War at Home: Strategic Narratives of the War on Terrorism This study reconstructs the main strategic narratives of the war on terrorism, as they appeared in American editorials. The study analyses 1002 selected editorials from five major news outlets in America. The analysis is structured around six salient events in the war on terrorism: the 9/11 attacks, the Iraq invasion, President Bush’s re-election, the Iraqi surge, Barack Obama replacing Bush, and Osama bin Laden’s death. The study also tests critical hypotheses from the literature on media, war and support. Are the media left to echo the rhetoric of the elites as wars break out? Or do media organizations develop independent news frames about wars as they progress? This study finds that the literature rightly favors the persuasive power of elite rhetoric early on in conflicts. Yet, important exceptions to this pattern are found. The study challenges the notion of elite rhetoric dominating news coverage through the case of The Wall Street Journal’s editorializing of war with Iraq. The Journal supported war with Iraq before the Bush administration. They called for toppling Saddam Hussein right after the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, the Bush administration adopted the Journal’s position, and not the other way around. Additionally, the study argues that Obama ended the war on terrorism, and the study considers the killing of Osama bin Laden to demarcate the end of America’s war on terrorism. The study also documents the emergence of a torture narrative that hijacked the war on terrorism, rendering it of limited use to Obama. The media were crucial in developing this narrative. This also challenges elite rhetoric domination. The study concludes that the home front is of increased importance due to new media realities. The dissertation shows that right after 9/11, the news outlets were overwhelmingly unison in their support for the war on terrorism. They openly called on Americans to sacrifice and support the war. With the Iraq war, unity and public support was fractured along ideological lines, resulting in a War at Home.
展开▼
机译：在家中的战争：反恐战争的战略叙事该研究重构了反恐战争的主要战略叙事，就像它们出现在美国社论中一样。该研究分析了来自美国五个主要新闻媒体的1002篇社论。该分析围绕着反恐战争中的六个突出事件进行：9/11袭击，伊拉克入侵，布什总统连任，伊拉克大增，巴拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）取代布什以及乌萨马·本·拉登（Osama bin Laden）的去世。该研究还检验了有关媒体，战争和支持的文献中的关键假设。战争爆发时，是否留下媒体来呼应精英们的言论？还是随着战争的进行，媒体组织是否会制定有关战争的独立新闻框架？这项研究发现，在冲突初期，文献正确地支持了精英修辞的说服力。但是，发现了该模式的重要例外。这项研究以《华尔街日报》对伊拉克战争的社论为例，挑战了以精巧修辞统治新闻报道的观念。 《华尔街日报》支持布什政府之前与伊拉克的战争。他们呼吁在9/11袭击发生后立即推翻萨达姆·侯赛因。因此，布什政府采取了《华尔街日报》的立场，而不是相反。此外，该研究认为，奥巴马结束了反恐战争，并且该研究考虑了杀害乌萨马·本·拉登，以划定美国的反恐战争的结束。该研究还记录了一种酷刑叙事的出现，该叙事劫持了反恐战争，使其对奥巴马的使用有限。媒体对于发展这种叙述至关重要。这也挑战了精英的修辞统治。该研究得出结论，由于新媒体的现实，家庭阵线的重要性日益提高。论文表明，在9/11之后，新闻媒体几乎完全一致地支持反恐战争。他们公开呼吁美国人牺牲和支持战争。随着伊拉克战争的进行，团结和公众支持因意识形态而破裂，导致了一场“内战”。
展开▼
