THE purpose of this study is to examine the "War on Terror" journalism of The New York Times and The Irish Times. These are the respective "papers of record" of the United States and Ireland. The findings are based on an analysis of 1,000 front pages and editorials in The New York Times that refer to the events of September 11, 2001 and the ensuing "War on Terror" The period studied is from September 12, 2001 to November 28, 2004. The study compares this data with coverage in The Irish Times over the same period to see how it has interpreted the same events. The methodologies used are quantitative and qualitative analysis and Herman and Chomsky's "Propaganda Model". Every headline, photograph, caption, blurb and editorial fiom the period is examined to provide empirical data. The results conclude that even since its admission in May, 2004, that reporting in a number of stories leading up to the attack on Iraq "was not as rigorous as it should have been", The New York Times, partly because of deeply embedded factors, continues to facilitate some of the most questionable aims of the US administration. The dissertation is also presented as a website to allow for wider dissemination.