Media turn potential Syria conflict into battle against Assad
As the U.S.
marched towards a seemingly inevitable (but now postponed) involvement in the
Syrian war, the media increasingly used words that personified the alleged
threat posed by Syria, according to a recent study. This means that after the
chemical attack on Aug. 21 more stories were published that substituted
“Assad’s army” or “Assad’s chemicals” for the terms “Syrian army” or “Syrian
chemicals”, for example.
In other words, media
framed the possible war increasingly as being the U.S. vs. Bashar Al-Assad
himself. Why? Many would argue that personification makes it easier to sell to conflict to
the public. My colleague Professor John Lofflin prefers the term personalization to describe this notion that journalists make one person the
symbol of the war. Whatever it's called, the danger in this approach is the misperceptions that are
created, along with the mistaken notion that eliminating one bad guy would
easily end the conflict. Certainly, that didn’t happen with Saddam Hussein or with
Osama bin Laden.
In the case of
personifying the Syrian conflict in the person of President Bashar al-Assad,
the study referenced earlier concludes that this personification--the use of
terms like “Assad’s chemicals”, “Assad’s army”, “his military”--increased more
than ten-fold in the two week period before the chemical attacks as compared to
the same period after the attacks. (see study details below).
One question
unanswered in this study is whether these were terms that originated in quotes
by administration spokespeople, or whether journalists themselves generated
these phrases.
The
personification of a perceived threat is as old as war itself. Alexander
Nickolaev from Drexel University writes about this in, “Why media go along with
government war plans.” One of his main contentions is that war is easier to
sell when it is presented as “good guys vs. bad” and when there is a “vilified”
enemy. (Critical Sociology, 2009).
One example of
personification was Saddam Hussein, who upon invading Kuwait in 1990 went from
a little-known dictator to the embodiment of evil. This narrative, of course,
was embraced by the George H.W. Bush administration as an easy way to convince
the public of the necessity of the first gulf war. However, when evil is
personified and thus oversimplified, as it was with Saddam, it leaves the
public with little understanding of the real conflict or about the countries in
the conflict region. Sociologist Todd Gitlin told the Washington Post in 1990
that “personalizing evil makes it difficult to learn about a country most
Americans know little about. When I see 'Eyes of the killer,' I know this is
hysteria. But when I see 'Dictator’ who will stop at nothing to control the
price of oil,' I don't know if it's true. I rather assume that it is. It's very
difficult for me to know where accuracy ends and where alarm and hysteria
begin."
There are close
parallels between Saddam and the current situation with Assad and Syria, which
is, after all, a country Americans know little about. Certainly, demonizing an
opponent is easier, cleaner, and perhaps more effective than attempting to
explain the eccentricities of global diplomacy.
As peace
journalists, it’s important that we are aware of personification tactics and
how they are used to sell conflicts. Journalists need to more carefully
consider the verbiage we use, whether it is in quotes or not. Are they really
“Assad’s chemicals?” We need to lead a discussion about the dangers inherent in
personification as we ask tough questions that expose oversimplifications. It’s
our job to help the public understand that the ‘good guys vs. bad’ model
doesn’t reflect reality.
Study: Personification of Bashar
Al-Assad in English language media
8/1-8/15 pre
chemical attack
9547 articles on
Syria (searched using only one word-Syria)
Search on Lexis-Nexis database, under “all English media”: The word Syria plus search terms Assad’s army,
Assad’s troops, Assad’s forces, Assad’s military, Assad’s soldiers, Assad’s armed forces, Assad’s aggression, “his army”, “his chemicals”, “Assad’s
chemicals”
Total
mentions=111 (72 under “his chemicals”, 34 under “his army”)
Percentage 111/9574
= Personification
in .011 % of stories
8/28-9/11 post
chemical attack
43,329 articles
(minimum) on Syria –more than quadruple after the chemical attack. (MINIMUM—Lexis-Nexis
maxes out at 3,000 search hits per day. 12/15 days studied hit the maximum).
Same search
Total mentions=6022
(5613 under “his chemicals”, 175 under “Assad’s chemicals”, 168 are under “his
army”)
Percentage 6022/43,329=Personification
in .13% of stories –More than 10 times the previous
personification mentions
NOTE: Even if
there were twice as many articles on Syria not found because of the 3,000 daily
limit on the Lexis Nexis search, there would still be 5 times the
personification mentions as before the chemical attack.
Increasing
frequency of terms
“his army” from 34 pre chemical attack to 168 post
“Assad’s military” from 1 to 56
“his chemicals” from 72 to 5,613
“Assad’s chemicals” from 0 to 175
