The Preference of Media Press in Britain and British Policy in Iran’s

Nuclear Crisis

Yusril Ihza Kirana and Baiq Wardhani

International Relations Department, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Universitas Airlangga

Keywords: Iran, Britain, CNN Effect, Foreign Policy, Media.

Abstract: The year 2013 to 2015 is a crucial year for Iran, this is because in that year Iran was in negotiations with six

major power states that consists of England, France, Germany, the United States, Russia and China. Britain

is one of the most influential countries in initiating and facilitating the existing negotiations. The position of

the British government which from the beginning supports the negotiation and diplomacy between Iran and

other major power states is not all in line with what the media say. Media in a democratic country, like Britain,

plays a big role, especially after the information reformation marked by the internet and the rapid

dissemination of information. In observing the process of formulation of British foreign policy, the author

refers to the theory of CNN effect which as a pioneer of thought that the media can influence government

policy. The author will try to draw conclusions from media activities from 2013 to 2015 and relate them to

existing theories.

1 INTRODUCTION

By the end of 2013 diplomats from Iran and six major

powers, namely P5+1, which contains five permanent

members of the UN security council plus an

additional state, the United States (US), Britain,

Russia, France, China and Germany agreed to initiate

a meeting related to Iran’s nuclear program

(Farahmand, 2016). This is the result of an increase

in Iranian nuclear development activities since 2002

when the National Council of Resistance of Iran

(NCRI) discloses the development of a secret nuclear

program, involving the construction of a uranium

enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy water reactor

in Arak (International Institute for Strategic Studies,

2005). The talks between P5+1 and Iran aim to ease

tensions between Iran and those countries, especially

after the United Nations, European Union (EU) and

the United States impose sanctions that result in Iran

suffering considerable losses on its country’s

economy. The EU issued a regulation 961/2010 that

governing the freezing assets of the Iranian people,

trade embargoes, and licensing systems of goods

related to the proliferation of activities or weapons

delivery systems (Londonpandi, 2010). The rules

issued by the European Union acts as a reaction to the

separated by the UN towards Iran. While the US

enacts Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability

and Divestiture Act 2010 (CISADA) and US Office

of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) to impose sanctions

on: 1. Support the export of refined oil products

(RPP) to Iran, or provide RPP (solar, petroleum,

aviation fuel, etc.) and support Iranian exports of the

need for crude oil; 2. Facilitating the domestic

production of pure oil products in Iran, which would

compensate the US for knowing the parties directly

and significantly supporting or producing Iran’s

domestic oil (Londonpandi, 2010).

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

Agreement (JCPOA) ending in 2015 resulted in a

feasible solution. The agreement requires Iran to

redesign and reduce its nuclear facilities, as well as

accept the necessary protocols with the International

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In fact, Iran gets

relief from sanctions given before by the UN, the

European Union and the United States with the

release of millions of dollars in petroleum revenues

and asset freeze (Security Council, 2015). The

success of the negotiations conducted by P5+1 is not

separated from the three major countries of the

European Union at that time that consists of Britain,

France, and Germany. This is especially happen

because of Britain, French, and German are the

pioneers of Iran’s joint negotiations with the

establishment of E3. The crisis in Iran becomes

important for the EU because the EU is Iran’s second-

largest oil importer after China, and became an

Kirana, Y. and Wardhani, B.

The Preference of Media Press in Britain and British Policy in Iran’s Nuclear Crisis.

DOI: 10.5220/0010281300002309

In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) - Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Paciﬁc Region, pages 629-634

ISBN: 978-989-758-493-0

629

important trading partner for Iran as a major importer

with a value of 14.5 billion Euros and exports reached

11.3 billion Euros (iitrade, 2012).

Among EU countries that have interests related to

import and export with Iran, Britain ranks the lowest.

In practice, however, Britain was one of the E3

members who initiated talks with Iran. Unlike France

and Germany which have promising import and

export interests with Iran, the motives of the British

initiating and facilitating negotiations with Iran are

not as strong as other countries.

One of the explanations that can be used to

explain British motives to initiate and facilitate

negotiations with Iran can be seen through the public

and the media level of analysis. In this case the public

and the media in Britain have sufficient power to

influence London’s foreign policy, no other because

of Britain is a country that upholds democratic values.

Particularly because Britain is famous for the fierce

parliamentary debate and domestic political

dynamics filled with ups and downs. As argued by

Radityo Dharmaputra (2017), public opinion will be

more influential in democratic countries than in non-

democratic countries.

Figure 1. Iran’s Oil Exports.

Therefore, in this paper, media and public are used

to explain the domestic environmental dynamics of a

country that capable of influencing the formation of a

foreign policy. Referring to Morgenthau’s writings

(in Holsti, 1992), the public no longer only responds

to domestic phenomena alone but the public is also

increasingly aware of the phenomenon abroad.

Brecher (in Naveh, 2002) also says that the public and

the media are influential in the foreign policy-making

process, but this influence is only present when

communicated to the elite through press, books,

radio, or TV. The author chose to focus more on the

role of the media and the two main approaches,

bottom-up and top-down, n addition to see that the

British media were highly credible media. The author

will use the thematic content analysis research

method from several British media related to the

British reaction with nuclear proliferation in Iran. The

author will use The Independent and The Guardian as

a data source and limit the study period from 2013 to

2015. The Independent and The Guardian are chosen

because they are the most credible and dominant

electronic media in the UK. While 2013 to 2015 is

chosen because the year 2015 is considered a crucial

time where negotiations between P5+1 with Iran meet

the bright spot and succeed with JCPOA agreement.

2 THE ROLE OF MEDIA PRESS

IN FOREIGN POLICY MAKING

Basically, public have an important and influential

component in the process of formulating a country’s

policy (Snyder in Naveh, 2002). But the fact that

public opinion is formed from news issued by the

media shows that the media is also influential in the

formulation of a country’s policy. The positive

response to the argument comes from a liberal-

democratic approach which says that the formulation

of foreign policy existing in a democratic country is

more peaceful than in a non-democratic state. This is

because the public plays a constructive role in

limiting policies made by policymakers (Kant and

Bentham in Holsti, 1992). In contrast to liberal-

democratic, realists who are basically skeptical of

public contribution in the effectiveness of foreign

policy formulation assume that the public is a

vulnerable element that leads to instability if it has too

much influence. This is because according to

Morgenthau (in Holsti, 1992), the formulation of

foreign policy can’t depend on the support of public

opinion in which the policy direction preferences are

emotional rather than rational. Although realist and

liberal-democratic views differ in view of public

opinion, what can be known is that public opinion is

unwilling to influence policy formulation so that the

role of media as forming public opinion also plays a

considerable role.

Press and the media -newspapers, television,

radio, online media- play a very central role in

communicating to the public regarding what is or has

been happening in the world. In cases where the

public has no ownership or direct experience of

related the situation at that time, there will be a

growing dependence on the media that has informed

them. This does not directly mean that the media tells

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

630

what to think and to do, but the public will tend to

absorb media messages uncritically (Philo et al, in

Happer and Philo, 2013). This led to Jonathan

Mermin (in Dharmaputra, 2017) argument that there

are two possible explanations for how the media act:

1. The media acts independently and tells the story of

the journalistic independent initiative; 2. Journalists

turn to politicians and official government officials to

decide on the news to be released. The two

possibilities of this media that prove realist arguments

are skeptical of public and media contributions in the

process of foreign policy formulation. What Mermin

describes is about the top-down and bottom-up

approach previously mentioned by the author. The

first possible media action leads to a bottom-up

approach in which the media play a major role in

shaping policy, while the second possibility is more

top-down, that the government able to regulates and

even manages the media as a tool to legitimize their

policies.

Media behavior that is considered to deviate from

the initial goal of media formation, disseminating

information, as described by Jonathan Mermin,

discussed further by Chanan Naveh (2004) by

dividing the role of media into three namely: 1. Media

as an environment; 2. Media as a foreign policy

environment creator; 3. Media as an output

environment. Media as an environment means that in

a media business has a criterion as a political

communication regime in a country which is not just

a communication channel and information gate but

also profit-oriented that can sometimes be governed

by the government. As a foreign policy environment,

the media is useful to determine the setting and

framing agenda that can increase the legitimacy of a

policy. While the media as a result of an environment,

is important to know that the process of media

management behind the scenes is about who is

responsible and what methods that they used.

Therefore, the relationship between state and media

more broadly can be analogous to a meeting between

authoritarian and libertarian patterns (Mundt in

Naveh, 2002). On one side, the media has the original

purpose of voicing and informing a story, which is

highly libertarian in nature. But the state has the

power to manage the existing management process

that considerably as authoritarian.

Piers Robinson (2002) in his article entitled The

CNN Effect makes the table (see table 1), on the

relationship between the media and the state. The

relationship between the media and the state

according to Piers Robinson is explained through the

terms of CNN effect, which arises because of the

success of the media, in this case is CNN, in

Table 1.

Level of

elite

consensus

Media–state

relationship

Role of the media

Elite

consensus

The media operate

within ‘sphere of

consensus’ and

coverage reflects

elite consensus on

policy (Hallin

1986

)

Executive

manufacturing

consent: the media

remain uncritical

and help build

support for official

olic

Elite

dissensus

The media operate

within ‘sphere of

legitimate

controversy’

(Hallin 1986) but

overall coverage

does not favour any

side of the elite

debate

The media reflect

elite dissensus as

predicted by Hallin

(1986) and Bennett

(1990) but remain

noninfluential

Elite

dissensus

but policy

certainty

within

executive

The media operate

within ‘sphere of

legitimate

controversy’

(Hallin 1986) but

coverage, overall,

becomes critical of

overnment

olic

Although coverage

pressures

government to

change policy,

policy certainty

within executive

means that media

influence is resiste

Elite

dissensus

plus policy

uncertainty

within

government

The media take

sides in political

debate and

coverage becomes

critical of

government. The

media are now

active participants

influencing elite

debatem

‘The CNN effect’:

in conditions of

policy uncertainty,

critical media

coverage provides

bargaining power

for those seeking a

change in policy or

makes

policymakers feel

pressured to

respond with a

policy or else face a

public relations

disaster. Here the

media can influence

olicy outcomes

influencing the policy of the United States (US).

Robinson said that the media succeeded in “selecting

and highlighting” some events or issues and then

making connections between them raised

interpretations, evaluations and/or solutions. In his

hypothesis, Robinson argues that CNN effect theory

is a theory where media is an agent in political

control, which can only be used in certain conditions.

Robinson believes that the opinion expressed by

Mermin regarding the possibility of media behavior

is bound to happen. Therefore, in conclusion,

Robinson (2002) concludes that the CNN effect, in

The Preference of Media Press in Britain and British Policy in Iran’s Nuclear Crisis

631

this case the media, can have a major influence in the

formulation of a country’s foreign policy when the

state has no clear policy toward a phenomenon or

issue. Instead, the media will have a substantial role

when the state does not have a definite policy, in

which case the media uses agenda setting and framing

to influence the policies of a country.

Although there are some criticisms of the role of

the media in the formulation of foreign policy, as

Thune (2009) says in his article entitled “Beyond the

CNN effect Towards a constitutive understanding of

media power in international politics” that there is a

missing link in the media LoA in explaining the

formulation of foreign policy of a country. Thune

compared CNN’s headline news with another

credible media for five days and NRK (Norwading

Broadcasting Corporation) both resulted in the same

thing -attack in Afghanistan- while NRK also show

the same thing but with slightly different focus. From

this it can be seen that there is a big question as to

whether the focus of global news really exists, and

whether the focus is truly universal and homogenous?

This is what the author wants to discuss to prove

whether the media still has an influence on the

formulation of government policy of a country apart

from the fact that there is no certainty about the

homogeneity and universality of news globally.

Similar to Thune, Gilboa (2004) considers that there

is still no certainty about the CNN effect which the

government loses control of its foreign policy so that

the media directs the policy. But Gilboa also still

considers that more interdisciplinary research is

needed through theory, models, and concepts from

both the science of communication and the science of

international relations.

In the case of Britain resulted in the Ofcom report,

a telecommunications company appointed by the

British government that regulates broadcasting in the

Britain. The report shows that newspapers and radios

are still needed. But by using online news that

increased from 15% in 2002, to 27% in 2007, and

41% in 2012 in the UK, it shows that people generally

use the Internet for news purposes are very high

(House of Lord, 2014 ). It is the setting how the media

in the Britain can make British foreign policy. In this

case the British response from 2013 to 2015 against

Iran’s nuclear proliferation.

3 RESPONSE PREFERENCE OF

THE BBC AND THE

GUARDIAN REGARDING

IRAN’S NUCLEAR CRISIS

The Guardian is one of the most popular press media

in the Britain with a high interest in reading. In 2013,

The Guardian often shows the news that put forward

the need for a positive response in the form of

negotiation and diplomacy as an effort to resolve the

nuclear crisis that occurred in Iran. The news can be

seen in the opinion column written by Hans Blix

under the title “Iran nuclear deal will make the world

a safer place” published on November 27, 2013 (The

Guardian, 2013). The Guardian also released news of

David Cameroon’s talks, the Prime Minister of

Britain at that time, with Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian

President, who is seen as rising hopes of a deal with

Iran. The headline is “Iranian concession and

Cameron phone call raise nuclear deal hopes” which

was released on November 19, 2013.

Instead, The Independent media tends to preach

negative news to Iran’s treaty when compared with

The Guardian. On February 25, 2013, The

Independent published an article entitled “Time

running out for talks with Iran” (The Independent,

2013). In the period September-October 2013, The

Independent issued an article containing coverage of

Israel’s opinions on Iran. It shows the pessimism that

The Independent showed to Iran’s talks. The

interesting thing is that on November 19, 2013, when

The Guardian issued positive news about the progress

of negotiations with Iran, The Independent released

an article entitled “US and Israel’s come to blows

over Iran nuclear program” which shows how The

Independent looks negative against Iran. The year

2013 concludes with news of the failure of talks held

in Geneva where both media reported the news.

In 2014 the two news agencies did not have the

option of seeing how the British government had

issued official policy by re-opening diplomatic

relations between Britain and Iran after several years

earlier had declined (The Guardian, 2014). The

Guardian entitled “The UK and Iran agree to re-

establish direct diplomatic relations”, then on

November 8, 2014 The Guardian again showed the

importance of diplomacy and negotiation by issuing

the news under the title “Iran foreign ministry:

diplomacy the only way to solve nuclear tangle”.

In 2014, The Independent is not much issuing

articles, but an article on November 23, 2014 titled

“One day to go until Iran nuclear deadline” indicates

that The Independent urges the government to

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

632

immediately resolve the talks between Iran with the

P5+1 (The Independent, 2014). British government

policy to improve diplomatic ties between Iran and

Britain with the opening of the Iranian embassy in

Britain has little effect on the media. The media still

voiced their interests. It was done by the Independent

who often crossed the government’s policies.

On July 14, 2015, P5+1 states and Iran agreed to

sign JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).

They are forcing Iran to halt nuclear proliferation

project and the P5+1 will responded it with the

dismissal of embargo and sanctions given earlier.

After July 14, 2015, the author noticed some changes

in news patterns published by The Independent. On

16 July 2015, both The Guardian (2015) and The

Independent (2015) wrote a story about the British

Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, and the Prime

Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, that

exchange comments in a meeting that highlighting the

sharp differences between Israel and the world power

related to the nuclear deal with Iran. The Guardian

wrote the headline “Netanyahu and Hammond spar

over Iran nuclear agreement” while The Independent

wrote the headline “Iran nuclear deal: British Foreign

Secretary barbed exchanges with Benjamin

Netanyahu’s remarks over the pact on visit to Israel”.

After the approval of JCPOA, there are two

significant events: 1. Iran’s domestic condition; 2.

Test of ballistic missiles conducted by Iran. The

British government’s response in the second incident

is clear to condemn the ballistic missile test, but it

does not change the British position within JCPOA

and assumes that JCPOA is the best solution to take

(gov.uk, 2015). The media reaction to the two events

are, The Guardian (2015) responded well to the first

event showing the support of Iranian domestic

politicians against JCPOA by writing an article titled

“Iranian parliament passes bill approving nuclear

deal”, while The Independent did not issue articles

related to the event. Meanwhile, in response to the

second event, both The Guardian and The

Independent carried the news that criticized the

actions of the Iranian mission trials. But the

difference that can still be seen is how the solution

implied from the headlines of the two news agency,

The Guardian is still consistent with diplomacy and

negotiation while The Independent has an uncertain

position and tend not to have a definite solution.

Figure 2.

Table 1.0 shows how the level of preference of

The Guardian and The Independent have and

compared with British policy towards Iran. Britain

showed a desire for diplomacy and negotiations

against the Iranian government to achieve regional

peace and stability. The media’s response to the issue

was not able to have a major impact on the policies

issued by the British government. The author was

able to draw two possibilities against what happened

between The Guardian and The Independent. The

first possibility is that The Guardian follows the

second pattern of media as mentioned by Mermin

(2004, in Dharmaputra, 2017) that the media only

follow what the government prefers, so that the news

issued from The Guardian can be called as coming

from the British government. While the second

possibility is The Independent who follow the pattern

of media behavior according to Mermin’s first pattern

that following the journalistic initiative that put

forward the news idealism. This eventually made The

Independent became the opposition to the policy of

the British government. The author believes that this

media role is the result of the firmness of the British

government in issuing policies. Although the media

are setting an agenda setting or framing, as The

Independent does, the government has justified its

policies.

4 CONCLUSION

The role of the public and the media in Britain has its

own relevance in the process of formulating the

existing foreign policy. By taking two examples of

2013 2014 2015

Grafik1.0

TheGuardian

TheIndependent

British'sPolicytoIran

The Preference of Media Press in Britain and British Policy in Iran’s Nuclear Crisis

633

media in Britain, the author tries to find a correlation

between news preferences that emerge from the

media with the British government’s foreign policy

over time. The author gives a separate assessment of

which news contains positive values on government

policy and which gives negative value. Based on the

CNN effect theory and possible media behavior in the

formulation of a country’s foreign policy, the author

succeeded in drawing two possibilities against what

happened to the media in the UK. In a democratic

country like Britain, the media has a rather special

place in influencing parliamentary policies. But in the

case of Iranian proliferation, the British media have

not contributed greatly in regulating let alone

changing the policies of the British government.

The first possibility is that The Guardian follows

a second pattern of media that only follows what the

government prefers, so the news issued from The

Guardian comes from the British government. While

the second possibility is The Independent that

following the journalistic initiative that put forward

the news idealism that made The Independent as

opposition in the policy of the British government. In

this paper, the author take two media samples as the

object of research so it can not be used as a standard

to generalized media in Britain. The author also has a

deficiency in giving positive or negative values in

news headlines due to unclear parameters.

REFERENCES

Catherine Happer,Greg Philo. 2013. The Role of the Media

in the Construction of Public Belief and Social Change

[online] available at:

https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/96/37 [accessed

on December 15, 2017].

Dharmaputra, Radityo. 2017. Explaining the Levels of

Analysis in Foreign Policy: Domestic Variables (Public

Opinion). Mata kuliah: Analisis Kebijakan Luar Negeri

(Presented on October 18, 2017)

Dharmaputra, Radityo. 2017. Explaining the Levels of

Analysis in Foreign Policy: Domestic Variables (Public

Opinion). PPT Mata kuliah: Analisis Kebijakan Luar

Negeri (accessed on December 16, 2017)

Gilboa, Eytan, 2005. “Global Television News and Foreign

Policy: Debating the CNN Effect”, International

Studies Perspectives, (6), pp. 325-341.

Henrik Thune, 2009. Beyond the CNN effect Towards a

constitutive understanding of media power in

international politics

https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/15140

/Materie_195_Thune.pdf?sequence=1

Holsti, Ole R., 1992. “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy:

Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann

Consensus”, International Studies Quarterly, (36), pp.

439-466.

HOUSE OF LORDS Select Committee on

Communications 1st Report of Session 2007–08 The

ownership of the news . [online] available at:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselec

t/ldcomm/120/120.pdf [accessed on December 15,

2017].

HOUSE OF LORDS Select Committee on

Communications 1st Report of Session 2013–14 Media

plurality , available at:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselec

t/ldcomm/120/120.pdf [accessed on December 15,

2017].

Iitrade.com, 2012, Oil price falls as Iran allows nuclear

probe. [online] available at:

http://www.iitrade.ac.in/kmarticle.php?topic=Oil%20p

rice%20falls%20as%20Iran%20allows%20nuclear%2

0probe [accessed on December 15, 2017]

International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2005. Iran’s

Strategic Weapons Programmes: A net Assesment,

London: Routledge, 2005, 16.

Mohammad Rohani Farahmand, 2016. Explaining the Iran

nuclear deal A Case of Mutual Agreement After a

Decade of Gridlock

Naveh, Chanan, 2002. “The Role of the Media in Foreign

Policy Decision-Making: A Theoretical

Framework”, Conflict & Communication Online,

1(2), pp. 1-14.

Robinson, Piers, 2012. “The role of media and public

opinion”, in, Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield & Tim

Dunne, Foreign Policy, Theories . Actors . Cases.

Oxford; pp. 168-187.

Security Council, 2015.UN Resolution 2231/2015. [online]

available at: http://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/ [accessed

on December 15, 2017]

The Guardian, 2014.Iran foreign ministry: diplomacy the

only way to solve nuclear tangle. [online] available at:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/08/iran-

diplomancy-nuclear-solution-us [accessed on

December 16, 2017].

The Guardian, 2015. Iran deal ‘adoption day’: US approves

conditional sanctions waivers. [online] available at:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/18/iran-

deal-adoption-day-conditional-sanctions-waivers

[accessed on December 16, 2017].

The Independent. 2013.Search result on Iran Nuclear Deal

2014 tangle. [online] available at:

http://www.independent.co.uk/search/site/iran%2520d

eal%25202013 [accessed on December 16, 2017].

US AND EU TRADE SANCTIONS LEGISLATION.

2010. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTS [online]

available at:

https://www.londonpandi.com/downloads/250220111

01126.pdf [accessed on December 15, 2017].

The independent. 2014.Search result on Iran Nuclear Deal

2014 tangle. [online] available at:

http://www.independent.co.uk/search/site/iran%2520d

eal%25202014[diakses pada 16 Desember 2017]

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

634