Mass media platforms play an important role in contemporary warfare by virtue of the fact that they are closely associated with public opinion and public policy. Indeed, there is a communicative nexus between the mass media and modern warfare as media reporting is known to affect the justifications and means by which officers engage in war and how the military establishes military policies.2 This paper discusses how the ubiquity of media continues to affect U.S. military interests and how contemporary military policy responds to media ubiquity.
Media ubiquity basically means that the activities undertaken by media are everywhere and influence the society in a substantial way. Indeed, media engagements are “woven finely into the social fabric of the social environment in a manner that transcends patterns of use and nonuse.” This implies that media activities are social in nature and notable in scope. When news about U.S. military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan assume a ubiquitous nature, for example, a multiplicity of social institutions and practices are organized around them in spite of the fact that people and communities may choose to consume or ignore such news.
The described media capacity or state of being everywhere at all times continues to affect U.S. military operations and interests. This is because of the fact that global media platforms frame war news according to sociocultural perceptions and needs of those in power. The concept of flaming refers to “the way events and issues are organized and made sense of” In cross-cultural contexts, players have used the ubiquity of media to select some aspects of the U.S. military engagements and make them more salient in a communication context in such a manner as to promote a particular interpretation or moral assessment of America’s military efforts in various war fronts. For example, the U.S. military engagement in Iraq has continued to suffer adverse cultural reactions due to intensified media reports that accuse the force of shallow doctrine and vague mission objectives. Such media reports affect U.S. military interests by not only impacting its execution of the war, but also shaping government and public policies in military budgeting and foreign engagements.
The U.S. military policy has responded to media ubiquity in terms of undertaking up-to-date briefings and opening up more space for media scrutiny. It should be recalled that, although the media may frame military in negative light based on political or cultural contexts, communication is nevertheless important in ensuring the effective functioning of the military. It is only by facilitating a smooth information flow that the U.S. military can be able to shape public opinion by influencing the actions of the mass media. In recent years, the military has allowed reporters to be embedded in fighting units to enhance objectivity and accuracy in war reporting. This strategy has worked to the advantage of the military as the institution is now able to use media power to rally public support and influence public opinion. However, the military must be at the forefront in disseminating accurate and objective information to avoid negative media coverage and subsequent harmful depictions of its engagements in the global arena.
This paper has discussed important aspects regarding media ubiquity and how it affects U.S. military interests. It has been discovered that media omnipresence may negatively affect U.S. military interests depending on political, social, and cultural contexts. It has also been discovered that the military must engage the media more constructively if it is to influence public debate and policy. This realization has forced the military to change its engagement with mainstream media platforms. Today, the military neither avoids the media nor views it as an annoyance on the battlefield. On the contrary, it has expanded media space by becoming more responsive to the needs of reporters.
Bibliography
Dimitrova, Daniela V. and Jesper Stromback. “Foreign Policy and the Framing of the 2003 Iraq War in Elite Swedish and U.S. Newspapers.” Media, War & Conflict 1, no. 2 (2008): 203-220. 2015. Academic Search Premier File.
Fitzsimmons, Daniel. “Media Power and American Military Strategy: Examining the Impact of Negative Media Coverage on U.S. Strategy in Somalia and the Iraq War.” Innovations: A Journal of Politics 6, no. 2 (2006): 53-73. 2015. Web.
Ganesh, Shiv and Cynthia Stohl. “From Wall Street to Wellington: Protests in an Era of Digital Ubiquity.” Communication Monographs 80, no. 4 (2013): 425-451. Academic Search Premier File.
Schnell, Jim. “Perspectives on the Iraq War: Mass Media Implications, U.S. Military Policy, and Cross-Cultural Communication.”Media Psychology Review 4, no. 1 (2010): 1-11. Web.