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 relationship between negative coverage and VA House hearings during the US "Troop Surge." The results of this study might ultimately benefit efforts toward improving an understanding of the interconnected 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 important 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 considered a weakness amongst enlisted men. Instead of creating military policies that effectively provided treatment and support of PTSD, the US military emphasized stricter guidelines for screening 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 literature 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 necessary.
Scholarly works on this topic can be placed under the umbrella of a general media influence over public opinion on war: high impact or low impact. Under this umbrella, scholarly literature 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 relationships of media, public opinion, and casualties. Understanding the previous literature will ultimately 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 diagnosing the psychiatric maladies that occur during or after intense combat is fascinating. Unfortunately, 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 shockingly late official acknowledgment, was a result of the emasculating associations that were bestowed upon soldiers experiencing symptoms of PTSD. Historically strict gender roles and expectations 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 soldiers -- 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 deserves 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; Entman 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 opinion 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 setting; 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 invading 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 international 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 completely 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 public (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 relationship 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 considering 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 certainly 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 complexities of the relationship between the media, political elites, and public opinion. The assumption 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 casualties 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 political leaders 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 constituency-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 publics aversion to casualties is more likely to influence military policy -- war withdrawal -- when casualties are perceived 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 represents a prominent stance taken by scholars (Gartner and Segura 1998). However, Muellers log
of cumulative casualties has been challenged by the work of scholars who believe such a treatment 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 casualties 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. Occurrences of marginal casualties during Vietnam was shown to have a significantly positive correlation with public disapproval of the war (Gartner and Segura 1998). As spikes in marginal casualties increased, polls indicating public disapproval also increased. This would suggest that an emphasis 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, therefore, 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 withdrawal 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 communities attention and awareness. The most important facet of this finding is that the positive correlation between proximate casualties and public disapproval was independent of cumulative national 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 Building, 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 political 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 representation 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 correlation 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 influences 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 coverage 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 position on the war, or otherwise took a prominent stance(Rendall 2003). It is assumed that a network 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 during the US "Troop Surge" at 904 (Gelpi 2006). It is assumed that the amount of casualties sustained in a war will be a direct factor that influences media coverage and support for a war. Casualty fatigue occurs amongst the public and media as wars wage on, leading to media representation 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 sustained 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 psychological 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 representation and occurrences of PTSD in survivors.

!
Hypotheses
Upon review of the existing scholarship on media influence over public opinion and policy, this study suggests the following hypotheses:
H1: There will be a positive correlation between the occurrences of negative media representation, and the occurrences of VA hearings concerning PTSD and mental health.

H2: There will be a negative correlation between the occurrences of positive media representation, 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 influence 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' positive 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 negative 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 coverage 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 Offices 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 during 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 FAIRs 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
FAIRs study only encompassed the first three weeks of the war. The war stances that will be determined 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 politicians, affiliated with Republican institutions or think-tanks, or are serious contributors to Republican 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 thinktanks, 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 Office'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 invasion (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 representation 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 19thDec 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 coverage and casualties. As mentioned earlier in both the Literature Review and Methodology, casualty fatigue has a significant effect on public opinion and support for wars over time. This assumes 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 hearings 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 conditions. 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.

!
Month
2003
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Totals:

Fox Positive
2
3
4
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
12

Fox Negative MSNBC Positive

0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
1
4
1
1
6
4
0
2
1
1
0
1
9
17

MSNBC Negative
1
1
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
8

VA PTSD
Hearings DV
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

!
Case 1 (2003): Fox and Positive Coverage

!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 affiliation 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 filtered 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 coverage.
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 contributors 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 initially 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 hearings, the results showed positive coverage occurrences peaking with DV occurrences. Graph1
shows:

Fox Positive v. DV
4
3
2
1
0

!
!

Mar

Apr

May June July

Fox Positive

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

VA PTSD Hearings

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 antiwar. 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

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 political 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:

Fox Negative v. DV
6
5
3
2
0

!
!

Mar

Apr

May

June

Fox Negative

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

VA PTSD Hearings

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

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:

MSNBC Positive v. DV
4
3
2
1
0

Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

MSNBC Positive

VA PTSD Hearings DV

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

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 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 no relationship between negative coverage and DV. Graph4 shows:

MSNBC Negative v. DV
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

MSNBC Negative

VA PTSD Hearings DV

!
The data shows that VA PTSD Hearings peaked in April, while negative coverage peaked in September. 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

H1: There will be a positive correlation between the occurrences of negative media representation, and the occurrences of VA hearings concerning PTSD and mental health.

H2: There will be a negative correlation between the occurrences of positive media representation, 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 assumed in H1 that negative coverage would be met with a positive occurrence of VA PTSD hearings; 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 compared to DV5.

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

6
5
3
2
0

Mar

Apr

May

June

Fox Positive
MSNBC Positive
VA PTSD Hearings DV 5

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Fox Negative
MSNBC Negative
!23

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

1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

2
3
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0

6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

0
2
1
3
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Totals

10

11

10

5
!24

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 further 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 Economics, 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 institutions 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 conservative 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 hearings, the results showed IV1 occurrences did not coincide with DV PTSD hearings. Graph5
shows:
!25

!
Fox Positive Coverage v. DV
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Jan

Feb March April

May

June

Fox Positive IV1

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

VA PTSD Hearings DV

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 antiwar. 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

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:

Fox Negative Covergae v. DV

3
2
2
1
0

Jan Feb MarchApril May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Fox Negative

VA PTSD Hearings DV

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 narrowed 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 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. Graph7
Shows:
!27

MSNBC Positive Coverage v. DV

6
5
3
2
0

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

MSNBC Positive

VA PTSD Hearings

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 negative coding was determined by evaluating the ratio of panel or show guests who were either prowar 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:

MSNBC Negative Coverage v. DV

3
2
2
1
0

Jan

March

May

MSNBC Negative

July

Sept

Nov

VA PTSD Hearings
!28

!
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 representation, and the occurrences of VA hearings concerning PTSD and mental health.

H2: There will be a negative correlation between the occurrences of positive media representation, 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 assumed in H1 that negative coverage would be met with a positive occurrence of VA PTSD hearings; this was found to be supported in Case 2. The graph below illustrates the visual representation of Fox Positive, Fox Negative, MSNBC Positive, MSNBC Negative when compared to the
DV.

!
!
!
!
!
!29

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

6
5
3
2
0

Jan

Feb

March

Fox Positive
MSNBC Negative

April

May

June

Fox Negative
VA PTSD Hearings

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

MSNBC Positive

The graph does suggest that when negative media coverage occurred, so too did VA PTSD hearings.
Conclusion
The main difference between Case 1 and Case 2 is noted by an apparent opposite relationship 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 hearings. In Case 2, it was observed that positive media coverage declined as VA PTSD hearings occurred. While negative media coverage peaked in accordance with VA PTSD hearings throughout 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 cases.
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

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; limiting 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 concerning 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 limited. 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):
83154.

Boscarino, Joseph A. 2006. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Mortality Among U.S. Army
Veterans 30 Years After Military Service. Annals of Epidemiology 16 (4): 24856.

Burstein, Paul. 2003. The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an
Agenda. Political Research Quarterly 56 (1): 2940.

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): 51932.

Coe, Kevin. 2013. Television News, Public Opinion, and the Iraq War: Do Wartime Rationales
Matter? Communication Research 40 (4): 486505.
Dean Jr., Eric T. 2013. Reflections on The Trauma of War and Shook over Hell. Civil War
History 59 (4): 41418.

Eagan Chamberlin, Sheena M. 2012. Emasculated by Trauma: A Social History of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Stigma, and Masculinity. Journal of American Culture 35 (4):
35865.

Edy, Jill A., and Patrick C. Meirick. 2007. Wanted, Dead or Alive: Media Frames, Frame Adoption, and Support for the War in Afghanistan. Journal of Communication 57 (1): 11941.

Entman, Robert M., Steven Livingston, and Jennie Kim. 2009. Doomed to Repeat Iraq News,
2002-2007. American Behavioral Scientist 52 (5): 689708.
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):
32242.

Frueh, B. Christopher, Anouk L. Grubaugh, Jon D. Elhai, and Todd C. Buckley. 2007. US Department of Veterans Affairs Disability Policies for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Administrative Trends and Implications for Treatment, Rehabilitation, and Research. American Journal of Public Health 97 (12): 214345.
!32

Gartner, Scott Sigmund, and Gary M. Segura. 1998. War, Casualties, and Public Opinion. The
Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (3): 278300.

Gelpi, Christopher, Peter D. Feaver, and Jason Reifler. 2006. Success Matters: Casualty Sensitivity and the War in Iraq. International Security 30 (3): 746.

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): 42846.
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): 379402.

Hayes, Danny, and Matt Guardino. 2010. Whose Views Made the News? Media Coverage and
the March to War in Iraq. Political Communication 27 (1): 5987.

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): 591608.

Koch, Michael, and Scott Sigmund Gartner. 2005. Casualties and Constituencies: Democratic
Accountability, Electoral Institutions, and Costly Conflicts. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 49 (6): 87494.

Kriner, Douglas L., and Francis X. Shen. 2012. How Citizens Respond to Combat Casualties.
Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (4): 76170.

Lambert, Alan J., Laura D. Scherer, John Paul Schott, Kristina R. Olson, Rick K. Andrews,
Thomas C. OBrien, 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): 886903.

Mueller, John E. 1971. Trends in Popular Support for the Wars in Korea and Vietnam. The
American Political Science Review 65 (2): 35875.

Pan, Zhongdang, and Gerald M. Kosicki. 1997. Priming and Media Impact on the Evaluations
of the Presidents Performance. Communication Research 24 (1): 330.

!
Rendall, Steve. 2003. Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent. FAIR. May 1.!
!

Rex, Justin. 2011. The Presidents War Agenda: A Rhetorical View. Presidential Studies Quarterly 41 (1): 93118.
!33

Rice, Stephen K. J., and Jennifer L. Bartlett. 2006. Legitimating Organizational Decisions.
Journal of Communication Management 10 (3): 27486

Voeten, Erik, and Paul R. Brewer. 2006. Public Opinion, the War in Iraq, and Presidential Accountability. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (6): 80930.

!34