Negative U.S. Media Linked to Increased Insurgent Attacks
Negative news coverage and anti-war slanted media reports kill U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians, but hey, it’s all in the name of “democracy”.
Periods of intense news media coverage in the United States of criticism about the war, or of polling about public opinion on the conflict, are followed by a small but quantifiable increases in the number of attacks on civilians and U.S. forces in Iraq, according to a study by Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university’s Kennedy School of Government.
The increase in attacks is more pronounced in areas of Iraq that have better access to international news media, the authors conclude in a report titled “Is There an ‘Emboldenment’ Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq.”
The researchers studied data about insurgent attacks and U.S. media coverage up to November, tracking what they called “anti-resolve statements” by U.S. politicians and reports about American public opinion on the war.
“We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases,” says the study, published earlier this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a leading U.S. nonprofit economic research organization.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call “high-mention weeks,” like the two just before the November 2006 election.
The study also found that attacks increased more in parts of Iraq like Anbar province, where there is greater access to international news media, measured by the proportion of households with satellite TV, which its authors say increases the credibility of their findings.
The researchers conclude that the increases in attacks are a necessary cost of the way democratic societies fight wars and say they are concerned that the research may be seized upon by the Iraq war’s supporters to try and silence its critics.
“We are a little bit worried about that,” Mr. Monten said in an interview. “Our data suggests that there is a small, but measurable cost” to “anything that provides information about attitudes towards the war.”
“The researchers conclude that the increases in attacks are a necessary cost of the way democratic societies fight wars”… Freedom to dissent seems to be the only “right” the leftists are willing to see people die for.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1713421
References (2)
-
Response: In case you missed itIn the midst of the flurry of anti-war articles like this one we’ve been seeing over the last week as the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war came and went, the renewed focus from the mediots and their liberal allies in the punditocracy and blogosphe... -
Response: Dawn PatrolWelcome to the Dawn Patrol, our daily roundup of information on the War on Terror and other topics - from the MilBlogs and other sources around the world. If you're a blogger, you can join the conversation. If you link to any of these stories, add a link to the Dawn ...





























Reader Comments (7)
Communist China is having the same problem these days: a free press enables people to see the bad (and the good) about a country, so China is planning to shut down the western media when it tries to enter the country to televise the Olympics.
There's a qualitative difference between communist suppression of the free press and exploitation by the free press of that freedom.
i would say that it is a legitimate use in war though, amy. it is information that can be used for tactical purposes. any side of any war would use information gained to their benefit. i may not like the results when the enemy uses it because it does cause lives lost.
what is needed though is not supressing of information as intended by China but the realization of the msm of how they are helping the cause of the enemy. but unfortunately they do not see it as aiding the enemy.
the people who are pro-victory has done the same thing in regards to situations where the enemy has given information. the difference being is that the words of pro-victory fall on deaf ears. they are accused of supressing dissent or denying free speech.
Griper, I don't think there's anything to be afraid of with the truth. I'm not suggesting truth should be suppressed but that anti-victory bias should be considered more carefully, particularly seeing the results.
Mark in Irvine,
You do not need to shut down anything, but some reporting in Context instead of a pre-ordained storyline might be nice.
I have lived in 4 different types of religious homes "there is know need for a god" Stand on your own. Ray
I have lived in 4 different types of religious homes "there is know need for a god" Stand on your own. Ray