英语论文网

大多数人很少会希望发生战争这一事件，它会涉及死亡，遗弃，罪恶，金钱，欺骗和太多因素以至于很难把它最终损失全部列出来。然而，在一些国家的一些地方，很少的时候是没有战争硝烟的，战争的发生就是有人想侵略他们。冒着风险，失去的往往是一个政府的信任。无论如何，他们都得说服他们的公民来支持他们对各种战争所做出的努力。接近投机就更清楚这是怎样实现的：媒体。无论是印刷还是广播，电视媒体都给了公众一种真实感。有了这一点谨记在心，就更容易说服公民战争的必要，在战争中政治媒体的作用就是那些觉得媒体作用是微乎其微的人们，和那些认为媒体是最重要的人们经常讨论的主题。虽然没有普遍一致的观点，也很难质问在过去的战争中政府的处理行为方式尤其是战争处理上，有影响力的媒体希望提出不同的理论。

The News: International “Objective” Informant

War is rarely an event looked forward to by many people. It involves death, abandonment, guilt, money, deceit, and an ultimate loss of too many elements to list them all. However there is rarely a time when there is not a war going on in some part of the country. For wars to happen there has to be people willing to fight in them. With so much at stake and so mush to lose it is often a wonder how governments, which are seldom trusted anyway, convince their citizens to support their various war efforts. With closer speculation it becomes quite clear how this is accomplished: the Media. Whether print, radio, or television the media gives the public a sense of getting the real story. With this in mind it is much easier to persuade citizens that wars are necessary. Medias role in the politics of war is an often debated topic by those who believe the role is minimal and those who believe that media plays the utmost importance. Although there is no universal opinion, looking at different theories proposed and the wars of the past it is difficult to question how influential media is when dealing with any type of governmental action especially war.

Although under constant scrutiny, the media plays a very significant role in the politics of warfare. Many believe that “governments seek cooperation, if not outright support, from the media to legitimize military action” (Thussu and Freedman 128). Media of Conflict argues that the media serves several purposes in the continuance of conflict. First it claims, “national media coverage has had the effect of exacerbating conflict as a result of conscious political strategies by political activists”(Allen 3). This has often been the case when politicians have the support of journalists, and they work in conjunction to present a certain image full of sensationalism and less insight. The second claim is that “wars are what the media makes of them”(Allen 3). This does apply to the shaping of military strategies but more importantly deals with representation of violence. The media has the ability to make certain forms of killing acceptable while making others appear inhumane and unnecessary. Media of Conflict’s most important point about the purpose of media is found in the declaration that “how wars are made, how participants strategize their interests, how and if the international community reacts, how the audiences in other more comfortable places comprehend what is happening and how responsibility is structured and action are all, in the modern war, in part, a media story”(Allen 4); which comments on the ability of the media to provide the only information on the actions of the government as well as the apparent motivation of their actions.

Before one discusses the media and its role in public opinion on warfare or on government image, the term media must be defined. Popular use of the term would imply that media is singular and refers to o