Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited / During Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the U.S. Department of Defense instituted a program to attach civilian journalists to coalition military units. Their purpose was to report firsthand on the military campaign to topple Saddam Hussein. These "embedded journalists," as they were called, would travel, eat, sleep, and endure the same hardships and dangers of the soldiers and Marines they were accompanying. While their immediate and highly dramatic accounts offered a perspective not before seen by the news-hungry U.S. public, they also raised questions if the "embedding" process resulted in a more thematically narrow coverage of the war. This study addresses the newspaper coverage of OIF by examining the content of the embedded and non-embedded war reporting of various highly circulating U.S. newspapers. It is posited that being attached or embedded within U.S. military units resulted in the journalists producing a body of stories concerning military operations and personnel markedly different than nonembedded reporters during OIF. / Major, United States Marine Corps

Notre thèse s’intéresse à la couverture médiatique de la BBC pendant la guerre en Irak (2003) et s’interroge sur son impact politico-militaire dans les médias. Afin d’examiner la délicate relation entre la couverture médiatique des guerres récentes et l’opinion publique, notre thèse s’appuie sur une analyse quantitative et qualitative des bulletins d’informations de la BBC ainsi que sur divers documentaires. Il en découle plusieurs constats : à l’image des médias anglo-américains, la BBC demeure perméable à la propagande de guerre et privilégie la communication propre aux Relations Publiques. Sa complicité avec le gouvernement britannique témoigne de son rôle de garant mais aussi de celui d’acteur politique et public. En effet, notre étude de la couverture de cette guerre démontre un glissement du statut de la BBC qui, d’observateur actif et critique, tend à devenir un observateur partial et sélectif. Bien plus, la gestion de l’information et les contraintes culturelles qui y sont liées ont contribué à faire évoluer la couverture de cette guerre qui devait être « politiquement correcte » du point de vue britannique. Ceci a permis de renforcer ce que l’on pourrait envisager comme la possible illustrationd’une complicité voire d’une allégeance politique de la BBC. La « Corporation », ainsi fidèle serviteur d’une « censure patriotique », est partie prenante dans la construction d’un récit militaire épuré et transforme la couverture médiatique de cette guerre en une propagande volontaire. Dans cette guerre en Irak, à l’image du reste des médias, la BBC ne résiste pas aux pressions politiques. L’utilisation de l’« infotainment » par les forces de coalition vise à reconstituer « la réalité de la guerre » et à mettre en avant le prestige des alliés en présentant leur victoire comme indéfectible et incontestée, dans un cadre bien circonscrit, afin de répondre aux attentes du public mais aussi de renforcer son récit patriotique et d’éradiquer toute déception politique et/ou culturelle. Enfin, la couverture de ce conflit par la BBC tend à minimiser l’impact des révélations émanant des médias adversaires et propose une présentation apparemment plus objective de penser la guerre / This dissertation explores the BBC’s coverage of the 2003 Iraq War. It investigates the implications of the politico-military intervention in Iraq for the media system. In examining the sensitive relationship binding the media coverage of contemporary wars and public opinion, this thesis is based upon quantitative and qualitative analysis of BBC news bulletins as well as different documentaries. This investigation shows that, along with the rest of the British-American media, the BBC was susceptible to war propaganda and favoured the kind of communication specific to Public Relations. Its complicity with the British government shifted its role from a watchdog to a publicist and political agent. In fact, our study of the Iraq War coverage chronicles the transition of the BBC from an active, critical and communicative medium into a simply passive, partial and selective observer. Moreover, the news management and the cultural as well as political constraints helped to transform the coverage of this war which had to be “politically correct” from a British perspective. This helped reinforce what could be considered as a possible illustration of the BBC’s complicity and even its political allegiance. The Corporation, afaithful servant of “patriotic censorship” was involved, as a partner, in the construction of a sanitized military story and transformed its coverage of the war into voluntary propaganda. During the Iraq War, like the rest of the media, the BBC could not resist political pressure. The Coalition’s use of “infotainment” aimed to exploit the “reality of war” and highlight, in a well-defined context, the prestige of the Allies by presenting their victory as ineluctable and unquestioned, not only in order to meet the expectations of the public but also to enhance a patriotic narrative and eradicate all political and / or cultural disappointment. Finally, the BBC’s coverage of this conflict tended to minimize the impact of revelations in enemy media and offers a presentation of how to think about war.

This study analyzes the framing of the war in Iraq (2003) during the week before and the week after the conflict started according to the media coverage of nine leading newspapers from United States, Europe, and Latin America. Through quantitative content analysis, the researcher answered seven research questions and analyzed the framing, sources, and approaches used by the newspapers in the news coverage of the conflict. The researcher compared the news coverage of each region and found that there were significant differences in the content of the war reporting according to the geographical area of the media. European and Latin American newspapers framed a "bigger and more balanced picture" in covering more sides of the war and quoting diverse sources while American media covered a narrower range of war perspectives and quoted coalition sources in almost all of their news stories and editorials.