Terrorist events are breaking news for the media whose ethical responsibility can be debatable. Tactics of terrorism vary from kidnapping, hostage-taking, hijackings, and others up to mass destruction, including the use of nuclear weapons. Media responses and coverage strategies of such tactics also vary, with some reluctant to provide terrorists with the “oxygen of publicity.” Some striking similarities have appeared recently between the build-up to the war on Iraq begun by U.S. President George W. Bush's administration in 2002, culminating with the start of war in 2003, and the 2012 push by current U.S. President Barack Obama for action to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. In the earlier case, the presumption was established in the public mind, without adequate evidence, that Iraq possessed or was about to possess weapons of mass destruction, and had the will to use them against the United States. In the latter case, the background presumption is that Iran is actively seeking to produce a nuclear weapon, with Israel as a potential target. This claim also lacks solid evidence at the time of writing, but has come to be accepted in some media as an uncontroversial fact. This chapter looks at aspects of how different English and French Canadian newspapers, as examples, covered the push for war on Iraq. It includes reflections on the use of language in reporting on the war itself. The central concern is with the media role in fear-mongering and propaganda for war.
International law, nuclear weapon-free zones and the proposed zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East
