Moral Framing and the Development of Political Conflicts: An Analysis of New York Times’ Stories in the Build up to the 2003 Iraqi War

The declaration by former head of the US Iraq Survey Group to the US Senate Armed Services Committee that there was no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq renewed calls for the scrutiny of the Bush administration’s case for war. Claims by the administration that Iraq was developing WMD and links with Al Qaeda were criticized as either not true or exaggerated to influence American public opinion and win popular support for the 2003 Iraqi war. Using New York Times as a case, this study examined the role the news media played in forming public opinion in support for or against the war. The study, conducted through content analysis, found that US official pro-war moral frames dominating the stories of the conflict in the buildup to the war. And by giving prominence and dominance to official US sources and their moral frames in support of the war, while excluding pro-diplomatic frames, New York Times stories exerted a "strong emotive appeal" on the US public and provided a moral justification for the 2003 Iraqi war