Operation Restore Hope and the Illusion of a News Media Driven Intervention
| Published date | 01 December 2001 |
| Author | Piers Robinson |
| Date | 01 December 2001 |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9248.00348 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Operation Restore Hope and the Illusion
of a News Media Driven Intervention
Piers Robinson
University of Liverpool
US intervention in Somalia (1992) and Iraq (1991) are held as evidence for a more powerful media
in the post Cold War era and the thesis that media coverage of suffering people is a major cause of
humanitarian intervention. This paper investigates the role of mass media during the 1992 decision
to deploy ground troops in Somalia. A media influence model is outlined and then applied to the
decision to intervene in Somalia. The research indicates that significant levels of media attention
actually followed the intervention decision and that this coverage was framed in a way that built
support for the intervention. I conclude there is little evidence to support the claim that media
coverage compelled policy makers to intervene or that media coverage was a major factor in policy
deliberations. Overall, the role of media in causing intervention in Somalia has been substantially
overplayed, instead other factors are likely to have had a far greater effect in causing the inter-
vention. This finding challenges both the thesis that media coverage is a major cause of the deploy-
ment of ground troops during humanitarian crisis and suggests caution be exercised with regard
to post-Cold War claims of a more powerful and influential media.
The rise of new media technologies and the passing of the Cold War bring into
question the relationship between media and foreign policy making. The prolifer-
ation of portable satellite dishes and electronic news-gathering equipment appears
to increase the immediacy of ‘distant’ events, reducing the scope for calm policy
deliberation and forcing policy-makers to respond to issues focussed on by journal-
ists (Beschloss, 1993; McNulty, 1993). At the same time, released from the ‘prism of
the cold war’ (Williams, 1993, p. 315) journalists appear freer not just to cover the
stories they want but also to criticize US foreign policy. Intervention in Iraq 1991 and
Somalia 1992–93, when emotive coverage of suffering people allegedly drove policy
making, appeared to confirm the impression of an all-powerful media (labelled mis-
leadingly as the CNN effect).1Recent analyses of the relationship between media cover-
age and intervention, based largely on anecdotal evidence, however, offer unclear
assessments of media power (Livingston, 1997; Robinson, 1999). Studies by Gowing
(1994) and Strobel (1997) question how influential the media really are whilst others
argue media impact is profound (for example Shaw, 1996). This paper studies the
role of news media during the 1992 decision to intervene in Somalia.
I start the paper by defining the CNN effect and outlining a media influence model
that hypothesizes the conditions under which media influence occurs. The back-
ground to US involvement in Somalia is then detailed and relevant research
reviewed. Next the model is applied to the 1992 decision by the Bush adminis-
tration to deploy ground troops in Somalia (Operation Restore Hope). The research
here indicates that only low levels of media coverage occurred prior to the decision
to intervene and that substantial media attention actually followed this decision.
Moreover media coverage was broadly supportive of Bush’s intervention policy.
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2001 VOL 49, 941–956
© Political Studies Association, 2001.
Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
Overall there is little evidence to support the claim that media coverage either
compelled policy makers to act or was a major factor in causing the intervention.
Instead, other factors and the existing commitment of the Bush administration to
Somalia are likely to have been far more important in moving policy makers to act.
The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.
The CNN Effect
In its strongest form the CNN effect suggests the media is a powerful effect on
foreign policy forcing officials to pursue particular courses of action. It is this con-
ceptualization of the CNN effect, labelled here as the strong CNN effect thesis, that
has informed most key debates and claims over media power in the post-Cold War
era (Kennan, 1993; Cohen, 1994; Mandelbaum, 1994; Strobel, 1997; Gowing, 1994).
In order for this ‘strong effect’ to occur, whereby politicians feel compelled to act
or else face a public relations disaster, there must be sufficient coverage of a par-
ticular form (to be discussed shortly), in order to cause political damage. It is this
strong CNN effect that applies to the thesis that media coverage is a sufficient or
necessary condition for policy makers to intervene in a humanitarian crisis. For
example it is often claimed that the relentless and emotive coverage of Kurdish
refugees in Northern Iraq at the end of the 1991 Gulf War reached such a
crescendo that Western policy makers were forced to intervene (Shaw, 1996).
Livingston and Riley (1999) have explored an alternative route by which media
coverage influences the policy process. They hypothesize that a media effect might
occur when policy makers are personally affected by random media reports that
highlight a particular crisis (Livingston and Riley, 1999). The implication of this
hypothesis is that media coverage is not so much creating a political imperative for
policy makers to act, but rather serves to cause a politician to be inclined to take a
particular course of action. However given the bureaucratic and political con-
straints upon policy makers the publication of only a few news reports is unlikely to
have a large effect on any policy process. This does not, of course, apply to situations
where a one-off shocking event hits the news headlines such as the fall of the
Srebrenica ‘safe area’ in Bosnia 1995 or the image of the dead US marine being
dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia. These events become major
news stories instantaneously and have the potential to influence policy. Rather, with
respect to just a handful of reports, say in the back pages of a newspaper or at the tail
end of the news, the idea of a policy-maker formulating policy, to any significant
extent, based on such coverage is unlikely. This said, the work of Livingston and
Riley (1999) highlights a weak CNN effect, whereby media reports might incline policy
makers to act rather than create a political imperative to act. With respect to the
thesis that media coverage is a cause of intervention, the weak CNN effect thesis
suggests the media play only a marginal role during intervention decisions. Certainly,
coverage would not be sufficient on its own to cause intervention and is unlikely to
even be a necessary factor in causing policy makers to act.
A Model of Media Influence
A model of media influence was devised in order to examine the claim that media
coverage is a cause of intervention during humanitarian crisis.2Fuller details
PIERS ROBINSON942
To continue reading
Request your trial