Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Homework Assignment - Due 7 Apr at 11 a.m.
Today in class, we discussed about the CNN EFFECT. Write down a short comment to this post providing: 1) a definition of the CNN EFFECT and 2) some critical remarks about the effectiveness of the CNN EFFECT. You may want to support your critical remarks with at least one academic article (use google scholars to find out about the cnn effect). The maximum lenght of your comment should be 10 sentences. The minimum, 5.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The CNN effect is defined as "the power of television pictures to emotionally move people so powerfully that important military and political decisions are driven by those pictures rather than by well-reasoned policy considerations" (Introduction to Mass Communications. McGraw Hill. Online Learning Center). I both agree and disagree with this statement. In today's society, individuals have little influence on our government. With media outlets such as CNN, journalists have more of a say in what happens in accordance with their own agendas. When people choose to show what is going on by their perspective, it puts a little more power in the hands of the people. I don't necessarily agree with the fact that political leaders would make decisions soley on the CNN Effect and not on well-reasoned policy considerations. Although there is definitely a certain pressure put on governments and militaries by the CNN Effect, by only listening to the opinions of media, more mistakes would be made. If, however, media can present the idea of a problem in policy making, and the government also sees it in the interest in the country, then more people are satisfied with decisions. I believe that it is a sort of bipolar system in which media and government can check and balance each other according to the needs of the world and its people (Cambridge Journals).
ReplyDeleteChelsea Hoekstra
The phrase “Cnn Effect” derives from the intricate connection between media power and the setting up of foreign policy, specifically to how real-time communications technology could fire up an instant public opinion demanding responses from government officials and making the shape of foreign policy into an area malleable by news media. On the effectiveness of the CNN Effect, I agree with Pier Robinson-who wrote the book of The CNN Effect: The Myth of News, Foreign Policy and Intervention-in that there are limits to the media influence on foreign policy making, when there are cases where policy is too strong to vary through media coverage.
ReplyDeletePatricia Lopez
The "CNN Effect is defined as "media expanding their ability to affect the conduct of U.S. diplomacy and foreign policy" (genocidewatch.org, from googlescholar). Even if mainstream media dominates alternative media because of corporate ownership,people still have influence on foreign policy. I say that because people influence the government, and the government decides on foreign policy. The way that "media" is defined, seems like a broad term to me. With all the technology today people have the ability to respond to what is being put out there. For example there are opinion columns and blogposts. With the research I have done for my final paper, I've found that blogs (popular blogs) influence mainstream journalism. Journalists will use blogs as a guide to format their columns. For example people will post blogs about being anti-war which can influence foreign policy such as a no-fly zone policy in Iraq under the Clinton administration.
ReplyDeleteMatt Higgins
The CNN effect can be defined as the combined power of 24-hour as-it-happens news channels and "emotive media attention" given to certain issues that is strong enough to effect policy and policy makers. This strength and use of the media is most apparent in international humanitarian issues in which the United States took part, such as Iraq, Somalia, and Kosovo in the 1990s. From the research, it seems to me that the strongest argument against The CNN Effect as a quantifiable, enduring political science theory, is how quickly the media once more deferred to government will in post-9/11's new pro-active, punitive environment. That the media was so quick to allow the humanitarian causes it had gained momentum in defending and selling to be put on the back burner and all but forgotten, suggests that the CNN Effect was a phase and not a sustainable force.
ReplyDeleteCallie Clark
Citation: 'The CNN Effect Revisited' Critical Studies in Media Communication; Oct2005, Vol. 22 Issue 4, p344-349, 6p
ReplyDeleteThe CNN effect is defined as the negative results (mainly economic) of people staying at home and watching 24-hour-a-day news channels, especially during a crisis or military situation (Dictionary.com). The methods by which Americans are exposed to world conflict have expanded rapidly along with the growing development of technology. In his book “The Media and the War on Terrorism”, Stephen Hess argues the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was the last major piece of international news to hold American interest. Especially after September 11th, the United States public has turned almost completely inward to focus on domestic issues (or international issues that hold relevance to itself). The amount of attention news media gives to solely domestic issues makes it near impossible for Americans to receive a balanced understanding of contemporary world politics.
ReplyDeleteThe CNN effect is defined as the negative results (mainly economic) of people staying at home and watching 24-hour-a-day news channels, especially during a crisis or military situation (Dictionary.com). The methods by which Americans are exposed to world conflict have expanded rapidly along with the growing development of technology. In his book “The Media and the War on Terrorism”, Stephen Hess argues the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was the last major piece of international news to hold American interest. Especially after September 11th, the United States public has turned almost completely inward to focus on domestic issues (or international issues that hold relevance to itself). The amount of attention news media gives to solely domestic issues makes it near impossible for Americans to receive a balanced understanding of contemporary world politics.
Elizabeth Sobka
The CNN effect is the media’s ability to dramatize images, information, and news to compel and provoke the government, civilians, and other audiences that impacts the foreign policy at hand. “We may speak of the CNN effect as 1) a policy agenda-setting agent, 2) an impediment to the achievement of desired policy goals, and 3)an accelerant to policy decision making. Each roughly corresponds to various stages of the useful, though slightly contrived, notion of a linear policy process. The initial formulation of policy corresponds with concerns that media are policy agenda-setting agents. Secondly, policy implementation corresponds with concerns that media may serve as accelerants of the process or impediments to the achievement of policy objectives.” (Livingston, 1997, p. 1). As to whether this phenomenon actually occurs has been argued by many. In the past couple of decades, the government has been known manipulate the media and utilize it as an outlet to compel the mass public to support their decisions in regards to foreign policy as opposed to vice versa. Presidents such as Wilson, Johnson, Reagan, and both of the Bush’s have all been known to exploit the media to further international goals in thus, impacting to foreign policy. Nonetheless, the media’s impact has also been argued to shorten provoke governments in such a way that they are forced to act quickly and thus risk irrationality.“One of the potential effects of global, real-time media is the shortening of response time for decision making. Decisions are made in haste, sometimes dangerously so. Policymakers ‘decry the absence of quiet time to deliberate choices, reach private agreements, and mold the public’s understanding’” (Livingston, 1997, p. 4)
ReplyDelete-Sammy Rojas
The CNN effect is essentially media influencing governmental actions. Usually this is discussed during times of war. A news station would show images and footage from war, and these clips would have an effect on governmental decisions because it could adjust their mindset on whether or not they should take actions. This truly is a shame because governments should make decisions based on what's right for the country and their people, not based on what the media is portraying and how it makes them look. There are good aspects to the CNN effect though. For example, it might help governments allocate money to people in need who just experienced a natural disaster. The images shown on television stations could reel in more national attention, making governments feel necessary to act.
ReplyDeleteAlex Friedman
CNN Effect
ReplyDelete-Ricki Maybruch
The CNN Effect is defined as the negative results of people staying at home and watching 24 hour-a-day news channels, especially during a a crisis or military conflict. (Dictionary.com) Specifically, consumers are less likely to spend money to boost the economy when they are sitting at home watching television news. This definition is quite different than the one we discussed in class, which stated that 24-hour news channels have a strong influence on government and policy changes. I chose to comment on Dictionary.com's definition because it offers the idea that both the public and government can be strongly affected by CNN and other 24-hour news sources. While I agree that in the 1990s, in Bosnia and Somalia, for example, the media had an effect on government humanitarian involvement, the CNN Effect is too vague and complicated to be true for all foreign policy decisions. To support my belief, I refer to scholar and my former professor, Steven Livingston of The George Washington University. Livingston said that emotional media coverage of crises may influence government intervention and policy change. On the other hand, showing these compelling images may have a reverse effect-the government may limit media access to the battlefield to keep up morale and/or maintain security. ("Clarifying the CNN Effect," Livingston, 1997) In other words, 24-hour news coverage did not shift power and influence to the media; the government still acts on its own. However, I do not disagree that the 24-hour news coverage has an effect on the way the public thinks about foreign policy.
The CNN effect is a theory that states that the development of the 24-hour international television news channel known as Cable News Network, or CNN, had a major impact on the conduct of states' foreign policy in the late Cold War period and that CNN and its subsequent industry competitors have had a similar impact in the post-Cold War era. (Wikipedia.org) This effect became evident during humanitarian crises in the 1990s but still exists today. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the media constantly showed images of homeless and starving people, flooded homes and missing children. That put incredible pressure on the government to take action. In this instance specifically, the US government was harshly criticized by the media and the public for not taking action sooner. Even when the event is not a domestic one, the media still has a strong influence on American government's humanitarian intervention. In the Asian Tsunami of 2004 and in the recent Haiti earthquake, the emotional images portrayed in the media influenced the government to help those in need. The CNN Effect is still very much prevalent now, especially after natural disasters occur.
ReplyDelete-Jess Ward
The CNN effect essentially defines the impact of worldwide television news broadcasts on government decision-making in crises and wars for good or for bad. News networks such as CNN that dedicate 24 hours a day to news coverage can be extremely effective in swaying the actions and decisions of government policy. In showing images of suffering to worldwide audiences, governments can be convinced to take action to intervene in the particular situation. For example, recent disasters such as the 2004 Asian Tsunami,2006 Hurricane Katrina, and the Earthquake in Haiti were covered thoroughly in the news. This persuaded government intervention to aid the victims of the natural disasters as well as an outpouring of personal donations.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the CNN Effect can deter government action during war. The government has to create their plan and policy based upon what may be viewed as acceptable by the media and not what is in the best interest of the nation. In this way, the CNN effect has positive and negative aspects in its swaying of government policy.
Zach Sullivan-Pickett
The CNN Effect: The Myth of News, Foreign Policy, and Intervention by:Piers Robinson
The "CNN effect" examines the relationship between the state and its media, and considers the role played by the news on government decisions during a time of war or crisis. Because the media will reveal to the people the status and reality of the wars, the people will most likely negatively react, which can sometimes effect the way the government handle things. While this makes sense that the media would have such an impact on the government, I think that this 'effect' isn't necessarily true. Yes, the government has to make the people happy; however, they also have to do what they believe is right for their country. A lot of times (moreso in the past) the government dictated what the media could and couldn't reveal. I think the CNN effect is a theory that can only sometimes be applicable.
ReplyDelete-Rebecca Winston
The CNN Effect can be defined as “the ability dramatic TV images of suffering to force western government’s hands in the way they are presumed to have done in the Kurdish case.” The CNN Effect can also be defined as being “able to affect foreign politics of governments and provoke their military/human intervention.” When discussing the CNN Effect the media is the actor.
ReplyDeleteOnce wars became televised people anywhere had/have the access to see what is going on in the war. “today, commanders at all levels can count on operating “24/7”1 on a global stage
before a live camera that never blinks. Naturally, this changed environment will have a
profound effect on how strategic leaders make their decisions and how warfighters direct their commands.”
(Shaw, 2001)
(http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/resources/cnn-effect/Belknap_M_H_01.pdf)
The CNN effect can be defined as the combined power of 24-hour as-it-happens news channels and "emotive media attention" given to certain issues that is strong enough to effect policy and policy makers. This strength and use of the media is most apparent in international humanitarian issues in which the United States took part, such as Iraq, Somalia, and Kosovo in the 1990s. From the research, it seems to me that the strongest argument against The CNN Effect as a quantifiable, enduring political science theory, is how quickly the media once more deferred to government will in post-9/11's new pro-active, punitive environment. That the media was so quick to allow the humanitarian causes it had gained momentum in defending and selling to be put on the back burner and all but forgotten, suggests that the CNN Effect was a phase and not a sustainable force.
ReplyDeleteThe CNN effect stated by Bernard Kouchner -- a former health minister of France and first U.N. governor of Kosovo from June 1999 until January 2001 -- has been quoted as saying: "Where there is no camera, there is no humanitarian intervention." This statement comes with some baggage as all statements do, the effect is that which shows the visual and audio world what they are missing in the papers and tabloids. The idea of having current events how as they are happening shows how the world can view a situation before the government can come in and filter it. Without this filter every is seen from the good to the horrible as mankind suffers to the greatness we are capable of.
ReplyDelete