Weapons of mass destruction and the problematic role of the mass media in the invasion of Iraq 2003

Abstract

This thesis examines the way in which the mass media, including major newspapers, and television channels, dealt with the issues of weapons of mass destruction and the issue of legality surrounding the US led attack on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, in the periods immediately before, during, and after the 2003 invasion. The thesis focuses on the issue of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and how it was portrayed by the mass media as a justifiable reason for the invasion. It concentrates on three phases of the event: the first surrounding efforts by the 'coalition of the willing' to obtain a UN resolution for the invasion of Iraq; the second concerning mass media management and the issue of no weapons being found during the invasion; and third the role of the mass media in shaping public opinion during the invasion and thereafter. The key issue examined here is whether the mass media served, essentially, to promote the agenda of executive government in the U.S and U.K or whether it had an agenda of its own. Hence, with this in mind the study investigates the role of the mass media with reference to weapons of mass destruction. Administrations in both the U.S and the U. K, along with mainstream mass media in these states presented the Iraq invasion as a legal act. The U.S administration asserted that the invasion was legal relying on the doctrine of pre-emptive self- defence, by arguing that Iraq's WMD's were an imminent threat to the U.S and its interests in the Middle East region. The British government asserted that U.N resolution 1441 indicated that if Iraq failed to cooperate and comply with U.N WMD's team, then it would face an international consensus calling for serious consequences. The Blair administration argued that Iraq breached international law and thus demonstrated that an Iraq invasion was justified relying on security claims. The Blair administration argued that Iraq's WMD's were capable of targeting the U.K, and therefore, according to Blair, it was legitimate to act before the Iraqi regime conducted any attacks against England. Evidence in this thesis indicates that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by both the US and the U.K governments was neither legal nor moral. The mainstream mass media in both countries functioned to present the arguments to invade Iraq to the public relying on Iraq's WMD's imminent threat. The thesis shows that mainstream mass media in both countries asserted Iraq's possession of WMD's and presented the case to the public in order to shape opinion that would unquestionably support an Iraq invasion and regime change. In chapter 6, the thesis shows how mainstream mass media uncritically followed the administrations pronouncements without questioning the validity and the accuracy of such claims. In this thesis I argue that the mass media and the governments of the US and UK played a definitive role in legitimising and justifying the war for both the American and the British people. This role was achieved through the extensive usage of rhetoric and closely managed discourse which helped influence public opinion in these countries that the invasion of Iraq was justified. This thesis examines the crucial role played by the mass media in driving its own agenda, as well as acting as a vehicle for government propaganda in their countries, and in other developed countries. I conclude by arguing for the importance of mass media neutrality as an integral element of a healthy democracy. The thesis shows how consideration of mass media's treatment of WMD in the Iraq invasion can help to suggest some possible reforms which could contribute to greater media responsibility in times of war.

Date of Award	2012
Original language	English