A PTSD Love Triangle:

Public Opinion, Media, and the Military

!!!!!!!!

Caleb Godsey

Elon University

May 18, 2015

Word Count: 7,870

!!!!!!!!

!1

!Abstract

This study examines the media representation of Fox and MSNBC during two phases of the Iraq

War: Initial Invasion (March - December 2003) and the US "Troop Surge" (January - December

2007). By comparing the tone of coverage from both networks with the occurrence of VA House

hearings, concerning PTSD & mental health, a better understanding of any relationship between

the two might be sought. Analysis suggests there was no apparent relationship between negative

coverage and VA House hearings during the Initial Invasion; however, there was a slight relation-

ship between negative coverage and VA House hearings during the US "Troop Surge." The re-

sults of this study might ultimately benefit efforts toward improving an understanding of the in-

terconnected relationship between the media and the military.

!!

!!!

!!

!2

!Introduction

! The modern era of warfare has seen a significant shift in how, where, and why wars are

fought. These wars are fought within the context of a larger sphere of global interconnectedness,

integrating technologically advanced weaponry and intelligence operations. This new warfare is

narrated and monitored by equally modern and advanced forms of news media. It is then impor-

tant to examine the effect that modern media coverage of these wars has on the military policies

concerning mental health of soldiers.

The struggle of soldiers who have experienced psychological trauma as a result of intense

combat during war is a struggle that only recently has gained significant policy attention. Before

1980, the DSMMD did not include any official designation or recognition of post-traumatic

stress disorder (Chamberlin 2012). Until then, the manifestations of PTSD were merely consid-

ered a weakness amongst enlisted men. Instead of creating military policies that effectively pro-

vided treatment and support of PTSD, the US military emphasized stricter guidelines for screen-

ing potential enlistees (Dean 2013).

Since the efforts toward a better understanding of PTSD are so recent, it seems beneficial

to contribute to any new development or insight. This study seeks to offer such a contribution by

examining the relationship that media coverage of war has on military policies that address

PTSD & mental health amongst veterans. An abundance of literature can be found that touches

upon the general relationship that the media has with the public and political elites. This litera-

ture focuses on agenda setting, agenda building, public opinion, political elites, and casualties.

!3

!!Literature Review

The relationship between the media and the military is a tension that many academics

have sought to understand better. Countless scholars have analyzed the influence that media has

over military policy, media representation, and public opinion of war in particular. This study

will explore the effect negative media representation of war has on military policy concerning

PTSD of veterans. To best understand any such effects media representation may have on PTSD

policy, an exploration of current literature regarding media influence over public policy is neces-

sary.

Scholarly works on this topic can be placed under the umbrella of a general media influ-

ence over public opinion on war: high impact or low impact. Under this umbrella, scholarly liter-

ature can be further narrowed to the relationship between media representation of casualties and

public opinion on war. This literature review will first analyze several scholarly works that begin

with the general relationship between media framing, public opinion on war, and political elites.

The paper will then provide an analysis of literature that is concerned with the interwoven rela-

tionships of media, public opinion, and casualties. Understanding the previous literature will ul-

timately provide a stronger sense of the context that this study operates within.

!Diagnosing PTSD: Historical Evolution

!4

This study seeks to evaluate the effect that positive or negative media representation of war

has on military policy concerning PTSD and mental health. The historical evolution of diagnos-

ing the psychiatric maladies that occur during or after intense combat is fascinating. Unfortunate-

ly, medical advancement and acceptance of Post-traumatic stress disorder did not seriously come

about until 1980. It was then that the official designation of PTSD occurred in the Third edition

of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Chamberlin 2012). This shocking-

ly late official acknowledgment, was a result of the emasculating associations that were be-

stowed upon soldiers experiencing symptoms of PTSD. Historically strict gender roles and ex-

pectations of men prevented an honest evaluation of soldiers who feared being considered weak

(Dean 2013)

Physician Jacob Mendes Da Costa first observed a “disorderly action of the heart” during

his time with soldiers of the Civil War (Chamberlin 2012). This begun the diagnosis of “soldier

heart” amongst soldiers who were experiencing extreme fatigue, heart palpitations, tremors, and

loss of consciousness. During World War I British military psychiatrist Charles Meyers proposed

that exposure to close proximity of exploding bomb shells caused cerebral concussions in sol-

diers -- shell shock (Dean 2013) This proved insufficient when soldiers who had not served in

live warfare exhibited similar symptoms of psychological disorder. Shell shock developed into

combat fatigue following WWII; and finally after Vietnam, the military and medical community

acknowledged Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

It is clear that the examination of military PTSD is a relatively recent development that de-

serves a much more serious exploration and advancement of understanding. More importantly,

!5

its neglect is a serious disservice to the men and women who have lost their lives in combat; as

well as to those who are still struggling to have a life after combat.

!Public Opinion and Framing: Agenda Setting and Agenda Building

The sway of public opinion has been traditionally understood in two ways: agenda setting

and agenda building. The distinction between agenda setting and building is determined by

whom is behind the particular agenda. When the media is thought of as presenting a particular

focus or emphasis that is responsive to established public opinion, agenda setting occurs (Pan

1997; Christie 2006). However when political elites present their own narrative of an event in

attempts to influence the media and public opinion, agenda building occurs (Voeten 2006; Ent-

man et al. 2009).

Scholarly support for a greater influence that agenda setting has over agenda building is

held by Paul Burstein (2003). His work addresses the critics of agenda setting who claim that

interest organizations and political elites determine policy. Burstein points out that ‘public opin-

ion substantially influences policy since ‘interests organizations cannot get what they want

against the wishes of constituents, who can defeat elected officials who ignore them'(2003). The

argument is that media harnesses the power of pubic opinion, engaging in effective agenda set-

ting; all of this in turn is assumed to influence political elites who create public policy (Christie

2006). This does not necessarily mean that public opinion is independent of political elites and

leaders, solely influenced by media agenda setting; but political elites too can use media to set

agendas that ultimately sway public opinion in their favor -- agenda building (Fahmy et al. 2011;

Johansen and Joslyn 2008; Hayes and Guardino 2010).

!6

Agenda building argues that media content is heavily influenced by the political elites

who provide information to the media (Fahmy et al. 2011; Hayes and Guardino 2010). Fahmy et

al. argue in their study on agenda building, that President Bush's rhetorical rationales for invad-

ing Iraq are a clear example of a political elite's influence over media content and public opinion

(2011). This would make sense because the president is often a primary source concerning in-

ternational events like war (Johansen and Joslyn 2008). The assumption is that during the initial

stages of a national crisis, a large amount of deference is given to political elites. The frames of

the political elites are then significantly aligned with the media (Glazier and Boydstun 2012; Rex

2011).

Both agenda setting and agenda building seem to suppose that public opinion is at the

mercy of either the media or political elite. This assumption oversimplifies the public as com-

pletely and totally malleable to the agendas of either the media or political elite. It fails to take

into account the complex variety of social backgrounds that make up individuals within the pub-

lic (Edy and Meirick 2007). Edy and Meirick's study on how the public responded to the media

frames of September 11, found that respondents who viewed the media war frames ‘cobbled

[competing frames] them together to build a story of their own'(2007). Respondents creation of

their own narratives in turn influenced their support for war. This would suggest that the relation-

ship between the media, the public, and the political elite is very complex. Each of the three are

both influencing and being influenced by each other.

Scholar Kevin Coe furthered the critique of agenda setting and building with his study of

media framed wartime rationales--freedom, threat, democracy--during the Iraq War. His findings

support Edy and Meirick's conclusion that the agenda setting of the media does not have an abso-

!7

lute impact on public opinion about war (Coe 2013). This is not to say that media rationales do

not matter; rather it is an indication that agenda setting should not be overstated when consider-

ing influence over public opinion.

The findings of Coe focused mainly on media agenda setting, paying little attention to

agenda building of political elites. The scholarly work of Rice and Bartlett provide research that

specifically addresses the assumed impact of agenda building over public opinion. The results

are in line with Coe's findings, whereby media framing of the Iraq War by the Prime Minister of

Australia had little impact on public opinion (Rice and Bartlett 2006). The implication of this

study is that the formation of public opinion can occur independently of a political elite's agenda

building. The relationship that is shared by the media, political elites, and public opinion is cer-

tainly a very integrated and complex fluctuation when considering influence.

!Public Opinion and Casualties

The implication to be drawn from the literature thus far is a serious concern for the com-

plexities of the relationship between the media, political elites, and public opinion. The assump-

tion of a straightforward relationship between media and military influence over public opinion

on war is seriously faulty and incomplete. This must be taken into account when also assessing

the literature that is on the relationship between public opinion on war and casualties.

A very simple and direct conception of the relationship between public opinion and casu-

alties is known as the constituency-based theory. This theory holds that ‘the greater the number

of casualties in a constituency, the more likely there is to be greater opposition to the conflict by

that constituency's representative’ (Gartner and Koch 2005). Political leaders understand that

!8

high casualties amongst a constituency leads to a decline in public support for war (Lambert et

al. 2012). Since the public holds political leaders accountable for unpopular wars, it is in the po-

litical leader’s best interest to avoid warfare that has high causalities; otherwise those leaders

face a high political cost of electoral defeat (Burstein 2003; Boettcher and Cobb 2006). This con-

stituency-based theory would then imply that influential casualty exposure over public opinion

occurs when a cumulative amount of casualties is evident over a span of time (Mueller 1971).

Proponents of this theory operate under the assumption that the public’s aversion to casu-

alties is more likely to influence military policy -- war withdrawal -- when casualties are per-

ceived on a national scale (Hayes and Myers 2009). A pioneer of studying public opinion and

casualties, speaking to the perception of casualty cost on a national scale, is John Mueller (1971).

His argument that the log of cumulative casualties is the best predictor of wartime opinion repre-

sents a prominent stance taken by scholars (Gartner and Segura 1998). However, Mueller’s log

of cumulative casualties has been challenged by the work of scholars who believe such a treat-

ment of public opinion and casualties is not sufficient by itself (Hayes and Myers 2009; Kriner

and Shen 2012).

According to scholars Gartner and Segura, it is marginal casualties, not cumulative casu-

alties that are the best predictors of public opinion on war (1998). The distinction of marginal

refers to instances of catastrophic or unusually high casualty losses during a conflict. Occur-

rences of marginal casualties during Vietnam was shown to have a significantly positive correla-

tion with public disapproval of the war (Gartner and Segura 1998). As spikes in marginal casual-

ties increased, polls indicating public disapproval also increased. This would suggest that an em-

phasis on the shock value that occurs during instances of marginal casualties is warranted. Gart-

!9

ner and Segura believe the shock value of marginal casualties to be the most naturally dominant

influence over public opinion. Marginal casualties are by definition unique, unusual, and, there-

fore, more prominent to the public.

Literature supporting the importance of marginal over cumulative casualties, also notes

an emphasis on local loss over national loss. The notion of proximate casualties -- local loss -- as

being more influential than cumulative casualties, on public opinion of war, is evident (Kriner

and Shen 2012). During the Iraq War, interviewed respondents who reported a desire to with-

drawal troops were positively correlated to the number of proximate casualties within their

community (Hayes and Myers 2009). A supposed reasoning behind this finding is that the local

media coverage of community casualties is most likely to command a majority of the communi-

ties attention and awareness. The most important facet of this finding is that the positive correla-

tion between proximate casualties and public disapproval was independent of cumulative nation-

al casualties. This further reinforces the notion that marginal casualties hold as a better predictor

of public opinion on war.

!Negative Media Representation, Military Policy, and PTSD

As in the discussions of literature on Public Opinion, Agenda Setting, and Agenda Build-

ing, clearly the relationship between public opinion and casualties is just as complex. It would

appear that both cumulative and marginal casualties each have a sphere of influence during a

war. This sphere of influence, however, is deeply connected and dependent upon the wide variety

of social backgrounds and pre-existing beliefs and opinions held by individuals who are a part of

!10

the public. Understanding the background of the relationship held between the media, the politi-

cal elite, and the public, provides a foundation on which to explore further.

In particular, this paper will investigate the question of what effects negative media repre-

sentation of veteran PTSD have on military policies concerning PTSD. The assumption is that

occurrences of negative media representation, the independent variable, will illicit a positive cor-

relation in the occurrence of military policy, the dependent variable. This paper will attempt to

measure and clarify the extent to which negative media representations of veteran PTSD influ-

ences responsive changes in military policy.

!Methodology

! Again, this study seeks to determine the effect negative media coverage of the Iraq War

had on PTSD public policy. A qualitative content analysis of two American news networks, Fox

News, and MSNBC, will be used in this study. The news programs examined specifically are

Fox's Special Report with Brit Hume and MSNBC's Hardball. The study is concerned with both

networks' coverage of the initial 2003 invasion (March to December) and 2007 US "Troop

Surge"(January to December) of the Iraq War. Both Fox and MSNBC's positive or negative cov-

erage of these two war phases will be compared with VA House committee hearings concerning

PTSD or mental illness in the respective time frames of both phases.

The choice of Fox News and MSNBC is due to their open ideological stances of pro-war

and anti-war support during the Iraq War, respectively (Rendall 2003). Studies conducted by

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, found that

!11

Fox News coverage was significantly pro-war and MSNBC anti-war. FAIR determined this by

coding all major network sources as having a position on the war if “they expressed a policy

opinion on the show, were currently affiliated with governments or institutions that took a posi-

tion on the war, or otherwise took a prominent stance”(Rendall 2003). It is assumed that a net-

work with a pro-war stance will provide less critical coverage of the war while a network with an

anti-war stance will provide more critical coverage. Both the Special Report and Hardball were

chosen because they are considered talk/debate shows that openly offer and showcase personal

political opinions. Each is likely to provide some pro-war or anti-war sentiment when covering

either phase of the Iraq War. The choice then to use Fox News and MSNBC within this study, is

because they both serve as clear representations of positive and negative media coverage during

the Iraq War.

The choice to limit the study to the initial invasion of Iraq, from March to December of

2003, and the US “Troop Surge” from January to December 2007, is because of the low to high

amount of US casualties that occurred respectively. The number of casualties was lower during

the initial invasion of Iraq at 486; while the highest number of sustained casualties occurred dur-

ing the US "Troop Surge" at 904 (Gelpi 2006). It is assumed that the amount of casualties sus-

tained in a war will be a direct factor that influences media coverage and support for a war. Ca-

sualty fatigue occurs amongst the public and media as wars wage on, leading to media represen-

tation that is typically more critical and negative (Boscarino 2006).

Casualties are also an important factor within this study because of the implication that

lower or higher occurrences of death have on intensities of combat. The more casualties sus-

tained in a particular battle or year would indicate a high intensity of combat. This higher intensi-

!12

ty of combat increases the likelihood that survivors of such conflicts will experience psychologi-

cal trauma (Gelpi 2006). Therefore choosing years during the Iraq War where casualties were

both lowest and highest, will give a reasonable indication of positive or negative media represen-

tation and occurrences of PTSD in survivors.

!Hypotheses

Upon review of the existing scholarship on media influence over public opinion and poli-

cy, this study suggests the following hypotheses:

H1: There will be a positive correlation between the occurrences of negative media representa-tion, and the occurrences of VA hearings concerning PTSD and mental health. !H2: There will be a negative correlation between the occurrences of positive media representa-tion, and the occurrences of VA hearings concerning PTSD and mental health. !The rationale behind H1 & H2 assumes that media representation of wars has a significant influ-

ence over public opinion of support for the legitimacy of a war. In turn, the public opinion of

support will have influence over political elites who seek to maintain their constituencies' posi-

tive support, by instituting policies that are responsive to the public concerns. In this study, it is

assumed that the media's negative representation of casualties during the Iraq War spurred nega-

tive public opinion of support for the war. This would in turn have influenced political elites to

push for responsive military policies concerning PTSD. It is assumed that the tone of media cov-

erage during the war is the independent variable measured in this study while the VA House

committee hearings concerning PTSD is the dependent variable. House committee hearings will

be gathered from the US Government Printing Office’s VA House committee hearings archives.

!13

!Analytical Methods

In order to adequately measure the effects that media representation of the Iraq War has

on the amount of VA House hearings, concerning PTSD or mental health, I will use the Nexis

news broadcast database. This database provides transcripts to most media broadcasts of the Iraq

War from 2003 to 2011. I will narrow my choice of news broadcasts to Fox New's Special Report

and MSNBC's Hardball as mentioned earlier. The articles that are used must have occurred dur-

ing the initial invasion from March 19th to December 14th of 2003; as well as during the US

"Troop Surge" from January 10th to December 31st of 2007. Nexis searched terms were:

"show(("Iraq War" AND "Invasion" and "Mission Accomplished") and Date(geq(03/19/2003)and

leq(12/14/2003))" and "show(("Iraq War" AND "Troop Surge") and Date(geq(01/10/2007)and

leq(12/31/2007))"

In order to measure whether the media representation is negative or positive, the articles

gathered will be coded for pro-war or anti-war stances. I adopt the same coding qualifications

used by FAIR’s 2003 news media coverage study, in order to determine coverage that is pro-war

or anti-war -- note that this study examines two distant time frames within the Iraq War, while

FAIR’s study only encompassed the first three weeks of the war. The war stances that will be de-

termined by the coverage's featuring of persons who were critical or not of the war efforts. News

programs will be coded as positive based on the percentage of persons featured who are known

to have had a pro-war stance. This includes participants who are identified as Republican politi-

cians, affiliated with Republican institutions or think-tanks, or are serious contributors to Repub-

lican politicians or foundations. News programs will be coded as negative based on the percent-

!14

age of persons featured who are known to have had an anti-war stance. This includes participants

who are identified as Democratic politicians, affiliated with Democratic institutions or think-

tanks, or are serious contributors to Democratic politicians or foundations. Both positive and

negative coverages of the Iraq War are then considered the independent variables being studied.

The coded media sources for positive or negative representation will then be counted and placed

into an Excel table as Fox Positive, Fox Negative, MSNBC Positive, MSNBC Negative.

The dependent variable of this study is the occurrences of VA House committee hearings

concerning PTSD. In order to measure this variable, I will use the US Government Printing Of-

fice's VA House committee hearings archives. These archives will be narrowed to focus on the

108th Congress (2003-2004) and the 110th Congress (2007-2008). Both sets of Congressional

hearings are respective to the time frames that are used to focus on the news media coverages of

the Iraq invasion (2003-2004) and US Troop Surge (2007-2008). The hearings will be coded for

PTSD or mental health. The headlines of hearings that specifically mention "PTSD" or "mental

health" will then be toward military policies that address PTSD or mental health. The coded VA

hearings concerning PTSD or mental health will then be counted and placed into an Excel table

as DV (VA Hearings).

Once the variables of media coverage and VA hearings have been coded and counted, the

raw data will be charted and placed on a graph that represents the frequencies of each variable

over the Iraq war timeframe specified for this study. This means that a graph for the initial inva-

sion (March 19th-Dec 14th 2003) will be created; as well as a graph for the U.S Troop Surge

(Jan 10th-Dec 31st 2007). This study hopes to find a positive trend of overlap with the frequency

of negative media coverage and the frequency of VA House hearings concerning PTSD or mental

!15

health. Such an overlap would not necessarily indicate causality, but would rather point to some

sort of correlative relationship that is assumed to be positive -- increased negative media repre-

sentation will be followed with increased VA House hearings concerning PTSD or mental health.

!Cases/Analysis/Findings

The two cases that are in this study are: the initial invasion of the Iraq War (March 19th-

Dec 14 2003 Case 1) and the U.S Troop Surge (Jan 10-Dec 31 2007 Case 2). The rationale for

choosing and examining both phases of the war is based on the relationship between media cov-

erage and casualties. As mentioned earlier in both the Literature Review and Methodology, casu-

alty fatigue has a significant effect on public opinion and support for wars over time. This as-

sumes that the public's sensitivity to relatively small casualty loss is lowest at the beginning of a

war; this sensitivity significantly increases when losses grow as the war carries on (Mueller

1971). Casualties are then assumed to be lowest at the beginning of a war, increasing with time.

The initial invasion of the Iraq war was then chosen to represent the point during the war

with the lowest amount of casualties. This case is then also assumed to be a time during the war

in which positive media coverage was at its highest, and negative media coverage at its lowest.

The U.S Troop Surge is then chosen to represent the point of the war with the highest amount of

casualties. This case is assumed to be a point during the war in which negative media coverage

was at its highest while positive media coverage is at its lowest. Likewise, the Congressional

hearings occurring in the first case (Initial Invasion 2003-04) are assumed to have a lower

amount of hearings concerned with PTSD or mental health. Congressional hearings occurring in

!16

the second case (US Troop Surge 2007-08) would then assume a much higher amount of hear-

ings concerned with PTSD or mental health.

!CASE 1: Findings

The independent variable of Case 1 was the tone of media coverage: positive or negative

coverage of the initial invasion of the Iraq War. This variable was observed within two condi-

tions. These conditions were the news media broadcasting programs Fox Special Report with

Brit Hume (Condition 1) and MSNBC's Hardball (Condition 2). The study also collected data on

a single dependent variable, VA PTSD House hearings from the 108th Congress of 2003. The

collected data is understood as follows: Condition 1 Fox, Condition 2 MSNBC, Fox Positive

coverage, Fox Negative Coverage, MSNBC Positive Coverage, MSNBC Negative Coverage and

Dependent Variable VA PTSD hearings.

!

!Case 1 (2003): Fox and Positive Coverage

Month 2003

Fox Positive Fox Negative MSNBC Posi-tive

MSNBC Neg-ative

VA PTSD Hearings DV

Mar 2 0 0 1 0Apr 3 0 2 1 2May 4 0 1 2 0June 1 0 1 1 0July 2 1 4 0 0Aug 0 1 1 0 0Sep 0 6 4 2 0Oct 0 0 2 0 0Nov 0 1 1 0 0Dec 0 0 1 1 0Totals: 12 9 17 8 2

!17

When searching the Nexis database for Condition 1 the following search term was used:

search(("Iraq war" AND "panel") and Date(geq(03/19/2003)and leq(12/14/2003))). The affilia-

tion selected was Fox News Network. Once the results were displayed, the search was further

narrowed by searching within the original results: (("Iraq war" AND “panel") and

Date(geq(03/19/2003)and leq(12/14/2003)))and ((special report )). Among these results there

were a total of 62 showings of the Special Report with Brit Hume. These results were then fil-

tered for content, omitting any showings that were not focused on the war: Panel discussion of

Economics, Panel discussion of Elections, or interviews with a singular person. Filtering through

62 results of the Special Report left a total of 21 showings that could be coded for positive cov-

erage.

Of the 21 Special Report showings coded, 12 were considered to be positive. This was

determined, as explained in the Methodology, by evaluating the ratio of panel or show guests

who were either pro-war or anti-war. Guests were considered pro-war if they are identified as

Republican politicians, affiliated with Republican institutions or think-tanks or are serious con-

tributors to Republican politicians or foundations. Guests were considered anti-war if they are

identified as Democratic politicians, affiliated with Democratic institutions or think-tanks or are

serious contributors to Democratic politicians or foundations. Ex: if a show featured four guests

and 3 fall into a pro-war classification, the coverage would be considered positive.

Of the 12 positive Special Report showings, all occurred during the beginning of the

2003 Invasion (March--July). This seems to suggest that Fox coverage of the Iraq war was ini-

tially supportive and in favor of American invasion. This might be assumed to be attributed to a

!18

rally around the flag effect. Patriotism would most likely be at its highest during the beginnings

of a war.

When positive coverage was graphed in Excel with Dependent Variable VA PTSD hear-

ings, the results showed positive coverage occurrences peaking with DV occurrences. Graph1

shows:

!!While positive coverage does peak with the number of VA PTSD hearings, it occurs slightly after

the actual hearings occur. This positive media coverage might have occurred as a reaction to

Congress' previous initiatives to improve the VA -- due to bureaucratic lag.

!Case 1 (2003): Fox and Negative Coverage

Out of the 21 Special Report showings coded, 9 were considered to be negative. This

was determined by evaluating the ratio of panel or show guests who were either pro-war or anti-

war. Again, guests were considered anti-war if they were identified as Democratic politicians,

affiliated with Democratic institutions or think-tanks or are serious contributors to Democratic

politicians or foundations.

!19

Fox Positive v. DV

0

1

2

3

4

Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Fox Positive VA PTSD Hearings

These 9 negatively coded sources occurred after July, peaking at 6 in September. This

suggests that as the Iraq war progressed, casualty fatigue could have influenced public and polit-

ical opinions toward the war. This assumed casualty fatigue might then account for Fox's shift

toward negative coverage after the initial patriotism subsides.

When negative coverage was graphed in Excel with Dependent Variable VA PTSD, the

results seem to suggest no relationship with the negative coverage and DV. Graph2 shows:

!!The data suggests no positive relationship between the negative coverage and DV. This is a result

of the two DV hearings that occurred so early on in the war. As casualties increase over time, it

would be expected that more veterans would be returning with PTSD. Because the VA hearings

occurred early on, without any ability to predict the future needs of soldiers, they may have been

inadequate or ineffective. Spurring a reaction amongst media coverage that would be critical or

negative.

!Case 1 (2003): MSNBC and Positive Coverage

!20

Fox Negative v. DV

0

2

3

5

6

Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fox Negative VA PTSD Hearings

When searching the Nexis database for Condition 2 the following search term was used:

search((BODY(Iraq War)) and Date(geq(03/19/2003)and leq(12/14/2003))). The news affiliate

selected was MSNBC. Once the results were displayed, the search was further narrowed by

searching within the original results: ((hardball AND Iraq war )). Among these results, there was

a total of 25 showings of Hardball that could be coded for positive coverage.

Out of the 25 showings coded, 17 were considered to be positive. As was the case for

Condition 1, positive coding was determined by evaluating the ratio of panel or show guests who

were either pro-war or anti-war. When positive coverage was graphed in Excel with Dependent

Variable VA PTSD hearings, the data suggests similar findings from Fox Positive Coverage.

Graph3 Shows:

!The positive coverage occurrences peak at the same time as the occurrence of DV VA PTSD

hearings in April.

!Case 1 (2003): MSNBC and Negative Coverage

!21

MSNBC Positive v. DV

0

1

2

3

4

Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

MSNBC Positive VA PTSD Hearings DV

Out of the 25 showings of Hardball coded, 8 were considered to be negative. Just as

Condition 1, the negative coding was determined by evaluating the ratio of panel or show guests

who were either pro-war or anti-war. Again, guests were considered anti-war if they were identi-

fied as Democratic politicians, affiliated with Democratic institutions or think-tanks or are seri-

ous contributors to Democratic politicians or foundations.

When negative coverage was graphed in Excel with Dependent Variable VA PTSD, the

results seem to suggest no relationship between negative coverage and DV. Graph4 shows:

!The data shows that VA PTSD Hearings peaked in April, while negative coverage peaked in Sep-

tember. Again, this may be accounted for by the early VA PTSD hearings that occurred before

any serious casualties were suffered. Such hearings could have possibly just been in preparation

for potential PTSD that would occur as the war continued.

!Condition 1 & Condition 2: Hypotheses

The following two hypotheses were proposed for this study:

!22

MSNBC Negative v. DV

0123456

Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

MSNBC Negative VA PTSD Hearings DV

H1: There will be a positive correlation between the occurrences of negative media representa-tion, and the occurrences of VA hearings concerning PTSD and mental health. !H2: There will be a negative correlation between the occurrences of positive media representa-tion, and the occurrences of VA hearings concerning PTSD and mental health. !The data from Fox Positive, Fox Negative, MSNBC Positive and MSNBC Negative suggests

that H1 and H2 are not supported. The graphs clearly indicate that the only occurrence of DV

PTSD hearings was in the month of April. This month was a time when positive media coverage

from both Fox and MSNBC peaked at the same time as VA PTSD hearings occurred. It was as-

sumed in H1 that negative coverage would be met with a positive occurrence of VA PTSD hear-

ings; this was not found to be supported in Case 1. Instead negative coverage did not coincide

with any VA PTSD hearings. At the time of peak negative coverage, from both Fox and MSNBC,

VA PTSD hearings flat lined with no occurrence recorded. The graph below illustrates the visual

representation of Fox Positive, Fox Negative, MSNBC Positive, MSNBC Negative when com-

pared to DV5.

!23

Fox Positive, Fox Negative, MSNBC Postitive, MSNBC Negative v. DV5

0

2

3

5

6

Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fox Positive Fox Negative MSNBC Positive MSNBC Negative VA PTSD Hearings DV 5

It is evident that positive media coverage from both Fox and MSNBC coincided with the only

VA PTSD hearing that occurred that year. This does not necessarily account for a lag that could

occur between conflicts of war and House hearings.

!CASE 2: Findings

In Case 2 the study examined an independent variable that corresponded with two condi-

tions respectively. The independent variable of Case 2 was the tone of media coverage during the

US Troop Surge in 2007: positive and negative. The independent variable was applied to two

conditions within the study. These conditions were the news media broadcasting program Fox

Special Report with Brit Hume (Condition 1) and MSNBC's Hardball (Condition 2). The study

also collected data on a single dependent variable, VA PTSD House hearings from the 110th

Congress of 2007. The collected data is then understood as follows: Condition 1 Fox, Condition

2 MSNBC, Fox Positive coverage, Fox Negative Coverage, MSNBC Positive Coverage,

MSNBC Negative Coverage and Dependent Variable VA PTSD hearings.

Month 2007 Fox Positive Fox Negative MSNBC Positive

MSNBC Negative

VA PTSD Hearings DV

Jan 1 2 6 0 0Feb 0 3 4 2 1March 1 2 0 1 1April 1 0 0 3 1May 0 0 0 3 0June 0 0 0 1 0July 0 1 0 0 1Aug 0 0 0 0 0Sept 1 1 1 0 0Oct 0 0 0 0 0Nov 0 1 0 0 0Dec 0 0 0 0 1Totals 4 10 11 10 5

!24

0

Case 2 (2007): Fox and Positive Coverage

When searching the Nexis database for Condition 1 the following search term was used:

search(("Iraq War" and "Troop Surge") and Date(geq(01/10/2007)and leq(12/31/2007))). The

affiliation selected was Fox News Network. Once the results were displayed, the search was fur-

ther narrowed by searching within the original results: (("Iraq war" AND "Troop Surge") and

Date(geq(01/10/2007)and leq(12/31/2007)))and ((special report )). Among these results, there

was a total of 30 showings of the Special Report with Brit Hume. These results were then filtered

for content, omitting any showings that were not focused on the war: Panel discussion of Eco-

nomics, Panel discussion of Elections, or interviews with a singular person. Filtering through

results of the Special Report left a total of 14 showings that could be coded for positive coverage.

Of the 14 Special Report showings coded, 4 were considered to be positive. This was

determined by evaluating the ratio of panel or show guests who were either pro-war or anti-war.

Guests considered pro-war if identified as Republican politicians, affiliated with Republican in-

stitutions or think-tanks, or are serious contributors to Republican politicians or foundations. The

4 positive Special Report showings, all occurred during the beginning of the 2007 Troop Surge

and were spread out between January, March, and April. This might suggest that Fox coverage of

the Troop Surge was initially supportive. This could be assumed to be because of Fox's conserva-

tive affiliation, leaving the network less inclined to negatively cover a conservative president's

foreign policy in its initial stages.

When positive coverage was graphed in Excel with Dependent Variable VA PTSD hear-

ings, the results showed IV1 occurrences did not coincide with DV PTSD hearings. Graph5

shows:

!25

!

As VA PTSD hearings occurred in February, positive news coverage was not recorded. In July

VA PTSD hearings once again occurred while positive news coverage was not recorded. While in

September positive coverage peaked, and VA PTSD hearings flatlined.

!Case 2 (2007): Fox and Negative Coverage

Out of the 14 Special Report showings coded, 10 were considered to be negative. This

was determined by evaluating the ratio of panel or show guests who were either pro-war or anti-

war. Again, guests were considered anti-war if they were identified as Democratic politicians,

affiliated with Democratic institutions or think-tanks or are serious contributors to Democratic

politicians or foundations.

!26

Fox Positive Coverage v. DV

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Fox Positive IV1 VA PTSD Hearings DV

These 10 negatively coded sources occurred at the beginning of the Troop surge, peaking at 3 in

February. When negative coverage was graphed in Excel with Dependent Variable VA PTSD, the

results seem to suggest a slight positive relation with negative coverage and DV. Graph6 Shows:

As VA PTSD hearings peaked in February, March, and December, so too did negative coverage.

!Case 2 (2007): MSNBC and Positive Coverage

When searching the Nexis database for Condition 2 the following search term was used:

search (("Iraq War" and "Troop Surge") and Date(geq(01/10/2007)and leq(12/31/2007))). The

news affiliate selected was MSNBC. Once the results were displayed, the search was further nar-

rowed by searching within the original results: ((hardball AND Iraq war)). Among these results,

there was a total of 21 showings of Hardball that could be coded for positive coverage.

Out of the 21 showings coded, 11 were considered to be positive. As was the case for Condition

1, positive coding was determined by evaluating the ratio of panel or show guests who were ei-

ther pro-war or anti-war. When positive coverage was graphed in Excel with Dependent Variable

VA PTSD hearings, the data suggests similar findings from Fox Positive Coverage. Graph7

Shows:

!27

Fox Negative Covergae v. DV

0

1

2

2

3

Jan Feb MarchApril May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Fox Negative VA PTSD Hearings DV

The results suggest that as positive media coverage declined, VA PTSD hearings occurred. Also,

when positive media coverage occurred, VA PTSD hearings flatlined.

!Case 2 (2007): MSNBC and Negative Coverage

Out of the 21 showings of Hardball coded, 10 were considered to be negative. The nega-

tive coding was determined by evaluating the ratio of panel or show guests who were either pro-

war or anti-war. Again, guests were considered anti-war if they were identified as Democratic

politicians, affiliated with Democratic institutions or think-tanks or are serious contributors to

Democratic politicians or foundations.

When negative coverage was graphed in Excel with Dependent Variable VA PTSD, the results

seem to suggest a slight positive relationship between negative coverage and DV:

!28

MSNBC Positive Coverage v. DV

0

2

3

5

6

Jan Feb MarchApril May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec MSNBC Positive VA PTSD Hearings

MSNBC Negative Coverage v. DV

0

1

2

2

3

Jan March May July Sept NovMSNBC Negative VA PTSD Hearings

!As the VA PTSD hearings occurred throughout the year, they coincided with peaks in negative

media coverage.

!Condition 1 & Condition 2: Hypotheses

The following two hypotheses were proposed for this study:

H1: There will be a positive correlation between the occurrences of negative media representa-tion, and the occurrences of VA hearings concerning PTSD and mental health. !H2: There will be a negative correlation between the occurrences of positive media representa-tion, and the occurrences of VA hearings concerning PTSD and mental health. !The data from Fox Positive, Fox Negative, MSNBC Positive, MSNBC Negative, suggests that

H1 and H2 are somewhat supported. While Graph 6 and 7 indicate that the occurrences of DV

PTSD hearings did coincide with negative coverage, the significance is only slight. It was as-

sumed in H1 that negative coverage would be met with a positive occurrence of VA PTSD hear-

ings; this was found to be supported in Case 2. The graph below illustrates the visual representa-

tion of Fox Positive, Fox Negative, MSNBC Positive, MSNBC Negative when compared to the

DV.

!!!!!

!29

The graph does suggest that when negative media coverage occurred, so too did VA PTSD hear-

ings.

Conclusion

The main difference between Case 1 and Case 2 is noted by an apparent opposite rela-

tionship that positive and negative media coverage had with VA PTSD hearings. It was seen in

Case 1 that positive media coverage peaked slightly after VA PTSD hearings occurred. While

negative media coverage seemed to share no relationship with any occurrence of VA PTSD hear-

ings. In Case 2, it was observed that positive media coverage declined as VA PTSD hearings oc-

curred. While negative media coverage peaked in accordance with VA PTSD hearings through-

out the year. How is it that positive media coverage would coincide with VA PTSD hearings in

Case 1, but not so in Case 2? It might be that time is an unaccounted factor influencing both cas-

es.

Case 1 was the very beginning of the Iraq war while Case 2 was much later on in the

war. As discussed in the literature review, because casualty fatigue cannot occur at the beginning

of wars, most news coverage will be positive during a war's initial stages. So when considering

!30

Fox Positive, Fox Negative, MSNBC Positive, MSNBC Negative v. DV

0

2

3

5

6

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Fox Positive Fox Negative MSNBC Positive MSNBC Negative VA PTSD Hearings

the data of Case 1, perhaps the news coverage was simply a typical trend of the first stages of

war. In Case 2, the Iraq war had peaked at the highest amount of casualties lost. This of course

would most likely generate much more critical news coverage from both Fox and MSNBC; lim-

iting any fair comparison of positive coverage between Case 1 and Case 2.

There are certainly more factors that could be accounted for, however; the most concern-

ing limitation of this study is the lack of sources available to code for positive or negative news

coverage. Since the study chose to focus on only two news shows, the results are extremely lim-

ited. The more networks and shows coded would provide a broader picture of how news media in

general covered either stage of the Iraq war. In order to verify any strong relationship between

news coverage and VA PTSD hearings in the future, more news networks and shows should be

sourced for coding.

!!!!!!!!!!!

!31

References

Boettcher, William A., and Michael D. Cobb. 2006. “Echoes of Vietnam? Casualty Framing and

Public Perceptions of Success and Failure in Iraq.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (6): 831–54. !

Boscarino, Joseph A. 2006. “Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Mortality Among U.S. Army Veterans 30 Years After Military Service.” Annals of Epidemiology 16 (4): 248–56. !

Burstein, Paul. 2003. “The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (1): 29–40.

!Christie, Thomas B. 2006. “Framing Rationale for the Iraq War The Interaction of Public Support

with Mass Media and Public Policy Agendas.” International Communication Gazette 68 (5-6): 519–32. !

Coe, Kevin. 2013. “Television News, Public Opinion, and the Iraq War: Do Wartime Rationales Matter?” Communication Research 40 (4): 486–505.

Dean Jr., Eric T. 2013. “Reflections on ‘The Trauma of War’ and Shook over Hell.” Civil War

History 59 (4): 414–18. !Eagan Chamberlin, Sheena M. 2012. “Emasculated by Trauma: A Social History of Post-Trau-

matic Stress Disorder, Stigma, and Masculinity.” Journal of American Culture 35 (4): 358–65. !

Edy, Jill A., and Patrick C. Meirick. 2007. “Wanted, Dead or Alive: Media Frames, Frame Adop-tion, and Support for the War in Afghanistan.” Journal of Communication 57 (1): 119–41. !

Entman, Robert M., Steven Livingston, and Jennie Kim. 2009. “Doomed to Repeat Iraq News, 2002-2007.” American Behavioral Scientist 52 (5): 689–708.

Fahmy, Shahira S, Wayne Wanta, Thomas J Johnson, and Juyan Zhang. 2011. “The Path to War:

Exploring a Second-Level Agenda-Building Analysis Examining the Relationship among the Media, the Public and the President.” International Communication Gazette 73 (4): 322–42. !

Frueh, B. Christopher, Anouk L. Grubaugh, Jon D. Elhai, and Todd C. Buckley. 2007. “US De-partment of Veterans Affairs Disability Policies for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Ad-ministrative Trends and Implications for Treatment, Rehabilitation, and Research.” Amer-ican Journal of Public Health 97 (12): 2143–45.

!32

!Gartner, Scott Sigmund, and Gary M. Segura. 1998. “War, Casualties, and Public Opinion.” The

Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (3): 278–300. !Gelpi, Christopher, Peter D. Feaver, and Jason Reifler. 2006. “Success Matters: Casualty Sensi-

tivity and the War in Iraq.” International Security 30 (3): 7–46. !Glazier, Rebecca A., and Amber E. Boydstun. 2012. “The President, the Press, and the War: A

Tale of Two Framing Agendas.” Political Communication 29 (4): 428–46. Hayes, Andrew F., and Teresa A. Myers. 2009. “Testing the ‘Proximate Casualties Hypothesis’:

Local Troop Loss, Attention to News, and Support for Military Intervention.” Mass Communication & Society 12 (4): 379–402. !

Hayes, Danny, and Matt Guardino. 2010. “Whose Views Made the News? Media Coverage and the March to War in Iraq.” Political Communication 27 (1): 59–87. !

Johansen, Morgen S., and Mark R. Joslyn. 2008. “Political Persuasion During Times of Crisis: The Effects of Education and News Media on Citizens’ Factual Information About Iraq.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 85 (3): 591–608. !

Koch, Michael, and Scott Sigmund Gartner. 2005. “Casualties and Constituencies: Democratic Accountability, Electoral Institutions, and Costly Conflicts.” The Journal of Conflict Res-olution 49 (6): 874–94. !

Kriner, Douglas L., and Francis X. Shen. 2012. “How Citizens Respond to Combat Casualties.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (4): 761–70. !

Lambert, Alan J., Laura D. Scherer, John Paul Schott, Kristina R. Olson, Rick K. Andrews, Thomas C. O’Brien, and Alison R. Zisser. 2010. “Rally Effects, Threat, and Attitude Change: An Integrative Approach to Understanding the Role of Emotion.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 98 (6): 886–903. !

Mueller, John E. 1971. “Trends in Popular Support for the Wars in Korea and Vietnam.” The American Political Science Review 65 (2): 358–75. !

Pan, Zhongdang, and Gerald M. Kosicki. 1997. “Priming and Media Impact on the Evaluations of the President’s Performance.” Communication Research 24 (1): 3–30. !

Rendall, Steve. 2003. “Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent.” FAIR. May 1.!!Rex, Justin. 2011. “The President’s War Agenda: A Rhetorical View.” Presidential Studies Quar-

terly 41 (1): 93–118.

!33

!Rice, Stephen K. J., and Jennifer L. Bartlett. 2006. “Legitimating Organizational Decisions.”

Journal of Communication Management 10 (3): 274–86 !Voeten, Erik, and Paul R. Brewer. 2006. “Public Opinion, the War in Iraq, and Presidential Ac-

countability.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (6): 809–30.

!34