The Guardian’s impact during the war in Iraq
While most people are aware of the content that the newspapers in their communities produce, many do not consider how their local events are presented to people of other nations. When the Bush administration announced that troops were being sent to Iraq in 2003 after the attacks on September 11, 2001, American newspapers began printing editorial pieces bolstering support for the war efforts. However, countries across the world were not as quick to support the United States, and many deeply condemned the United States for going to war. By analyzing the British newspaper The Guardian, one can gain a better perspective on how media in other countries differed from media generated in the United States during this time and on how the The Guardian’s worldly view has affected the British and Americans alike.
Many differences exist between British and American newspapers in general, including the style of writing the authors use. British writers often use a more subjective tone, taking a stance from the beginning of their newspaper editorials, as opposed to the objective tone found in most American newspaper articles. While the American newspapers may offer a more neutral perspective on political issues (Sylvie & Huang, 2008), the British newspapers prove to be more candid and stray farther away from their government’s perspective. Furthermore, many British writers display a high level of skepticism in their writing, as they often assume that governments lie and tend to question the information they receive. On the other hand, American writers have been known to “frequently bow to power even as they seek to hold it accountable” (Carr, 2013). Due to this factor, newspaper articles in America are often skewed towards power as they shine a positive light on the government and protect their sources at all costs.
The Guardian, a liberal and left-winged newspaper based out of Manchester, holds the reputation of reporting global political events and taking critical positions on world leaders, especially those in the United States. Being the third most read newspaper in the world with 30.4 million readers, The Guardian reaches readers with various ethnicities and cultural values. Like most other newspapers in Europe, The Guardian published numerous articles after the attacks on the World Trade Center sending sympathy and support to America and those who lost their loved ones in the attack (MacAskill, 2011). When the idea of a war between the United States and Iraq became publicized, The Guardian immediately took a stance against the war efforts. Meanwhile, newspapers in the United States presented editorials solely focusing on supporting the war and uniting Americans by instilling a sense of patriotism. Most newspapers in the United States ignored anti-war sentiments and incorporated words from the speeches of President Bush in their articles to persuade readers that the war was a justified and necessary cause.
During the process of the United States waging war on Iraq, writers of The Guardian displayed their anti-war positions. Several writers cautioned Tony Blair in using violence in retaliation to the terrorism, saying that helping the United States with the war would be a grave mistake for Britain. Similarly, another writer wrote several editorials arguing that the United States had no legality to enter war with Iraq (MacAskill & Borger, 2004). Writers for the popular newspaper continually released critical articles about the Bush administration and about Prime Minister Tony Blair, seemingly in an attempt to offer other perspectives on the war and question the morality of invasion in Iraq. In addition, because of its large variety of readers outside of the United Kingdom, The Guardian had the ability to be more critical of the United States and did not have to stand with British government and support the war like many other newspapers at that time. The Guardian’s critical journalism of the war may have attributed to anti-war protests breaking out in Britain, especially towards the end of the war, as opposed to the few small protests in the United States. However similar to the protests in the United States, many anti-war protests did not gain enough momentum and were ignored by newspapers as most chose to focus on pro-war ideals (Fishwick). Due to its challenging of the reasoning behind the war, The Guardian may have contributed to protests by inspiring people in countries that supported the United States’ decision to go to war.
While The Guardian may have been analytical of the war in Iraq, the newspaper does not accurately represent the views of the general public in Britain. People in Britain generally supported the United States’ as they entered into combat with Iraq as “support rose to over 50 percent” in the beginning of the war (Hafez, 2004). This difference in public opinion and the information released by The Guardian may have prompted other nations to question the information relayed to them about Britain’s commitment to the war and to question Tony Blair’s dedication to serving the desires of his country. Other British newspapers such as The Times and The Independent consistently released headlines that were supportive the war and often included photographs that heroically framed the British and American soldiers in their articles (Navi, 2004). Instead of solely publishing the number of American and British lives lost fighting in Iraq, The Guardian additionally publicized negative figures such as the dollar amount each country has spent fighting the war and other statistics that framed the war undesirably.
The editorials released by The Guardian allowed for people in The United States and people in Britain to gain a broader perspective on the war in Iraq and to fully understand several reasons why many other countries opposed the war. By not conforming with the popular British media and by not focusing on uniting the people around a common cause, The Guardian offers a worldlier perspective and forces American and British citizens to question the actions of their governments.
References
Carr, D. (2013, June 23). British Invasion Reshuffles U.S. Media. Retrieved October 17, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/business/media/britain-as-a-breeding-ground-for-media-leaders.html?_r=0
Fishwick, C. (2016, July 08). ‘We were ignored’: Anti-war protesters remember the Iraq … Retrieved October 25, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/08/we-were-ignored-anti-war-protestors-remember-the-iraq-war-marches
Hafez, K. (2003, June). The Iraq War 2003 in Western Media and Public Opinion: A Case Study of the Effects of Military (Non-) Involvement in Conflict Perception [PDF]. The Second METU Conference on International Relations.
MacAskill, E., & Borger, J. (2004, September 15). Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan. Retrieved October 17, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
MacAskill, E. (2011, September 6). 9/11 anniversary: How the Guardian reported the attacks … Retrieved October 25, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/from-the-archive-blog/2011/sep/06/9-11-attacks-guardian-archive
Navi, N. (2004). How the Newspapers in the United States, Britain and South Asia covered the Iraq War. Working Paper Series. Retrieved October 17, 2016, from The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
Sylvie, G., & Huang, J. S. (2008). VALUE SYSTEMS AND DECISION-MAKING STYLES OF NEWSPAPER FRONT-LINE EDITORS. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(1), 61–82.
