BUYING THE WAR: AGENDA SETTING AND THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE 1

Buying the War: Agenda Setting and The Spiral of Silence

Eastyn Baleto

Gonzaga University

Dr. Armstrong

COML 595 A2: Theorizing Communication

BUYING THE WAR: AGENDA SETTING AND THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE 2

Buying the War (Hughes, 2007) analyzes the failure of mainstream media to refute the

Bush administration’s propaganda prior to the Iraq war. Moreover, by highlighting the repetitive

nature of the content produced by the administration, and reported on by the mainstream media,

this film provides the opportunity to analyze the role of communication - specifically agenda

setting and the spiral of silence - during such a pivotal time in American history.

Buying the War demonstrates the power media has on society; a power unmatched by

even the president. From the start, the Bush administration understood that to sell the war to the

American people would require time, repetition, and media’s platform/reach. In the months

following the attacks on 9/11, the Bush administration began working to convince America that

Iraq and Al Qaeda were responsible for the terrorism – hoping to garner public support for

military action against Iraq. In fact, the government’s efforts were aided by the press’ pushing of

three particular headlines: Iraq and Al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11, the connection between

the Saddam Regime to Al Qaeda, and that Saddam had acquired nuclear weapons. As Walter

Pincus of The Washington Post said, “you sell a product not by saying it once, but saying it over

and over again with new people until it sinks in,” (Hughes, 2007, 33:54) and so, the Bush

administration made certain to control every major media distributor by relaying only these same

few messages repeatedly across all platforms. As Griffin et al. (2015) states, the “agenda-setting

function of media is responsible for the almost perfect correlation found between the media and

public ordering of priorities,” (Griffin et al., 2015, p. 377). By selective repetition the

administration successfully reinforced their media agenda.

Unfortunately, instead of raising questions about the administration’s claims, many

reporters saw this as an opportunity to benefit from the current political narrative in post 9/11

America. For example, William Saffire of the New York Times wrote nearly thirty pieces that,
BUYING THE WAR: AGENDA SETTING AND THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE 3

“fanned the sparks of war,” (Hughes, 2007, 29:07) by appealing to the current administration’s

media agenda. Stories in support of the Iraq War would find themselves on the front page of

major newspapers across the country, a phenomenon highlighted during the film, “the front page

of The Washington Post or any newspaper is the billboard of what the editors are telling you are

the most important stories of the day, and the stories that don’t run on the front-page readers

assume these are of secondary importance” (Hughes, 2007, 44:18). Meaning that therefore,

stories that challenged the Bush administration’s claims were designated to the fringes. Despite

skepticism by some, exaggerated patriotism became the cash-cow for many mainstream media

outlets, creating a pattern that only furthered the Bush administration’s aims.

The atmosphere of the time pressured many media outlets to refrain from asserting their

own opinion regarding the war in Iraq for fear of being isolated, and consequently losing

revenue. Failure to conform to the pro war sentiment risked the possibility of becoming a

minority member of the media industry. Griffin et al. (2008) names this the ‘spiral of silence,’

and describes it as the, “increasing pressure people feel to conceal their views when they think

they are in the minority” (Griffin et al., 2008, p.372). Even The New York Post, a traditionally

liberal newspaper, reported in favor of military action in Iraq, which, in essence, gave their

“stamp of approval,” (Hughes, 2007, 40:44) to not only the Bush administration, but their readers

as well.

Those who showed any opposition towards the war efforts were criticized by those who

dominate the hierarchal structures of society. For example, CNN’s coverage of civilian casualties

(after American forces began attacking terrorist bases in Afghanistan) was severely criticized by

the “patriot police” (Hughes, 2007, 7:59) who declared they (CNN) were being anti-American.

The ‘patriot police,’ as dubbed by the film, were “big people in corporations, advertisers, and the
BUYING THE WAR: AGENDA SETTING AND THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE 4

Bush administration,” (Hughes, 2007, 8:09) who sought out to discredit any media distributors

that challenged the dominant narratives constructed by the Bush administration. Thus, networks,

CNN included, began broadcasting memorials of September 11th to justify the casualties caused

by the American military, and to fall in line with the administration’s existing narrative on the

war. This highlights just how powerful the ‘spiral of silence’ can be, affecting even the country’s

biggest media outlets.

Buying the War (Hughes, 2007) examines the full effects of when agenda setting and the

‘spiral of silence’ run rampant throughout the mainstream media, and exposes the damage that

can occur when media surrenders their agency to the will of an administration.
BUYING THE WAR: AGENDA SETTING AND THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE 5

References

Griffin, E. (2008). A first look at communication theory (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Education.

Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.).

New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hughes, K. (Producer). (2007, April 25). Buying the War [Video file]. Retrieved from

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html