Search

Since the alleged conspiracy by the U.S. and U.K. governments to invade Iraq in 2003, the national security state in both countries has been subjected to intense scrutiny by news organizations around the world. This scrutiny has been fueled in part by what some describe as the development of a “networked fourth estate” (Benkler 2011) involving ad hoc alliances between professional journalists, citizen journalists, hackers, and leakers. On the surface, this attention challenges radical conceptions of a “power elite” remaining in the shadows and impervious to accountability exercised through the media. Amid cultural chaos (McNair 2005) and seemingly ubiquitous displays of adversarial journalism without fear or favor, how far are powerful interests still able to control the agenda and manipulate outcomes? The article presents findings in relation to a single case study involving critical coverage of the national security state and a particular aspect of containment that emerged. It concerns how the controversies were resolved through an apparent spectacle of accountability that suggested a resolution eschewing the need for further scrutiny or sanction. The paper further contends that this element of story “closure” warrants renewed attention in the study of news framing and ideological power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]