Cantril’s (1940) study, The Invasion from Mars: A Study in the Psychology of Panic

On October 30, 1938, Orson Welles and a group of actors, in a New York studio of Colombia Broadcasting System, (broadcast an adaptation of H. G. Wells’s War of the Worlds), broadcast were presented as a series of simulated news bulletins

Six million Americans tuned in to this dramatization of a science fiction novel about a Martian invasion (text included in Cantril, 1940). Over 1 million of them responded with severe fright or panic.

radio had triggered a mass effect, the broadcast caused fear, fear caused panic, and panic led to verifiable reactions

It is estimated that of the 6 million people who heard the broadcast, 1.7 million thought it was the news, not a play, while a further 1.2 million were frightened. A few even bought train tickets or drove off in the opposite direction to New York, the supposed epicentre of the alien invasion (http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/10/invasion-from-mars-anatomy-of-panic.php)

Does public opinion influence and shape a government’s foreign policy?

ORDoes the government influences and shape

the form of public opinion on foreign policy issues?

Japan demand to be a permanent member of UNSC in 2005 (19.47 percent financial contribution to UN after U.S)

China’s reaction and opposition to this issue/start campaign opposed to Japan’s membership

China initiated petition campaign against Japanese and collected 22 million signature (mostly Chinese people) as a proof of world public opinion against Japanese membership

Online campaign facilitated by Chinese government, does it reflect public opinion? Or it serves interest of Chinese government

Student and business groups started street protests spread all over the China/government encouraged street protests

Exploitation of rivalry by Chinese policy makers/ History, invasion of China by Japan during WWII and decision makers uses this analogy

Who to blame? Chinese educational system; books full of hatred, nationalism, patriotism to impose anti-Japan sentiment

Chinese foreign policy: government influence public opinion (by organizing anti-Japanese protests) to shape and justify its foreign policy towards Japan (by claiming that public opinion oppose to Japan’s membership in UNSC)

ORPublic opinion with business groups

and students (influence by history/text books) influence Chinese foreign policy!!

In this case it is little bit of both

Public opinion on foreign policyawareness of politics and state foreign

policy/public ignorance of international affairs/lack of structure and content in public opinion/cognitive structure of public

In pluralist society: division of public opinion as isolationists and internationalists

Isolationist: ill-informed public had little influence on foreign policy –US citizens prefer isolationist policies during 1950s-60s oppose government to take active role in global affairs

Internationalists prefer more active role of their state in global affairs

More rational/aware and influential public opinion in 1970s in US-public opposition to Vietnam war

In pluralist model public can play major role in policy making by rewarding or punishing through elections

Two assumptions: 1-elites manipulates public opinion for

their interest (top-down approach, realist - driven by state interest)

OR 2-leaders follow masses (bottom-up

approach)

1-Top-down process/elites driven public opinion; Three type of publics;

First; mass public do not interested in foreign policy issues so do not have any impact in policy making

Second; type of public is attentive public, interested in world affairs but part of interest groups

Third; elite, small part of society influence and shape public opinion/Public opinion as political source/form of power

Public opinion in non-democracies; government legitimacy through mass

public perception of regime (for ex: in Arab countries this is determined according to the leaders support to Palestinian people and anti-colonialism not by elections)

Elite model: elite group dominate politics and society, also dominate media and public opinion

less independent media- used by government officials operates to mobilize public in support of their policies

Arab governments challenge each other’s leadership by attempting to manipulate public opinion in the target state /regimes control media that their public exposed

For ex: Syria and Egypt leaders blocked media messages of Saddam Hussein to their public (when Iraq declared leadership of Arab world and Egypt and Syria joined US against Iraq in First Gulf War)

But Jordan did not block broadcasted Iraqi views so most of the public protests against US coalition took place in Jordan.

Impact of public opinion in 2000, people were mobilized and called their government to declare war against Israel

Public opinion and democratic system: more public involvement in policy making

Public has influence the coalition building and process among elite groups, public opinion is a resource to strengthen position of elites and used by elites/interests groups as a leverage to dominate policy coalitions

Democratic-pluralist model: no one set of interests group dominate,

media and public is independent from political influence/citizens capable to consume information from media in order to form their own independent opinion

Public opinion do not have impact in foreign policy making in France due to the centralized political authority/limits public opinion influence and control policy formation of policy networks

In US political authority is decentralized so societal groups dominate formation of policy networks

Interest group has leverage in policy making (remember Clinton’s policy toward China and changing policies as a result of interest group pressure)

Public opinion has indirect impact on policy making/perception of interest groups and elite policy makers

MEDIA: public opinion and the CNN effectMedia is used to control public opinion

and instrument for national leadership especially in nondemocratic states

CNN effect (US based Cable News Network): independent news media make pressure policy makers to pursue a particular course of action during crisis raised by journalists

CNN by focusing on certain conflicts and problems make pressure on politicians to respond some foreign problems and not others so it is harmful for reasoned policy making!!

CNN effect: broadcasting mass starvation, mass suffering and human right violations draw public attention who demand response from their government to these atrocities

So elected officials respond public demand and implement military/humanitarian intervention in immediate term

Media has powerful role in agenda setting/how to frame the story (framing is the act of selecting some events and promote particular interpretation to through memorable and emotionally charged issues to addresses political culture of public/addresses cognition of individuals)

Government officials/elites control framing

Framing: highly politicized and biased representation of any issue

Agenda setting/framing: shaping public opinion

Government control its own response to a foreign event/framing and explaining the event, if media define event government might lose control of event

Framing Example:Soviet flight jet shot down Korean Air

Lines (KAL) flight 007, killing all 269 people on board in 1983

Regan administration (US) pictured the event as ‘murder frame’ /describing evil Soviets killing innocent civilians which is easily accepted by American public

In 1988 US Navy ship shot down Iran Air Flight 655, killing 290 people

This event is framed as a result of ‘technical problem/fault’ by Regan administration

US media representation of similar events in contrasting media coverage

Media decide what to report and what to ignore

Media act independent ORThey highly depend on government decision

(because of limited budget and staff!!)

Joint agenda setting between government and media/but media is driven by policy makers rather than vice-versa

However in some cases media take control and mobilize public against government, for instance Russian media and interests group forced Russian government to end war in Chechnya!