Foreign Policymaking in the Age of Television

Eytan Gilboa

The discussion of the global news networks' effects on defense and foreign affairs policymaking has produced two oppositional arguments: news management and the CNN effect. "News management" refers to the government's control of information and manipulation of the media, meaning that the media primarily functions as a tool for policymakers. Conversely, commentators employ the "CNN effect" to describe television coverage, primarily of horrific humanitarian disasters, which forces policymakers to take actions they otherwise would not have, such as military intervention. This phenomenon enables the media to determine the national interest and removes the power of policymaking from appointed officials. Unfortunately, this binary focus has obscured the widely varied subtleties around and between these poles of analysis, deflecting attention from the actual effects of global news networks. Upon closer examination of decision-making, one finds that global media has effects that exist between these polar extremes, which are less obvious, but highly significant.

Policymakers acknowledge that 24-hour global news coverage influences policymaking. Former Secretary of State James Baker identified three effects: the need to respond quickly to events without sufficient time to consider options; the need to cope with television's attempts to determine the national interest; and, the use of global television for fast and direct communication with foreign leaders. According to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, global television coverage contributes to policymaking "because you know what's going on and there is a real-time sense about things." She noted, however, that "it makes you have to respond to events much faster than it might be prudent, because facts may come in incorrect, but you don't have time to put them in context, so you respond just to a little nugget of fact, and when you learn the context later, things change."

This article explores the negative effects that global television networks have on the policy process. These include: the creation of tight policymaking deadlines; media demands for immediate response to crises and events; the exclusion of experts and diplomats; diplomatic manipulations; the creation of high expectations; and partisan media. The article suggests several tools that policymakers can use to meet the challenges of global news coverage.

Effect 1: Forcing Snap Decisions.

Scholars, officials, and journalists have expressed concern about the impact of global television coverage on the pace of policymaking. The rapid speed of broadcasting and transmission of information often manipulates and accelerates the policy process. Over the course of the 20th century, technology reduced the time needed to transmit information from weeks to minutes. Official U.S. responses to the construction and destruction of the Berlin Wall clearly demonstrate this time constraint. In 1961, President Kennedy had the luxury of waiting eight days before making the first official U.S. statement on the construction of the Wall. In 1989, President Bush felt compelled to comment less than eight hours after the destruction of the Wall.

Historian Michael Beschloss argued that the speed of this coverage may force hurried responses based on intuition, rather than on careful deliberation, and that this may lead to dangerous policy mistakes. He wondered whether or not Kennedy would have had the time to carefully consider options to resolve the Cuban missile crisis if he had been under the pressure of global television. Kennedy had thirteen days to deliberate and to negotiate an acceptable agreement with the Soviets. President Clinton's press secretary, Dee Dee Myers argued, "If that happened now, Bill Clinton would have about 30 minutes, and [CNN reporter] Wolf Blitzer and everybody else would be standing out on the North Lawn of the White House demanding action, or saying 'the president is indecisive.' So I worry that the time allowed leaders in crisis to make good decisions is compressed. That's a troubling development." Veteran journalist Daniel Schorr agreed: "Think about the communication age we live in and the way nail-biting officials must make fateful decisions without time to think. And, if you are like me, you will worry a little bit when powerful people make snap decisions, trying to keep up with the information curve."

Political leaders thus face a serious dilemma: should they respond quickly at the risk of making a mistake, or should they take more time to deliver a better response at the expense of being seen as a confused or weak leader?...

Eytan Gilboa is Professor of Government and Communication at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. He wrote this article while serving as a fellow at the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. He is the editor of: Media and Conflict: Framing Issues, Policy Making, Shaping Opinions. (Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, 2002).