Abstract
This study compares how the 2004 Abu Ghraib prison story was defined by journalists in seven countries (Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United States). A content analysis of leading print news outlets from each country reveals a range of politically significant descriptive labels. At one extreme, American journalists overwhelmingly avoided torture to describe Abu Ghraib, emphasizing instead more ambiguous, and arguably more innocuous, terms such as abuse or mistreatment. At the other extreme, German, Italian, and Spanish journalists tended to define what happened at the prison as torture rather than as abuse or mistreatment. In between these emphases were Australian, British, and Canadian journalists, who fell somewhat closer to the characterizations employed by U.S. journalists. Our view is that these divergences in news coverage are best explained by social identity theory, though other potential explanations are also considered.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
