DOC PREVIEW
UW-Madison JOURN 201 - Lecture - Public diplomacy

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4-5 out of 14 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 14 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 14 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 14 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 14 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 14 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 14 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

J201Lecture: Public diplomacyJust like public relations, public diplomacy depends on the news mediaIraq 2003?Germany 1989China 1989Soviet Union 1991a pseudo-event?Reporting “pseudo-events” is easier than the long hard work of investigative reportingNewsweek / MSNBCpublic diplomacy •public relations efforts conducted by a government on an international scale•external publics: prevent terrorism, build support for US policies (eg. military action) •during Cold War: USIA•internal publics: prevent hate crimes, build support for administration’s policies (eg. USA PATRIOT act)“the partnership of nations is here to help”(actual leaflet dropped during Afghanistan combat)perception management and “psyops”Charlotte Beers•“Queen of Madison Ave” -J. Walter Thompson, Ogilvy & Mather•Nov 2001: Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy •worked with Ad Council on campaigns•new White House Office of Global Communications formed in 2002Beers public diplomacy campaigns•“Rewards for Justice”www.rewardsforjustice.net•“Can a woman stop terrorism?”•“Muslim life in America”usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/muslimlife/failure of the Beers strategy•an “emotional” campaign with no issue content?•requested $600 million for opinion polling•Pew Research Center polls found US support slipping in Middle East•Beers resigns just two weeks before US attacks IraqKaren Hughes•Former TV news reporter•Bush campaign advisor and “most powerful woman in the US”•Part of 2003 “White House Iraq Group”•Sep 2005 became new Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy•inherited “al Hurra” satellite TV network: US effort to sway al Jazeera’s 40 million viewersother public diplomacy initiatives•Voice of America•USAID grants to journalists•Office of Strategic Influencewww.lincolngroup.comthe government and the news media:1991 Gulf War•President George H.W. Bush: pledged military aid to Iraq only nine months before invasion•CNN makes global brand for itself•military showcases video of “smart bombs”•journalists charge that news is too censored by both US and Iraqi governmentsthe government and the news media:2003 Iraq war•President George W. Bush: rolled out Iraq war talk at 9/11 anniversary and midterm elections•FOX News makes global brand for itself•military replaces viewpoint of “smart bombs” with that of “embedded journalists”•Bush administration takes message “directly to the people” instead of through “negative media”Two key trends seen in the Bush 2004 election victory•Bush won among voters who cited “moral issues” as their central agenda item in the campaign (especially important in swing states)•Bush supporters were more likely to hold factually incorrect views on key issues dealing with 9/11 and Iraq How are public diplomacy and journalism implicated in these trends?what did the internal public really believe about the Iraq war during its first year? (PIPA September 2003)•“A majority of Americans (52 percent) believed evidence was found linking Iraq to Sept. 11”•“A large minority (35 percent) believed weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.”•“A majority (56 percent) believed most world opinion supported the war.”www.pipa.org TH E PIPA/KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS POLLL TH E AMERICAN PUBLIC ON INT ERNATIO N AL ISSUES Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly Related to Support for War Misperceptions Vary Widely Depending on News Source Fox Viewers More Likely to Misperceive, PBS-NPR Less Likely For release: 12 Noon, October 2, 2003 Contact: Steven Kull 202-232-7500 College Park, MD: A new study based on a series of seven nationwide polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war with Iraq. The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely. An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions. Such misperceptions are highly related to support for the war. Among those with none of the misperceptions listed above, only 23% support the war. Among those with one of these misperceptions, 53% support the war, rising to 78% for those who have two of the misperceptions, and to 86% for those with all 3 misperceptions. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, “While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions.” The frequency of Americans’ misperceptions varies significantly depending on their source of news. The percentage of respondents who had at least one or more of the three misperceptions listed above is shown below. FOX CBS ABC NBC CNNPrint Sources NPR/ PBS None of the 3 20% 30% 39% 45% 45% 53% 77% 1 or more misperceptions 80 71 61 55 55 47 23 Variations in misperceptions according to news source cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the rate of misperceptions within demographic subgroups of each audience. Another key perception—one that US intelligence agencies regard as unfounded—is that Iraq was directly involved in September 11. Before the war approximately one in five believed this and 13% even said they believed that they had seen conclusive evidence of it. Polled June through September, the percentage saying that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 continued to be in the 20-25% range, while another 33-36% said they believed that Iraq gave


View Full Document

UW-Madison JOURN 201 - Lecture - Public diplomacy

Documents in this Course
Notes

Notes

15 pages

Lecture

Lecture

16 pages

Exam 1

Exam 1

2 pages

Load more
Download Lecture - Public diplomacy
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Lecture - Public diplomacy and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Lecture - Public diplomacy 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?