Media, War & Conflict
Copyright © 2008 SAGE
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)
Vol. 1(2): 155–175 DOI: 10.1177/1750635208090955
ARTICLE
Uploading dissonance: YouTube and the
US occupation of Iraq
• Christian Christensen
Karlstad University, Sweden
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this article is to analyze the use of YouTube by the US military for the
spreading of messages and information regarding their presence in Iraq, and, at the
same time, to examine the presence on the same YouTube system of a large number
of video clips showing members of the US military engaged in violent, anti-social
activities. That these juxtaposing images of coalition forces in Iraq exist on the same
video-sharing forum forces us to reconsider traditional notions of how ‘propaganda’
is produced, distributed and received. In addition, the presence of dissonant material
on video-sharing sites such as YouTube should lead us to consider the multi-faceted
nature of such sites. This article is intended as a first step toward reconsidering the
nature of propaganda in an era of online media, open-access video-sharing and
simplified production and distribution.
K E Y W O R D S • media • military • propaganda • public diplomacy
• video-sharing • war • YouTube
On 7 March 2007, the United States Defense Department unveiled the latest
tool in the propaganda battle over an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq:
a channel on the video sharing website YouTube with the title ‘MNFIRAQ’
(‘Multi-National Force – Iraq’).1
The channel (which, as of March 2008, had
over 400,000 views)2
hosts a series of short clips shot by US forces in Iraq,
and is intended (in the words of the channel hosts) to ‘give viewers around
the world a “boots on the ground” perspective of Operation Iraqi Freedom
from those who are fighting it’.3
In essence, the channel was created in order
to present US forces in Iraq in a more positive light through the posting of
clips showing troops engaged in a number of pro-social activities. However,
the very soldiers featured in the clips posted to the site are no longer able
to view themselves in action. On 14 May 2007, the US Defense Department
made another announcement regarding YouTube and other video-sharing
sites such as Google Video and Revver, namely that US forces serving in Iraq and
Media, War & Conflict 1(2)156
Afghanistan would no longer have access to these sites. The justification for the
ban was simple: video-sharing sites eat up too much valuable bandwidth.
The bandwidth justification was met with skepticism,4
and it is perhaps
not a coincidence that the creation of the MNFIRAQ channel and the
banning of the use of video-sharing sites came within such close proximity
to each other. The MNFIRAQ channel could be seen as an effort by the US
Defense Department to counterbalance the avalanche of video clips uploaded
to YouTube, Google Video and other sites depicting anti-social – and
sometimes illegal – activities engaged in by US and coalition military forces
in Iraq. Interestingly, many of the most disturbing clips were shot by military
personnel themselves, and not by anti-war activists or Iraqi citizens. It is not
unreasonable to assume, therefore, that restricting access to such sites was also
an attempt to stop the posting of damaging material by coalition troops –
material that is obvious fodder for already widespread anti-American and
anti-coalition sentiment in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.
With these factors in mind, the purpose of this article is to discuss and
analyze the use of YouTube by the US military for the spreading of pro-American
messages and information regarding their presence in Iraq, and, at the same
time, to examine and discuss the presence on the same YouTube system of a
large number of video clips showing members of the US (and British) military
engaged in extremely violent, anti-social activities. That these (sometimes
wildly) juxtaposing images of coalition forces in Iraq exist on the same videosharing
forum forces us, I will argue, to reconsider traditional notions of how
‘propaganda’ is produced, distributed and received. In addition, the presence
of dissonant material on video-sharing sites such as YouTube should lead us
to consider the multifaceted nature of such sites: as locations containing a
mixture of mainstream, alternative, hegemonic and potentially subversive
clips. This article is intended as a discussion document on the nature of
military propaganda on YouTube in relation to previous literature on public
diplomacy, propaganda, the military and video-sharing sites, and as a first
step toward reconsidering the nature of propaganda in an era of open-access
video-sharing and simplified production and distribution.
Previous literature
That YouTube and other video-sharing sites should be part of the US State
Department’s ‘public diplomacy’ plans speaks volumes about how quickly
such online fora have entered into the popular, political, and now military
consciousnesses. The journal Foreign Policy ran an article by Naim (2007) on
the ‘YouTube Effect’ in which the author noted:
Christensen Uploading dissonance 157
YouTube includes videos posted by terrorists, human rights groups, and U.S. soldiers
in Iraq. Some are clips of incidents that have political consequences or document
important trends, such as global warming, illegal immigration, and corruption.
Some videos reveal truths. Others spread disinformation, propaganda, and outright
lies. All are part of the YouTube effect. (Naim, 2007: 103)
The ‘YouTube effect’ on US foreign policy has, according to Figueroa Kupcu
and Cohen (2007), now evolved into a fully global public relations and information
battle waged in and through various online and offline media:
For the first time since the days of the Barbary pirates, America is doing active
battle not with a rival nation, but with a non-state actor (al Qaeda) that lacks
a geographical home, is motivated by ideology more than territorial ambition,
and whose victories are defined in non-military terms. It is an enemy that uses
communication technology, public opinion, and the global 24-hour news cycle
to wage its battles. It is, in a very real sense, the first ‘YouTube War’ of the twentyfirst
century.
While terms such as ‘the YouTube effect’ and ‘YouTube War’ are both sexy
and sound-bite friendly, they tend to deflect attention away from the harsh
political economic realities of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as
the horrific numbers of victims of these conflicts whose deaths and injuries
are far from ‘virtual’. What these rather glib terms do point to, however, is the
fact that in an era of instantaneous global online distribution systems and
cheap, simple media production, the dominance of traditional, centralized
and hierarchical modes of information dissemination, public diplomacy and
propaganda can no longer be taken for granted.
Propaganda, public diplomacy and the media
In this article, the term ‘propaganda’ is used to describe material posted to
the MNFIRAQ channel by the US Defense Department. The definition of
propaganda provided by Jowett and O’Donnell (1992) will be one of the
underpinnings for my use of the term, as it provides a clear framework for
separating the material uploaded officially to YouTube by the US military,
and material uploaded, as far as can be ascertained, unofficially. The authors
define propaganda as ‘the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions,
manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response
that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist’ (Jowett and O’Donnell,
1992: 7). Key to this definition is the assertion that propagandistic information
distribution is part of a systematic, carefully premeditated communication
strategy designed to achieve specific goals. This definition fits well with the
planned, systematic and highly institutionalized communication strategies
implemented by large-scale government and/or military organizations, such
Media, War & Conflict 1(2)158
as those instigated by the US State Department following the invasions of
both Afghanistan and Iraq. The clips uploaded ‘unofficially’ to the YouTube
site, on the other hand, are, for the purposes of this article, not considered
to be part of such large-scale, structured, institutionalized information campaigns.
This is not to say that such clips are not intended to be persuasive
or highly emotive, but rather that their ad hoc nature and apparent lack of
organizational and/or hierarchical underpinning is what separates them from
their official counterparts.
‘Propaganda’, not unsurprisingly, is a word often rejected by the US
military and government, with the phrase ‘public diplomacy’ used in its place.
Smyth (2001), citing a number of US government documents and officials,
gives the following official definition(s) of the term:
What [is called] propaganda is described by the U.S. government as ‘public
diplomacy’ with its ‘missions’ described in the ‘Foreign Affairs Reorganization
Fact Sheet’ being ‘to understand, inform, and influence foreign audiences and
broaden the dialogue between American citizens and institutions and their
counterparts abroad’ (White House Office of the Press Secretary, 1998) through,
according to the United States Advisory Commission On Public Diplomacy
(October 2000) ‘international exchanges, international information programs,
media research and polling, and support for nongovernmental organizations’.
Evelyn Lieberman (1999) at her confirmation hearing as the first Under Secretary
for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, said ‘Public Diplomacy, practiced in
harmony with traditional diplomacy, will enable us to advance our interest, to
protect our security, and to continue to provide the moral basis for our leadership
in the world’. (Smyth, 2001: 422)
This definition of ‘public diplomacy’ is rooted in global transformations
in the modes of state information production, distribution and exhibition,
as well as a realization by the USA of the need for the concurrent use of
‘hard’ military power (‘realpolitik’) and the forms of ‘soft’ power (e.g. cultural,
diplomatic, economic) described by Nye (1990). In this sense, the decision by
the US Defense Department to create a YouTube channel is not only practical
but logical in that, as Van Ham (2003) notes:
… the theory and practice of public diplomacy are part of a wider discourse that
also involves strategic communications and branding. Taken together, these
embody a new direction in the evolution of diplomacy that is taking place in a
novel technological and political context (Riordan, 2002) … It [public diplomacy]
is a manifestation of the systemic transformation of international relations into a
global political process. (Van Ham, 2003: 429–30)
Public diplomacy is the result of a conceptual shift in how the USA conducts
international affairs: from the realpolitik of gunboat colonialism to what is
Christensen Uploading dissonance 159
called noopolitik (Van Ham, 2003: 440). Coined in the late 1990s by Arquilla
and Ronfeldt (1999), noopolitik
… is less about control than ‘decontrol’ – perhaps deliberate, regulated decontrol
– so that state actors can better adapt to the emergence of nonstate actors and
learn to work with them through new mechanisms for communication and
coordination. (Arquilla and Ronfeldt, 1999: 39, cited in Smyth, 2001: 423)
Noopolitik is rooted in the concept of the noosphere – loosely defined as the
sphere of human thought. Smyth concludes by noting that:
The ultimate goal of 21st century information strategy, this reinvented public
diplomacy, this noopolitik, (this constructivism operationalised), is to draw target
publics into the U.S. web of influence. ‘Realpolitik is typically about whose military
or economy wins. Noopolitik may ultimately be about whose story wins (Ronfeldt
and Arquilla 1999, p. 22).’ (Smyth, 2001: 440)
With these shifts in mind, the use of YouTube by the US military is but
one tool in the noopolitik of the 21st century. The use of the mainstream
media for the purposes of propaganda (or ‘public diplomacy’) is, of course,
nothing new, particularly during times of war (e.g. Altheide and Grimes,
2005; Bennett and Paletz, 1994; Hallin, 1994). In her work on the history
of the interrelationship between media, war and propaganda, Andersen
(2006) suggests that the connections between war, journalism and popular
entertainment (such as films and video games) have reached such a level
that the word ‘militainment’ should be used. For Andersen, propaganda and
‘militainment’ serve a very clear purpose: to create a socio-political environment
in which war becomes an acceptable (and accepted) tool within USdriven
geo-politics. As she writes:
War is understood and interpreted, justified and judged through the images
and narratives that tell the stories of war. Most civilians experience military
conflict through the signs and symbols of its depiction, their impressions not
derived from the battles in distant lands but from the manner they are rendered
at home. (Andersen, 2006: xvi)
These interpretations and reinterpretations of war are informed by the
material presented in the mainstream media: material often saturated with
pre-approved, government-sanctioned images of war. The result is a collage of
war made up of a series of myths and stories:
The past is mined to shape new narratives able to present current conflicts in the
language of old familiar ones. At the intersection of myth and memory, fictional
forms mingle with those of non-fiction, as news of war is understood through
cultural tropes and media formats. The politics of memory is made manifest by
the fragments that are retrieved and those that are repressed, for war could not be
carried out if its negative, counter-narratives of death and brutality were starkly
Media, War & Conflict 1(2)160
drawn. Because a fundamental aspect of war involves destruction and death, it is
at times inevitable that representations of its horrors emerge, such as the photographs
from Abu Ghraib. As those uncontrollable, dark images enter the cultural
sphere, they will be rhetorically reinterpreted and made culturally acceptable.
(Andersen, 2006: xvi)
The rise of the internet and sites such as YouTube, Google Video, MySpace
and Revver provides organizations such as the US military with the opportunity
to find new venues for the creation and re-creation of the stories and
myths discussed by Andersen. Importantly, these venues differ from their
predecessors (radio, television, print and film) in that alternative, counterhegemonic
messages coexist – on the same sites – as the materials produced
by the military:
Instead of the one way flow of information that is seen with TV and newspapers
it now becomes multi-directional, allowing multiple senders/receivers in distributed
locations, from various backgrounds and cultures to participate. When we
look at the 1991, Persian Gulf War, the majority of the information received was
via television and was highly dependent on military sources, with Colin Powell
becoming well recognized by a large number of Americans (Lewis et al., 1991).
Information originating from the Internet gives users the chance to see situations
from different points of view and to evaluate and compare the information from
different biases. There is also no time bias on the reporting of information; it is
posted as it occurs without regard for deadlines and schedules. Information is
available whenever the users choose to retrieve it. (Jefferson, 2007: 14–15)
Snow and Taylor (2006: 406) note that in this new information environment,
‘truisms compete with “alternative truths”’ and that for a truth to
prevail, it must be seen to be more ‘credible’ than the alternative. To this end,
Purcell (2005) has listed the reasons why a military organization might create
sites in cyberspace, emphasizing that the mere presence of a website or space
is symbolic in and of itself:
For militaries across the globe, justification of their existence, gaining legitimacy in
societies, and expressing power, the Internet is a new terrain of contestation. The
symbolic presence of a website connotes several things to casual browsers:
• Modernity;
• understanding of modern communications technology;
• openness to communication and transparency.
Whether the military organization intends to project these ideas is irrelevant. The
mere presence of a website accomplishes this through the symbolic value inherent
in posting a site. (Purcell, 2005: 196)
Other works (Berenger, 2006) have also analyzed the role of ICTs in military
conflict and information strategy, but have added thoughts on the drawbacks
(from a propaganda perspective) of the use of online, interactive technologies.
Christensen Uploading dissonance 161
Military strategists Kinniburgh and Denning (2006: 9) make note of the fact
that the effectiveness of propaganda is very much linked to perceptions of
the source, and that online propaganda created by the US military (such as
MNFIRAQ) could fall victim to what they call ‘in-group/out-group dynamics’
in which foreign audiences reject the propaganda out of hand simply because
it is created by the USA. And, more importantly for the purposes of
the present article, Berenger (2006) makes the crucial point that there is a
fundamental difference between online technologies and ‘traditional’
media outlets when it comes to promoting national interests or ideologies:
The Internet is no respecter of national borders, of time, or, for that matter,
un-questioned patriotism or nationalism. Charges can quickly be matched by
counter charges; simple assertions can be stripped away by clicking on the next
link. Cyberspace is both a vast reservoir of information – useful as well as trivial –
and a babbling brook of streaming consciousness. All is there for the world to see
and ponder, to ignore or absorb. In short, the new media offer users an unparalleled
array of choices to become either passive or active consumers of information. The
new media are interactive, and this characteristic may be what sets them apart
from their predecessors more than anything else. Anyone with access may express
his or her views, often without mediation or editing, on topics raised by Internet
sites or weblogs. In contrast, traditional mass media still struggle with the problem
of feedback.
This important observation – on the open, multi-faceted, and somewhat unpredictable
nature of online media – is an apt point upon which to transition
to my discussion on the presentation (official and unofficial) of the conflict
in Iraq on YouTube.
Method
For this article, a total of 41 videos uploaded to the YouTube system were
viewed and analyzed: 29 from the MNFIRAQ channel, and 13 from various
other YouTube channels. The 29 clips from MNFIRAQ represented all videos
on that channel (as of August 2007). It is important to note that the 13 nonMNFIRAQ
clips discussed and analyzed in this article were selected on the
basis of their juxtaposition to the 29 MNFIRAQ videos, and not on the
assumption that they were/are representative of ‘typical’ YouTube clips from
Iraq. The starting point for this article, therefore, was MNFIRAQ and the clips
contained on that channel, and the proposition that those 29 clips forwarded
a specific view of the war (as discussed later in this article). These videos were
usually viewed twice, and for each video notes were made regarding (1) the
primary subject/theme of the clip, (2) upload date, (3) length, (4) number of
views, and (5) miscellaneous observations/factors. Then, once the MNFIRAQ
Media, War & Conflict 1(2)162
clips were viewed and coded, YouTube was searched for alternative views of
the conflict in Iraq. The 13 clips studied as juxtapositions, however, were not
random or piecemeal selections: just as the clips on MNFIRAQ had varying
lengths, upload dates and total number of views, so did the non-MNFIRAQ
clips. For example, the MNFIRAQ clips had a viewing spread from just over
1,000,000 (for the most viewed clip) down to 600 (for the least); the nonMNFIRAQ
clips had a corresponding spread of 965,000 down to 2000. Similar
viewing numbers, lengths and upload dates provided a filtering system
whereby it was impossible to simply select the most ‘spectacular’ or ‘unusual’
clips. These 13 clips were then viewed and coded using the five factors from
the analysis of the MNFIRAQ clips.
YouTube, MNFIRAQ and opposing views of war
To begin, a few brief words about the formation of YouTube. YouTube.com,
a ‘video-sharing’ website, was the brainchild of three former employees
(Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim) of the PayPal online commerce
company.5
The YouTube.com domain name was activated in February 2005,
and the first video to be uploaded onto the site was posted on 23 April 2005
by YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim.6
The site was fully operational just
before the end of 2005, and, within a matter of months, had become one
of the fastest-growing websites in the world. To illustrate the point, by the
summer of 2006 (just six months after launch of the site) 60–100 million clips
were being viewed daily on YouTube, with 65,000 videos being uploaded onto
the site every 24 hours.7
By February 2007, YouTube.com was the fifth most
visited website in the world, only behind giants Yahoo.com, msn.com, Google.
com and Baidu.com.8
In November of 2006, YouTube.com was purchased by
Google for US $1.65 billion, netting founders Hurley (US $345 million), Chen
(US $326 million) and Karim (US $64 million) enormous financial windfalls.
In a relatively short period of time, as Naim (2007) and Figueroa Kupcu and
Cohen (2007) have noted, YouTube has become much more than just a site for
uploading home videos of birthday parties, cute puppies and old television
programs. In the USA, for example, political candidates for the 2008 US
Presidential race have made extensive use of YouTube, illustrating the extent
to which the site has extended its influence.9
In the following sections I will examine the ways in which the military
conflict in Iraq is presented on YouTube’s MNFIRAQ channel, followed by
an examination of a number of videos/clips also to be found on YouTube
showing the US and British military engaged in activities that contradict the
‘clean’ war presented by the US Defense Department.10
These dissonant images
Christensen Uploading dissonance 163
will be the basis for a discussion on how sites such as YouTube force us to
reconsider traditional notions of ‘propaganda’, in terms of how it is produced
as well as how it is distributed and understood.
MNFIRAQ: presenting a ‘clean’ war
The Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNFIRAQ) YouTube channel was put up
on 7 March 2007. As of August 2007 there were 4891 channel ‘subscribers’
(individuals who receive updates whenever new clips are posted to the
channel), and the clips uploaded to the channel have been viewed, in total,
over 2 million times. The MNFIRAQ channel was created by the US Defense
Department, although the channel has links to the ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’
site, which is home to the Multi-National Force – Iraq (US plus international
coalition allies). On the MNFIRAQ channel homepage, the following rationale
is given for the creation of the new channel:
Multi-National Force – Iraq established this YouTube channel to give viewers
around the world a ‘boots on the ground’ perspective of Operation Iraqi Freedom
from those who are fighting it. Video clips document action as it appeared to
personnel on the ground and in the air as it was shot. We will only edit video clips
for time, security reasons, and/or overly disturbing or offensive images.
What you will see on this channel in the coming months: – Combat action–
Interesting, eye-catching footage – Interaction between Coalition troops and the
Iraqi populace. – Teamwork between Coalition and Iraqi troops in the fight against
terror. What we will NOT post on this channel: – Profanity – Sexual content –
Overly graphic, disturbing or offensive material – Footage that mocks Coalition
Forces, Iraqi Security Forces or the citizens of Iraq.
This YouTube channel is brought to you by www.mnf-iraq.com, the official Web
site of Operation Iraqi Freedom.11
In Table 1 we see a list of all 29 clips/videos uploaded to the MNFIRAQ
channel. The number of ‘views’ for each video varies, with the most viewed
clip (Battle on Haifa Street, Baghdad, Iraq) having attracted just over a million
views to date, while a number of the clips toward the bottom of the list have
been seen only a few thousand times.12
What is clear from the rationale for
the MNFIRAQ site is that the videos uploaded to are intended to give a ‘viewer
friendly’, sanitized version of the US invasion of Iraq. It is interesting to
note, for example, that the channel provides what it calls images of ‘combat
action’ and ‘eye-catching footage’, but without ‘profanity’ or ‘overly graphic,
disturbing or offensive’ content. In addition, the clips are intended to show
‘interaction’ between coalition troops and Iraqi citizens. After viewing all
of the clips on the MNFIRAQ channel, it became clear that they fall into a
number of thematic categories: categories very much in line with not only
Media, War & Conflict 1(2)164
Table 1 Clips uploaded to MNFIRAQ channel (3 August 2007)
Clip title Upload date Length Views
1 Battle on Haifa Street, Baghdad, Iraq 10 March 2007 2:56 1,051,856
2 Baghdad Firefight, March 2007 20 March 2007 1:50 345,216
3 Long Day in Baqubah, 22 March 2007 28 March 2007 1:40 222,695
4 Kidnap Victim Rescued, Baghdad, Jan. 2007 2 April 2007 2:10 218,486
5 Stryker Patrol Leads to Firefight 22 March 2007 2:15 112,936
6 Rounding Up Insurgents, March 2007 1 April 2007 2:16 84,521
7 Night Raid near Baqubah, Iraq 7 March 2007 1:33 75,058
8 AA Attack, Iraq, 2 March 2007 9 March 2007 1:39 74,387
9 Taking Fire in Baqubah 5 April 2007 2:32 59,801
10 Night Attack on Al Qaeda 15 March 2007 0:52 59,071
11 Insurgents Surrender after Gunship Attack,
15 June 2007
21 June 2007 2:07 42,610
12 More Fighting in Baqubah 3 May 2007 1:50 23,157
13 Destroying Rocket Launchers Near Sadr City 7 June 2007 1:12 22,466
14 Soldiers Find Intel in Ramadi 21 March 2007 0:48 18,710
15 Battle on Haifa Street, Baghdad, Part 2 20 April 2007 3:00 16,160
16 Troops Give Gifts to Iraqi Children 30 March 2007 1:41 15,368
17 Operation Exelen III, 25 Feb. 2007 7 March 2007 1:39 15,277
18 Iraqi Boy Scouts Prepare for Jamboree 17 April 2007 1:43 14,048
19 F16s Bomb IED Factories, April 2007 13 May 2007 0:44 13,971
20 ‘Soft Knock’ Search in Baghdad 23 April 2007 1:22 13,548
21 Destroying Chemical Factories, March 2007 7 July 2007 2:18 11,944
22 Coalition Investigates, then Destroys IED
Factory
8 May 2007 1:38 11,842
23 Apache Crews Thwart Rocket Attack on IZ 9 April 2007 1:10 11,700
24 Senior Terrorists Eliminated 24 July 2007 0:55 8,738
25 Patrolling Baqubah, 13 April 2007 30 May 2007 2:53 8,458
26 Baghdad Building Destruction 12 March 2007 1:01 6,760
27 T-Wall Paintings, Baghdad, 11 May 2007 17 May 2007 1:32 3,620
28 IRTN Station Opening, Diyala, 26 March
2007
28 March 2007 3:11 1,353
29 Insurgent Headquarters Discovered,
Destroyed
1 August 2007 1:57 657
the rationale for the MNFIRAQ channel, but also with goals in general of
propaganda/public diplomacy. The following three thematic categories
emerged from my analysis of the clips: (1) street fighting and gun battles;
(2) surgical warfare; and (3) ‘good deeds’ and aiding Iraqi citizens. In the
following sections, I will discuss each of these categories in turn, as well as the
images and themes of warfare presented in selected clips/videos.
Christensen Uploading dissonance 165
As is evident from the viewing figures for the videos on the MNFIRAQ
channel, the most popular clips are those showing US (and some coalition)
forces engaged in some form of battle, and usually troops taking part in
firefights on the streets. In fact, the top three videos on the channel (with
a total of over 1.5 million views) are all examples of material showing such
‘action’. What distinguishes these clips is that they all show (primarily) US
forces engaged in gun battles, but they only show the US troops and not the
‘targets’ of the fire. If the targets are shown, they are usually in the form of
buildings or other inanimate subjects. In this way, the gunfights maintain
an air of ‘victimlessness’, with the human casualties of war not shown. US
troops are usually calm and collected, and show few outward signs of panic
or fright.
Three clips serve as good examples of the prototypical MNFIRAQ ‘gun
battle’ clip. In Baghdad Firefight (no. 2 in Table 1), the video opens with the
following on-screen text: ‘American and Iraqi Soldiers take and return fire
while implementing Fardh Al-Qanoon (Baghdad Security Plan)’, and, in
this way, the combat is defined for viewers from the start as being instigated
by the enemy. In the clip, US and Iraqi forces are fired upon, and the Iraqi
members of the group are then shown giving orders to their troops. As the
gun battle continues, the soldiers are shown ‘engaging with’ (shooting at)
the enemy in a very calm, collected and orderly manner. Even during the
heat of the fighting, orders are spoken, not shouted. At the end of the clip,
no ‘results’ of the battle are shown, with troops merely continuing their
fighting. Similarly, in Long Day in Baqubah (no. 3), the video opens with the
text: ‘Soldiers in Baqubah, Iraq, continue their patrol after exchanging fire
with insurgents’, and soldiers are again shown engaged in a calm, collected
gun battle. Toward the end of the clip, the troops leave their positions and
enter the streets, where they are greeted by a number of children (one of
whom shakes the hand of one of the troops), and where a row of women and
children pass by the camera, with the children waving to the camera. Finally,
Battle on Haifa Street (no. 1), the most watched video on the channel, opens
with the following text:
US Soldiers from the 3rd Stryker Brigate, 2nd Infantry Division alongside Iraqi
Soldiers from the 6th Iraqi Army Division engage insurgents from a high-rise in
the Haifa Street area during security operations. Operation Tomahawk Strike 11
is one of a series of targeted raids to disrupt illegal militia activity.
Unlike the other clips, the soldiers are somewhat more animated, showing
a certain degree of exhilaration (and even happiness) during the shooting.
And, the buildings being hit by the fire are also shown, in flames, in the distance.
As with all of the other fighting clips, however, no human casualties
Media, War & Conflict 1(2)166
(dead or injured) are shown, or even suggested, and the troops at no time
show excessive aggression or malice.
The second type of clips are ones I have defined as ‘surgical warfare’
in which US and coalition troops (usually from aircraft, but also on the
ground) seek out and destroy selected targets, but do so with a minimum
amount of visible human casualties. The best example of this type of clip is
Destroying Rocket Launchers Near Sadr City (no. 13), in which a ‘helicopter destroys
insurgent rocket launchers near Sadr City, Baghdad’ (clip text). The
video, in grainy black and white and without sound, shows a line of rocket
launchers destroyed by coalition aircraft. At one point, a rocket is fired
from the ground, and the video flashes the text, ‘Rocket fires as launcher is
hit. (No injuries reported.)’ Similarly, F16s Bomb IED Factories (no. 19) shows
in black and white the destruction of a number of IED (‘Improvised Explosive
Device’) factories, which, after the bombs hit, exploded in dramatic fashion.
While this clip does have sound, there is no speaking from either the pilot or
central control during the raids, save for one sentence toward the end of the
clip in which an unidentified voice says, ‘I don’t really see anything left of
any of the buildings’. Finally, one of the few clips in which casualties were recorded
or acknowledged, Destroying Chemical Factories (no. 21) gives a relatively
detailed account (narrated by a US soldier) of how suspected IED plants were
located by coalition forces, followed by black and white aircraft video of a
number of houses being destroyed (presumably the factories discussed by the
soldier). The clip ends with footage of the destroyed houses/factories, and the
following text:
While conducting an operation in Iraq, Coalition Forces destroyed 2 explosive
production facilities. During the same operation, Coalition Forces killed 8 terrorists,
detained 13 suspects and destroyed: 150 RPG’s, 30 rockets, plastic explosives
and hundreds of mortar rounds.13
A final ‘genre’ of clip to be found on the MNFIRAQ site is the one in
which US and coalition forces are shown taking part in ‘good deeds’, aiding
Iraqi civilians in various ways. These clips are what one might describe as ‘feel
good’ material, uploaded to create the impression that the US military has a
good rapport with Iraqi civilians. In the first example, Kidnap Victim Rescued
(no. 4), and according to the text at the start of the clip, during a routine house
search, US forces found a kidnap victim who was a Shi’ite. The clip continues
by showing a number of US forces visiting the home of the kidnapped man
and the troops informing the family that their relative was located and
safe. The large family then explodes with tears of happiness, showering the
troops with hugs and kisses. Two other videos, Troops Give Gifts to Iraqi Children
(no. 16) and Iraqi Boy Scouts Prepare for Jamboree (no. 18), show US forces taking
Christensen Uploading dissonance 167
part in charitable deeds: giving footballs and other gifts to Iraqi children and
taking part in preparations for a Boy Scout meeting (again with numerous
Iraqi children). Finally, there is a clip that combines elements of battle with a
connection to the community. In ‘Soft Knock’ Search in Baghdad (no. 20), US
troops are shown searching houses for weapons, utilizing what is known as
a ‘soft knock’ strategy in which troops request permission to enter homes in
order to search for weapons and other illegal material, as opposed to simply
entering at will. The strategy is intended to encourage good relations between
citizens and troops, and the clip opens with footage of happy Iraqi children
laughing and singing, followed by US troops performing searches. The search
in question results (seemingly) in the confiscation of several weapons, with
smiling citizens watching the soldiers do their duty. The clip ends with a scene
where happy children once again mingle with US troops.
Opposing views: presenting a ‘dirty’ war
Without a great deal of effort, a number of clips and videos can be located on
YouTube that show radically different images of the war to those presented
on the MNFIRAQ channel. The videos discussed in this section are presented
in Table 2, and represent material uploaded to the YouTube site that generates
the greatest sense of dissonance when combined with the clips on the
MNFIRAQ channel. Again, all of these clips were viewed and analyzed. Unlike
the material provided by the US Defense Department (via MNFIRAQ), the
‘opposing view’ clips discussed in this section do not come from one single
channel source, but from a variety of sources. What is clear, however, is that
the majority of the material was shot by US or coalition troops themselves,
thus providing a salient juxtaposition to the clips – also shot by coalition
forces – on the officially sanctioned channel.14
In this section, I will address
this ‘alternative’ view of US/coalition activities in Iraq, and will do so by using
the same three thematic categories used before: (1) street fighting and gun
battles; (2) surgical warfare; and (3) ‘good deeds’ and aiding Iraqi citizens.
While the clips of gunfights and street battles shown on MNFIRAQ
portrayed bloodless combat conducted by a cool, rational US military, videos
found on other YouTube channels revealed a much more violent, aggressive and
disturbing view of warfare. Two videos are particularly unsettling, and shatter
the image cultivated on MNFIRAQ. In the first, British Troops Beating Young
Iraqis on Camera (no. 3a),15
Iraqi youths are shown (from a video shot from
a rooftop position) throwing stones at British soldiers, after which a number
of youths are taken back into a walled compound and violently beaten by
British soldiers. The youths in question appear to be in their early teens, with
some possibly younger, and were beaten by soldiers using fists, kicks and
Media, War & Conflict 1(2)168
batons. In one instance, a young boy was held down by a number of troops
while another soldier kicked him in the genitals. What makes the clip particularly
disturbing is the fact that the person who shot the film (identified by
the British News of the World as a Corporal in the British Army)17
can be heard
laughing violently and encouraging his fellow troops as the beatings take
place. At several points the ‘narrator’ even makes moaning noises suggesting
a pleasure that borders on the sexual. Similarly, in Witness to a War Crime –
US Marines Shoot Unarmed Civilians (no. 4a), a group of US soldiers open fire
on unidentified targets across a street. Unlike the scenes from the MNFIRAQ
channel, troops are less than cool and collected during combat, and make a
number of comments expressing the pleasure they take in the violent fighting.
The following comments were all made on the video by various US soldiers:
‘Dude, look at it! We fucked those people all to shit down there!’
‘I shot that dude in the white car who ran into that building!’ (in a bragging
tone)
‘See that car ... I lit that fucker up! He got 30 rounds in that bitch!’
‘Yeah, bitch! You’re fucking done!’ (yelling toward the targets of the gunfire)
‘Oh, my fucking bitch is done, dude!’
The video also shows the target of the US gunfire, including two vehicles that
appear to have entered the battle-zone by accident. The troops fire on the
two cars, and the passengers are forced to run for their lives while the soldiers
continue to fire upon them with automatic weapons.
Table 2 Iraq War clips uploaded to various YouTube channels (5 August 2007)
Clip title 16
Upload date Length Views
1a. Humvee Traffic Driving in Baghdad 26 January 2007 2:37 964,233
2a. Iraqi Kids Run for Water 14 September 2006 1:06 793,867
3a. British Troops Beating Young Iraqis on
Camera
13 February 2006 2:00 179,191
4a. War Crimes Caught on Video 29 September 2006 3:29 124,031
5a. Witness to a War Crime – US Marines
Shoot Unarmed Civilians
26 March 2007 2:36 109,300
6a. Car Destroyed by US Soldiers 10 June 2006 1:20 63,237
7a. Security Operatives Filming
Themselves Shooting at Civilians
28 January 2007 2:32 61,149
8a. Iraq – Poor Doggy 4 November 2006 1:15 51,757
9a. Leaked Video of US Troops in Iraq 3 May 2007 2:34 17,635
10a. Apache Kills in Iraq 24 July 2006 3:32 13,028
11a. Soldiers Making Fun of Iraqi Kids 7 February 2007 1:08 4,005
12a. US Troops Flash Bang Iraqi Farmer 2 March 2007 0:19 2,089
Christensen Uploading dissonance 169
The implications of the material in the second category of video found
on the MNFIRAQ channel (‘surgical warfare’) – namely that military operations
in Iraq are made using extreme precision, and with a minimum of
human casualty – were also brought into question by material available on
various YouTube channels. Two clips, also based upon grainy black and white
footage taken from US attack aircraft, provide violent, disturbing images of
air warfare that dispel any notions of a ‘clean’, surgical fight. In Apache Kills
in Iraq (no. 10a), video footage taken at night shows a US Apache helicopter
gunning down three suspected weapons smugglers, and it is noteworthy
for two reasons. First, unlike the ‘cockpit videos’ from the MNFIRAQ channel,
this clip shows US forces using high-powered ammunition against humans,
not buildings, and with horrific results. When the three men are struck with
the 30mm rounds, their bodies explode, with clearly visible body parts being
sprayed in all directions (the imaging system used during darkness is thermal,
making the resulting scene all the more upsetting). Second, in this video, one
of the three victims was wounded before being killed by a second round of
fire. When the clearly injured man crawls out from underneath a truck, he is
spotted by the Apache pilots who have the following exchange:
‘Movement right there …’
‘Roger. He’s wounded.’
‘Hit him!’
‘Roger. I’m hitting the truck.’
‘Hit the truck and him. Go forward of it and hit him.’
The shocking brutality of this video was compounded by the fact that one
of the three victims was shot with high-powered artillery when lying injured
and defenseless on the ground, which would appear to be a clear violation of
the Geneva Conventions.18
In the second video, War Crimes Caught on Video
(no. 4a), a news story from the British Channel 4 television news program was
placed onto YouTube. The report contains footage (taken during April of 2004)
of the US bombing of Fallujah. In the clip, pilots in an F16 fighter aircraft
spot a large group of people (approximately 30) on a street in a built-up urban
area. The pilot reports to central command, ‘I’ve got numerous individuals on
the road. Do you want me to take those out?’, to which the immediate response
comes, ‘Take them out’. The video then shows the pilot of the aircraft locking
the missile guidance system on the group running along the street, followed
by a massive explosion in the middle of the crowd as the missile hits. The
pilot reacts to the explosion by saying, ‘Oh … dude!’
Finally, as noted earlier, the creators of MNFIRAQ attempted to cultivate
the image of a good relationship between US forces and local Iraqi civilians.
The clips showing troops in good natured exchanges with Iraqi children and
Media, War & Conflict 1(2)170
families have stark counter-images in clips found on other YouTube channels.
Iraqi Kids Run for Water (no. 2a), Car Destroyed by US Soldiers (no. 6a) and Leaked
Video of US Troops in Iraq (no. 9a) give potential viewers a more unsettling view
of the US occupation. The first clip, Iraqi Kids Run for Water, has been one of the
most watched uploads (shot by US forces) on YouTube. In it, US soldiers dangle
bottles of clean water over the back of a truck, and laugh as Iraqi children run
through the streets in an effort to reach them. One young boy, who appears to
be six or seven years of age, runs after the truck for a long period, much to the
amusement of the soldiers. When the truck begins to pull away, the soldiers
throw a bottle onto the road, but it is taken by other children, and the little
boy ends up with nothing. In the second video, Car Destroyed by US Soldiers,
US troops catch people whom they claim have stolen wood.19
As punishment,
members of a tank division gleefully shoot their guns at the car of one of the
looters, and then, laughing, run the car over (several times) with their tank,
destroying it. The owner of the car informs the journalist who shot the footage
that he is a taxi driver, and that the car was his only source of income. In
the third video, Leaked Video of US Troops in Iraq, a US soldier speaks to a friend
about his feelings regarding his time in Afghanistan (the clip appears to have
been shot in Afghanistan). In one segment, the soldier is asked about being
sent overseas, to which he sarcastically responds in a sweet voice:
You know, it’s great because you get to interact with the kids, to help them out a
lot, and help other people that are poorer than you. You know, you feel like you
are giving something back.
The soldier then ends the sarcastic tone and continues,
Fuck that shit! I don’t give a fuck! First week I felt love coming out of my heart
helping these kids. The second week? Get the fuck out of here!
The soldier admits that he makes fun of children in Iraq because they cannot
understand what he is saying, and the video concludes with a shot of US
troops amusing themselves by making a group of young Afghan children
(who clearly have no idea of what they are saying in English) repeat the
following sentences: ‘I … am … an … idiot’; ‘We … beg … too … fucking …
much’; ‘Fuck … this … country’.
Discussion: YouTube and challenges to orthodoxies
There is, of course, nothing new about soldiers making their own records of
activities (legal or illegal) in various theaters of war. From poetry to charcoal
sketches to photographs, there is a long history of troops, for whatever
Christensen Uploading dissonance 171
reasons, attempting to memorialize their actions. A number of factors, however,
separate the posting of video clips made by soldiers to sites such as
YouTube from earlier forms of troop communication. Most obviously, these
sophisticated video clips – unlike, for example, the First World War poetry of
Wilfred Owen – can be created and then posted almost immediately, with a fair
degree of simplicity, to a potential global audience of hundreds of millions.
The volume of footage shot by coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and then posted to the YouTube site, is substantial. There is no way to accurately
measure exactly how many clips exist, but suffice it to say that countless hours
can be spent locating and watching such material. It is important to note that
the majority of clips posted to YouTube do not show soldiers engaged in war
crimes, violence or anti-social behavior, but rather taking part in the mundane,
day-to-day activities one would associate with military personnel during free
time: sitting around in tents, talking with colleagues, eating, singing songs
and sending messages to loved ones back home. Other clips, however, are
disturbing and occasionally horrific. It is these that would appear to be, at
least in part, the reason behind the US military initiating a ban on the use of
video-sharing sites.
The specific videos discussed in this article, and the use of YouTube (and
other video-sharing sites) for the purposes of disseminating propaganda in
general, should lead us away from purely techno-deterministic discussions
of how sites such as YouTube simply facilitate the spread of more propaganda
or more counter-hegemonic material, toward a discussion of how traditional
notions of propaganda need to be reconsidered in light of the existence of
outlets such as YouTube, Google Video, Revver and MySpace, as well as a theorization
on the unique nature of YouTube as both a site for mainstream media
distribution and radical, alternative fare. As my analysis has shown, the
material presented of the MNFIRAQ channel on YouTube is seen in a different
light when combined with the Iraq/Afghanistan clips uploaded to other
channels. This is not, however, to propose a ‘strong effects’ model of media
influence in which individuals change their fundamental political, social or
cultural beliefs on the basis of a few short video clips. Naturally, all of the clips
discussed in this article can be used, and have been used, by pro- and anti-war
activists alike to bolster their support for, or opposition to, the occupation.
By the same token, however, we cannot assume that all users, in the USA
and elsewhere, have fixed, unchanging views of the conflict, and these images
can have an impact upon how citizens view not only the occupation of Iraq
but war and the military in general.
With these caveats in mind, I would like to offer some thoughts on
the results of this study. First and foremost, the efforts of the US Defense
Media, War & Conflict 1(2)172
Department via the MNFIRAQ channel fit very neatly into the notions of
noopolitik and ‘public diplomacy’ discussed earlier. The clips on the channel
are clearly an effort to win the battle for ‘hearts and minds’ over the Iraq/
Afghanistan occupations, but that should come as no surprise, given the US
military’s history of propaganda and information management. However,
while the general content of the MNFIRAQ videos adheres to traditional norms
of propaganda – good soldiers, the use of solid military logic, the fighting of
a ‘just’ war, the benevolent occupiers, the bloodless battles – the site for the
distribution and exhibition of the material, YouTube, does not. One of the
elements of successful propaganda is the ability to control: control of information
placement, timing, context, proximity to counter-images and the like.
The decentralized nature of YouTube, however, makes such a level of control
much more difficult, if not impossible. This is evidenced by the fact that the
US military could not even stop its own troops from uploading clips that do
substantial damage to the image of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many of those videos, as discussed, offered violent and disturbing alternatives
to those officially sanctioned by the Defense Department. In turn, these
clips appear side by side with MNFIRAQ clips when searching the YouTube
system, thus creating what could be called ‘propagandistic dissonance’:
moments when overt propaganda is placed side-by-side with material that
renders such propaganda impotent.
This brings us to the actual images (clips/videos) uploaded to YouTube.
Which clips, one might ask, best ‘represent’ the ‘reality’ of the conflict in Iraq?
It is, of course, impossible to gauge how representative the ‘clean’ MNFIRAQ
videos are vis-a-vis the ‘dirty’ alternative videos. What is central is that propaganda,
as Andersen (2006) wrote, is the act of creating and recreating myths
and stories surrounding military conflict, with the express purpose of making
military intervention and conflict acceptable tools for geo-politics for superpowers
such as the USA. As such, all of the clips tell certain stories about Iraq.
Where the videos differ, however, is that those on the MNFIRAQ channel
have been carefully pre-selected in order to forward a view of the occupation
that serves the political-economic and military interests of the USA. The clips
shot by troops showing abuse, violence and obscenity, on the other hand,
while not presented without thought or planning, do not appear to represent
a long-term, centralized information strategy constructed to influence public
opinion. As such, these shocking videos, one could argue, could have a greater
impact, as they reveal a side of military activity that is meant to be hidden
from the citizens who both fund the war and vote for the politicians who
support it, as well as those who are both directly and indirectly involved.
This is not, despite glib arguments to the contrary, a ‘YouTube War’.
Watching someone being shot is not the same as being shot, and an ideological
Christensen Uploading dissonance 173
video is not the same as a territorial invasion. But, in the war over public
opinion, video-sharing sites such as YouTube and Google Video have, it appears,
begun to restructure the balance of story-telling power.
Notes
1 http://youtube.com/profile?user=MNFIRAQ
2 It is important to remember that there are channel views and video views. The
figure given in this case indicates how many times the channel site has been
viewed, not the number of times the individual videos on the channel have been
viewed. Clips on YouTube are posted to channels, usually created by individuals
or groups. As indicated later in the article, the videos on the MNFIRAQ channel,
when totaled, have been viewed over two million times.
3 http://youtube.com/profile?user=MNFIRAQ
4 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6657309.stm; and, http://www.guardian.
co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6632144,00.html
5 Other websites that are classified as ‘video-sharing’ include Google Video, MySpace
and Revver.
6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNQXAC9IVRw
7 http://www.youtube.com/t/about; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube
8 Baidu.com is a Chinese-language search engine.
9 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/08/youtube_creates_issues_
debate.html
10 A quick note on the reliability of the videos discussed. Every effort has been
made in this study to use video clips that are as complete as possible. A number
of clips posted to YouTube are re-edited by the channel creators, sometimes in
order to support a certain political or ideological position or to mislead the
viewer. Due to the number of postings to the site, it is impossible to be sure that
the clip used is the full, original version. However, every effort has been made to
ensure that this is the case.
11 http://youtube.com/profile?user=MNFIRAQ
12 A note about the ‘views’ figures used throughout this article: the figures shown
here (and elsewhere) are the total number of times the clip in question has
been viewed via the MNFIRAQ channel. It is important to remember, however,
that clips are often shown on more than one YouTube channel simultaneously,
with viewing figures generated for each individual channel. In the case of the
most viewed clip from MNFIRAQ, Battle on Haifa Street, I have found numerous
copies of the clip posted to other YouTube channels. This means that the number
of views for this clip via all channels would probably be closer to 1,250,000.
In addition, clips are often edited together, with bits and pieces taken from
numerous sources. It is impossible, therefore, to give totally accurate figures as
to how many times these clips, or parts of them, have been viewed.
13 http://youtube.com/watch?v=pizK4Lkk-CQ
14 One of the clips (no. 6) appears to have been shot by outsourced ‘security
operatives’ working on behalf of the coalition.
Media, War & Conflict 1(2)174
15 The video is credited on the clip as being from the British News of the World, but
appears to have been shot by a member of the British military.
16 It is important to note that the titles of the clips are created by the person who
uploads them. Many of the clips in Table 2 have titles that are not statements of
fact (‘war crimes’), but opinion.
17 http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/14/iraq.beatings/index.html
18 From Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions:
‘… persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of the
armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be
treated humanely, without any distinction founded on race, colour, religion or
faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.’
The same article prohibits violence to life and person, particularly murder, cruel
treatment or torture, humiliating and degrading treatment. Source: http://www.
un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp210.htm
19 This clip was a reproduction of a television report made by US public broadcasters
on the occupation, and was not shot by US forces.
References
Altheide, D. L. and J. N. Grimes (2005) ‘War Programming: The Propaganda Project
and the Iraq War’, Sociological Quarterly 46: 617–43.
Andersen, R. (2006) A Century of Media, A Century of War. New York: Peter Lang.
Arquilla, J. and D. Ronfeldt (1999) The Emergence of Noopolitik: Toward an American
Information Strategy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. URL (consulted 10 May 2007):
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1033
Bennett, W. L. and D. L. Paletz (eds) (1994) Taken by Storm: Media, Public Opinion and
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Berenger, R. D. (2006) ‘Introduction: War in Cyberspace’, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 12(1): article 9. URL (consulted 30 July 2007): http://jcmc.
indiana.edu/vol12/issue1/berenger.html
Figueroa Kupcu, M. and M. A. Cohen (2007) ‘Congress and the “YouTube War”’,
World Policy Journal: Winter. URL (consulted 30 July 2007): http://newamerica.
net/publications/articles/2007/congress_and_the_youtube_war_5187
Hallin, D. (1994) We Keep America on Top of the World. London: Routledge.
Jefferson, T. (2007) ‘The Use of ICTs in Regional Conflicts, War, and Terrorism’, VINE:
The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 37(1): 14–17.
Jowett, G. and V. O’Donnell (1992) Propaganda and Persuasion (2nd edn). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Kinniburgh, J. B. and D. E. Denning (2006) ‘Blogs and Military Information Strategy’,
Iosphere (publication of Joint Information Operations Center) Summer, URL
(consulted 10 May 2007): http://www.au.af.mil/info-ops/jsou/blogbook06june.
pdf
Lewis, J., S. Jhally and M. Michael (1991) ‘The Gulf War: A Study of the Media, Public
Opinion and Public Knowledge’, research report P-8, Center for the Study of
Communication. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Christensen Uploading dissonance 175
Naim, M. (2007) ‘The YouTube Effect’, Foreign Policy January/February: 103–4.
Nye, J. S. (1990) ‘Soft Power’, Foreign Policy 80: 153–71.
Purcell, D. (2005) ‘The Military in the Noosphere’, Information, Communication &
Society 8(2): 194–216.
Riordan, S. (2002) The New Diplomacy. London: Polity.
Smyth, R. (2001) ‘Mapping US Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century’, Australian
Journal of International Affairs 55(3): 421–44.
Snow, N. and P. M. Taylor (2006) ‘The Revival of The Propaganda State: US Propaganda
at Home and Abroad since 9/11’, International Communication Gazette 68(5–6):
389–407.
Van Ham, P. (2003) ‘War, Lies, and Videotape: Public Diplomacy and the USA’s
War on Terrorism’, Security Dialogue 34(4): 427–44.
White House Office of the Press Secretary (1998) ‘Foreign Affairs Reorganization
Fact Sheet’, URL (consulted 11 July 1999): http://www.state.gov/www/global/
general_foreign_policy/fs_981230reorg.html
Biographical note
Christian Christensen is Associate Professor in the Media and Communication
Studies Department at Karlstad University in Sweden. Dr. Christensen’s research
focuses on media and politics from an international perspective, and his work has
been published in journals such as The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics,
Global Media and Communication and the British Journalism Review. Initial ideas for this
article were first presented in June 2007 at the Milan meeting of COST ESF A30 Action:
‘East of West: Setting a New Central and Eastern European Research Agenda’.
Address: Media & Communication Studies, Faculty of Economics, Communication and
IT, Karlstad University, 65188 Karlstad, Sweden. [email: christian.christensen@kau.se]
Copyright of Media, War & Conflict is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.