Differential news framing of unmanned aerial drones: efficient and effective or illegal and inhumane?

Over the past four years, the United States has significantly expanded its use of predator drones to conduct intelligence-gathering and military-strike operations. Experts are divided over this change in military strategy: some defend drones as a legal and efficient way to target terrorists, and others condemn them as a violation of international law. We explored the differential framing of drones in U.S. and foreign news coverage. Given their social identity and institutional motivations, we expected and found that American journalists were more likely to frame the usage of drones in ways that protected American national identity—by avoiding mention of civilian deaths, and by highlighting the drones’ value in saving American lives, their legality under international law, and their effectiveness. Foreign journalists, on the other hand, more regularly criticized the use of drones. These data have important implications for global and American public opinion about the use of drones.