ABSTRACT
The media is an actor that ‘speaks’ rather than ‘acts’. Its primary role in responding to conflict is to ‘discover’ and report on conflicts, informing other actors of their existence and keeping them updated with how the conflict is unfolding, as well as assessing and commenting on how other actors (particularly the policymakers) are performing in their response to it. In countries with freedom of the press, media corporations have the liberty to report about whatever (and in whatever manner) they see fit, within certain ethical boundaries. In theory, the media is thus able to independently pursue and report on stories, focusing on fulfilling their role as ‘mirror’, objectively reflecting the world and what is happening in it, and/or as ‘watchdog’, keeping an eye on authority and exposing abuse or failure by those in authority to act in response to matters that demand their attention. as will be seen in this chapter, with regard to foreign conflict, the media generally does a poor job as a mirror and as a watchdog, given its highly selective response to conflict that is generally neither objective nor proportionate. This chapter looks first at the media’s response to conflict, assessing its selection of conflicts for coverage and the quantity and quality of that coverage. It then examines the internal factors that determine the media’s choices: its shrinking foreign presence; focus on packaging, presentation and speed; danger and access; the close-to-home factor; the need for simplification; media convergence; and the effects of the Internet. Finally, it explores the influences of the policymakers, the public and academia on the media agenda.
