AMERICAN PRINT MEDIA REACTIONS

∗
TO THE MARCH 11 MADRID TRAIN ATTACK

Tomasz Płudowski
Akademia Świętokrzyska
Collegium Civitas

INTRODUCTION
This chapter looks at the Madrid train attack from the point of view of the United States and
its media environment. American media and political reactions to the March 11 Madrid train
attack must be analyzed in the context of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. The events of 9/11 have been compared to Pearl Harbor and seem to have had an
extreme emotional impact on the US. Whether they really changed everything or not as it has
been argued, 9/11 changed Americans’ attitude to the media and to international news.

9/11 in American Media

Literally hundreds of books on 9/11 have been published, covering topics including: global
terrorism (Hoge and Rose 2001), understanding 9/11 (Calhoun, Price, & Timmer 2002), and
US hegemony (Chomsky, 2002; Chomsky 2003). An extremely large part of 9/11 scholarship
deals with the media and communication aspect of that event: e.g. US media coverage of
September 11 (countless studies), media framing (Norris, Kern, & Just 2003), communicating
terror (Tuman 2003), and US journalism after 9/11 (Zelizer & Allan 2002), etc. That tendency
is both understandable and quite revealing about both the times and the event itself. After all,
all political and social aspects aside, 9/11 was also a media event. Roughly half the American
people found out about the attacks from the mass media of communication: 27.5% from
television, 24.1% from the radio, and only 1.3% from the Internet. Quite a large number of
American citizens found out through face-to-face interactions (32.5%) and the telephone
(14.7%) (Ruggiero, 2006). The importance of television among all communication channels
was highlighted during the first hours and the evening of the attacks, when as many as 92% of
Americans used television to stay informed. That number dropped a week later to 62% while


Research for this chapter was conducted in February 2005 at the University of Maryland, College Park. I would
like to thank Professor Robin Larsen of the University of California San Bernardino for helpful suggestions on
an early draft of this paper. An earlier version of this paper was read at a conference on “Spanish mass media
and parliamentary elections in the face of terrorism”, organized by prof. Bogusława Dobek-Ostrowska, who
invited me to join the panel.

1
Internet and newspaper usage, “minimal or negligible at first, rose to 14% and 16%
respectively by the end of the week.” (Ruggiero, 2006: 6).

Americans and Foreign News

American mass media’s performance ratings increased dramatically after the attacks.
Americans were less critical of the media and generally thought it was doing a good job.
Between early September 2001 and November of the same year, the percentage of Americans
saying that the media usually get facts straight went up from 35% to 46%, that the media
stand up for America--from 43% to 69%, protect democracy--from 46% to 60%, are moral--
from 40% to 53%.1

Americans’ unusually high grades for performance went along with dramatically heightened
interest in foreign news. For the first eight months of 2001 Americans paid relatively little
attention to news, in particular, foreign news. The attacks on the World Trade Center changed
that. Before 9/11, only two news stories: high gasoline prices and the release of US air crew
from China attracted very close attention of more than 50% of Americans (relatively 61% and
55%). “In mid-September, 74% said they were very closely following news about the attacks
on the World Trade Center and Pentagon (another 22% reported following the attacks fairly
closely). By mid-October, the number paying very close attention increased slightly (to 78%),
so that three weeks after September 11, interest in news of the attacks was still greater than
for such stories as the Los Angeles riots of 1992 (70%), the end of the Persian Gulf War
(67%), and the Oklahoma City bombing (58%).”2

Table 1. Top News Interest Stories of 2001.

Story % Following
Very Closely
1. Terrorism attacks on the US (10/17-21) 78
2. Trade Center/Pentagon attacks (9/13-17) 74
3. Identifying those who attacked US (10-1-3) 72
4. High gasoline prices (May) 61
5. Defending against future terrorism (10/1-3) 57
6. Release of US air crew from China (April) 55
7. Building anti-terrorist coalition (10/1-3) 53
8. Economic effects of terrorism (10/1-3) 52
9. Possible US military action (10/1-3) 52
10. US military effort in Afganistan (10/15-17) 51
11. Airplane crash near Kennedy Airport (11/13-19) 48
12. Reports of anthrax around country (10/31-11/7) 47
13. Winter weather in Northeast and Midwest (January) 42

1
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2001a). Terror Coverage Boosts News Media Images.
Washington, D. C.: Author.
2
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2001b). Terrorism Transforms News Interest. Washington,
D. C.: Author, p. 1.

2
 14. Reports on the US economy (11/13-19) 41
15. School shooting in San Diego (March) 39
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2001b). Terrorism Transforms News Interest.
Washington, D.C.: Author, p. 1.

Thus, one of the positive developments that can be attributed to 9/11 was the American
media’s better international coverage and Americans paying much more attention to
international news.

By the summer of 2002, the trends were reversed, though. A Pew Research Center’s report on
public news habits released on June 9, 2002 concluded that: “The public’s news habits have
been largely unaffected by the September 11 attacks and subsequent war on terrorism.
Reported levels of reading, watching and listening to the news are not markedly different than
in the spring of 2000. At best, a slightly larger percentage of the public is expressing general
interest in international and national news, but there is no evidence its appetite for
international news extends much beyond terrorism and the Middle East.”3 (see Table 2).

Table 2. Modest Rise in Interest in International News

Follows
Very closely Somewhat closely Total
% % %
2002 21 44 65
2000 14 45 59
1998 16 46 62
1996 16 46 62
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2002a). Public’s News Habits Little Changed by
September 11. Washington, D. C.: Author, p. 1.

Out of those with moderate/low interest in international news, 65% said they lacked
background, 51% said “nothing ever changes”, 45% said: “events don’t affect me,” and 42%
said there is “too much war/violence.”4 (see Table 3.)

Table 3. Reasons for Not Following International News

Those with low/moderate interest Yes No DK
in international news % % %
Lack of background 65 34 1=100
Nothing ever changes 51 47 2=100

3
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2002a). Public’s News Habits Little Changed by September
11. Washington, D. C.: Author, p. 1. As Herbert J. Gans points out, popular satisfaction with the news has never
been great. Moreover, confidence studies show steady decline since the 1960s to 1990s (2003: 33, see also
footnote 42 on page 135). For a discussion of the American journalists efforts to keep the balance between
audience interests, business pressures, and professional values, see: T. Płudowski (2005b). “Dziennikarstwo i
środki masowego przekazu w rynkowym społeczeństwie demokratycznym: Krytyka modelu amerykańskiego. In
S. Mocek (Ed.), Dziennikarstwo, media, społeczeństwo. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Studiów Politycznych
Polskiej Akademii Nauk i Collegium Civitas.
4
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2002a). Public’s News Habits Little Changed by September
11. Washington, D. C.: Author, p. 1.

3
Events don’t affect me 45 54 1=100
Too much war/violence 42 56 2=100
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2002a). Public’s News Habits Little Changed by
September 11. Washington, D. C.: Author, p. 1.

Researchers also concluded that “people are increasingly turning away from newspapers” and
“the audience for Dateline, 20/20 and other network news magazines had declined sharply
over the last decade. In the early 1990s, about half of the public said they regularly watched
the news magazine programs. Now just a quarter (24%) regularly watch these shows.”5

Table 4. Trends in Regular News Consumption

May April April April April
1993 1996 1998 2000 2002
% % % % %
Local TV news 77 65 64 56 57
Cable TV news - - - - 33
Nightly network news 60 42 38 30 32
Network TV magazines 52 36 37 31 24
Network morning news - - 23 20 22
Radio 47 44 49 43 41
Call-in radio shows 23 13 13 14 17
National Public Radio 15 13 15 15 15
Newspapers 58 50 48 47 41
Online news - 2 13 23 25
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2002a). Public’s News Habits Little Changed by
September 11. Washington, D. C.: Author, p. 2.

Table 5. News Media Ratings Backslide.

5
Ibidem, p. 4.

4
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2002b). News Media’s Improved Image Proves
Short-Lived. Washington, D. C.: Author, p.3.

By August of 2002, studies showed that Americans’ criticism of the news media went back to
its usual high.6 In the words of American social researchers, “the favorable glow of the
media’s post-9/11 performance completely disappeared. As the media’s focus has shifted
away from terrorism, Americans regard news organizations with the same degree of
skepticism as they did in the 1990s.”7

THE MADRID ATTACK IN AMERICAN MEDIA

The aforementioned decline in the US in interest in international news in March 2004 was
directly responsible for the low level of interest in 11-M. The Madrid attack of March 11 did
not see as much media interest in the US as 9/11 did, which is natural in a way: it did not take
place on American soil. Also, as it was said, by the time the attack took place, American
viewing public was paying less attention to international news again. Still, American media
paid quite a considerable amount of attention to the attack. The event was covered and/or
referred to in between 15 and 50 articles per quality paper during the next six months,
including prominent stories in The Washington Post and The New York Times. This study is a
combination of frame analysis, mention-count and content analysis of mostly East Coast
papers over a period of six months following 11-M. Context for the study is provided by an
analysis of 9/11, Americans’ changing attitudes to news, international relations and the 2004
US presidential election.

Framing
The dominant frame used by American newspapers was that of the war on terror, saying the
attack was yet another example of international terrorism, thus to a large extent following the
official US government line. A good example of that line of thinking is the March 14 opinion
piece published in a Massachusetts newspaper titled Sunday Telegram:8

In the wake of Thursday's coordinated terrorist bombings in Madrid, American politicians and
pundits who are inclined to dismiss the threat of international terrorism as overblown ridiculing
homeland security initiatives and, in some cases, attempting to justify the Sept. 11, 2001, carnage
will have to reassess their positions.

The coordinated attack, involving 10 bombs on passenger trains, killed almost 200 people and
injured more than 1,400, prompting Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to call for national unity,
urging Spaniards to hold nationwide demonstrations to protest the attack. "March 11 now has its
place in the history of infamy," he said.

6
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2002b). News Media’s Improved Image Proves Short-
Lived. Washington, D. C.: Author.
7
Ibidem, p.1.
8
Another front in war on terror. (2004, March 14). Sunday Telegram, p. C1.

5
 Although it is unclear exactly what terrorist organization was the perpetrator, the attack
underscores several points thoughtful U.S. policy-makers have been making right along.

First, al-Qaida and its ilk are not only more deadly than other paramilitaries and insurgencies, but
also are different in kind.

Most notably, their leaders are utterly indifferent to the loss of life and, in fact, have made the
random, wholesale slaughter of innocents their chief tactic. Stripped of the ideological or religious
rationalizations concocted by the terrorists and their apololgists, that isa pretty good working
definition of pure evil.

The bombings also are a reminder that no one in the civilized world is immune to the terrorist
threat. All nations, including those that harbor terrorists or turn a blind eye in hope of appeasing
them, are potential targets.

That doesn't mean the civilized world is helpless. Already, terrorist operations and finances have
been seriously disrupted.

The horror in Madrid lends urgency to the cooperative international response already under way to
counter the threat.

Sensationalization and Politization in the Tabloids

On March 12 the Rupert Murdoch-owned, socially and politically conservative, and highly
popular tabloid The New York Post ran the story not so prominently, on page 4, offering many
gory details: “The train was cut open like a can of tuna," ambulance driver Enrique Sanchez
said at one of the stations. "We didn't know who to treat first. There was a lot of blood, a lot
of blood." "I saw a baby torn to bits," said passenger Ana Maria Mayor, her voice
cracking.9 On page 34, a piece with the headline “The Madrid Massacre” provided more
context for the event.10 The story framed the event as a continuation of 9/11, likened Madrid’s
citizens’ experience to those of New Yorkers, calling the two cities sister cities, and was quick
to put the blame on Islamic terrorists, calling them cowards. This story echoed the famous
Susan Sontag-inspired discussion of whether the terrorists were cowardly, as President Bush
put it, or not, as Susan Sontag and Bill Mahrer, among others, pointed out.

The civilized world mourns with Spain today, but nowhere is Madrid's agony understood more
deeply, more intuitively, than here in New York City.

We were there, after all, just 30 short months ago.

It now looks like it was indeed radical Islamic terrorists who exploded 10 backpack bombs over a
15-minute period aboard trains and in commuter stations yesterday morning--killing at least 192
and wounding up to 1,400.

The casualty list is shorter than was New York's on 9/11. But Spain's population is but one-
seventh America's; proportionally, the toll was similar.

Certainly, the attack was 9/11's equal in its coldly cynical brutality and utter cowardice.

Spain was targeted not because of its convenience but because of what Madrid has been over the
past 30 months: a staunch U.S. ally in the War on Terror.

9
Todd Venezia, Niles Lathem and Aly Sujo. (2004, March 12). Spain Reels From A '9/11'. Death Toll 192 in 10
Rail Blasts Scenes of Horror in Madrid. Qaeda Among Prime Suspects, The New York Post, p. 4.
10
The Madrid Massacre. (2004, March 12). New York Post, p. 34.

6
 As President Bush put it yesterday, Spain "has taken a resolute stand against terrorist
organizations."

And so now New York and Madrid are sister cities--united in pain and outrage, and gripped with a
determination not to let the terrorists win.

Not ever.

Yesterday's exercise in mass murder--on a scale that Europe has not seen since the Lockerbie
airline bombing in 1988--also reinforces a principle that Bush first articulated immediately after
9/11, and many times since:

The War on Terror will be long and painful, to be fought on many fronts and at varying levels of
intensity.

It will require a level of determination that clearly was present in America after the destruction of
the World Trade Center--but that, sadly, seems to have slipped as the national political process
plays itself out.

The article goes on to politicize the event along the lines of the paper’s preferred political
views, and uses the attack to point out that Bush is preferred over Kerry in the upcoming
presidential elections, still half a year away. The article uses very strong, metaphorical
language.

Think of international terrorism as the mythical hydra: It's not enough to chop off just one head, or
two. They must all be severed.

As the president has said, either we press forward on this difficult path, "or we can turn back to the
dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat."

Let's not mince words here.

Bush was speaking of the fecklessness exhibited by most of the Democratic candidates during this
presidential primary season--and about the party's now-presumptive nominee, John F. Kerry.

For all his posturing about having seen war and of knowing it, Kerry has presented no coherent
plans for proceeding against the architects of 9/11.

And now there are the butchers of Madrid to be dealt with--one and the same, most likely, as
America's foes and a mortal danger to America, and to freedom everywhere.

This is not to politicize a massacre.

The perpetrators did that.
They must be destroyed.
It is that simple.

Another popular New York tabloid, Daily News, ran its coverage of the attack on page 46, in
a story entitled: World War III Strikes Spain. The story’s relatively poor placement is made
up for by its apocalyptic vision displayed in the headline and the contents.

More Highly Prioritized and Objective Coverage in Quality Papers

American top quality papers paid much more attention to the event, placing the story initially
on page one. They provided more objective coverage, separating facts from commentary and
opinion.

7
The New York Times first informed of the event on page A1, column 5, with a 1386-word
story titled “10 Bombs Shatter Trains in Madrid, Killing 192” under the heading: “Bombings
in Madrid: The Attack.” 11 The opening paragraph said:

Ten bombs ripped through four commuter trains in Madrid during the morning
rush hour on Thursday, killing at least 192 people and wounding more than 1,400
in the deadliest terrorist attack on a European target since World War II.

The story did not make any references to the US presidential election, and did not highlight
the Al Qaeda/9/11 connection. 9/11 was mentioned just once, halfway through the article,
when the author said:

Some Spaniards are calling the attacks the country's ''9/11,'' and the front
page of a special edition of the biggest daily, El Pais, ran the headline,
"11-M,'' for ''11 Marzo.''12

The story contained mere facts. The framing was that of international terrorism and the event
was contextualized through other acts of terrorism that have happened in Europe during the
last two decades, that is ETA, IRA, the Lockerbie bombing, and more.

The stories followed the otherwise-familiar pattern of crisis coverage: first focusing on
reporting what happened, then moving on to the coverage of official government statements
and explanations, and finally running stories that offered background giving the big picture
and helping readers to understand why it happened.

For the most part, other quality papers including The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe,
and The Washington Post ran their stories on page A1 as well.13 Judging by story placement,
one can conclude that the quality papers’ level of interest remained very high for several
days.14

Between March 12 and 19, The New York Times ran six March 11-related stories, most of
them prominently displayed. The attack was brought up in the contexts described below. To
offer a better view of the coverage, in some cases extended excerpts are included.

Economic Worries/Security/International Relations

Some of the initial stories dealt with the practical aspect of possible negative consequences
for the US economy. In a story on market performance, placed on page 6, on March 12, 2004
The New York Times linked the attack with falling stock prices in the US, suggesting a causal
relationship:15

United States stocks declined yesterday, pushing the Standard & Poor's
500-stock index and the Dow Jones industrial average down for a fourth
consecutive day, after bombs killed more than 190 people in Madrid. […] The S.&P. 500

11
Elaine Sciolino. (2004, March 12). 10 Bombs Shatter Trains in Madrid, Killing 192, The New York Times, p.
A1.
12
Ibidem, p. A1.
13
See for example: Carlta Vitzthumthe. (2004, March 12). Train Bombs Kill at Least 190 in Spain, The Wall
Street Journal, p 1.
14
See for example: Charles M. Sennott. (2004, March 14). Terrorism in Spain: Spain Arrests Five Men in
Railway Bombings Recovered Video Claims Al Qaeda Link, The Boston Globe, p. A1 and Matthew Schofield.
(2004, March 14). 5 Held in Spanish Bombings, The Pittsburg Post-Gazette, p. A1.
15
S.&P. and Dow Fall, Eroding Gains of Year-Old Rally. (2004, March 12). The New York Times, p. 6.

8
 shed 17.11 points, or 1.5 percent, to 1,106.78, placing it in
negative territory for the year. The Dow average fell 168.51 points, or 1.6
percent, to 10,128.38. The Nasdaq composite index declined 20.26 points, or 1 percent, to
1,943.89, its fifth consecutive drop.[…] Travel-related stocks slumped after news of the
bombing. The Bloomberg United States Travel Index, made up of 36 companies that own
hotels, airlines, cruise lines and travel agencies, lost 3.2 percent. That is the biggest drop since
June 24.

The fact that, in the US, the 11-M event was no 9/11 can be seen in the publication of some
very down-to-earth, practical stories on Americans’ holiday travel plans within one-two days
of the attack. On March 13, “Your Money” Section of the Connecticut Post ran a story about
the dampening consequences of the Madrid attack for US tourism, which was just beginning
to recover from 9/11. Now, Rob Varnon argued, Americans might think twice before going to
Europe.16 The story opened in this fashion:

A bloody, horrific Thursday in Spain may have reignited fears of terrorism that travel industry
professionals said have dampened Americans' enthusiasm for European travel.

Several Connecticut travel industry professionals were painting a fairly positive picture for
the upcoming travel season early last week, before 10 bombs exploded in Madrid rail stations
and trains Thursday, killing almost 200 people and injuring more than 1,400.

Prior to that day, state travel agents' biggest concerns were a sluggish economy, high jet fuel
costs pushing airline ticket prices up and a weak dollar that makes goods and services in
Europe more expensive for Americans.

Tamir Battat, managing partner with Bridgeport-based Traveland, said Wednesday he was
seeing a lot of pent-up travel demand. He said many people put off traveling abroad in 2003
because of the war in Iraq.

On Friday, the Associated Press said European tourism experts were expecting the Madrid
attacks to again dissuade Americans from coming to Europe, much like last year.

Despite the attacks, some tourism pros remain hopeful that Americans won't
let terrorists stop their plans, even if they don't go to Europe.

The New York Times kept focusing on the more serious aspects, for the most part related to
security and/or international relations. On March 13, the country’s newspaper of record
informed readers of tightened security measures in Europe’s well-traveled rail system (12
times larger than that of the US and third biggest in the world, after those of China and
Japan).17

The same day, another story told about tightened security on US trains, suggesting that
American transportation authorities took the attack was taken very seriously.18

Law enforcement and transit authorities said Friday that they were moving to
bolster security on passenger rail lines around the country, particularly in the
crowded Northeast corridors. But some officials warned that rail and subway

16
Rob Varnon. (2004, March 13). For Monday, Connecticut Post.
17
Patrick E. Tyler and Don Van Natta Jr. (2004, March 13). Europe Adds New Security Measures to Its Well-
Traveled Rail System, The New York Times, p. 6.
18
Eric Lichtblau and Sarah Kershaw. (2004, March 13). Bombings Lead U.S. to Raise Security for Trains, The
New York Times, p. 1.

9
 systems remained particularly vulnerable to terrorist attacks like the ones in
Madrid.

In the hours after the attacks, officials busily moved to put more bomb
-detection teams, electronic devices and other measures in place from Washington to New
York to Seattle. Transportation experts said, however, that the Madrid bombings underscored
the fact that rail security had lagged woefully behind aviation improvements since the 9/11
attacks. And Democrats in Congress quickly proposed a $500 million commitment for rail
security to help narrow the gap.

On March 16, The New York Times reported on how Spanish officials were tending to blame
Al Qaeda for the attack:19

As the Spanish government all but dropped its claims on Monday that the
Madrid train bombings were probably the work of Basque separatists, senior
counterterrorism officials in the United States said they were increasingly
convinced that Islamic militants were behind the attacks.

Thus, The New York Times did not bring up the Al Qaeda connection until three days after the
attack unlike The New York Post, which made the connection right away in order to utilize the
event’s emotional impact to further its own political ends, namely: supporting the war on
terror and President Bush against John Kerry, his likely challenger in the election.

In Spain, the events of March 11 seem to have influenced the parliamentary election outcome,
helping the socialist opposition to get a much-needed boost in opinion polls several days
before the vote. Between the attack and the election mass demonstrations were organized
around the country, largely with the help of non-traditional media such as: text messages and
the Internet. The traditional media’s support for the Spanish government’s insistence on
ETA’s responsibility for the attack stirred the Spanish people to organize themselves
independently and eventually backfired. While in the US, 11-M seems to have helped Bush
rather than Kerry (or at least that was the intention of some media), the Spanish people used
11-M to vote the pro-American Aznar government out of office and to elect Zapatero, who
had run on several anti-Bush government ideas: that Spain should immediately withdraw its
troops from Iraq, and that it should strengthen its alliances with France, Germany, and all of
EU rather than the US. In other words, as one of my American media studies colleagues
colloquially interpreted my research, “while the US seems to have used 11-M to “kick” Kerry,
the Spanish people used 11-M to “kick” the US.”

On March 16, The New York Times ran a front-page story with a headline saying: “Spain Will
Loosen Its Alliance With US, Premier-Elect Says”:20

Spain's newly elected Socialist prime minister pledged Monday to shift

allegiance away from Washington to Paris and Berlin, a move that could lead to a reduction
of American influence in Europe on a range of issues.

Meanwhile, American intelligence officials said Monday that they were now
increasingly convinced that Muslim militants, not the Basque separatist group

19
Tim Golden and David Johnston. (2004, March 16). Officials Tending to Blame Qaeda for Madrid Attack,
The New York Times, p. 17.
20
Elaine Sciolino. (2004, March 16). Spain Will Loosen Its Alliance With U.S., Premier-Elect Says, The New
York Times, p. 1.

10
 ETA, were responsible for the train bombings in Madrid on Thursday that killed 200 people
and wounded 1,500.

European and United Nations diplomats complained that they felt misled by
the outgoing Spanish government, which said after the bombing that ETA was to blame and
pressed for a condemnation of ETA at the Security Council.

In his first remarks to reporters since his party's stunning defeat of the
center-right Popular Party candidate on Sunday, Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez
Zapatero repeated his promise to pull Spanish troops from Iraq in the absence of a United
Nations mandate. Such a mandate is considered likely, however, after the United States
transfers sovereignty to Iraq in June.

Mr. Zapatero offered scathing criticism of the American-led war in Iraq,

which his party, like 90 percent of the Spanish people, opposed.

''I want Europe to see us again as pro-European,'' he told the Spanish radio
station Cadena Ser on Monday.

He added: ''The war has been a disaster; the occupation continues to be a

great disaster. It hasn't generated anything but more violence and hate. What
simply cannot be is that after it became so clear how badly it was handled there be no
consequences.'' He said President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain ''will have to
reflect and engage in some self-criticism, so things like that don't happen again.''

In a news conference at party headquarters later in the day, Mr. Zapatero

pledged to repair relations with France and Germany, which were badly damaged when Spain
supported the war in Iraq and France and Germany opposed it. ''Spain is going to see eye to
eye with Europe again,'' he said. ''Spain is going to be more pro-Europe than ever. I am deeply
convinced of that.''

In that sense, Mr. Zapatero, despite his leftist leanings, will be moving
closer to the foreign policy vision of the center-right government of France,
where President Jacques Chirac has repeatedly called for the creation of a '
'multipolar'' world in which Europe would become a counterweight to the United States and
other centers of power.

Many Europeans view the war on Iraq as the latest in a series of unilateral
American actions taken in defiance of European interests or wishes, including
American decisions not to join treaties on the environment and the International Criminal
Court. They see a more united Europe as a possible check to what is widely viewed in Europe
as an American attempt to establish unchallenged global dominance.

Mr. Zapatero said his election would send a signal to other countries facing
elections, including the United States, where Mr. Bush is likely to face Senator John Kerry of
Massachusetts in the election in November, that if voters disapprove of the war in Iraq, and its
occupation, they can take their protest to the polls and reverse policy.

''My impression is that what happened now that the Socialist government in
Spain has taken power will have a great impact in the November elections in
North America in the duel between Bush and Kerry,'' Mr. Zapatero said in the
radio interview.

On March 18, President Bush visited American troops in Baghdad and, as reported in The
New York Times, responded indirectly to Spanish government’s decision to withdraw its
troops:21

21
Elisabeth Bumiller and Fort Campbell. (2004, March 19). Bush Says Thank You in Visit to the Troops, The
New York Times, p. 20.

11
 On the eve of the first anniversary of the bombing of Baghdad, President Bush
told 20,000 American soldiers on Thursday that they had helped remove ''two of
the most violent regimes on earth,'' and then made a veiled warning to Spain for
its decision to pull its troops from Iraq.

''This terrorist enemy will never be appeased, because death is their banner
and their cause,'' Mr. Bush said here, immediately after denouncing ''the
murderers in Madrid'' who killed more than 200 people, including children, in
bombings on a commuter train last week. ''There's no safety for any nation in a
world that lives at the mercy of gangsters and mass murderers,'' he said. ''Eventually, there's
no place to hide from the planted bombs.''

There is only one path to safety for the ''civilized world,'' Mr. Bush
concluded: ''We will stay united, and we will fight until this enemy is broken.''

Mr. Bush had no comment on the statement of another ally, President

Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland, who said Thursday that he had been ''misled''
about the threat from Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons. ''I'm here to eat
dinner,'' Mr. Bush told reporters when they asked about Mr. Kwasniewski as the
president was settling in for a meal with troops at the base.

The Madrid train attacks kept coming up in numerous international stories throughout the
next half a year, sometimes quite prominently. As late as October 17, 2004, two weeks before
the American election, there was still interest in the story. The Washington Post ran a detailed
and lengthy piece on page A16 on the attack entitled “Madrid Attacks May Have Targeted
Election. Wiretaps Bolster theory That Blasts Were Timed To Hurt Chances of Leader Who
Backed Iraq War.”22

11-M and the 2004 US Presidential Election

Surprisingly, the Madrid attack did not come up much during the national 2004 election
coverage, especially in English-language media. During the three debates between President
George Bush and John Kerry, the Democratic challenger, no mention was made of the event,
not even during the first debate whose focus was international affairs and terrorism.23 Possible
explanations are that the event could have been spun against either one of the candidates. The
fact that yet another act of international terrorism, possibly attributable to Al Qaeda, had taken
place since 9/11 gave credibility to Bush’s thesis that security was critical and that his “war
on terror” was highly significant. However, the fact that, after the attack, the Spanish
government decided to withdraw its troops from Iraq proved that Bush’s “coalition of the
willing” was falling apart and to a larger and larger extent, Bush is “going it alone.”

The two candidates spent a considerable amount of time discussing terrorism and presenting
these viewpoints which were not in direct relation to 11-M. For the most part, the discussion
focused on Afghanistan and Iraq: on whether there was a rationale for attacking Iraq, whether
there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and whether the war was being conducted in
the right manner.

11-M and U.S. Hispanic/Latino Media

22
Keith B. Richburg. (2004, October 17). Madrid Attacks May Have Targeted Election, Washington Post, p.
A16.
23
For more on the media in that election, see: T. Pludowski (2005a). Media masowe w amerykańskich wyborach
prezydenckich roku 2004. In B. Dobek-Ostrowska (Ed.). Marketingowe aspekty komunikowania politycznego.
Wrocław: Wrocław University Press.

12
Given the fact that Hispanics constitute the fastest-growing ethnic minority in the US and
Spanish is the second most common language in the country, it is important to give some
attention to Latino media in the United States. According to the latest US Census, more than
half of current immigration (52%) come from Latin America.24 As many as 30% of non-US
born Americans are Mexican, the single most sizable nationality. 28.2 million Americans
speak Spanish at home, which makes it the second most popular language. In the 1990s, the
number of Spanish speakers went up by 62%, the biggest increase among all languages.
Additionally, half of those 28.2 million Spanish speakers speak no other language. At present,
Latinos constitute 12.5% of the American people.

La Opinión, the largest Spanish-language newspaper in the US, paid a lot of attention to the
attack and Spanish-American relations before 11 March and in the aftermath. During Aznar’s
visit to California in July 2003, the paper extensively quoted his pro-American stance.25

Espańa seguirá siendo socio de Estados Unidos en la guerra contra el terrorismo, dijo ayer
José María Aznar, jefe de gobierno espańol, ante los legisladores de California.

Aznar consideró el terrorismo como la mayor amenaza para la estabilidad internacional.

“Los espańoles, que hemos sufrido tanto por el terrorismo, sentimos los brutales ataques del
11 de septiembre como un ataque contra nosotros”, dijo Aznar antes de una sesión conjunta
de la Legislatura de California. “El terrorismo no respeta fronteras; su único objetivo es
destruir nuestras libertades”.

El gobernador Gray Davis recibió al primer ministro espańol “con los brazos abiertos” y le
auguró que su visita por los estados de Estados Unidos con fuerte presencia hispana va a
suponer el “fortalecimiento” de la relación con Espańa.

Immediately following the Madrid attack, La Opinión published an Associated Press/Agence

France Press piece covering the attack and the belief of the Spanish government, political
leaders and mass media that the ETA was responsible for the attack.26

On the same day, La Opinión’s own correspondent filed a story highlighting the American
government’s “solidarity with its Spanish ally” and its decision not to draw hasty conclusions
concerning the responsibility for the attack until Madrid authorities close the investigation. 27
The story informed readers about Bush’s telephone conversation with King Juan Carlos and
Prime Minster Aznar and his heart-felt emotional support for the families and the Spanish
people. He said: “We cry with the affected families.”28

A week later, La Opinión’s correspondent, Maribel Hastings, ran another 11-M-related story,
while also reporting on Bush’s visit with the Iraqi troops when he thanked the soldiers and the
24
Date in this section comes from the 2000 US Census reports, made available between March 2001 and
December 2003, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau,
Washington, D.C.
25
Espańa es aliada de EU contra el terrorismo. El presidente del gobierno espańol dice que la estabilidad
internacional está en juego. (2003, July 11). La Opinión.
26
“El gobierno, líderes políticos y los medios de comunicación no dudaron en culpar a ETA de uno de los
atentados terroristas más sangrientos de Europa.” See: Se busca el autor de los atentados. (2004, March 12).
Associated Press/Agence France Press.
27
Maribel Hastings. (2004, March 12). EU se solidariza con su aliado espańol. La Casa Blanca prefirió no hacer
conclusiones apresuradas sobre la responsabilidad del ataque hasta que se termine la pesquisa que conducen las
autoridades en Madrid. La Opinión.
28
“Le dije que lloramos con las familias afectadas. Respaldamos enérgicamente al pueblo espańol,” Ibidem, p. 2.

13
veterans of this military intervention and for their effort. In a story entitled: “Bush Justifies
One More Time the Iraq War,” the paper quoted Bush’s call for unity against the enemy:
“There is only one way to security.”29 At the same time, the paper reminded its readers of
Aleksander Kwasniewski’s statement that: “his people feel ‘deceived’ in relation to the real
threat posed by Iraq and its presumed arms of mass destruction and that is why in all
probability Poland will withdraw its troops sooner.”30 Meanwhile, the story also pointed out
that a group linked to Al Qaeda took responsibility for the Madrid attack while “the new
socialist Spanish government said that the Iraq war proved itself to be a fiasco and unless the
Unite Nations gave it a mandate to stabilize and reconstruct Iraq, by the end of June it would
withdraw the 1,400 troops it has in the region.31

Even though the Madrid attack did not play a significant role in the 2004 US presidential
election, at least not directly or overtly, the Latino media did bring up 11-M in related
political circumstances. In a story on Bush’s efforts to refute General Clarke’s accusations of
not doing enough to prevent the attacks of September 11, La Opinión quoted Robert Muller,
director of the FBI, who said that in response to what happened in Madrid, the terrorists may
intend to influence the outcome of the US presidential election through a terrorist act.32

Traditionally, the US Latino community has voted Democratic. In 2004 the Bush camp said it
could still win the election with only 30% of the Latino vote. During the campaign both
camps took the Latino voters very seriously, spending millions of dollars to advertise in
Spanish, also on television. Both candidates ran ads in which they spoke Spanish. Ultimately,
the Kerry campaign received slightly over half of the Latino vote (53%). However, Bush
managed to get as much as 44%, an improvement of nine percentage points in relation to the
2000 campaign. Both results highlight the increasing political power of the Latino community
in the US.33

CONCLUSIONS
From the American point of view the most common lense through which to look at the
Madrid train attack of March 11 was September 11, clearly a highly emotional event that
some say “changed everything.” In the words of Kirsten Mogensen (2006), a Danish
practitioner and scholar of journalism who on 9/11 happened to be in the US conducting
research at the Manship School of Communication: “The coverage of 9/11 has been widely
criticized for being too patriotic, naming TV programs, for example, America Attacked,
Attack on America and America Under Attack, wrapping the programs in red, white, and blue,

29
Maribel Hastings. (2004, March 19). Bush justifica una vez más la guerra de Irak Proclama ante la 101
Aerotransportada que EU no se plegará ante el terrorismo, La Opinión, p.1.
30
Ibidem, p.1.
31
“El nuevo gobierno socialista de Espańa dijo que la guerra de Irak ha demostrado ser un "fiasco" y que a
menos que medie un mandato de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) para la estabilización y la
reconstrucción de Irak, retirará a fines de junio las 1,400 tropas espańolas que hay en la region,” Ibidem, p. 1.

32
The two quotes are: “A raíz de lo sucedido en Madrid, debe preocuparnos la posibilidad de que los terroristas
intenten influir en las elecciones de Estados Unidos mediante la comisión de un acto terrorista,” and Sabemos
que entre ahora y las elecciones [de noviembre], hay un lapso en el que los terroristas quizá intenten influir en
los acontecimientos, ya sea aquí o en el extranjero." See: Maribel Hastings. (2004, March 26). Bush continúa su
defensa contra Clarke. Reitera que habría evitado el 9/11 si hubiera tenido la información, La Opinión, p. 3.

33
Lourdes Heredia. (2004, November 4). EE.UU.: voto latino “determinante.” BBC Mundo.com.

14
using flags as decorations and so on.” James A. Carey, Professor of International Journalism
at Columbia University adds that: “the first and most general effect of September 11 was to
draw journalists back within the body politic. Cosmopolitan and ironic distance from society
along with independence from the institutions of democracy were exposed as an unattainable
fraud. […] The press was re-nationalized.” (Carey, 2002: 87). Arguably, the print media were
less patriotic and partisan and more information-dense while both Fox News and CNN used
flags and “war on terror” on their screen frames.

The Madrid attack did not receive nearly as much coverage as 9/11 and therefore does not
seem to have had matching levels of direct impact on the American public or the American
election. 11-M coverage was much smaller in volume and tabloids used an ideological frame
from the start whereas some others appeared to have only later resorted to one. By 11-M, the
general public’s interest in terrorism or foreign news, for that matter, was back to its regular
low level, much lower than in September 2002.

American TV networks only covered the event and the investigation at any length during the
first days after the attack. American quality papers continued to bring it up quite frequently:
between 15 and 50 times per paper during the six months following the attack, most the
attention focusing on the initial two weeks following March 11.

When the Madrid attack was brought up in American media half a year before the US
presidential election, it was often in the context of 9/11 and America’s war on terrorism, the
dominant frame it seems, which could be interpreted by its audiences as a form of
confirmation of the right direction of Bush’s policy. Some newspapers, like New York Post or
the Sunday Telegraph, framed the event this way and made a clear and direct connection.
Also, the event was politicized to support Bush against Kerry. On several occasions, including
his visit with the American troops on March 18, the Madrid attack was used by President
Bush to specifically make his point about the necessity of going on with his military actions in
Iraq and thus, by implication, with limiting citizens’ personal freedoms at home. The Spanish
train attack along with the Chechen attack on a school in Bieslan was used to support Bush’s
point that terrorism is indeed the enemy of the world and thus his foreign policy priorities and
actions are justified.

During the deciding months of the 2004 election, the event was hardly ever brought up in
English-language media even though terrorism and/or security proved to be the public’s
primary concern. If anything, Zapatero’s and other European leaders’ support of Kerry was a
bit of a burden for Kerry, who was thus portrayed as anti-American. Also, it was the French
President, not the Spanish Prime Minister who was often pictured as a supporter of Kerry,
which combined with Kerry’s upbringing and social status gave him the ridiculing and
dismissive label of a Frenchie and a Massachusetts liberal with sophisticated taste, not along
the lines of that of most Americans.

Election-time labels and mudslinging aside, March 11 had some impact, the CNN effect, if
you will, on some American elites and opinion leaders who followed international news.
Through the story’s framing of the attack as the opening of another front on the war on terror
(vide: The Sunday Telegram opinion piece), the Madrid attack gave more credibility to Bush
foreign policy, which combined with his projected image of a tough leader, helped him create
the impression that he is preferable for these tough times over Kerry, painted by the Bush
campaign as a flip-flopper and weak on crime.

15
The Spanish-language American media in particular traced the Madrid attack and Spanish-
American relations quite closely. During the presidential campaign both candidates’ camps
regarded Latinos as one of the most important voter segments. Evidence shows that since the
2000 election the Latino population became more supportive of Bush and ultimately helped
him get reelected.

The Madrid train attack and its consequences had more impact on international relations and
Spanish-American relations than on the American audience.34 It is not the place of this essay
to discuss these at length, but the change of Spanish government following the attacks
obviously did not meet with positive reactions from the Bush administration. The Spanish-
American ties were weakened as a result of Zapatero’s government’s decision to withdraw its
troops from Iraq so rapidly.

Condoleeza Rice ignored and snubbed Madrid during her tour of Europe, saying there was no
point stopping over in Madrid, as she would not have heard anything there that she can’t hear
in Paris, playing into the long-going French-Spanish rivalry.

Works Cited:
Another front in war on terror. (2004, March 14). Sunday Telegram, p. C1.

Associated Press/Agence France Press. (2004, March 12). Se busca el autor de los atentados.

Bumiller, Elisabeth and Fort Campbell. (2004, March 19). Bush Says Thank You in Visit to
the Troops, The New York Times, p. 20.

Calhoun, Craig, Paul Price, and Ashley Timmer. (Eds.). (2002). Understanding September 11.
New York: Social Science Research Council.

Carey, James. (2002). American Journalism On, Before, and After September 11. In B.
Zelizer and S. Allan, Journalism After September 11. London and New York:
Routledge.

Chomsky, Noam. (2002). 9-11. New York: Seven Stories Press.

Chomsky, Noam. (2003). Power and Terror. Post-9/11 Talks and Interviews. New York:
Seven Stories Press and Tokyo: Little More.

Espańa es aliada de EU contra el terrorismo. (2003, July 11). El presidente del gobierno
espańol dice que la estabilidad internacional está en juego. La Opinión.

Gans, Herbert. (2003). Democracy and the News. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Golden, Tim and David Johnston. (2204, March 16). Officials Tending to Blame Qaeda for
Madrid Attack, The New York Times, p. 17.

34
A situation similar to that following the death of the chief of Italian security in Iraq at the hands of American
soldiers, when the event attracted much less attention in the US media than in Italian media and had a strong
impact on Italian-American relations and on the image of the US in Italy while its impact on the American public
seemed minimal.

16
Hastings, Maribel. (2004, March 26). Bush continúa su defensa contra Clarke. Reitera que
habría evitado el 9/11 si hubiera tenido la información. La Opinión.

Hastings, Maribel. (2004, March 19). Bush justifica una vez más la guerra de Irak Proclama
ante la 101 Aerotransportada que EU no se plegará ante el terrorismo. La Opinión.

Hastings, Maribel. (2004, March 12). EU se solidariza con su aliado espańol. La Casa Blanca
prefirió no hacer conclusiones apresuradas sobre la responsabilidad del ataque hasta que
se termine la pesquisa que conducen las autoridades en Madrid. La Opinión.

Heredia, Lourdes. (2004, November 4). EE.UU.: voto latino “determinante.” BBC
Mundo.com.

Hershberg, Eric and Kevin W. Moore (Eds.). (2002). Critical Views of September 11.
Analyses from Around the World. New York: Social Science Research Council.

Hess, Stephen and Marvin Kalb. (Eds.). (2003). The Media and the War on Terrorism.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Hoge, James F. and Gideon Rose. (Eds.). (2001). How Did This Happen? Washington, D.C.:
Public Affairs.

Lichtblau, Eric and Sarah Kershaw. (2004, March 12). Bombings Lead U.S. to Raise Security
for Trains, The New York Times, p. 1.

Mogensen, Kirsten. (2006). How American 9/11 Journalists Talk about Objectivity in Crisis
Coverage. In T. Płudowski (Ed.), Global Media Reactions to 9/11. Media Coverage of
the Attack and its Aftermath in Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, and the Americas.
Spokane, Washington: Marguette Books.

Nacos, Brigitte L. (2002). Mass-Mediated Terrorism. New York: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.

Nacos, Brigitte L. (1994). Terrorism and the Media. New York: Columbia University Press.

Norris, Pippa, Montague Kern, and Marion Just. (Eds.). (2003). Framing Terrorism. The
News Media, the Government and the Public. New York and London: Routledge.

Palmer, Nancy (Ed.) (2003). Terrorism, War, and the Press. The Joan Shorenstein Center on
the Press, Politics and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2001a). Terror Coverage Boosts News
Media Images. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2001b). Terrorism Transforms News
Interest. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2002a). Public’s News Habits Little
Changed by September 11. Washington, D.C.: Author.

17
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2002b). News Media’s Improved Image
Proves Short-Lived. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Płudowski, Tomasz. (2005a). Media masowe w amerykańskich wyborach prezydenckich roku

2004, In B. Dobek-Ostrowska (Ed.), Marketingowe aspekty komunikowania
politycznego. Wrocław: Wrocław University Press.

Płudowski, Tomasz. (2005b). “Dziennikarstwo i środki masowego przekazu w rynkowym

społeczeństwie demokratycznym: Krytyka modelu amerykańskiego. In S. Mocek (Ed.),
Dziennikarstwo, media, społeczeństwo. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Studiów
Politycznych Polskiej Akademii Nauk i Collegium Civitas.

Płudowski, Tomasz. (Ed.). Global Media Reactions to 9/11. Media Coverage of the Attack
and its Aftermath in Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, and the Americas. Spokane,
Washington: Marguette Books.

Richburg, Keith B.. (2004, October 17). Madrid Attacks May Have Targeted Election, The
Washington Post, p. A16.

Ruggiero, Thomas. News Diffusion and Media Use and Gratifications During the 9/11 Crisis.
In T. Płudowski (Ed.), Global Media Reactions to 9/11. Media Coverage of the Attack
and its Aftermath in Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, and the Americas. Spokane,
Washington: Marguette Books.

S.&P. and Dow Fall, Eroding Gains of Year-Old Rally. (2004, March 12). The New York
Times, p. 6.

Schofield, Matthew. (2004, March 14). 5 Held in Spanish Bombings, The Pittsburg Post-
Gazette, p. A1.

Sciolino, Elaine. (2004, March 12). 10 Bombs Shatter Trains in Madrid, Killing 192, The
New York Times, p. A1.

Sciolino, Elaine. (2004, March 16). Spain Will Loosen Its Alliance With U.S., Premier-Elect
Says, The New York Times, p. 1.

Sennott, Charles M. (2004, March 14). Terrorism in Spain: Spain Arrests Five Men in
Railway Bombings Recovered Video Claims Al Qaeda Link, The Boston Globe, p. A1.

The Madrid Massacre. (2004, March 12). New York Post, p. 34

Tuman, Joseph S. (2003). Communicating Terror. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Tyler, Patrick E. and Don Van Natta Jr. (2004, March 13). Europe Adds New Security
Measures to Its Well-Traveled Rail System, The New York Times, p. 6.

US Census Reports, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration,

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., made available between March 2001 and
December 2003.

18
Varnon, Rob. (2004, March 13). For Monday, Connecticut Post.

Venezia, Todd, Niles Lathem and Aly Sujo. (2004, March 12). Spain Reels From A '9/11'.
Death Toll 192 in 10 Rail Blasts Scenes of Horror in Madrid. Qaeda Among Prime
Suspects, The New York Post, p. 4.

Vitzthumthe, Carlta. (2004, March 12). Train Bombs Kill at Least 190 in Spain, The Wall
Street Journal, p 1.

World War III Strikes Spain. (2004, March 13) Daily News, p. 46.

Zelizer, Barbie and Stuart Allan (Eds.). (2002). Journalism After September 11. London and
New York: Routledge.

19
Abstract
The paper looks at the Madrid train attack as presented in American print media. The
approach is that of the American media and political environment. The paper discusses
changing levels of American audiences’ attention to international news, contextualizes the
coverage of Madrid attacks with an analysis of 9/11 and presents frames American media
used for covering the Madrid attack as well as some of the event’s consequences. The main
points are that:
• After 9/11, in the US, there was heightened interest in international events,
• By the time of the Madrid attack, the interest had receded to previous levels,
• The event received various levels of coverage: less emphasized but more politicized
by tabloids and higher emphasis by quality papers,
• Most common frame offered by US media was that of another front in the war on
terror, thus for the most part supporting Bush’s foreign policy
• Direct impact on the US presidential election seemed minimal, except among Latinos
and possibly opinion leaders
• Lasting effects seemed to be in the area of diplomacy, which is not a strong interest of
most American consumers of mass media.

About the Author

Dr Tomasz Płudowski specializes in American Studies and Media Studies. He teaches at
Akademia Świętokrzyska and Collegium Civitas. A former visiting scholar at New York
University, he has taught at Universities in the Netherlands and the UK and read papers at
numerous international conferences in Europe and the United States, including annual
conventions of the American Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication and European Association for American Studies. In June 2005 he co-
organized an international conference on media and international communication. His
publications include American Politics, Media, and Elections (Collegium Civitas Press &
Adam Marszałek, 2005), over a dozen articles and two forthcoming volumes: Global Media
Reactions to 9/11 (Marquette Books, 2006) and The Media and International Communication
(Peter Lang, 2007). He is Editor of the Global Media Journal—Polish Edition, sponsored by
the Collegium Civitas, Warsaw. Email: t.pludowski@collegium.edu.pl. Personal website:
www.collegium.edu.pl/pludowski.

20