MEDIA AND PUBLIC OPINION: they are important because it can mobilize people.

They are important

for symbolic meaning, in 2003. Bush climbed on an airplane to declare mission accomplished in Iraq,
which had direct logic with 9/11 attacks. But surprisingly International relations pay little attention
to public opinion and media. Part of the blame is realism because it was dominant theory which
focused upon interstate relations and tendency to neglect domestic framework.
But the subfield of foreign policy analysis, which wanted to explain decision making, gives media and
public opinion significance. Social groups can bring their own agendas, and decision makers seem to
appreciate public opinion because if you have a critical mass of people you can make changes. To
understand foreign policy PROCCESS we have to focus on home foreign policy DECCISIONS.
Two perspectives seem to dominate: The pluralist model: assumes that power is dispersed through
society, and no group dominates with their agendas. And it presupposes that media and public are
independent from political influences, and can act as constraints upon government.
And the elite model: all opposite to pluralist one.
PUBLIC OPINION AND FOREIGN POLICY: in democracy government should be responsive to public.
Opinions of public should be reflected in government dealings. And if this is so than pluralist model
is true for democracy. And different countries have different policies, research has shown that US
public opinion categorized citizens in isolationist (opposing government to interfere in world issues)
or internationalist (wants government to interfere in world issues). But is the public well informed
about foreign policy. Almond's research has shown that most Americans who are in mass public do
not have enough of information and have irrational desires about their countries role. And another
thing that research has shown is that public doesn't have enough influence on foreign policy. This
undermined the empirical existence of pluralist model.
But we have war in Vietnam, military failure combined with widespread of public opinion which was
against war in Vietnam, and in this case public opinion was more stable, coherent, and influential
than previous study has shown. And this has given strength to pluralist model again. Muller's
analysis has shown that more causalities people suffer; they are more prone to end the war.
Who wants elite model, public opinion doesnt matter much. Who wants pluralist approach, for him
it matters .
MEDIA AND FOREIGN PLICY:
Media should inform and educate public sphere it is a watchtower over political decisions, and
representing opinions of the public. To do this media needs to be objective. Television focuses on
daily political and social events, while newspapers cover different perspectives and events. French Le
Monde articulates left in France, Zeitung reflects the right in Germany.
Studies have shown that media can attract attention, but doesnt have power to implement decisions
and cant press so hard the politicians. There has been a CNN effect where you get media coverage
24/7 and after Cold War there have been no ideological ties with officials and journalist, because
they were all anti-communist.
NEW TECHNOLOGY: It seems that it is getting harder to manipulate with data, and even common
people have accesses to tools of mass information in spreading their ideas. And as an example of
media covering and giving the chance for real debate is Al Jazeera, it diminished media which was
governed by Middle East states. But most Western people watch their own channels , so Al jazeera
influences mainly Arabs. In 2003 when it showed images of dead British and American soldiers US
and Britain accused Jazeera for disturbance, and Al-Jazeera said that they did it because they do not
privilege any side.are media independent from 2001. From the framework of global war on terror
and is that idea there media platform.

PROCEDURAL VS. SUBSTANTIVE CRITICISM AND INFLUENCE:
In Somalia crisis 1992 US media has played a key role in pushing US in war. But if media reports are
weak and insufficient how can that be a rational decision which is guided by lack of information. TO
UNDERSTAND THIS WE NEED TO FOCUS UPON:
1. PROCEDURAL INFLUENCE: describes media criticism and influence that relates to actual
implementation of policy decisions.
2. SUBSTANTIVE INFLUENCE: describes criticism and influence that relates to justification and
rational for particular foreign policy.
For example during Vietnam war media coverage focused on procedural influence and neglected
substantive one.
We have types of effect:
1. CNN EFFECT: media coverage plays direct role in causing politician actions
2. Accelerate effect: just speeds up reaction
3. Enabling: building public support for that policy
4. Impediment effect: fear of negative media coverage that will make US politic seem weak

Media , public opinion and theoretical frames:
Realism: public opinion is not important, because even if we have liberal state, the anarchy state will
pursuit power struggles. Foreign policy is influenced by elites who pursue interest. Foreign policy is
immune from public and media influences. Here media is limited to procedure level of criticism.
Liberalism: rule governed behavior between states is monitored by media. Public opinion is
important in war, because people prefer peace, to go to war you need to mobilize people.
Communication becomes soft power.
Critical approach: its all about economy, media is business and supports other big companies. US
said that communist tortured people, but neglected tortures made by their allies. When hunger
intervention comes, it just masks real problems which made that hunger to happen.