UPDATED - ColdType

many’s public broadcaster ARD - was explicitly
or contextually negative. Even on BBC news, generally
moderate and unemotional in other
aspects of its coverage, journalists had almost
nothing positive to say about their working conditions,
but negative statements of the latter
stood at over 25%.
U.S. journalists apparently did not experience,
or at least did not feel the need to emphasize, the
same degree of difficulty as their European colleagues.
On NBC and especially on CBS, journalists
reported more positively on their working
conditions by a wide margin. Only ABC journalists
offered a slightly more negative tone on
their experiences. Of course, compared to most
of their foreign colleagues, American journalists,
by virtue of being embedded with troops, did
gather more first hand information, However,
there was little reflection on the potential shortcomings
of their relatively narrow view of events
on the battlefield. After all being embedded did
not necessarily guarantee the factual accuracy
of the information, a question on which American
journalists had little to say, or assure reports
with perspective and scope. German journalists
in particular appeared to complain the most
without offering solutions, thereby shifting the
blame at least partly to their viewers.
This can be very tricky with no clear cut solution.
The traditional idea of giving access to
“both sides” can lead to the dissemination of lies
and propaganda. Identifying a source as as liar is
also problematic and naïve An army at war will
never be entirely truthful, unless it makes sure
beforehand that its opponent does not have
access to television for its claims. When a journalist
is faced with two potential liars, is it satisfactory
to give both of them a chance to speak.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
269
Clearly, more contextualization and background
is needed.
Radically different
representations of war
OBJECTIVELY observed, the situation in Iraq had
to look the same for all reporters. But in fact,
they all reported very differently, particularly if
one compares the media coverage internationally.
American broadcast news coverage of the
war assumed a tone that was as positive as that
of European coverage was negative. The overall
pattern on the three U.S. networks was similar:
After initial restraint, the tone of the coverage
approached something like euphoria. This was in
line with opinion polls conducted at the same
time. They frame as our analysis.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll of 504
adults nationwide shows that approval of U.S.
military actions spiked on April 9, with 80% of the
respondents supporting U.S. war efforts.
The similar development of media approval
and public support do not seem coincidental.
When it came to coverage of American military
actions - by far the most widely covered topic in
the context of the war in all analyzed news media
- the margin of difference between positive and
negative coverage was notably greater on CBS
Evening News than on NBC Nightly News and
ABC World News Tonight, where the tone of
coverage concerning U.S. war actions did not
become overwhelmingly positive until the third
week of fighting, although the tone remained
more positive than negative throughout the time
frame of the analysis on all three networks’
evening news.
Differences were greater among U.S. news