Talking War: How Elite U.S. Newspaper Editorials and Opinion Pieces Debated the Attack on Iraq

Abstract

This paper examines how elite newspaper editorials and opinion pieces (hereafter collectively called op-eds) debated the attack on Iraq. The period examined was the two months preceding Congress's October 2002 authorization of the use of force against Iraq. The 292 op-ed pieces examined represent one of the most extensive looks at such op-ed activity in the United States.

There were several major findings. First, contrary to some liberal charges, the commentary overall was more critical than supportive of the administration. On the other side, however, if the elite press was not slavishly supportive of U.S. foreign policy, its criticisms were also rather muted. Supported therefore is the view that the elite media keep respectable opinion on foreign policy within a narrow range that excludes the most damaging criticism. Most notably missing from the print debate on Iraq in this period was much objection to the attack on specifically legal or moral grounds. The avoidance by the elite press of legal and moral language arguably helped convey the general impression that no legal or moral considerations were at stake. At the very least, it is shown, this sector of the public sphere did little to help the nation as a whole to deliberate morally about war.