1. Foreign affairs and political communication
Impact of (global) media on foreign policy making
Media as controlling actor
Media as constraining actor
Media as intervening actor
Media as instrumental actor
The use of media/communication by foreign policy makers
Public diplomacy

2. Media as controlling actors
“CNN effect”
Global media (esp. television) becoming a direct actor in foreign affairs
Replacing policy makers
Selectively advocating humanitarian intervention
Perception/concern of polical and military elites
“CNN is the sixteenth member of the security council” (Boutros Boutros Ghali, Former UN Secretary General)
“Television’s ability to bring graphic images of pain and outrage into our living rooms has heightened the pressure both for immediate engagement in areas of international crisis and immediate disengagement when events don’t go according to plan” (Madeleine Albright, Former US Secretary of State)
“the terrible tragedy of tiananmen was a classic illustration of a powerful new phenomenon: the ability of the global communications revolution to drive policy” (James Baker, Former US Secretary of State)
Based on misconceptions amongst political and military leaders over role of media in Vietnam war
Between mixed and contradictory results from academic studies into CNN effect
Selective media focus on crises and media advocacy at best “necessary but not sufficient” condition for intervention

3. CNN effect vs. manufacturing consent
Are media independent, interested actors pushing for intervention?
Or are governments encouraging selective coverage of atrocities to help generate support for intervention they pursue?
Media as enemies or henchmen of political establishment?
Herman (1993) doubts both the watchdog and the adversary model of media
Media relying heavily on government sources, especially in context of foreign affairs
Governments as primary definers of media content and framing
Structural (economic) constraints
Conservative expectation of patriotic media; in some contrast with notion of impartial reporting

4. Media use in foreign negotiations
Diplomacy, the role of ambassadors, demoted
From representing country, communicating government positions, negotiating agreements, gathering information, recommending actions to policy makers
To a mere social function
International negotiations now held directly between heads of state/ministers
Openly, or secretly, or through the media
Mass media as core information source
Alternative and mostly superior to intelligence services, departmental and diplomatic information channels
Using media to directly communicate to foreign governments, instead of using slow diplomatic channels

5. Media as constraining actors
24-hour real-time television puts pressure on governments to act
Pay-off between appearing assertive and acting responsibly
International actors no longer have time to negotiate in lengthy process, without public attention
Public opinion becomes a more significant factor in international politics
Foreign policy making
Traditional view that governments are less constrained by public opinion than in domestic policy making
Public opinion more incoherent, inconsistent, unstable
Little public interest (at least in US)
Public opinion more manageable
Foreign issues are “unobtrusive”
Agenda-setting function stronger than in obtrusive issues
Media less critical, because less expectation, pressure, regulation (in UK) to produce balanced coverage

6. Media as intervening actor
Political brokerage
Direct through television formats that bring together conflicting camps for debate (examples Nightline and Cronkite’s brokering between Israel and Egypt)
Indirect through, for example, interviewing political leaders who otherwise are not in diplomatic contact with other countries
Interviews with Fidel Castro for US and other Western governments repeatedly only source to gather information about his position on issues

7. Media as instrumental actor
Media diplomacy
Using media as channels to transmit messages to other international actors
Summits as media events
Effects of media events on diplomacy:
Trivialising role of ambassador
Breaking diplomatic deadlock and generating conditions conducive to negotiations
“sealing effect”
Using media to cultivate public support for negotiations

8. Communicating foreign policy
Public diplomacy
“to understand and 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)
“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” (Evelyn Lieberman, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, 1999)
Claimed to be distinct from propaganda and public relations
“It is not public relations. It is not flakking for a Government agency or even flakking for America. It is trying to relate, beyond government-to-government relationships, the private institutions, the individuals, the long-term contacts, the accurate understanding, the full range of perceptions of America to the rest of the world, both to those who are friendly or inclined to be our partners or allies from one issue to another to those who are hostile, with some credibility or impartiality.” (Duffy, United States Information Agency, USIA)

9. Elements of public diplomacy
Media diplomacy/public statements
Communicating decisions / Adressing multiple audiences
Public information
Use of technology, to make information available, and appear transparent
International broadcasting services
Government-run foreign broadcasts
Making footage available OR running your own global broadcast
British Foreign Office fully funds BBC world service
Voice of America
Education and cultural programmes
Cultural, academic and student exchange
Cultural diplomacy
“Sociological propaganda” (Ellul 1965)
Political action
Democracy promotion through democracy-building agencies
Penetrating political systems and civil society in other countries
Supporting NGOs and pro-democratic grassroots organizations