Parliamentary and media discourses are different. Whereas speaking in parliament is, at least on the surface, governed by procedural rules and deliberative traditions, media representations adhere to a narrative dramaturgy. A crisis situation affects the relation between these forms of discourse. When there is a perceived threat against the nation, often the media rally around the flag', purportedly displaying a greater acceptance of the arguments presented by leading politicians or the government. Similarly, crisis awareness limits the room for dissent in parliament, since there is a perceived need to close ranks in the face of an external threat. In this situation, turning to public opinion is not an option for those wanting to present alternative viewpoints. This article examines whether the concept world opinion' became an alternative outside ally for members of parliament (MPs) who wanted to position themselves in the debates on the Falklands War (1982).