Humanitarian Intervention

Debate over the extent to which the mass media serves elite interests, alternatively plays a powerful role in shaping political outcomes has been resolute by dichotomous and one-sided claims. Many commentators attribute enormous power to news media, claiming they have the ability to ‘move and shake governments’. Such views have found clearest expression in the debate over the CNN effect concerning the apparent ability of news media coverage to drive western intervention during humanitarian crises. The phrase CNN effect encapsulated the idea that real time communicating technology could provoke major responses from domestic audiences and political elites to global events. Analysing the CNN effect in terms of ‘who controls the media’ is useful because it reflects the debate within foreign policy circles. For foreign policy experts, by focusing upon news media sources this approach can determine in non-elite

While the French led the humanitarian intervention, there is power politics lying underneath the decisions. Looking at Rwanda, the French intervened a particular point that intervention was a response of humanitarian genocide trying to save people’s lives, but in reality it was trying to protect French interests in Rwanda.

Bosnia 1995, a lot of discourse was around the intervention in military action in Bosnia was framed in terms of the credibility of western security institutions.

The media coverage of the Gulf war in 1991 sustained on what was essentially going on, giving a voice to the Kurdish people. They told them to rise up but they were dying instead. Journalists were engaging in very powerful advocacy journalism with attachment. Attachment to the Kurds visibly, powerfully and emotionally relaying what was happening to them. Creating a very difficult situation to the American President needless to say to the British Prime minister, there is nothing they can

help the Kurds