Page 226 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-16.qxd 8/16/2005 12:01 PM Page 211

‘Infosuasion’ in European Newspapers: A Case Study on the War in Kosovo 211

The number of articles expressing intervention to be ‘indispensable’, opined
by people other than the author of the article, amounts to 11 percent (of which
9 percent are during the second period). The number of articles wherein inter-
vention is expressed as ‘necessary’ amounts to 31 percent (23 percent in the
second period), while 11 percent express it as unnecessary. While 24 percent con-
sider it to be legitimate even without the UN’s authorization, only 2.3 percent
feel that it is effective and 0.7 percent that it will be resolved rapidly.
In comparison, 11.6 percent consider aerial attacks to be ‘avoidable’ (9.6 per-
cent during the second week), 3 percent consider attacks as being ‘not indis-
pensable’ (2.7 percent during the second period), 5.8 percent as being
unnecessary. Moreover, 3.8 percent consider that the intervention is not suc-
ceeding, 2 percent that it is rather slow and 8.5 percent that it is ineffective. These
data could be used as evidence of the fact that the debate was being raised and
played through on a basis of decidedly favourable positions.
The percentages show that there is an intermediate area (11.6 percent) where
no definite position has been adopted. This can be put into context by looking at
the type of article and the type of event that the author talks about but it is also
due to the fact that during the first week nobody believed in armed intervention.
When opinions are evident, the position held in general is that aerial bombing is
necessary and legitimate even without UN authorization.
It is interesting to see how rarely, on the whole, journalists express their point
6
of view explicitly, preferring to quote the ideas of others or to publish comments
made by persons beyond the editorial office. By looking at the same variables,
the percentage of ‘no response’ varies between 57 percent and 81 percent. Only
3 percent of those who signed their articles (against 10 percent of those who did
not) feel that intervention is ‘indispensable’, while 17 percent consider it to be
‘inevitable’ and 12 percent ‘necessary’. Almost nobody (2 percent) imagines it to
be an overall success and even fewer to be effective (0.3 percent) or rapid (0.3
percent), even though 8 percent consider it legitimate even without the UN’s
authorization.
In short, during this period the European press approved of, or at least justi-
fied, NATO intervention, even when there were consistent doubts as to its effec-
tiveness and legitimacy. The intervention was considered favourably because it
was held to be necessary and unavoidable.
The most frequently mentioned reasons behind this justification are the necessity
to stop the genocide and Milosevic’s refusal to sign the treaty of Rambouillet. In
both Italian newspapers the need to keep to the agreements made with NATO
are underlined.
The reasons against intervention include the possible strengthening of
Milosevic’s position, reprisals by both the army and the Serb armed groups
against the Kosovars, and the internal dissent in the respective countries
in which the paper is published. Le Monde is one of the newspapers taking politi-
cians’ reactions most into account, and which most often quotes the politicians
and comments on the consequences for internal affairs. Among the reasons for
dissent are again lack of approval by the parliaments in the countries involved
and the fact that aerial intervention may not be effective without ground troops.