Introduction “In retrospect, the Bush administration and the pentagon carried out one of the most successful public relations campaigns in the history of modern politics in its use of the media to mobilise support for the war” (Allan and Zelizer 136). This essay will discuss the propaganda campaign that the Bush administration used in relation to the Gulf war in 1990. Firstly, to give some context the case study will discuss briefly the history of Iraq as well as the relationship between the United States and Iraq in the years before the Gulf war. They essay will then move on to provide a definition of propaganda and will outline some examples of how the United States used the media to rally the backing of the public in the war. The study will outline and attempt to analyse the role that television, news framing and CNN has played in the war. Finally the essay will analyse the implications of the war for international relations in the Middle East. Brief History of Iraq According to a source (BBC), to give its full name, the Republic of Iraq has a population of over thirty three million people. Islam is the dominant religion in the country where around sixty five per cent are Shia, thirty two per cent Sunni and other religions make up the difference (CIA). Iraq is situated in the Middle East with Iran to the east, Syria to the North West, Jordan to the west, Saudi Arabia to the south and Kuwait to the south east. It has vast amounts of natural petroleum and gas which are the country’s main exports. Previously a part of the Ottoman Empire, Iraq was under British rule from 1917 until 1932 when it accomplished sovereignty (CIA). In 1958, the monarchy in Iraq was ousted in a military takeover guided by Brig Abd-al-Karim Qasim and Col Abd-al-Salam Muhammad Arif (BBC). Consequently, the nation is acknowledged as a republic. According to another source (CIA), prior to the Gulf war with the United States, Iraq was involved in an eight year war from 1980 to 1988 with Iran over geographical disagreements which were costly for both sides. In 1979, one year before the start of the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein is named the new president of the nation, the replacement of Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr (BBC). In 1988 Saddam Hussein as president of Iraq ordered the mass murder by means of toxic gas on the small Kurdish town of Halabjah. Anderson (79) claims that Saddam has carried out unforgiveable actions such as mass murder, taking people into custody who oppose him and brutally treating people who do not have the same ideology as himself. The ruler of Iraq also engaged in nepotism, creating positions within his government for family members as stated by Allison (30). He developed the Army into a much more powerful institution by pumping hundreds of millions of dollars, coming from natural energy profits made by the oil companies, as well as improving travel conditions in Iraq, education facilities and health care clinics. Iraq-United States relations The Iran-Iraq war was important for United States-Iraq relations. The war was just one of the historical moments in the Middle East at that time. It was a war which ultimately resulted in Saddam entering Kuwait as stated by Allison (31). However, another important event was when the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan in 1980 as stated by Kellner (52). The United States dreaded the thoughts of Soviet communism developing in the region which occupied the majority of the world’s energy reserves. Hence, Iraq became an attractive partner to the United States in the region. It is argued by Allan and Zelizer (149) that United States-Iraq relations were strong in the ten years prior to the Gulf war. President of the United States, George Bush happily supported the Iraqi administration financially as well as diplomatically. For example, in the 1980s Bush permitted a loan to Iraq to create a pipeline to transport their natural resources. It is estimated to be worth five hundred million dollars. The United States commerce department aided the Iraqis by assisting with military progression which was thought to be worth six hundred million dollars as stated by Allan and Zelizer (149). In 1990 the United States provided a one billion dollar loan to the Iraqi government. In the early 1980s the United States even detached Iraq from countries who were involved in aiding terrorists financially so they could defeat one of the United States great rivals Iran, as discussed by Borer (52). It is clear that the United States and Iraq had strong relations until the Middle East became threatened by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. According to Allison (40), when Iraq invaded Kuwait it caused the United States to be concerned about Saudi Arabia which was now vulnerable to Iraq. It was August the 2nd 1990 when Iraq entered Kuwait. Allison (46) argues that this resulted in the destruction of the Kuwait city which caused several thousand misplaced people to be driven into neighbouring countries. Iraq and Saddam felt that after the eight year war with Iran that he was given a chance to become one of the most powerful Arab leaders as suggested by Gause III (89). The essay will now discuss how the United States intended on alleviating the Saddam issue but firstly they had to win the public over to do so by using propaganda. Definition of Propaganda “Propaganda is the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist” as defined by Jowett and O’Donnell (6). Propaganda use by the United States The propaganda used by the United States did gain public support for the war against Iraq. Kellner stated that “ the Bush administration controlled the media discourse in part through disinformation and propaganda and in part by means of control of the press via pool system” (qtd. in Allan and Zelizer 137). The United States government sanitised the media coverage of the war and to give some idea of the extent of the propaganda that the American public was subjected to, Katz (10) states: In all, only 3 percent of the published pictures showed the events occurring in actual combat zones… Only 27 of 1,104 pictures in the US news magazines (about 2%) showed any signs of wounded or killed soldiers… The total number of images of hurt or killed civilians from all sectors of the conflict – Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel – was 19, less than 2 percent of the published pictures. It is clear that the United States used the media to rally support for the war. Yet, the media reacted in quite an unbiased manner to the debate over going to war in the Gulf. According to Entman (79) the number of analytical stories on newspapers amounted to 1,633. Findings showed that the framing was relatively even in regards to 55 percent against the war and 45 percent for the war. Between November 8th and 16th, 63.2 percent of New York Times pieces criticised the Government whereas the Washington Post was slightly less at 53.6 percent. In contrast, over the next few weeks, news television gave a much more positive account of the administration and their beliefs. Hence, in conclusion regarding the debate over intervening in the Gulf the media’s framing suggests it was originally equal in both support and criticism. It is argued by Taylor (83) that the media in the United States eventually aligned with the government’s claims that there was a grave threat to Saudi Arabia from Iraq at the beginning of the war. Allan and Zelizer (138) argue that the administrations claims were false and in fact completely inaccurate. The Iraqi army had no interest or objective to gain entry into Saudi Arabia. According to Bennett et al (50) the United States officials concentrated on the implications of Saddam gaining more strength in the region which was taken up by the media. President Bush stated “our jobs, our way of life, our own freedom, and the freedom of friendly countries around the world would suffer if control of the world's great oil reserves fell into the hands of that one man, Saddam Hussein”. However, when President Bush’s speech failed to entice the public’s support, Bush outlined clearly that “this fight isn't about oil; it's about naked aggression”. Bush compared Saddam with the likes of Hitler and the media took hold of this association. LaMay et al (42) suggests that the television and print media played a big part of this comparison. The Gannett Foundation study outlines how the Saddam/Hitler comparison was framed and compared. It was mentioned in the media up to 1,170 times. Some media outlets in the United States edited an image of the Iraqi ruler to look more like Hitler. This would be one of the most recurring frames to be implemented in the Gulf war which is supported by the figures outlined by the Gannett Foundation. Bush also made the point that Saddam was ill-treating young Kuwaiti girls. According to a New York Times source, (MacArthur) Bush made the allegation that an unnamed witness had experienced the atrocity which been carried out in Kuwait whereby the Iraqi military had detached several babies from their incubator leaving them for dead. The implications of this story were important as it changed the mind of Amnesty International’s view on the situation that was commencing in the Gulf. It is also thought to have influenced the opinion of the government who were voting in favour of going to war against Iraq. However, according to Kellner it would later show that the Administration in Kuwait had been working with the United States administration in order to change public opinion on the situation which was developing (qtd. in Allan and Zelizer 142). The Kuwaiti government hired Hill and Knowlton, a public relations organisation to develop images which demonize Iraqi actions and behaviour which is exactly what the United States wanted. Additionally, the witness of the atrocity turned out to be the child of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States who had spent time with the public relations organisation learning how to be authentic in her statement. MacArthur also argues that some administration officials have had strong ties with the Hill and Knowlton group. Now the pooling system will be discussed and analysed. Allan and Zelizer (137) argue that the United States administration restricted the media by implementing a pool system. Gottschalk (454) states that the reporters who were pooled were never without a United States troop by their side. The Army chose where the reporters would go as well as viewing all the material that the journalist intended on publishing. According to Gottschalk (454) when a reporter was questioning an interviewee the Army "frequently finished sentences for those being interviewed”. Ultimately, what this meant was the journalists were not witnesses to the war but spectators just like the public back in the United States. If we are to investigate how pooling effected the media in the Gulf, a study completed by the Research Group of Gannett Foundation Media Centre states that of the 1,400 reporters questioned, there was rarely any claims of media censorship although the pool system caused issues in regards to slowing the production of stories and altering the stories produced by the reporters as stated by Allen et al (270). These issues negatively affected objectivity in the reports of the media as well as creating an abundance of similar stories which was the United States goal. In analysing the effects of the propaganda which was implemented by the United States, it can be argued that this made it possible for the arrangement of the United States army in Saudi Arabia which may not have received the support it did from the public if there had been no threat to Saudi Arabia as suggested by Allan and Zelizer (138). According to Young and Jesser (188) as a result of the propaganda at the end of the summer in 1990, around 60 percent of the public stated that the president was acting accordingly to the situation in Iraq and Kuwait. It rose to 72 percent once the beginning of the war came closer. It wasn’t until late November when the polls started to show a decrease in support for United States action in the Gulf. However, when fighting commenced early in 1991 public opinion altered once more. According to Mueller (81) the public “rallied around the flag” in support. Even when the public were aware of the casualties to civilians by the United States troops, CNN’s public poll outlined 77 percent still wanted the war (Young and Jesser 189). One of the implications of the war in Iraq, as stated by Algosaibi (74) is that the media in the Gulf altered to a different type of media, a media which was unlike any kind seen before in the Gulf. It was known as “counter media” which would outdo the everyday media such as television or radio. Examples of this media medium would be recorded tapes or leaflets. Algosaibi (75) stated that once the United States media got involved in considering how to dissolve the issue in Kuwait, the issue became one of United States national interests. Even though the United States media were supposedly impartial and objective, they become purely a tool for the political elite. If the media in the nations in the Gulf are coerced into supporting their administrations against their own will then in contrast, the media in the United States happily support the United States administration. Algosaibi (79) outlines that there were three major implications for the media in the Gulf. The media can be a key part of a states’ strategy when a nation is in conflict and when it is not. When the media has the most sophisticated technological advancements and they disregard the use of satellites, they will not be as powerful in their capacity to sway people. Finally, the media are simply unable to distribute with the political, economic and military foundation on which they stand, and which in due course they be successful or unsuccessful (Algosaibi 79). The framing of television news also played an important part in framing the Gulf crisis and will now be discussed. Television, news framing and CNN Television and Cable network news and CNN especially had a significant role in the Gulf war. According to Jeffers and Rabinovitz (78) television has had the biggest impression on influencing reactions to the Gulf war in Iraq and has also created the mutual definition of modern warfare. Hallin (16) stated that “network coverage of the Gulf War glorified clean, high-tech weapons, brave fighting men and women, and the flag. Rambo, without the sweat.” In relation to television images of the War, Katz (8) also stated: The fact is we didn’t see a war… We saw portraits of the technology – advertisements for smart planes, tanks, missiles and other equipment in dress rehearsals of what they are supposed to do in combat, but we rarely, if ever, saw them in action. Indeed it was as if there no other side”. As stated by Taylor (7) CNN had such a significant impact that it altered the international political system as well as altering the mode in which television and contemporary conflict interact and are displayed around the globe via the television. CNN was the first war which is deemed to have real time news coverage in a twenty four hour news cycle. This was known as the “CNN effect”. It is thought to have an intense effect on US foreign policy which is supported by Livingston (3). Richard Haass, who was involved in the National Security Council as well as being an important figure relating directly to president Bush, also outlines the role that it plays. He claims that CNN has altered the theory of a routine news sequence as we know it. “We no longer have the old rhythms, everything is telescoped” which is stated by Livingston (5). The television news in the United States framed the build up to the War in the Gulf in a military issue frame which supported the administration’s view to go to war. Entman (5) states that framing is “selecting and highlighting some facets of events or issues, and making connections among them so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, and/or solution”. According to Allen et al (256) the news frame implemented in the build up to Operation Desert Storm suggested that public opinion was be shifting to a more pro-war stance view in relation to the Gulf. However, research undertaken by Mueller (81) suggests that it did not do justice to actual public opinion. The research design implemented combined examination on both framing and priming which improved the knowledge in the area of media’s impact on public opinion. According to Allen et al (257), news in the United States failed to show how the public truly felt – which conflicted with Bush’s views to intervene. News coverage regarding the war ranging from 8th of August 1990 until the 3rd of January the following year lasted 2,855 minutes. One percent (twenty nine minutes) of the news coverage portrayed widespread views opposing the allocation of United States troops in Saudi Arabia. This meant that the debate amongst the public over the issue of intervening or not was finished. According to Allen et al, CNN's coverage of fast and uncomplicated video pieces as well as consistently reiterating points, proved to be a medium which endorsed “a spiral of silence” on the debate (283). Consequently, this resulted in the general view of the public supporting Bush and his offence in the Middle East. The study which concluded with quantitative data suggests that an essential change in the outlook on the war happened when it was known that the United States army had attacked Iraq on the 16th of January 1991. Information from the University of Connecticut's Roper Centre suggests that replies to questioning from the people involved in the study state that from August 1, 1990 until twelve months later, these replies outlined the original backing of the war commencement of the air war against Iraq. Additionally, there was another huge jump in the backing of the war by late February of that year. The backing of Bush by the United States public continued for the next six months according to Allen et al (258). Mueller’s study suggests how media framing can be introduced to blur people’s perception on a conflict as well as gaining the backing of the citizens. According to Allen et al (260) the huge increase in support for conflict in the Gulf was, as Mueller put it “rally around the flag” which he notes has been a key factor in many of the United States previous wars. CNN also ran a nightly half hour programme which was known as “Crisis in the Gulf”. Kellner (86) argues that rather than just being a discussion on the events in Iraq and Kuwait that over time it turned into a full blown propaganda outlet which favoured the military. The crisis in the Gulf was framed as a defensive problem which concerned other nations around the globe to help the United States in their quest to remove Saddam (Bates 450). The programme tied heroic images of US troops with theatrical melodies as well as involving images of the presidents of the United States and Iraq. What this meant for the US public watching at home is that it would have personalised the war between both sides, projecting the United States as the heroes and Iraq and Saddam as the villains (Kellner 86). Another recurring frame was the term “human shield” which was mentioned 2,588 times firstly in August 1990 and then for the next seven months throughout United States media according to LaMay et al (42). By focusing on these terms which are connotations of a person being held captive it personalised the event for the public which portrayed the United States army as the harmless one whereas the Iraqi Army were the villain’s in the war. Jeffers and Rabinovitz (62) also state that CNN and CBS compiled theatrical videos’ which signifies that the war was conducted in precise fashion. In comparison to the Vietnam War which was deemed messy, anarchic and disorganised the war with Iraq was sure, coordinated and united. Even the title of the operation - “Desert Storm” was fitted many times within these compilations. According to Kussisto these metaphoric title played roles in framing the conflict as “the heroic storybook metaphor activated an image of children curling up under their blankets, begging to hear tales about strange monsters, brave princes, frail princesses, and missions fraught with danger” (613). This title ignores the facts that many people died from this operation and instead is focused on the impressive advancement of the United States Army. The title is also deliberately aimed at producing complements of the United States Army rather than focusing on the human suffering (Jeffers and Rabinovitz 62). Saddam Hussein was also clever with his use of the media in the Gulf War. After previously arranging the renting of a large scale communication system in Baghdad to CNN the previous year, it was now possible for the television company to supply the United States with a consistent line between the two continents as argued by Taylor (91). It is possible that the United States administration were anxious about having American journalists in the capital of Iraq. Ironically, this was the key to why Saddam desired them to stay in the capital. John Simpson stated: Saddam Hussein’s strategy was dependent upon having American television in Baghdad who could see – and transmit – the terrible scenes he expected would take place. This was why he anticipated only two air strikes on the city: CNN would show the results to the American people, who would put such pressure on George Bush that the air war would be called off. To analyse the impact of CNN and television in relation to the Gulf War is that on reflection it has opened people’s eyes to how news media can become propaganda as suggested by Jeffers and Rabinovitz (118). Additionally, it is argued that the media that come from the United States bolster a certain type of ideological global structure. In other words, the United States media echo American views on issues, American principles and at times can favour United States Foreign Policy. The war with Iraq in 1990 showed that new technological advancements have enlarged American power over mainstream news content. According to Dorman and Livingston, the United States public was subjected to regular news frames which resulted in there discussion being completely focused on those particular frames without being able to consider other aspects to the war (Qtd. in Nelson et al 237). Journalism has also changed as a result of the Gulf War. Zelizer (349) argues that the implications of the War for journalism are two-fold. It has affected it by replication and submission. Journalists have become to restate their own practice and it has made them think of methods to adjust. Some of these adjustments for example were bigger focus on the visual effect news. Zelizer (349) states the reason for this is because of CNN and televisions focus on the graphic and pictorial elements of news coverage. According to Goodwin (31), CNN’s form of news reporting is that basis for many of the big news corporations today. For example, BBC world service television and Sky news have the same style of news reporting which they acquired from CNN. Zelizer (349) also argues that different news groups have decided to submit to CNN and their ability to cover news stories. According to Sharbutt NBC stated “we’re not going back to covering everything that breaks… We’re not running after bus crashes. We’re relying on our affiliates and our owned stations to cover that kind of story” (qtd. In Zelizer 349). The implications of this is that it offers CNN’s news coverage to be exclusive as well as efforts to justify additional moves of alteration as a reform of journalistic practices. Although television did originally rally the United States public to back Bush in the war in Iraq, it eventually did lead to changing the public’s attitude negatively to United States involvement in the Gulf as argued by Allan and Zelizer (148). Hence, the saturation coverage of war can go either way. The implications of television coverage can have accidental after effects. The short term effects of the victory in Iraq were viewed as a great triumph for George Bush over Saddam. However, it did not result in the re-election for Bush rather it questioned the ability of him and his administration. Allan and Zelizer (151) conclude that the Gulf War is a perfect example of the need of a different option for media rather than just the United States propagated version which dominated around the world. Implications for International relations in the Middle East According to Allison (153) George Bush stated in March 1991 “the specter of Vietnam has been buried in the desert sands of the Arabian peninsula… The Vietnam syndrome has been kicked”. Matthews (280) argues that the War in Iraq was a combination of political, economic and security importance in the Persian Gulf. Even though the Cold War and the United States Iraq/War have ended the significance of the region is not likely to decrease and controversy in that region will most certainly be on the minds of major world players in the years to come. Gause III (134) argues that even though there have been many notable events in the Gulf between the first United States war against Iraq in 1990 and the second war in 2003, there has not been much transformation. Saddam was weakened but ultimately was not defeated and governed the country for the next twenty three years before being ousted and captured by the United States in Tikrit in 2003 (BBC). Gause III (135) states that with Iraq not in strong enough condition to be a prominent figure in the Gulf it left it open for other nations to take the helm. However, the other major power in the Gulf, Iran, failed to secure the dominant position and strive for regional authority. Although Iran did not take the opening for regional domination, the gulf war did have other implications for Iran, Iraq and the Middle East. Gow (193) argues as a result of the tensions between that nations in the region and that as the war developed, networks began to emerge with Middle Eastern nations. Iraq has had lengthy hostilities with Iran and Syria not to mention Turkey and their views on how Iraq acted with the Kurdish community. Saudi Arabia has also states that they feel part of Kuwait is their own. Gow (194) outlines how complicated international relations of the Middle East are by claiming that many other regional states felt it was important to keep Saddam in power but reduce his influence on the region after the war so there was no other state taking the similar dominant stance. What the Gulf War also meant for Iraq was the implementing of sanctions by the UN. Arnove (151) states “it is now clear that these sanctions proved to be the most severe in history”. Originally, these sanctions were aimed at forcing Saddam to remove his troops from Kuwait. The sanctions resulted in disease and starvation within Iraq as stated by Ali and Shah (1856). Less than a year later the United States Army had forced the Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. There operations also resulted in the severe obliteration of Iraq’s everyday necessities such communications, electricity and water treatment to name but a few. The media in the United States did not pay much attention to the issue of sanctions for the Iraqi people. Arnove (165) stated that “sanctions are designed to produce deprivation and poverty; hence it is not surprising that they bring about widespread malnutrition and increased mortality”. Ironically, Arnove (165) also argues that these sanctions have failed and have more than likely helped to give more power to Saddam in the Middle East. The Gulf War in 1990 also led to one of the most iconic media spectacles in history. Gause III (135) argues that when the United States decided to send a vast amount of troops to Saudi Arabia, it could have possibly resulted in no attacks by Al Qaeda in September of 2001, although it is uncertain. However, it is much more certain that if the United States decided not to send mass troops to the Middle East, they would have been unable to carry out the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Gause III (135) also states that in the 1990s, the sanctions on Iraq by the United Nations as well as the poor governing by Saddam made it possible for the outbreak of civil conflict that prior to the United States entering Iraq. Additionally, according to Engel (110) by the end of the Gulf War, international relations were influenced as well as redesigned as a result of the disorderly economic and political powers which presently were in action as a consequence of decolonization. The United States “new world order” outlined the objective to control an era of serious disruption within the organisational make up and power formation created during the preceding four decades as stated by Engel (111). The new world order had two key characteristics: the distinguished stance of the United States in relation to the international order around the world. Secondly, a number of standards developed when the Gulf War was in its development. These standards were aimed at cooperative international engagement against blatant infringements of international Law. Engel (111) also argues then best example of these was the definitive reaction to hostility while the least definitive reaction was to the suffering of the Kurdish community. Conclusion This essay has outlined how the United States used the media to rally support amongst the American public in going to war in Persian Gulf in 1990. The essay discussed the history of Iraq as a country and it has also discussed the ties between them and the United States in the lead up to the Gulf War. The essay also discussed the role that CNN, news framing and television have played in the war. It showed evidence that framing news stories in particular ways can affect public opinion as well as public debate. Television gave the public twenty four hour news for the first time with its coverage of the Gulf. Originally, television was useful for United States propaganda in the early stages of the war however; as the war continued the coverage had a negative effect on the public opinion on conflict in the Middle East. The essay discussed and analysed the war in the Gulf and its impact on international relations in the Middle East. The Gulf war weakened Saddam Hussein’s influence over the region but it did not fully eliminate him. The war brought other nations in the region closer together although the sanctions implemented by the west have had drastic consequences for the region. It is also thought that the war in the Gulf in 1990 eventually resulted in the tragic events of September 11th 2001. If the war in the Gulf did not happen in 1990 the second war against Iraq would have been less likely. Word Count: 5,254 Bibliography Algosaibi, Ghazi A. The Gulf crisis: an attempt to understand. London : Kegan Paul International, 1993. Print. Ali, Mohamed M. and Iqbal H Shah. “Sanctions and childhood mortality in Iraq”. The Lancet 355.9218 (2000): 1851-1857. Science Direct. Web. 2 December 2013. Allan, Stuart and Barbie Zelizer. Eds. Reporting war: journalism in wartime. London: Routledge, 2004. Print. Allen, Barbara et al. “The Media and the Gulf War: Framing, Priming, and the Spiral of Silence”. Polity 27.2 (1994): 255-284. JSTOR. Web. 3 December 2013. Allison, William Thomas. Twentieth century wars: The Gulf war, 1990-1991. London: Palgrave & MacMillan, 2012. Print. Anderson, Dale. Saddam Hussein. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company, 2004. Web. Arnove, Anthony. Ed. Iraq under siege: the deadly impact of sanctions and war. Cambridge, Mass: South End Press, 2000. Print. Bates, Benjamin R. “Audiences, metaphors, and the Persian Gulf war”. Communication Studies 55.3 (2009): 447-463. Taylor & Francis Online. Web. 5 December 2013. BBC News. 15 December 2003. Web. 2 December 2013. BBC World News. 23 May 2013. Web. 26 November 2013. Bennett, Andrew et al. “Burden-sharing in the Persian Gulf War”. International Organization 48.1 (1994): 39-75. Cambridge Journals. Web. 3 December 2013. Bennett, W. Lance and David L. Paletz. Eds. Taken by Storm: The media, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Web. Borer, Douglas A. “Inverse Engagement: Lessons from US-Iraq Relations, 1982-1990”. Strategic studies institute (2003): 51-65. Google Scholar. Web. 26 November 2013. Central Intelligence Agency. 19 April 2013. Web. 26 November 2013. Engel, Jeffrey A. Ed. Into the desert: reflections on the Gulf War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print. Entman, Robert M. Projections of power: framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. London: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Print. Goodwin, P. “News for the Taking” TV World April (1991): 31-33. Gottschalk, Marie. “Operation Desert Cloud: The Media and the Gulf War”. World Policy Journal 9.3 (1992): 449-486. JSTOR. Web. 2 December 2013. Gow, James. Iraq, the Gulf conflict and the world community. London : Brassey's, 1993. Print. Guase III, Gregory F. The International relations of the Persian Gulf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print. Hallin, Daniel. “TV’s clean little war” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 47.4 (1991): 16-19. EBSCOhost. Web. 29 November 2013. Jeffords, Susan and Lauren Rabinovitz. Eds. Seeing through the media: the Persian Gulf War. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1992. Print. Jowett, Gareth S. and Victoria O’Donnell. Eds. Propaganda and Persuasion. London: SAGE Publications, 2012. Print. Katz, Elihu. “The End of Journalism? Notes on Watching the War”. Journal of Communication 42.3 (2006): 5-13. Wiley Online Library. Web. 2 December 2013. Kellner, Douglas. The Persian Gulf TV war. Colarado: Westview Press, 1992. Print. Kussisto, Riikka. “Framing the Wars in the Gulf and in Bosnia: The Rhetorical Definitions of the Western Power Leaders in Action”. Journal of Peace Research 35.5 (1998): 603-620. JSTOR. Web. 6 December 2013. LaMay, Craig et al. “The Media at War: The Press and the Persian Gulf Conflict”. New York: The Gannett Foundation media centre. (1991): 42. Web. Livingston, Steven. “Clarifying the CNN effect: An Examination of Media Effects According to Type of Military Intervention” Research Paper. Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, 1997. Web. MacArthur, John R. “Remember Nayirah, Witness for Kuwait?” The New York Times. The New York Times January 6 1992. Web. 29 November 2013. Matthews, Ken. The Gulf conflict and international relations. London : Routledge, 1993. Print. Mueller, John. “A Review: American Public Opinion and the Gulf War: Some Polling Issues”. The Public Opinion Quarterly 57.1 (1993): 80-91. JSTOR. Web. 3 December 2013. Nelson, Thomas E. et al. “Toward A Pyshology of Framing Effects” Political Behaviour 19.3 (1997): 221-246. Springer Link. Web. 5 December 2013. Sharbutt, Jay. “Cable news is on the rise, while the networks retrench” Philadelphia Inquirer. 26 July (1991). Taylor, Philip M. War and the Media: Propaganda and Persuasion in the Gulf War. New York: Manchester University Press, 1992. Web. 17