Extensive media analysis of media reporting of international affairs highlights the consistency between media agendas and the agendas of governments. From the work of critical scholars such as Noam Chomsky through to mainstream analysts such as Daniel Hallin and Gadi Wolfsfeld, research consistently demonstrates that, when it comes to matters of national security, media rarely report outside the bounds of what Hallin describes as elite legitimated controversy.

There are several reasons for this media deference that include the close positioning of media outlets to political and economic elites, the heavy reliance upon government as an information source and, during the Cold War, an anti communist consensus that ideologically bonded journalists and policy makers. So, for example, during the war in Vietnam, as Hallin revealed in The Uncensored War, critical reporting only surfaced after Washington became divided between the 'hawks', who believed victory should be achieved at all costs, and the 'doves', who believed the price of victory was not worth paying.

Moreover media rarely, if ever, reported outside the bounds of this debate to argue that the war was fundamentally wrong or immoral. During the 1990s, with the collapse of the bi-polar order and the Cold War, some suggested that the freedom of media to report critically had been enhanced and talk emerged of the CNN effect whereby critical reporting was substantially influencing international politics.

Even then, most studies have found that the CNN effect was exaggerated and that influence was circumscribed. With the events of 9-11, and the Bush administration's declaration of a War on Terrorism, it is difficult avoiding the conclusion that the threat of communism, which helped create an ideological bond between journalists and policy makers during the cold war, has been effectively replaced by the threat of terrorism that has forced a consensus between journalists and policy making elites. Consequently, dissent and criticism during the 'war on terror' is likely to be just as muted as it was during the Cold War.

So what does this mean? The role of US media during the war on terrorism is likely to closely follow the lead of Washington policy makers and any dissenting voices are likely to remain marginalised. What will the resulting media coverage look like? The 'war on terror' frame will provide journalists with a template upon which to understand global events and a powerful rhetorical tool with which to justify a more aggressive and interventionist foreign policy agenda.

This has already been seen during the recent build up to and war against Iraq. The US government worked hard to associate Saddam Hussein with al Qaeda in the eyes of the US public, even though any firm evidence is absent, whilst mainstream US media uncritically reported this claim leaving some Americans actually unsure of the difference between Hussein and Bin Laden.

More importantly, any possibility that media can encourage open debate beyond a simplistic dichotomy between good versus evil is unlikely to emerge. This would not perhaps be a problem if there was only one genuine issue at stake, that of dangerous terrorists threatening Western civilians.

However terrorists always operate within a political context and appeal to political grievances in order to justify their actions. The source of much of the terrorism directed at the West evolves from grievances surrounding US policy toward the Middle East, the most important of which is the US stance toward the Israel/Palestine conflict. US occupation of Iraq has further alienated the Arab world and is liable to drive more Muslims toward an extreme position.

There is also widespread concern at the global role of the US. None of this is to say that groups such as al Qaeda are not a serious threat. They are extremely dangerous and need to be dealt with. However, critical reflection on the causes of terrorism is also necessary if we are to deal with roots of terrorism, some of which lie in the foreign policies pursued by Western states and the US.

There also exists a limit to Bush's 'war on terrorism' in that it implicitly excludes any acknowledgement of US involvement in terrorism when it is consistent with its interests. History and current trends suggest the media will not fulfil its task of encouraging full and open debate on all these issues.

The world is a far more complex place than that suggested by the Bush administrations' 'axis of evil' and 'war on terrorism' and responding to international problems requires an awareness of how our own actions can create violent retaliation. The media could provide that, expanding the bounds of debate and encouraging a full and open discussion about terrorism, of all kinds, its causes and the need for critical self-reflection on the foreign policies of our own governments.

To respond to this article, click here