What is the ‘CNN Effect’ and how Relevant is it Today?

Note: This Essay was written as part of my BA in Journalism and Media (2014–17) at Birkbeck, University of London, for the Module of Journalism and Politics.

Introduction

This essay concerns itself with the question of “what is the ‘CNN effect’ and how relevant is it today?”. The work is broken into four sub-sections, excluding introduction and conclusion.

In the first section, an attempt is made at contextualising the televised news broadcaster from which the CNN Effect Theory was named after. Starting with a chronological description of the channel’s inception, and progressing towards highlighting the fields it pioneered: televised news, and technological advancements.

The second section of the essay strives to outline, as clearly and broadly as possible, what the CNN Effect Theory entices. This section is deliberately developed in a generalised manner, as an attempt to describe the basic foundations of the theory, which has been academically approached from a plurality of angles.

The third section attempts to push forward a theoretical development authored by Steven Livingston, which predicts three scenarios thatcan surface as a result of the CNN Effect itself.

The fourth and final section aims at presenting social media as a potential contemporary enhancer to the CNN Effect. Although social media networks are still quite recent in comparison to more established media platforms, there are some indicators suggesting the existence of common ground between both, specially with regards to public opinion and consequential manifestations of it.

Overall, this essay attempts to demonstrate some existing repercussions (contemporary and historical) of the CNN Effect.

The Origins of CNN: Reshaping the News Broadcasting Landscape

On June 1st 1980, the Cable News Network (CNN) made its world debut as the pioneer of a concept which is now ubiquitous: 24-hour worldwide news coverage and reporting (History, 2016).

This unprecedented move was enhanced by the exploration of the (then) newly available technology, which enabled long-distance televised transmissions. Such technology “gave CNN first a national audience in the US, and it was one of the first international broadcasters to ‘blanket the globe’, using a mixture of Intelsat, Intersputnik, PanAmSat and regional satellite signals” (Thussu, 65:2007).

This international blanketing — through technological advancements — aided the dilution of geographically enforced borders, pushing forward a sentiment of global proximity. Broadly speaking — with regards to the capability of immediate transmission of information across disparate geographical locations — “satellite television has revolutionized notions of territory and space” (Rai et al. 61:2007). This revolution is translated into a proximity of global knowledge and awareness where “[l]ocal news [are] world news, and world news can be seen in anyone’s home every minute of the day . . . . [sic] as it happens” (Epley 110:1992). This approach, though, is seen from the perspective of availability (with regards to the existence of tools to facilitate such global proximity), rather than accessibility (who, and in what conditions, can access such means of communication).

During the Gulf War of 1991 CNN was able to outshine its competitors, and reenforce its position as a broadcaster who was one step ahead, by means of technological advancement. By adding portable satellite uplinks to its technological arsenal, the broadcaster “enabled [its] journalists to collect news by satellite, introducing faster news transmission and generating a continuous stream of news copy from diverse locations” (Zelizer 71:1992). This unprecedented access to technological tools, on a relatively new platform of 24-hour News, encouraged “reporters [to] entwine the war story with the story of those doing the reporting.” (Zelizer 69:1992), which inevitably led to a focus on the novel technologies in and of themselves, as much as the events unfolding. Technologically enabled reporting was eventually picked up by other stations, and the hype around such innovations became a part of popular culture’s imaginary, as embodied by Saturday Night Live’s (SNL) comedic skit of “Al Franken’s Mobile Uplink” (Youtube 2013). The skit portrayed a ‘one-man-band’ type of reporter, which providing decontextualised information, loosely connected to immediate events, with a hyperbolic focus on the technology itself.

From Technological Enthusiast to Impactful Agent: The CNN Effect

The possibility for the transmission of information across the globe in a virtually immediate manner opened the floodgates for a new range of possibilities, interpretations, and impacts across several social stratospheres.

According to Freedman, the uttermost basic interpretations of the CNN Effect simultaneously “referred to the ubiquity of the channel (so that all sides were using the same information source) as much as to the particulars of its effects.” (Freedman 34:2015). Ever since such basic conception, a wide array of scholars have been pushing forward a vast amount of perspectives concerned with the definition of the CNN Effect, alongside with its validity and impact (or lack of them).

This section attempts to describe the common thread that underlies, directly or indirectly, the multiplicity of perspectives available about the CNN Effect.

With regards to scholars who believe that the CNN Effect is a reality, regardless of its graspable impact, most agree that the media does not exist in a vacuum striped of any impact in the ‘real-world’. In relation to the meaning that the words ‘CCN’ and ‘Effect’ carry when assembled together, Robinson believes that “the phrase has become the generic term for the abilities of real-time communications technology, via the news media, to provoke major responses from domestic audiences and political elites to both global and national events” (Robinson 2:2002). Jakobsen argues that — within foreign policy and humanitarian contexts — the consequential development of events that trigger such ‘responses’ are believed to occur in a processual manner. Those events happen in a multilayered development that starts with the “[m]edia coverage (printed and televised) of suffering and atrocities [which triggers] journalists and opinion leaders [to] demand that Western governments ‘do something’, [until the point that] the (public) pressure becomes unbearable, [which finally persuades] Western governments to ‘do something’” (Jakobsen 132:2000).

Although war reporting already existed in the years preceding CNN’s existence, its distinguishing trait was one of immediacy.

During the 1960’s, the “Vietnam War became known as the living-room war because it was the first to be brought into America’s homes on television night after night” (Seib 107:1997), although Vietnam’s war reporting differs from contemporary approaches in the sense that “[t]here was no live coverage (…) [and] at least a day or two would elapse between the gathering and the broadcast of war news” (Seib 107:1997). The Vietnam example is relevant because it materialises the end result of Jakobsen’s explanation, in the sense that there is “little doubt that news coverage did indeed contribute to the public war-weariness that eventually made Vietnam a political albatross and forced first Johnson and then Nixon to abandon the effort to win a military victory” (Hallin 7:1989); In other words, media during the Vietnam era affected public opinion’s willingness to support a war, which consequently pressured the US government into eventual policy changes.

As mentioned above, the differing factor between the Vietnam’s coverage impact and the 1991’s CNN coverage of the Gulf war, is immediacy; Or as Livingston claimed: “It is this global, real-time quality to contemporary media that separates the “CNN effect” from earlier media effects on foreign policy” (Livingston 1:1997).

The immediacy factor — in contrast with broadcasts that preceded live transmissions from disparate parts of the globe — is not solely concerned with technological advancement. From a CNN Effect perspective, immediacy is relevant because of the media’s potential in the “shortening of response time for decision-making” (Livingston 2:1997). This significant shrinkage in amounts of time available for both transmission of information, and respective reactionary decision-making showed that “[n]ew technologies appeared to reduce the scope for calm deliberation over policy, forcing policy-makers to respond to whatever issue journalists focused on” (Robinson 7:2002).

Livingston et al. argued that this push for fast-thinking, can create a paradoxical friction between two specific institutional players where “on one hand is the perceived need of various foreign policy actors to manage policy in an atmosphere of relative isolation, sheltered from the vicissitudes of public pressure. On the other are various news media creating those very pressures” (Livingston et al. 414:2010). From such a perspective, governmental and media entities are caught in a vicious-cycle, where the media presents a ‘problem’ to its viewership (including governmental authorities), and repeatedly pressures (by means of repetitive reporting) those working to find a ‘solution’; which may lead to precipitated decisions, rather than rationally balanced ones.

In opposition, it is also pertinent to consider that if the media actually has the relevance to apply continuous pressure on policy-makers, then when journalists choose to ignore certain events, they are enabling their development to proceed unscrutinised. Or, as Hawkins claimed: “Lack of media coverage contributes to lack of policy, and a lack of policy contributes to deadlier conflicts” (Hawkins 65:2011).

Theoretical Framework — Livingston’s Manifestations of the CNN Effect: Accelerant, Impediment, and Agenda-setting

There is a vast plurality of academic approaches to what has been known as the CNN Effect Debate, the “[d]ebate has not only centered on the role and impact of the CNN but also on the impact of the news media in general upon both foreign policy formulation and world politics” (Robinson 2:2002).

The existence of multiple views is what triggered the CNN Effect to transcend the immediate status of unanimously accepted theory, making it a very debated topic among “[s]cholars [whom] have yet to define properly the CNN effect, leading one to question if an elaborated theory exists or is this simply an attractive neologism” (Gilboa 28:2005).

In spite of the theory’s complexity, Steven Livingston’s methodic approach to the CNN Effect is enlightening mainly due to its sober deconstruction of plausible possibilities that can emerge from the media’s influence on governmental authorities.

Livingston identifies three possible manifestations that can reenforce, or surface, from the CNN Effect. The fist perspective approaches the media in a manner that was touched upon in the previous section, as an agent that speeds-up diplomacy. Making a contrasting comparison between contemporary real-time media, and 1962’s non-immediate media available during Cuban missile crisis in the US, Livingston highlights that “the Kennedy administration had several days during which the public knew nothing of the threat looming over the horizon” (Livingston 3:1997). This meant that before live-broadcasts of international events, government officials had a bigger capability to conceal certain aspects of current political reality, which was translated in a quieter environment for policy-makers to steer themselves exempt from external pressures. Paradoxically, Balabanova claims that the presence of Kosovo’s armed conflict (1998–1999) “on the front pages of the main newspapers in the country can be expected to put some temporal pressure on the politicians to react, to come up with responses as quickly as possible, maybe before the media speculations have gone too far” (Balabanova 299:2004). In other words, the accelerating impact of the media — as a result of the CNN effect — “shortens [the] decision-making response time (…) [and] may also be a force multiplier, method of sending signals. [Which is] [e]vident in most foreign policy issues to receive media attention.” (Livingston 2:1997).

The second manifestation that can surface as a result of the CNN Effect, contrasts with the aforementioned accelerating factor, in the sense that it deters political agents from pursuing certain policies. Under this manifestation of the CNN Effect, Livingston detects two possible manners in which the media can hinder the pursue of certain policies. The first, focuses on the emotional response that the media can arouse on the public, and the subsequent pressure that falls upon policy-maker’s shoulders to put a stop to current policies. This was felt during US intervention in Somalia (1993), in which a failed mission resulted in American casualties. As a result, several images surfaced on the media depicting the degrading mistreatment of American corpses, one of which showing the instance when “a body, clearly American only because it is stripped and therefore obviously white, is hog-tied, surrounded by celebrating Somalis.” (Dauber 213:2001). This disastrous imagery “revived some of the same fears and concerns evoked by Vietnam. The Clinton administration’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Somalia as soon as possible was the more immediate result.” (Livingston 4:1997).

The impact from past events such as the Somali incident described, will hardly go unnoticed on behalf of governments and, as a result, further investment on control of the media’s freedom within war scenarios can become a possibility. Although it is likely that contemporarily, “[i]n such circumstances, journalists will already be in the zone of conflict, making their control far more difficult for military planners” (Livingston 5:1997). Livingston, with regards to the management of the public’s emotional response to war-reporting, suggests that “[t]he key variable may be the presence of a clearly articulated policy and a public sense that the policy is “worth it”” (Livingston 5:1997). Overall, the impeachment of governmental policy can occur via the “[e]motional, grisly coverage [that] may undermine morale. [Which consequentially, can result in] [g]overnment attempts to sanitize war (…) [and] limit access to the battlefield” (Livingston 2:1997).

The second manner under which the media can function as a deterrent to policy, is through the media’s capacity to immediately expose army personnel’s sensitive information (such as location). This perspective does not focus so much on the media’s ability to influence public opinion, as it does on the media’s capacity to endanger troops by making information available to all (including the enemy). In Livingston’s words: “As communication equipment becomes more mobile and global in its reach, and real-time reporting of all types becomes more pervasive, the danger to operational security will become more pronounced” (Livingston 5:1997).

In summary, the impediment of policy via the media, can be reached through two separate routes: the emotional shock caused by the display of gruesome imagery, or the endangering of lives due to the uncensored release of vital information.

The third, and last, manifestation of media impact on policy, is present in the way that the media can reshape policy prioritisation. Using the case study of fraud and abuse inside a US federally funded healthcare program, Cook et al. were able to demonstrate the existence of a correlation between media reporting and policy prioritisation. By monitoring the impact of a journalistic piece before and after it was aired, researchers found that the media successfully “altered governmental policy elites’ perception of the issue’s importance, their belief that policy action was necessary, and their perception of the public’s view of issue importance.” (Cook et al. 28:1983).

Although Livingston’s main theoretical framework concerning the agenda-setting manifestation of the CNN Effect is systematically contextualised within foreign policy, Cook et al.’s example is still pertinent. This is mainly attributed to the fact that the focus on foreign policy, is but an expansion of the broader conducting-threat of the CNN Effect, that “argues that the choices and selections of national interests are too heavily weighted in favour of what happens to get covered by CNN or other media” (Livingston 6:1997).

In a summarised manner, the agenda setting component of the CNN Effect is not synonymous with the fact “that issues are necessarily created ex nihilo by media content, but rather that priorities are reordered by coverage” (Livingston 6:1997).

Social Media as a Potential Contemporary Reinforcer of the CNN Effect

The dimensions discussed in the former section in relation to the CNN Effect, are intrinsically entwined with notions of public opinion (and awareness of it on behalf of governments), the immediacy of information exchange (wether sending or receiving it), the exposure of sensitive information (such as locations), and recognition of events on behalf of policy-makers.

In a ‘post-CNN’ media landscape, social media has become the latest technological tool for the transmission of information, as well as for the demonstration of personal sentiment. This opened the possibility for a new relationship with how people access news, granting them not solely an isolated (as a mere viewer or consumer) sentiment towards events, but also “increased freedoms [that] can help loosely coordinated publics demand change.” (Shirky 29:2011).

In a first instance, a connection can be drawn between social media tools (such as Twitter or Facebook), and the acceleration of policies or even greater governmental changes. The Arab Spring is by far the most mediated case study of ‘acceleration’ in contemporary history. Within this context, “through their power of real-time networked communication, the social media acted as a powerful accelerant, facilitating the events in ways that were crucial” (Frangonikolopoulos et al. 10:2012). Although, there is a slight contrast between social media and classical media (such as television or newspapers) in the sense that the pressure applied on policy change is mainly exerted by the people organising ‘online’ and demonstrating in the streets, rather than through mainstream media channels. The outcome of pressuring for change in a ‘social-media-facilitated’ public display of opposition, is, nonetheless (in successful cases such as the Arab Spring), an active form of accelerating governmental, structural, or policy changes.

In a preliminary study revolving around social media’s impact via exchange of information, Zúñiga et al. found that the “informational use of SNS [Social Network Sites] exerted a significant and positive impact on individuals’ activities aimed at engaging in civic and political action.” (Zúñiga et al. 329:2012). This information sharing (of news or personal opinions) via social media “facilitates not only the acquisition of information but also the discussion of its importance and relevance with other members (…) which may increase the elaboration and reflection mechanism for an individual to make sense of what they were informed about” (de Zúñiga et al. 3331:2012). This type of interaction has even furthered the ubiquitous and instantaneous availability of information, which was pioneered by CNN during the 1980’s. Kwak et al. asserted in their research that “some news broke out on Twitter before CNN and they are of live broadcasting nature (e.g., sports matches and accidents). Our preliminary results confirms the role of Twitter as a media for breaking news in a manner close to omnipresent CCTV for collective intelligence” (Kwak 596:2010).

Overall, social media’s ability to instantaneously produce (and reproduce, by means of sharing mainstream media’s stories) and transmit information — to and from global audiences located in disparate geographical positions –, coupled with personal and effective means of communication, enhance its ability to be a potent contributor to the CNN Effect.

The accelerant, impeding, and agenda-setting manifestations of the CNN Effect can easily be stretched out to the social media’s ability to mirror public opinion and sentiment (via the same social and emotional factors raised by mainstream media), while further facilitating public displays of support or opposition. All of which, directly or indirectly, may impact policy-maker’s decisions and prioritisation processes.

Although, overall, one must acknowledge that the theoretical impact of the CNN Effect will always have a hint of a speculative dimension, mainly due to the fact that “influence cannot be observed in any obvious or straightforward fashion. [Because] [w]e cannot see inside the minds of policy-makers and directly observe news media influence at work” (Robinson 16:2002).

Conclusion

The essay attempted to analytically deconstruct the CNN Effect theory. This attempt was conducted via the contextual description of the news channel itself (and its relevant pioneering contributions), identification of the main pillars of the theory (detached from any specific academic contributions), examination of Livingston’s approach to the possible manifestations that can arise from the impact of the CNN Effect, and finally, broadly bridging such manifestations into the contemporary realm of social media.

In spite of the overwhelming amount of information connecting the CNN Effect to issues of humanitarian intervention and foreign policy-making, this essay portrayed the variety of other possible manners in which governmental stances may be shaped by the contribution of the media (nationally or internationally). Contributions which can be further enhanced by social media’s ability to facilitate the display of public sentiment.

Bibliography

• Balabanova, E. (2004) ‘‘The CNN effect’ in Eastern Europe ‐ does it exist?: The representation of the Kosovo conflict in the Bulgarian print media’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, Vol. 5, №2, pp. 273–304. [Accessed Online 15/07/2016] <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15705850408438888>

• Cook, F. L., Tyler, T. R., Goetz, E. G., Gordon, M. T., Protess, D., Leff, D. R., Molotoch, H. L. (1983) ‘Media and Agenda Setting: Effects on the Public, Interest Group Leaders, Policy Makers, and Policy’, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 47, №1, pp. 16–35. [Accessed Online 20/07/2016] <http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/1/16.short>

• Dauber, C. (2001) ‘Image as Argument: The Impact of Mogadishu on U.S. Military Intervention’, Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 27, №2, pp. 205–229. [Accessed Online 18/07/2016] <http://afs.sagepub.com/content/27/2/205.short>

• de Zúñiga, H. G, Jung, N., Valenzuela, S. (2012) ‘Social Media Use for News and Individuals’ Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Political Participation’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 17, №3, pp. 319–336. [Accessed Online 15/07/2016] <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x/full>

• Epley, J. S. (1992) ‘Public relations in the global village: An American perspective’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 18, №2, pp. 109–116. [Accessed Online 12/07/2016] <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/036381119290002G>

• Frangonikolopoulos, C. A., Chapsos, I. (2012) ‘Explaining the Role and the Impact of the Social Media in the Arab Spring’, Global Media Journal, Vol. 8, №1, pp. 10–20. [Accessed Online 10/07/2016] <https://www.academia.edu/2370755/Explaining_the_role_and_impact_of_social_media_in_the_Arab_Spring_>

• Freedman, L. (2015) ‘The possibilities and limits of strategic narratives’ pp. 17–35, in “Strategic Narratives, Public Opinion and War: Winning domestic support for the Afghan War” eds. Graaf, B. D., Dimitriu, G., Ringsmose, J. Oxon: Routledge.

• Gilboa, E. (2005) ‘The CNN Effect: The Search for a Communication Theory of International Relations’, Political Communication, Vol. 22, №1, pp. 27–44. [Accessed Online 15/07/2016] <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584600590908429?journalCode=upcp20>

• Hallin, D., C. (1989) “The “Uncensored War”: The Media And Vietnam”. California: University of California Press.

• Hawkins, V. (2011) ‘Media selectivity and the other side of the CNN effect: the consequences of not paying attention to conflict’, Media, War & Conflict, Vol. 4, №1, pp. 55–68. [Accessed Online 08/07/2016] <http://mwc.sagepub.com/content/4/1/55.short>

• History (2016) “This Day In History”. [Accessed Online 09/07/2016] <http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cnn-launches>

• Jakobsen, P., V. (2000) ‘Focus on the CNN Effect Misses the Point: The Real Media Impact on Conflict Management is Invisible And Indirect’, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, №2, pp. 131–143. [Accessed Online 03/07/2016] <http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/37/2/131.short>

• Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park., H., Moon, S. (2010) ‘What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?’, WWW ’10 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, pp. 591–600. [Accessed Online 09/07/2016] <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1772751>

• Livingston, S., Eachus, T. (2010) ‘Humanitarian crises and U.S. foreign policy: Somalia and the CNN effect reconsidered’, Political Communication, Vol. 12, №4, pp. 413–429. [Accessed Online 11/07/2016] <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.1995.9963087>

• Livingston, S. (1997) ‘CLARIFYING THE CNN EFFECT: An Examination of Media Effects According to Type of Military Intervention’, Research Paper R-18. The Joan Shorenstein Center, Press-Politics: Harvard University. [Accessed Online 16/07/2016] <http://www.genocide-watch.org/images/1997ClarifyingtheCNNEffect-Livingston.pdf>

• Rai, M., Cottle, S. (2007) ‘ Global mediations: On the changing ecology of satellite television news’, Global Media and Communications, Vol. 3, №1, pp. 51–78. [Accessed Online 19/07/2016] <http://www.denieuwereporter.nl/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/51.pdf>

• Robinson, P. (2002) “The CNN Effect: The myth of news, foreign policy and intervention”. Oxon: Routledge.

• Seib, P., M. (1997) “Headline Diplomacy: How News Coverage Affects Foreign Policy”. Westport: Praeger Publishers.

• Shirky, C. (2011) ‘The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 90, №1, pp. 28–41. [Accessed Online 18/07/2016] <http://www.jstor.org/stable/25800379?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>

• Thussu, D., K., (2007) “News as Entertainment: The Rise of Global Infotainment”. London: Sage.

• Youtube (2013) “Al Franken’s Mobile Uplink: Gulf War — Saturday Night Live”. [Accessed Online 06/07/2016] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHKiVkeup2o>

• Zelizer, B. (1992) ‘CNN, the Gulf War, and Journalistic Practice’, Journal of Communication, Vol. 42, №1, pp. 66–81. [Accessed Online 12/07/2016] <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00769.x/abstract>