Media Coverage of Moscow Summit Misses the Mark

Despite the steps Presidents Obama and Medvedev took towards creating a more secure, nuclear-weapons free world at the recent Moscow summit – including issuing a framework for deeper cuts in nuclear weapons and an agreement to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists – mainstream media coverage of the event largely missed the boat.

According to a recent survey of media coverage by ReThink Media, the majority of U.S. news stories lacked the background information necessary “to contextualize the negotiations as part of a step-by-step process toward increasing U.S. security.” 

Instead of focusing on how reducing arsenals advances U.S. national security interests, on the whole, media coverage framed the nuclear negotiations simply as a step towards improving relations with the Russians.  Despite many areas of agreement, coverage also tended to thrive on conflict between the U.S. and Russian negotiators, highlighting issues of contention such as missile defense, Iran and Georgia.

Similarly, op-eds and editorials on the Moscow summit did little to present a persuasive – and explicit – argument linking the reduction of nuclear stockpiles to American security.  ReThink Media reported that of the six pro-arms control op-eds and letters published, only one contained an overt security claim.  Responding to Keith Payne’s analysis of the U.S. – Russian agreement on nuclear reduction in the Wall Street Journal, in “Obama’s Weapons Policy Is Sensible,” William Hartung wrote:

“In short, the approach proposed by President Barack Obama is a step in the right direction, not a risk to U.S. security, as Mr. Payne suggests.”

 In order to more effectively educate the American people on complex nuclear negotiations, future media coverage must do a better job placing events like the Moscow summit into their broader context.  At the same time, supporters must convincingly explain the crucial link between reducing arsenals and advancing national security interests.  Definitively answering the question “why do reduced arsenals matter?” will be crucial to moving the disarmament debate forward in the coming months.

Making a good argument badly simply opens up lines of attack for critics.  As the report notes:

“While improving relations with Russia is, of course, a worthy objective, when combined with nuclear reductions this theme lent itself to an opposition line of attack that was used repeatedly, which was that President Obama is more concerned with what foreign governments think than he is with guaranteeing US security.”