American Foreign Policy

2.1. Origins of the CNN Effect

CNN was established in the early 1980s by Ted Turner (Encyclopedia Britannica). It is
the first news network that broadcast a 24/7 news program around the world. At the first years
of its operation it remained in the obscure. The early coverage that set the stage for it to become
a household name was the coverage of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which was
followed by President Reagan‘s address of grievance to the nation and the memorial service of
the Challenger crew members, and the Baby Jessica rescue, an event that help CNN make its
name.
The crucial moment for CNN‘s recognition as a factor in global communications and
politics was the 1990-91 Gulf War. This war established CNN as one of the ‗big three‘
American networks due to the impressive reporting the network offered, as it was the only news
outlet broadcasting from inside Iraq during the American bombing campaign. At this time CNN
became the first example of how the media could influence both domestic and global politics. It
also gained praise for the role it played in the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo and in the famine
crisis in Somalia. As a result, people began thinking that this network had a major role in global
politics and was able to affect Western governments‘ decisions regarding foreign policy. This
supposed effect was named as the ‗CNN Effect‘, the ‗CNN Complex‘, the ‗CNN curve‘, and the
‗CNN Factor‘ (Hulme 1996). The concept was initially developed by politicians who believe
that the U.S. defeat in Vietnam came as a result of critical television coverage. Others attribute
the CNN effect with helping foster the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ever since, the media has
been considered an adversary to government foreign policies.

Leaders' fascination with CNN also resulted from the idea that television was the most
significant broker in politics. The CNN Effect was attributed the power to transform
international politics, and the CNN was considered as a superpower in the world of foreign
policy and international relations. To describe this phenomenon, scholars and media observers
coined many terms such as, mediademocracy, mediacracy, mediapolitik, teledemocracy, and
medialism (Gilboa 2005). Others suggested that the CNN has not had any substantial influence
on the media-government relations, rather it has been overly emphasized. Nowadays, scholars
claim that CNN is not as influential as it used to be, and the reason for this lies in the fact that it
began to cover news to make money (Zingarelli 2010). Its economic and competitive
imperatives have forced it to cover news in a different way, catering more to the audiences
preferences rather than broadcasting newsworthy information. It has forsaken some of its
journalistic ideals to fulfill popularity goals. This stance has opened the door for other
international networks to fill the void of information about the world.
 11

2.2. What is the CNN Effect?

The idea behind the ‗CNN Effect‘ is that real-time communications technologies are
able to influence officials‘ decision-making as well as the perspectives of the public regarding
global events. According to Livingston (1997), the CNN effect is a loss of policy control on the
part of policy makers because of the power of the media. It includes everything from the impact
that graphic pictures of human suffering on television can have on the public, to the media‘s
power to force officials to take quicker decisions in response to foreign events involving (or
not) U.S. interests. The CNN Effect also refers to officials‘ use of the media to send messages to
their counterparts in another state, thus altering standard diplomatic communication methods.
Though named after the Cable News Network, the phenomenon does not refer only to CNN, but
all mass media that have a global reach, such as Fox, SkyNews, BBC World and MSNBC. So,
the CNN effect is the collective impact of all real-time news coverage.

Many scholars have written about the CNN effect. Some take it as gospel, and some
dismiss its importance. However, Zingarelli (2010) suggests that the CNN Effect exists, even
though it has more complexity than simple cause-and-effect. Scholars hold varying definitions,
but all agree that this phenomenon describes the amount of influence that real-time media have
on both elite policymakers and public opinion. Livingston has defined the CNN Effect thinking
of the relationship between government officials and the media as dance. The claim of the CNN
Effect is that at various points in time it‘s the media who are leading the dance and the
government is responding to the media‘s initiatives. Yet, most of the time news agendas are
established by the government (Brookings Institution and Harvard forum).

The CNN Effect represents a conflict of pressure of public opinion on leaders who feel
that they should make decisions based on expertise and rationality, rather than the news cycle
(Livingston & Eachus 1995). Feist (2001) describes the CNN Effect as the theory that graphic
television images cause U.S. policymakers to intervene even in situations that are not in U.S.
national interest. Schorr (1998) defined the CNN Effect as the way breaking news affects
foreign policy, while Livingston and Eachus (1995) defined it as elite decision makers loss of
policy control to news media. According to Seib (2002) the CNN effect is presumed to illustrate
the dynamic tension that exists between real-time television news and policymaking, with the
news having the upper hand in terms of influence. The CNN Effect theory suggests that crisis
coverage evokes emotional outcries from the public to do something about the incident, which
forces political leaders to change course or risk unpopularity (Neuman 1996).
 12

2.3. Does the CNN Effect influence U.S. Foreign Policy?

Scholars hold opposing opinions as to whether the CNN Effect influences U.S. foreign
policy. Gowing (1994) found that media influence upon strategic decisions to intervene was
rare, while tactical and cosmetic impact was more frequent. Mandelbaum (1994) maintains that
television pictures of human suffering are able to drive U.S. governments to intervene to a
crisis. Likewise, Shattuck (1996) claims that the media have the power to dictate foreign policy
decisions. Researches conducted so far present mixed, contradictory and confusing results. Yet,
most studies show that the CNN effect has been given more importance that it actually deserves.

It is true that it has brought significant changes to the policymaking process. It has
shortened the time for decision making and it has the ability to bring to the public‘s attention
something that the policy makers would rather ignore. Baker (1995) claims that the CNN has
been able to alter the concept of a news cycle, and to alter the way officials conduct foreign
policy. Gowing (1994) conducted a survey with dozens of British and American officials and
found that every official interviewed agreed that the rise of CNN has radically altered the way
U.S. foreign policy is conducted. Former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali claimed
that in addition to changing the policymaking environment, the CNN Effect can also influence
policy outcomes. He has gone so far as to consider the CNN ―the sixteenth member of the
Security Council" (Minear, Scott, & Weiss 1996, p. 4).

Indeed, the CNN Effect may have banished the privilege of careful and slow policy
deliberation that leaders used to enjoy (Livingston & Eachus 1995) And many officials confirm
this major change the CNN effect has brought about. It has the power to bring to the public‘s
attention issues that officias themselves woud like to ignore. It can also generate important
agenda-setting effects by covering international events and crisis. Yet, these facts only prove
that the CNN effect has changed the process of policymaking. This does not mean that it can
also impact the foreign policy outcomes. Studies that analyse the supposed influence of the
CNN Effect on foreign policy decisions suggest that the power of the media in this field is
differential and limited. This is because government foreign policy decisions are most often
driven by the policy goals of an administration, which have been formulated prior to
televisions‘ coverage of a crisis. An example for this is the Bush administration‘s refusal to
intervene in the Bosnia crisis in 1992, in spite of the intense pressure from the media. Former
Secretary of State, Eagleburger claimed that the administration had decided not to intervene,
and nothing, including the media stories, was not able to change that decision (Strobel 1996).
The concern of the Bush administration with the media only extended to the appearance of
maintaining they were behaving responsibly. There was a lot of reaction to reports but never a
policy change (Strobel 1996).

According to Strobel (1996), the closer one looks at those incidents that supposedly prove a
CNN Effect, where dramatic and/or real-time images appear to have forced policy makers into
making sudden changes, the more the Effect shrinks. It is like a shimmering desert mirage,
disappearing as you get closer. More and more academic researches doubt the idea that
television (or the CNN in particular) is able to dictate U.S. foreign policy decisions. Studies on
the CNN Effect reveal three major reasons why the CNN effect cannot influence foreign policy.
 13

Those reasons are explained by one or more the following theories/hypotheses: the indexing
theory, the manufacturing consent approach, the realistic theory.

2.3.1. The indexing hypothesis

The "indexing hypothesis" ‗predicts that news content on political and public policy
issues will generally follow the parameters of elite debate: when political elites are in general
agreement on an issue, news coverage of that issue will tend to reflect that consensus; when
political elites disagree, news coverage will fall more or less within the contours of their
disagreement (Bennett 1900). In other words, this hypothesis suggests that the media are a tool
in the hands of policymakers. Zaller and Chiu (1996, 2000) applied the indexing hypothesis to
42 foreign policy crises in the period of the Cold War until the 1999 Kosovo crisis. Mermin
(1996, 1997, 1999) applied the same hypothesis to U.S. interventions in the post-Vietnam era
and found that the ‗indexing hypothesis‘ holds true for the Cold War and the post-Cold War
periods alike. Zaller and Chiu (1996, 2000) applied this hypothesis to 42 crises during the Cold
War period and their results, too, prove the indexing hypothesis to be true. However, these
findings apply more to the Cold War period. The results about the post-Cold War period are not
clear.

Nevertheless, the media are known to play the role of the cheerleader to government
policies in many instances, especially in times of war. Robinson (2005) claims this was the case
during the Persian Gulf War and the Iraq War in 2003. In these cases, it seems like the State
Department influenced the media, rather than the other way around. According to Robinson
(2005), the wars the Afghanistan and Iraq compelled the government to strive to control
information even more than before, and many news outlets went along. He maintains that these
circumstances weakened the idea that the CNN effect can have any real influence on foreign
policy. Another fact that supports the indexing hypothesis is that after 9/11 American media
tend to look at international events from a patriotic point of view (Zingarelli 2010).

2.3.2. The manufacturing consent theory

Herman & Chomsky (1998) argued that mainstream media is a propaganda organ in the
hands of the political elites, yet they wear a liberal coat to protect itself from criticism.
According to him, the media are a machine that manufactures public consent by shaping,
determining and restricting the network of how political and social debate can occur within the
public discourse. The manufacturing consent theory suggest that the elite controls the media
through economic power and uses it as a supportive arm for their policy goals. It‘s the media
who determines, selects, shapes, controls and restricts the realm of political debate, thus
producing a guided outcome that provides convenient results for those elite power interests,
with the false appear of the free market of debate having led us to that convenient and
coincidental conclusion (Herman & Chomsky 1998).

2.3.3. The realist approach

The realist approach claims that survival is the paramount goal of every state. Foreign
invasion and occupation are thus the most pressing threats that any state faces. This approach
 14

suggests that the states are rational actors which try their best to maximize their likelihood of
continuing to exists (Slaughter 2011). Therefore, according to this approach, in foreign affairs,
states pursue only power and national interest. This approach excludes the possibility that
humanitarian considerations or global television coverage are sufficient causes for intervention.

Gibbs (2000) applied the realist approach to the intervention in Somalia and came up
with results that suggested that the intervention was driven by American national interests rather
than by media coverage of the famine. Livingston (1997) claims that some of the most
prominent post-Cold War U.S. humanitarian interventions reveal equally compelling
geostrategic reasons for the intervention. Gowing (1994) interviewed policymakers in several
countries and came to the conclusion that policymakers refrain from acting in response to
television news reports when there is no national interest at stake. He noted that, in 1991, the
United States refrained from intervention in Bosnia in spite of substantial news coverage of the
crisis. He furthers his argument with the U.S. policy reversal and intervention in Burundi in
1996 despite the lack of media coverage (Gowing 2000). According to Jakobsen (1996) the
CNN effect can only place a crisis on the agenda, but the policy decision to intervene is
ultimately determined by the perceived chances of success.

The media can impact policy when intervention in a country is perceived to be low cost
and/or can make the country seem heroic. Such is the example of the Rwanda crisis. Private
agencies got virtually no money whatsoever from the public when the media were broadcasting
images of dead Rwandas. Donations began to pour in when television began broadcasting
images of Rwanda refugees. National security adviser in Bill Clinton‘s administration Anthony
Lake, admitted the media‘s influence in decision, but he added that there are other crucial
factors that determine the policy outcome, such as the cost and feasibility of a possible
intervention (Hoge 1994). Robinson (2002) maintains that the media are likely to influence
when an administration is uncertain about a policy. When policy is certain, media influence is
unlikely to occur. He proves his theory to be referring to the U.S. policy to defend the Gorazde
‗safe area‘ in Bosnia. According to him, the Clinton administration responded to media‘s
coverage because they had no clear policy. Another similar case is that of Kosovo, but this time
the administration had clear policy of not including ground troops in the intervention, and the
media was not able to persuade the administration to expand the operation.

2.4. Case Study: Intervention in Somalia

The U.S. intervention to Somalia offers an example of the dynamic interactive nature of
foreign policy making and media coverage. This intervention is the most cited example both in
favor of and against the CNN Effect.

Cohen (1994) maintains that television has demonstrated its power to move
governmments. By focusing daily on the starving children in Somalia, a pictorial story tailor-
made for television, TV mobilized the conscience of the nation's public institutions, compelling
the government into a policy of intervention for humanitarian reasons. Similarly, Mandelbaum
(1994) also claims that television pictures of starving people drove the U.S. intervention, and
Shattuck (1996) claimed that it was the media that got the U.S. government in and out of
Somalia. Supporters of this idea claim that there was an equally severe crisis in Sudan, but the
 15

government did not do anything about it, simply because it was not covered by the media. They
claim that it is a matter of media‘s challenging effect, suggesting that sometimes pictures alone
have the power to mobilize leaders into action.

However, other scholars claim that the coverage of Somalia came as a result of official
action. Livingston & Eachus (1995) point out that the coverage of Somalia boomed only after
the Bush administration decided to intervene. Analyses of the coverage of Somalia on television
show that there were very few reports (15 on the three major networks) before the governments
decision to intervene (Zingarelli 2010). In 1991 the United States Agency for International
Development‘s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance and Food for Peace Program shipped
around 12,000 tons of food to Somalia (Livingston & Eachaus 1995). After this, coverage of
Somalia skyrocketed. The same phenomenon occurred later in 1992 when Bush sent 25,000
U.S. troops to safeguard humanitarian aid. Everytime, the media were either following the
actions of relief officials or members of Congress, or the troops (Strobel 1996).

Furthermore, the journalists that reported on the Somalia famine were aided by
international relief agencies that need TV images to move governments to respond to a crisis.
U.S. government relief agencies and members of Congress joined the international relief
organizations in a campaign to attract media attention to Somalia in hopes of triggering
government action. Andrew Natsios, then assistant administrator of the U.S. Agency for
International Development gave numerous media interviews and held news conferences in
African and Washington in early 1992. He explained the need for this claiming that he
deiberately used the news media as a medium for educating policymakers in Washington and in
Europe about how to address the crisis (Strobel 1996). When the reporters arrived in Somalia –
with the help of international and American relief organizations - they sent back compelling
pictures of the famine which were broadcast by American media around the clock. Livingston
and Eachus (1995) concluded that the U.S. decision to intervene militarily in Somalia was the
result of diplomatic and bureaucratic operations, with news coverage coming in response to
those decisions. Mermin (1999) suggested that the intervention in Somalia is evidence of the
power of governments to move television, rather than the power of television to move
governments. Riley (1999) also argued that in the cases of Somalia and Rwanda, it was the
leaders that set the media's agenda, not the other way around.

Eagelburger offers an explanation of why it was not the media that triggered the U.S.
intervention to Somalia. He claims that although graphic images of human suffering may
prompt leaders into action, politicians often think more of national interest than humanitarian
considerations. At a panel discussion, he pointed out that at the time of the Somalia crisis, the
humanitarian crisis in the Balkans was widely covered by the media as well, but the intervention
to Somalia was perceived to be less costly than a possible one in the Balkans (Zingarelli 2010).

Gibbs (2000) upholds Eagleburgers claim. Referring to the realist approach, he

maintains that the official reason for the intervention was humanitarian concern, but the real
reason for the intervention were U.S. strategic and economic interests. Somalia is located near
the shipping routes in the Red Sea and to the strategically important Mandeb straits. The
American oil company had at the time been investing in oil explorations. However, Somalian
warlord Mohammad Aideed was not always willing to cooperate in favor of U.S. interests and
 16

the government felt it had to do something. This is why U.S. policy varied from cooperation to
confrontation with the locals, depending on their willingness to preserve U.S. interests.
According to Gibbs, it was U.S. national interests that caused this intervention rather than the
CNN effect or humanitarian considerations.

The intervention to Somalia reveals the complexity of the CNN effect. Initially, officials
used the media to justify their intervention. Consequently, the media proved their power to
manufacture consent and persuade public opinion on the necessity to intervene.

2.5. The positive and negative aspects of the CNN Effect

The discussion above reveals that CNN Effect cannot be defined clearly. If giving a
clear yes or no answer for its existence or explaining the way it works is not possible,
concluding whether it is a positive or negative phenomenon will be even more difficult. Perhaps
the most accurate answer is that it has both positive and negative sides. It can include on the
policymakers‘ agenda issues that they themselves would rather ignore, and thus force them to
respond to significant events. This is an important positive aspect of the CNN Effect.
Commenting on this, former Pentagon Spokesman Kenneth Bacon says that although it is often
percieved as negative, there are many aspects of the CNN Effect that are good (Strobel 1996). If
the CNN criticizes important government policies, officials can arrange to appear on the
network and state their perspective. Without CNN‘s real-time coverage, officials would have to
wait until the next day to appear in public. With CNN they can do this many times in a day.

Furthermore, the government can utilize CNN to help foster public support for a policy
or intervention that is the interest of the country. According to former Secretary of State,
Richard Bouchman, the press often makes the case of the need to be involved more than
officials can (Strobel 1996). Haass, praises another aspect of the CNN Effect – penetration. He
claims that during the Persian Gulf War CNN was useful in sending signals into Europe and
reaching the American public. The media that brought information in instanteneously also made
it possible to get their message out instanteneously. (The Robert R. McCormick Tribune
Foundation 1995). Furthermore, he adds that this aspect helped officials manage public opinion
and the alliance. It also helped them reach the Iraqi people and the Arab world, thus offering
opportunities for policymakers rather than presenting problems (Livingston 1997).

These claims suggest that decision makers can use CNN‘s reach and popularity to
manufacture public consent and manipulate public opinion. Another danger that the CNN Effect
poses is making the government act based on what the network broadcasts, which might be at
odds with U.S. national interest. But, officials claim to have learned to deal with the CNN
Effect, thus preventing it from risking the country‘s interests. Nevertheless, the CNN Effect
does contribute to an accelerated decision making, which can result in policies that lack in-
depth analysis, and can, in turn, lead to events cascading out of control and to unexpected
confrontations.
 17

CHAPTER 3: Al Jazeera and American Foreign Policy

3.1. ‘The Rise of the Rest’

Ever since the advent of global media, the dominant perspective in these media has been
that of the United States, or the Western one. The CNN and the BBC have been the two most
important voices of the international media. Their reports shaped the truths about global events
and as their perspective was the only one whose voice was strong enough as to be heard
globally. Although their coverage may not have been deliberately biased in favor of America
and the West, they would naturally present the American and Western point of view. Scholars
have considered this to be a new form of colonialism: electronic colonialism (Zingarelli 2010).
Using its media influence, America and the West propagated their cultural, social, and political
ideas and ideals to the rest of the world. People from all over the world lacked a voice of their
own, and were consequently subject to the West‘s portrayals of themselves, their countries and
cultures. Moreover, they were forced to see the world through the lenses of the Western media.

Consequently, in the last two decades, people from other regions of the world started
creating their own global-reach media, in order to offer the world their perspective on
international events and developments. Until recently, the world was watching CNN, but this is
not the case anymore as people and countries are now creating their own media through which
to see and understand the world. Venezuela established La Nueva Television del Sur (The New
Television of the South) know as Telesur. In line with President Hugo Chavez‘s open anti-U.S.
rhetoric, the channel has a critical stance towards the United States. Western countries have also
created their own international media. In 2006 France launched its international news and
current affairs television named France 24. Its stated mission is to cover international current
events from a French perspective and to convey French values throughout the world (Zingarelli
2010). Zakaria (2009) comments on this phenomenon saying that, in the first stage of
globalization everyone watched CNN. In the second stage BBC and Sky News emerged. Now
every country is producing its own version of CNN, such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabia, New
Delhi‘s NDTV and Aaj Talk‖.
However, the prime example of the new media phenomenon and ‗the rise of the rest‘ is the
Qatar-based Al Jazeera. Like other new media networks, it seeks to bring a different perspective
on international events to the Western one and to fill the information void. With the emergence
of this new media networks, the power to impact international politics does not belong
exclusively to American and Western networks any longer. This is important, because as Seib
(2008) notes, it is media power, rather than military might that establishes prestige and power in
our era. Media have the power to disseminate information quickly, to create national consensus
among a people, to foster and fuel conflicts, as well as to create peace and stability. Until
recently, this enormous power has been in the hands of America and the West. People from
around the world got their news about what was happening in the world from American sources.
This increased the influence and importance of America in international politics facilitated the
implementation of its policy goals due to the media‘s ability to shape the international public
opinion.
 18

The rise of the new media is perhaps the most important development of our century for it
has the power to create a balance of viewpoints. People are now able to choose among a wider
array of international networks, be exposed to varying perspectives and consequently have a
better understanding of the global dynamics as well as the lives and cultures of people and
nations at the other end of the globe.

3.2. Origins of Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera is owned by the Al Jazeera Media Network, funded by the House of Thani, the
ruling family of Qatar. The original Arabic channel was founded on November 1, 1996. It now
has five branch channels including: Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera Mubasher, Al Jazeera
Balkans, Al Jazeera Turk and Al Jazeera Documentary. Its English channel was launched in
November 2006 (Zingarelli 2010). Al Jazeera produces and disseminates news, political
commentary, cultural, sports and children‘s programing. It borrowed the programing format
from CNN, yet it aims to establish for itself and identity that would differentiate it from
Western networks. Al Jazeera represents a critique of Western news and programming, while at
the same time embodying a hybrid identity of Western technologies and formats adapted and
evolved to meet the culturally and historically constructed expectations of Arab and Muslim
societies (el-Nawawy & Powers 2008). It strives to provide an alternative perspective to that of
Western media. This aim is represented in its motto: ‗Al rai wal rai akhir‘ – ‗The opinion and
the other opinion‘. According to one network executive, one of Al Jazeera‘s objectives is to
communicate with the West in its own language about issues pertaining to the Middle East as a
direct, credible, alternate source of information (Miles 2006).

In the Arab consciousness Al Jazeera emerged as the result of its coverage of the second
Intifada (Al Nawawy & Iskandar 2002). There was little coverage of this on the CNN (and other
American networks) and, of course, it was biased towards Israel. Al Jazeera offered the Arab
perspective of this issue. So, it began by giving Arabs their perspective on news and challenging
governments in the Middle East. It‘s coverage of Operation Desert Fox in 1998 brought it much
notoriety, yet it was its broadcasting of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda tapes that paved its way to the
global media mainstream. The interesting fact about Al Jazeera‘s becoming popular is that it
had existed before the appearance of Bin Laden, and Western channels had used its materials
before, but it became popular only after broadcasting Al Qaeda tapes. Although policymakers
had known about its existence, no one realized its full potential until it aired the first Bin Laden
tape on October 7, 1991. Many were surprised by the global growth of a channel that had
originally been intended as a regional network.

Al Jazeera‘s launching was welcomed by Western leaders and citizens. President Clinton‘s
administration described it as a beacon of light (Pintak 2006). Yet, its reputation was diminished
after 9/11 due to it being associated with Al Qaeda and its terrorist activities. This created a
significant drawback it had to face at the moment it came to the attention of broader Western
audiences. Its coverage of complicated events, has made it victim of much criticism and
accusations: during the 2003 Gulf War, the West accused it for broadcasting Iraqi casualties and
Alliance casualties and prisoners, when covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Arab world
criticised it for interviewing Israeli officials, etc. However, Al Jazeera has been able to spread
 19

and grow globally, creating an Al Jazeera Effect which symbolizes the liberating effect of the
new media on the global society. According to New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman,
Al Jazeera‘s philosophy of vigorous and outspoken press freedom is a valuable addition to the
region. Philip Seib argues that Al Jazeera‘s rise has contributed to ‗a rewiring of the world‘s
neural system‘ (Seib 2008).

3.3. The Importance Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera currently broadcasts to over 220 million households across more 100 countries
(Al Jazeera 2014). It has a great impact over the Arab world and in many other places across the
globe, particularly the Arab diaspora and the Muslim population in various countries. The
importance of the network lies in that it has been able to change the flow of information from
the Western media to the rest world, and turn it the other way around. Pintak (2006) links
America‘s falling popularity to the proliferation of Al Jazeera and other new media. He also
accredits Al Jazeera with contributing to the 2005 Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. In his opinion,
Al Jazeera‘s bold criticism enabled the people to see the protests against the Syrian rule, which
then caused the revolution.

Al Jazeera‘s importance lies in that it offers a different perspective on world events,

especially those concerning the Arab world. Its coverage is changing both the West‘s
understanding and perception of the Arab world, and the Arab world‘s understanding of itself
and its place in the global scene. It has become a trusted chronicle of Arab and Muslim interests
(Seib 2008). After its boom in popularity in 2001, Al Jazeera has also become an important
actor in the global and regional mediapolitik process. As New York Times columnist Thomas
Friedman has put it, Al Jazeera is not only the biggest media phenomenon to hit the Arab world
since the advent of television, it also is the biggest political phenomenon (Centre of Excellence
2007).

Furthermore, it is the first Arab news network that challenged the Arab and Middle Eastern
tradition of noncritisism towards the dictatorial regimes of the region. It has also taken the
monopoly of information from the hands of the regimes and has made it harder for the to rule
over a more informed public. It has demonstrated a strong agenda-setting effect with Arab
governments by bringing more freedom of thought and speech. This is an indicator that the
network has the potential to bring democracy to the Middle East. Al Jazeera has empowered the
Arab people and given them the opportunity to make their voice heard and for the world to see
their perspective of international events. According to Ghareeb (2000), an expert on Middle
Eastern affairs, it has raised the level of debate, opened the door for freer and more accurate
news in the Arab world and has helped satisfy a hunger in the Arab world.
 20

3.4. What is the Al Jazeera Effect?

The Al Jazeera Effect is a term used in political science and media studies referring to
the influence of the new media on global politics. It describes the influence that new global
media have on global society. The Al Jazeera Effect theory states that the new media have been
able to reduce the government and mainstream media monopoly on information and have
empowered groups which previously have lacked a global voice. The most important example
of this effect is the network after which it was named: Al Jazeera.

The Al Jazeera Effect functions in the same way as the CNN Effect. It generates
accelerant, agenda-setting and impediment effects on governments and has an enormous impact
on the international political discourse. Seib (2008) counts the Al Jazeera Effect as a part of the
entire system of new media, including satellite broadcasting, digital technology and even text
messaging. He writes: ―To varying degrees throughout the world, the connectivity of new media
is superseding the traditional political connections that have brought identity and structure to
global politics. This rewiring of the world‘s neural system is proceeding at remarkable speed,
and its reach keeps extending farther. It changes they way states and citizens interact with each
other and it gives the individual a chance at a new kind of autonomy, at least on an individual
intellectual level, because of the greater availability of information‖ (Seib 2008, p. 175).

The most important feature of the Al Jazeera Effect is that it changes perspectives and
creates a balance of in the international media and communications environment. One of the
prime examples of the Al Jazeera Effect is the War in Iraq. Al Jazeera presented a completely
different perspective on the war and made it diminished the Western media‘s exclusive power to
define the war. The Al Jazeera Effect does not refer to Al Jazeera only; it applies to all new
media that have been able to attract audiences and disrupt the informational monopoly of
mainstream media. It a way, mainstream media, including CNN, foster the Al Jazeera Effect
providing opportunities for citizen journalism and online activism, and by featuring news about
local normal citizens (―CNN Heroes‖) instead of talking about mainstream issues and concerns
or important figures.

3.4. Does the Al Jazeera Effect Influence U.S. Foreign Policy?

Al Jazeera has the ability to influence U.S. foreign policy. By showing American foreign
policies in a bad light, it can well undermine its international popularity and impede its
international involvement policies and wars. During the 2003 Iraq war, the network provided an
impediment effect to American military power. As a consequence, coalition weapons began to
hit Al Jazeera crews resulting in the death of Tareq Ayyoub, an Al Jazeera correspondent. Many
believe this was a direct attack on Al Jazeera, despide the coalition‘s denial. Al Jazeera‘s being
attacked by coalition forces, proves that Al Jazeera is influential and can impact U.S. politics
and policies.

Al Jazeera can affect U.S. foreign policy by providing the different perspective it aims to.
Zakaria (2009) writes that many of ―the rest‖ are dissecting the narratives, arguments, and
assumptions of the West and countering them with a different view of the world. Consequently,
American media are not the single source of information anymore and people do not receive
 21

only information that is biased towards the U.S.. For example, Al Jazeera called its coverage of
Operation Iraqi Freedom ―The War Against Iraq‖. It used lead-ins that showed civilian
casualties, exploding bombs and U.S. soldiers on patrol in civilian ares, and broadcast
interviews with Osama bin Laden. It presented graphic pictures and videos of the suffering that
American weapons had caused. Contrary to Western media Al Jazeera specialized in an up-
close, in-your-face approach to covering the Muslim world‘s first television wars. Dead babies,
wounded children, screaming mothers dominated the channel‘s coverage of Iraq, Afghanistan
and Palestine. When these reports made their way into Western homes and government offices,
through other news networks or the internet, it was shocking. Westerners were seeing the wars
they waged from the perspective of those who were living in hostile territory (Pintak 2006, p.
208). This different perspective can make American audiences think twice about the wars their
country wages, and thus undermine public support (both domestic and international) for the
wars.

Another aspect of Al Jazeera that enables it to influence American foreign policy is that it is
quite popular among Arab and Muslim populations, and thus it can shape their opinions against
American polices. The same event can have a much greater impact when broadcast in Al
Jazeera, because it is in Arabic (Schleifer 2000). Al Jazeera can create consent among the Arab
people and mobilize them to achieve their common goals.

In spite of its capacities to influence, Al Jazeera faces important drawbacks that decrease or
impede its influence. In America, very few people can watch it on TV. It is available in
Washington area, and in places like Toledo, Ohio, Burlington, and Vermont (Pew Research
Center 2012). In order to watch it, people have to search it online, and there are very few people
who would seek to hear a different perspective from their American one, especially not from Al
Jazeera. Al Jazeera‘s sympathetic reporting of the perspective of families living through the
conflict in Iraq looked like an endorsement of terrorism and anti-Americanism. Its coverage of
the war in Iraq precipitated charges that it had links to terrorist groups that would tell the
network in advance where a bombing would happen, so that it could film it, and thus propagate
a negative view of the war. (Miles 2006) At the same time as Al Jazeerea was enhancing
political discourse in the Middle East, it was perceived as a tool of terrorism in the the West
(Zingarelli 2010).

Another thing that prevents Al Jazeera from being influential enough, is that when Western
media cite it, they edit its feeds. Al Jazeera shows the wars just like they are, using close-ups of
wounds, and people in agony. But these pictures are usually ignored by U.S. networks. Where
audiences watching Al Jazeera and the other broadcasters saw bleeding children and destroyed
homes, Americans experienced the war as a Hollywood extravaganza on the small screen, billed
in advance by the White House as certain to evoke shock and awe (Pintak 2006, p. 209). For
instance, Al-Jazeera was first with the story of possible nuclear contamination after villagers
looted a top-secret production site in Iraq, but the American networks did not pick up the story.
Najjar (2003) comments that the Western channels have Al- Jazeera running twenty-four hours
a day, but they don‘t seem to be paying attention to what‘s running there. And of course, the
major reason why Al Jazeera can hardly influence U.S. policy is that each administration has
firmly established policy goals, and these cannot be changed by what the media say. The
evidence and explanation for this is provided in the CNN effect part.
 22

3.7. The positive and negative aspects of the Al Jazeera Effect

As with all complex phenomena, the Al Jazeera Effect cannot be clearly defined as
being positive or negative. It has both its pros and cons. The major benefit this network brings is
that it educates the Arab people about demoncracy and opens up their societies. Prior to Al
Jazeera, the control of information rested on mainstream state media which did not broadcast
anything critical towards the government. Regional news —a coup, a civil war, a massacre—
might never be broadcast if deemed embarrassing to a friendly fellow Arab state. Or perhaps a
report would finally appear a few days late because the channel had waited for the political
leadership to decide what its response to the event in a neighboring country might be (Schleifer
2005). Al Jazeera senior producer Samir Khader says that Al Jazeera exists to educate Arabs
about democracy and to shake up their stagnant societies (Hurwitz 2004). Furthermore, Al
Jazeera challenges the claims of the regimes, creating a more transparent informational
environment and diminishing the regimes‘ monopoly on information. In addition to this, it has a
major global positive effect, for it creates balance in the international information and
communications scene by putting and end to the single-source news and information flow that
has lasted for decades. It brings a different perspective to the informational mosaic and thus
enables Arabs in particular and Muslims in general to have their voice heard.

Of course, the Al Jazeera Effect has its negative sides too. It can create conflict by
providing different perspectives to world events, which can anger people and mobilize them
against each other. Moreover, it broadcasts the same coverage for its Arabic and English
channels, and it rebroadcasts news from American media that are intended for American
audiences. So, what is intended for Americans ends up being seen by Arabs and vice-versa. This
can create conflict because the two groups do not think in the same manner, do not have the
same perspective on events and have different cultural backgrounds. For instance, with the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq, both the west and the Arab world had to reconsider each other, and
opportunities abounded for hostile attitudes to grow through media. American leaders clumsily
learned to grapple with a new media environment. Information that the Bush Administration
intended for domestic ears played on Al Jazeera too, and it sounded much different-even
infamlamtory-in another cultural context (Pintak 2006). Bin Laden had been on TV before, but
Western networks could easily filter and deflect his rhetoric because they did not broadcast in
Arabic or give much time to his comments. But through Al Jazeera, he could speak directly to
the Arabs he wanted as partners (Pintak 2006).

The Al Jazeera Effect has many sides that make it impossible to single out a definite answer as
to whether it is completely positive or completely negative. Yet, when weighting both sides, the
positive one seems to weigh more. This is because, in spite of the possibilities for furthering
animosities and creating conflict, the Al Jazeera Effect has an enormous positive impact both
regionally and globally; it enables people to be more informed and to better understand the
dynamics of the current international events and relations.
 23

CHAPTER 5: The Future

5.1. The Future of the CNN Effect and the Al Jazeera Effect
It seems like the future of the CNN Effect and the Al Jazeera Effect is going to be
confusing. Belknap (2002) says that the two networks will continue to grow in their potential to
impact international politics. They have found that these effects are growing in influence, and so
is their potential to apply pressure on world leaders and give the public the opportunity to stay
informed about global events.

The CNN and Al Jazeera can bring the Western and Middle Eastern perspectives closer
to each other, thus creating new international dynamics. This can have two possible results: it
can create mutual understanding or it can trigger conflict. The CNN and Al Jazeera can provide
opportunities for mutual understanding between the people from the Middle East and the West,
fostering a better communication and dialogue. They can generate constructive debate or lead to
international conflict. According to New York Times writer Roger Chen the encounter between
Americans and Westerners with people from Asia, the Middle East and the developing world
has produced new dynamics which can bring about peaceful integration (Zingarelli 2010). But,
they can also increase the potential for conflict by propagating cultural misunderstandings.
From the perspective of Samuel Huntington‘s theory of the clash of civilizations, the CNN and
Al Jazeera may well be the main actors behind this clash. If his theory holds true and the
Eastern and Western civilizations do clash by default when meeting each other, then CNN and
Al Jazeera both dispose with the ability to arrange this meeting.

According to Zingarelli (2010), there is tension between American and Western news
viewpoints and the rest of the [Arab] world, and the CNN and Al Jazeera are symbols of this
situation and how news and international perspectives are changing. Because the West does not
dominate communications anymore, the Al Jazeera Effect has the potential to challenge
assumptions about history and culture (Seib 2008). The formula that Al Jazeera has chosen for
itself: both emulating the ways of the CNN and distancing itself from CNN‘s interpretation of
news could make Al Jazeera a huge success. It could become popular if Americans see it as chic
and exotic, and thus it could attract viewers who want to see the Middle East from a different
perspective and who want to appear sophisticated (Seib 2008).

However, Strobel (1996) says that the CNN Effect and the Al Jazeera Effect will be
diminishing in the future, due to people getting accustomed to seeing images of casualties and
war victims on television. According to these scholars, people will learn to cope with this as
they do with any new technology. Furthermore, both officials and the public will come to
realize that it is not possible for them to right every wrong, that they cannot intervene in every
crisis and risk the security and well being of their own country. People are developing an ability
to see incomprehensible human tragedy on television and understand no matter how horrible it
is, their country cannot get involved in each situation. People are dulling their senses and
therefore images of human suffering will no longer have a strong impact. This can be illustrated
by the statement a viewer made when interviewed by an NBC audience researcher: "If I ever see
a child with flies swarming around it one more time, I'm not going to watch that show again"
(Strobel 1996).
 24

McCurry refers to the example of the Sarajevo marketplace bombing, saying that when the
bombing occurred the second time, the images of dead people and blood were already familiar
and did not have the initial strong impact on audiences. Furthermore, he adds that the U.S.
decision to bomb Bosnian Serbs did not come as a result of the images, rather as a result of
NATO pledges to protect the safe areas declared by U.N. Pentagon spokesman Bacon describes
it this way: "If we think we need the time to decide, we take the time to decide. We do not have a
big problem with saying, 'Yeah, this looks really awful, but let's find out what the facts really
are" (Strobel 1996) .

In his book ‗The Post-American World‘, Fareed Zakaria (2009) claims that the influence
of the CNN in the international news scene has been fading, but is still strong. Pintak (2006)
attributes this fading to the emergence of Al Jazeera and other new media. Zakaria (2009)
suggests that the future world will not be an anti-American one, rather one that is not directed
from a single center, due to the rise of the rest. Nevertheless, ‗the rise of the rest‘ may also
strengthen the CNN Effect because American people will tend to accept the CNN version of
events and the right one, due to CNN being an American network and thus more trustable. On
the other hand, the Al Jazeera Effect will continue to grow because people want to understand
local and international events from their own perspective.

Finally, Newawy (2008) suggests that Al Jazeera can play the role of reconciliatory
media, stating that people in six countries that he has investigated have said the channel has
made them less dogmatic. Nevertheless, he has found that the theory of selective exposure holds
true, that people chose the media that support their preexisting points of view, and this can be a
serious obstacle for the ‗reconciliatory media‘, for they cannot do anything if people are
unwilling to watch.
 25

Conclusion
The advent of real-time coverage and 24-hours news programing has brought about
major changes both in the international communications and the political relations scene.
According to Seib (2008) the media are no longer only the media. They have grown to have a
much larger popular base than ever before and are now able to impact international politics to a
great extent. Therefore, they can act as tools of conflict and as instruments of peace alike. They
can diminish the relevance of traditional borders and unify peoples from different parts of the
globe. Thus, global mass media such as the CNN and Al Jazeera are reshaping the world and
the way foreign policy is conducted. What used to be discussed only among policy makers in
the past is now open to the general public‘s view. Officials no longer enjoy the luxury of
carefully analysing their policy options and coming up with a thoroughly examined policy
decision. Moreover, startling pictures and videos of humanitarian or other crisis put great
pressure on officials to intervene even in cases when there is no American interest at stake.

On the other hand, the new media have also contributed to major changes in the way
information flows globally. Al Jazeera has grown to become on the most influential news
networks internationally. Its rise poses a challenge to the American and Western news outlets
which used to be the only bosses of information in the past. With Al Jazeera broadcasting
internationally, the information flow from the West to ‗the rest‘ has ended for good. This
phenomenon can have major positive and negative effects at the same it. It can play the role of
the ‗reconciliatory media‘ suggested by El-Newawy or it can lead to serious international
conflicts.
However, while scholars agree that the Al Jazeera Effect will continue to increase in
influence due to people‘s thirst for news commentary that upholds their worldviews and beliefs,
many of them opine that the CNN Effect will not be as influential in the future as it is now, for
the American people will learn to cope with the fact that their government cannot intervene in
every crisis.
As to whether the CNN Effect and the Al Jazeera Effect are able to influence the foreign
policies of the United States, Gibbs (2000), Riley (1999), Livingston (1995) and Strobel (1996)
think that there is no substantial evidence to prove this. Black (1972) claims that belief in
television[s influence is rather like belief in life after death. Most people would like to be able to
prove it, but the evidence is inconclusive. Yet, the fact s that both the CNN and the Al Jazeera
have a great potential to influence audiences, which is then expected to influence the decisions
of policymakers. But these effects are far more complex that a simple cause-effect phenomenon.
As Strobel (1996) comments, in a more perfect world, the news media--especially television--
would be a more independent force, pointing out problems and helping set the public agenda. In
reality, CNN and its brethren follow newsmakers at least as frequently as they push them or
make them feel uncomfortable. Moreover, media content alone is not likely to lead to
intervention. For an administration to decide to intervene somewhere, there has to be a major
American interest at stake. In addition to this, officials are adapting to the CNN Effect and the
Al Jazeera Effect and might have learned how to use them to their advantage.
Regardless of whether the CNN and the Al Jazeera affect U.S. politics or not, their
existence is fundamental in having a more balance global information and communications
 26

arena, and this is promising for a future world where people would know each other better and
there would be more dialogue and understanding.
 27

References:
Ammon, R, 2001, Global television and the shaping of world politics: CNN, telediplomacy, and
foreign policy. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Arnold, A, 2011, ―Indirectly Potent: Media‘s Effect on Foreign Policy‖. IP Journal. Available
from <http://www.ip-journa l.dgap.org> [16 May 2014]

Bahador, B, 2007, The CNN Effect in Action: How the News Media Pushed the West toward
War in Kosovo. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Baker, J, 1995, The Politics of Diplomacy. 1st edn. Putnam Adult.

Baum, M & Potter, P 2007, ‗The Relationships Between Mass Media, Public Opinion, and

Foreign Policy: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis‖, The Annual Review of Political Science, vol.
11, pp. 39-65.

Belknap, M, 2001, The CNN Effect: Strategic Enabler or Operational Risk. U.S. Army War
College Strategy Research Project.

Bennett, W. Lance 1990, ―Toward a theory of press-state relations‖. Journal of Communication

vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 103–125.

Black, P 1972, The Mirror in the Corner. London: Hutchinson Press

Brookings Institution and Harvard forum on Press Coverage and the War on Terrorism, “The
CNN Effect: How 24-Hour News Coverage Affects Government Decisions and Public
Opinion.”

Burns, N, 1996, ―Talking to the World About American Foreign Policy,‖ The Harvard
International Journal of Press/Politics, vol. 1, no. 4. pp. 10-14.

Bush GW, 2003, President Bush, Kenyan President Kibaki discuss state visit. White House
press availability. Transcript available at
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-3.html>

Centre of Excellence, 2007. The Media: The Terrorists' Battlefield - Volume 17 NATO Security
through Science Series: Human and Societal Dynamics (Nato Security Through Science
Series E: Human and Societal Dynamics). 1 Edition. IOS Press.

Cohen, B, 1994. A view from the academy. In W.L. Bennett & D. Paletz (Eds.), Taken by storm:
The media, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy in the Gulf War (pp. 8-11). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Edwards, L, 2001. Mediapolitik: How the mass media have transformed world politics.
Washington, DC.: Catholic University of America Press.
 28

Eeist, S, 2001, Facing down the global village: The media impact. In R. Kugier & E. Frost
(Eds.), The global century (pp. 709-725). Washington, DC: National Defense University
Press.

El-Nawawy, M. & Iskandar, A., 2002, Al Jazeera: How the free Arab news network scooped
the world and changed the Middle East. Boulder, CO: Westview.

El-Nawawy, M., & Powers, S, 2008, Mediating Conflict: Al-Jazeera English and the
Possibility of a Conciliatory Media. Los Angeles, CA: Figueroa Press

Encyclopedia Britannica. 2014. Cable News Network (CNN) (American company). Available
from <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87632/Cable-News-Network-CNN>
[Accessed 30 June 2014].

Facts and Figures - About us - Al Jazeera English . 2014. Facts and Figures - About us - Al
Jazeera English . [ONLINE] Available at:
<http://www.aljazeera.com/aboutus/2010/11/20101110131438787482.html.> [Accessed
01 July 2014].

Frank J. Stech, 1994,―Winning CNN Wars‖, Parameters, p. 38.

Ghareeb, E, 2000, ―New Media and the Information Revolution in the Arab World: An
Assessment‖, The Middle East Journal, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 395-418.

Gibbs, D, 2000, ―Realpolitik and humanitarian intervention: The case of Somalia‖,

International Politics, vol. 37, pp. 41-55.

Gilboa, E, 2005, ―The CNN Effect: The Search for a Communication Theory of International
Relations‖, Political Communication, vol. 22, pp. 27- 44.

Gowing, N, 1994, Real-time television coverage of armed conflicts and diplomatic crises: Does
it pressure or distort foreign policy decisions? Cambridge, MA: Shorenstein Center on
the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University.

Gowing, N. (1994) Realt-time Television Coverage of Armed Conflicts and Diplomatic Crises:
Does it Pressure or Distort Foreign Policy Decisions?, Harvard working paper,
Cambridge, MA: The Joan Shorenstein Barone Center on the Press, Politics and Public
Policy, Harvard University.

Gowing, N, 2000, ―Media coverage: Help or hindrance in conflict prevention?‖, The media and
intemational security (pp. 203-226). London: Cass.

Herman, E. & Chomsky N, 2002. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass
Media. Edition. Pantheon.
 29

Hoge, J. F., Jr., 1994, ―Media pervasiveness‖, Foreign Affairs, vol. 73, pp. 136-144.

Hulme, S, 1996. The Modern Media: The Impact on Foreign Policy. MA. Kansas: Command
and General Staff College.

Huwrwitz, A., et al. 2004, Control room. Santa Monica, Calif, Artisan Home Entertainment.

Jakobsen, P, 1996, ―National interest, humanitarianism or CNN: What triggers UN peace

enforcement after the Cold War?‖, Joumal of Peace Research, vol. 33, pp. 205-215.

Livingston S. & Eachus T, 1995,‖Humanitarian Crises and U.S. Foreign Policy: Somalia and
the CNN Effect Reconsidered‖, Political Communication, vol. 12.

Mandelbaum, M, 1994, ―The reluctance to intervene‖, Foreign Policy, vol. 95, pp. 3-8.

Marshall J, 2003, ―Falsely bleak reports reduce our chance for success in Iraq‖, Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, Sep. 22, p. 11A.

Mermin, J. 1996, ―Conflict in the sphere of consensus? Critical reporting on the Panama
invasion and the Gulf War‖, Political Communication, vol. 13, pp. 181-194.

Mermin, J, 1997, ―Television news and American intervention in Somalia: The myth of a media
driven foreign policy‖ Political Science Quarterly, vol. 112, p. 385

Mermin, J, 1999. Debating war and peace: Media coverage of U.S. intervention in the post-
Vietnam era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Miles, H, 2006, Al-Jazeera: The Inside Story of the Arab News Channel That is Challenging the
West. Edition. Grove Press.

Minear, L., Scott, C, & Weiss, T, 1996, The news media, civil war, and humanitarian action.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Mody, B, 2010, The Geopolitics of Representation in Foreign News: Explaining Darfur.

Lexington Books.

Najjar, O. (2003, June 23). Personal communication with Catherine Cassara & Laura Lengel

Neuman, J, 1996, Lights, camera, war: Is media technology driving international politics? New
York: St. Martin's Press.

O'Neill, M, 1993, The roar of the crowd: How television and people power are changing the
world. New York: Times Books.

Pew Research Center, 2012, Arab-American Media: Bringing News to a Diverse Community.
 30

Philip Seib, 2008, The Al Jazeera Effect: How the New Global Media Are Reshaping World
Politics. 1st Edition. Potomac Books Inc..

Pintak, L, 2006, Reflection on Bloodshot Lens: America, Islam, and the War of Ideas. Pluto
Press

Price, M, 2002, Media and Sovereignty: The Global Information Revolution and its Challenge
to State Power. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Riley, J, 1999, Rethinking the myth of the CNN effect. Paper presented at the annual convention
of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta.

Robinson, P, 2002, The CNN effect: The myth of news, foreign policy and intervention. New
York: Routledge.

Robinson, P, 2005, ―The CNN Effect Revisited‖. Critical Studies in Media Communication,
vol. 22, no. 4

Sardesai, R, 2009, ―Media, A Force Multiplier‖. Available from

<http://www.khemkafoundation.in > [May 20, 2104]

Schleifer, A., 2000, ―A dialogue with Mohammed Jasim Al-Ali, managing director, Al-Jazeera‖
Transnational Broadcasting Studies Journal, 5, Fall/winter 2000. Available from
<http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall00/al-Ali.htm>

Schleifer, A, 2005, ―The Impact of Arab Satellite Television on the Prospects for Democracy in
the Arab World‖, Available from <fpro.org> [20 May 2014]

Schorr, D, 1998, ―CNN effect: Edge-of-seat diplomacy‖ Christian Science Monitor, p. 11.
(November 27)

Seib, P, 2002, The global joumalist: News and conscience in a world of conflict. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.

Seib, P, 2008, The Al Jazeera Effect: How the New Global Media Are Reshaping World
Politics. Potomac Books Inc.; 1st edition.

Shattuck, J, 1996, Human rights and humanitarian crises: Policymaking and the media. In R.
Rotberg & T. Weiss (Eds.), From massacres to genocide: The media, public policy, and
humanitarian crises (pp. 169-175). Cambridge, MA: World Peace Foundation.

Slaughter, AM, 2011. International Relations, Principal Theories. Oxford: Oxford University.

Steven Livingston interview with James A. Baker III, Houston, Texas, May 13, 1996. See also
 31

James A. Baker, III, The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War & Peace, 1989-92 (G.P.
Putnam‘s Sons, 1995) p. 103.

Strobel, W, 1996, The CNN Effect. Available from <http://www.ajrarchive.org> [15 May
2014]

The Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation-George Washington University conference on

Military, Media, and Humanitarian Crises. May 5, 1995.

Zakaria, F, 2009, The Post-American World. Edition. W. W. Norton & Company.

Zaller, J., & Chiu, D, 1996, Govemment's little helper: U.S. press coverage of foreign policy
crises, 1945-1991. Political Communication, 13, 385-405.

Zaller, J., & Chiu, D, 2000, Govemment's little helper: U.S. press coverage of foreign policy
crises, 1946-1999. In B. Nacos, R. Shapiro, & P. Isemia (Eds.), Decisionmaking in a
glass house (pp. 61-84). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Zingarelli, M, 2010, The CNN Effect and the Al Jazeera Effect in Global Politics and Society.
M.S.. Washington D.C: Georgetown University.