The role of the media is an important one to understand and analyse. Prior to the exposure of the Iran-Contra affair, there had been little debate within the media as to whether the US policy of sponsoring a terrorist army was in fact the most effective way to make Nicaragua 'more democratic' and 'less of a threat to its neighbours'.

It must be remembered that the Nicaraguan peoples democratically elected the Sandinista government. It was their socialist policies and associations with Cuba and the Soviet Union that 'threatened' the United States. However, the media took official claims of concern and protection of 'democracy' at face value without examining the historical context or investigating the claims that the government and other media agencies were making. In laying landmines date in the Nicaraguan port America showed its disregard for International law. Yet when brought before the International Court of Justice the United States argued that the court held no jurisdiction. When that argument failed it simply walked out, declaring that America would not be bound by judgments that did not suit their interests. This occurred before the Iran part of the Iran-Contra Affair came into the equation. The American Administration had a sense of invincibility, of being untouchable and above or outside the International law, which then morphed into a disregard for American law as the government, or senior officials within, continued these actions against Nicaragua. Deceit of its own Congress, breaking its own laws by supporting and training Contra rebels did not deter these officials in their efforts to over-throw the democratically elected government. The press should act as a watch-dog of Governmental policy and action, however, the press remained silent on the hypocritical nature of the affair. The Contra policy, attempting to undermine a democratically elected government in the name of democracy, that the President openly pursued pre-Boland Amendment and the other issues (such as violating its own stance against Iran) that came to the front lines as the affair revealed itself received only brief coverage.

The other element of media influence and reporting that we need to observe is the aftermath, the discovery and trials. When the cover blew and details started to come to the fore, there was extreme media attention. When the media and American public discovered that the Reagan administration had been violating congressional prerogatives, they were scandalised. Yet not scandalised when the administration dismissed the judgement of the International Court of Justice that the United States had violated treaties and used unlawful force in its actions against Nicaragua. The American and even International public and media eagerly followed the uncovering of the Iran-Contra story as it played out through the media and listened to the confessions of the participants. However, when all of the major players received pardons, there was little reaction. How can something of such importance and significance be such an 'event', such a focal point for the public and the media and then vanish out of the collective consciousness? The Grolier multimedia encyclopedia takes the time in their synopsis of the Iran-Contra Affair within the America Presidency/Presidential Scandals section of the site, to document the process of the trials. Carefully it notes the charges, convictions, and subsequent pardon to all the principle people involved. President George Bush pardoned those involved in late 1992, over six years after the disclosure of the affair and commencement of trials. This appears as a note in the last two lines of the document: there is no commentary upon the motivation or significance of this action in any way. While this author had included this information in their document, mentioning these details briefly in this way renders it to a point of insignificance and has the same effect as omitting it from the document altogether.

The role that the media plays in shaping a national identity and memory is also interesting and important to consider. Not only does it shape perceptions of current affairs, the media also has a large role in shaping memory, and understanding of historical events and movements. Certainly, the medium shapes the message and presentation of information. Two of the largest media organisations in America, CNN and PBS have included sections on the Iran-Contra Affair in their (American) History domains. Both sites attempt to offer interactivity with accessible and interesting primary sources and offer historical context, and both the sites and the documentaries that they accompany, rather than the usual sound-bite segmented information that the media presents. Yet, the overall effect is 'television plus': the information on these sites is not aimed at higher education levels. Thus, it does not strive for intellectual depth or serious complexity. Nevertheless, the inclusion of primary sources, documentary evidence, which the audience can interact with, is important. The point of having primary sources available via such a medium is to make them interactive, to engross the audience, to get them to engage with the material and issues raised. This is an interesting, refreshing approach to take to information and history. The print mass media (rather than books) generally does not do this, while television and visual documentaries use and manipulate images to produce effect. These two sites offer a glimpse at the possibilities for both information and the role of the media in distributing that information.

References
Edward S Herman & Noam Chomsky Manufacturing Consent Vintage London 1994 p xii-xiii, 300
Geoffrey Robertson Crimes Against Humanity: the struggle for global justice Penguin Books Victoria 2000 p 67