The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict in Media - Research Paper Example

How the Media Portrays the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict and What the Truth really is Introduction Over the past four decades, studies have revealed that media coverage f the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was characterized inaccuracy and disproportionate favorability towards Israelis and Palestinians (Sidin and Yakubu, 22). Even though this has significantly reduced over the years as media moves towards increased accuracy and ethics in reporting, recent studies also show that there is significant distortion of coverage by the media resulting to public misunderstanding of the conflict (Sidin and Yakubu, 22). It has been demonstrated in a number of studies that the international public has inadequate understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a consequence of their lack of factual knowledge. While many people lack any information at all about the origins of the conflict, it is evident that most of them are unable to identify the different actors and players in the conflict and therefore have limited or no understanding of what is actually going on in this conflict (Deprez and Karin, 187). The answer as to why public opinion on this long-time topic is so limited or there is significant lack of understanding of what is actually going on is inherent in the news production processes of the international media. The international media finds itself largely influenced by both Palestinian and Israeli lobbies and pressure groups that seek to distort the coverage to favor either side. Although it is unfair to hold the media solely responsible for the distorted public perceptions about the Palestine-Israel conflict, they play an important role in shaping public perception and opinion on international issues. In this light, this paper investigates the portrayal of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict in the media and the various factors that influence the coverage to favor either side. The paper tries to explore what is covered by the media and how it is presented vis-à-vis the real situation on the ground or indeed the truth about the whole conflict so far. The representation of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in International Media Coverage Most studies that have been carried out on media representation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict mainly concern the presence of contextual information, reporting on victims, the choice of labels for reporting, and the use of actors and sources from both sides of the conflict (Stein, 137). Almost all the studies reach the conclusion that the media represents the Israelis and Palestinians in different ways. Although the studies mostly highlight a bias in favor of Israeli, it must however be pointed out that the studies largely focused on the Israeli and US media. Concerning the presentation of contextual data, it has been highlighted that there is a significant lack of background information in the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by most media houses. This has resulted into a situation whereby the intentions of Israelis and Palestinians remain unclear (Fahmy and Johnson, 247). Most media, whether closely associated with the conflict or not, only provide minimal background on the history of the conflict between the two parties thus giving the international public very little understanding of the history of the conflict. It has also been highlighted that when contextual historic data is included in media coverage, mainly the Israeli point of the view is reflected more than the Palestinian perspective. Research on the labeling of actors and actions also reveal that there are discrepancies in the media coverage. Sidin and Yakubu (22) indicates that labels can be classified according to their neutral, negative, or positive content. Examples of negative labels include names such as saboteurs, criminals, terrorists, and murderers. Neutral labels include terms such as separatists, movement, front, and army. On the other hand, positive labels include terms such as liberation organization, freedom fighter, and independence movement. Deprez and Karin (188) points out that while Palestinian actions are mostly related with terrorism, Israeli lethal actions are mostly described as being measures to protect their populations against hostile attacks from Palestinian aggressors. The same discrepancies have been observed in the labeling of Palestinian territories. For example the label ‘disputed territories’, although positive is mostly preferred by the Israelis and has been observed to be used more often than ‘occupied territories’ which is preferred by Palestinians in reference to the lands Israel occupies and are claimed by the Palestinians. According to Deprez and Karin (192), Palestinian victims in the conflict are also reported without personal features unlike in the case when Israeli victims are reported. In most headlines in western international media, Palestinians are portrayed as being the perpetrators of violence and the Israelis as victims. It has also been noted that figures of the numbers of victims are not proportionally correct. Similarly, authors that examine the relative numbers of Palestinian and Israeli actors as sources for new stories have mostly reached the conclusion that Palestinian sources are underrepresented in international news coverage (Fan and Weimann, 13). The current trend indicates that the Israeli media mainly rely on Israeli sources and therefore cannot be neutral in reporting because of conflict of interest. On the other hand, the US media mostly consult US and Israeli sources but very limited Palestinian sources. The British media, particularly the BBC, which is one of the largest international media houses globally, pay more attention to the Palestinian side of the conflict but have also been observed to use Israeli sources more often (Richardson and Barkho, 598). Al Jazeera, which is the major Pan-Arabic international media house, has been observed to be biased towards the Palestinian side of the conflict by mostly highlighting the misery of the Palestinians in the conflict while largely ignoring the context of the situation. Most of these studies indicated that the international media coverage of the conflict is imbalanced or biased, whether intentional or not. It also appears that the media bears responsibility at least partly for the public’s ignorance on the real issues and the history of the conflict. Although studies into the international media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict show that the way in which the coverage is carried out shapes and promotes certain images, questions linger about the conclusions of these studies and whether they can be generalized to all media. Language, Facts and Structure of Reporting One of the immediate main areas where bias by the media is illustrated in the reporting of the Israeli-Conflict is the language used. Some of the media houses know this issue and have taken steps to try and intervene so as to limit the bias or eliminate it. For example, in 2010, the BBC on recommendation of its Governors’ independent panel decided to avail a short version of the guide for ‘facts and terminology’ used by its journalist for public consumption (Aked, 1). This was seen as a strategic effort towards transparency; however the guide has been found to have various flaws in definitions and has not been significantly observed by the corporation’s journalists (Aked, 1). For example, according to the guide, the use of the clichés such as “cycle of violence” are acknowledged as having no importance in explaining the real reasons why the conflict persists but instead obscure them. However, the BBC’s journalists were observed to still employ it during the 2008 incursion of Israel into Palestine. Some agents from the Israeli side are not comfortable with application of the phrase ‘right of return’ which is in the guide. The phrase has been rejected for the reason that is synonymous to the ‘right of confiscation’. It can be noted that from the descriptions provided in the guide, the BBC characterizes the right to return as a demand by the Palestinians rather than a right (Barkho, 279). With regard to facts surrounding the conflict and the structure of media reports regarding the same, arguments have been presented that all the international media houses make wrong statements about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Richardson and Barkho, 599). For example, CNN has recently made an admission that it had provided inaccurate reports about the demonstration in London by Palestinian supporters, portraying it as having anti-Semitic in nature. On the other hand, BBC Watch, a UK-based lobby for Israeli interests indicated that the BBC was responsible to anti-Semitic undertones by intimating that the corporation was subtly accommodating stereotypic anti-Semitic assertions that Jewish powers had control over governments. This was because of the observation that Israel had sympathies in the USA with regard to opposition of Palestinian statehood (Aked, 1). Language, Facts and Structure in Older Reports The choice of language in presenting the situation between Israel and Palestine, presentation of facts, and the structure of reports from the media reveals a lot about how the media has treated both parties and reported the conflict over the years. Older reports refer to media reports from two or three decades ago up to the early 1990s before any treaties were signed between Israel and Palestine. It must be noted that until only a decade ago, the only major source of news on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the western media (Barkho, 284). The available reviews on media reporting of the conflict from that era therefore mainly involve the western media houses. Early studies claim that the media reports in the western media about the Israeli-Palestinian report were characterized by inaccuracy, disproportionate bias towards the Israeli side, and zero-sum frames (Richardson and Barkho, 599). Some of the pro-Palestinian criticisms on the media reporting during the earlier years of the conflict include the following: they complained that American media was consistent in presenting unbalanced coverage by giving many unfavorable references to the Palestinians, their leaders and actions (Fahmy and Johnson, 261). It was also pointed out that most of the imagery presented in the American media portrayed a false image of hard work and industriousness in the Jewish settlements and Palestinian Arabs who were basically lazy. Similarly, Israel was presented as being the weaker party in the Middle East and being surrounded by enemy states obsessed with eliminating it. The media was also accused of portraying the history of the conflict wrongly by indicating that Jews had not forced Palestinians from their homes in 1948 but that the latter had refused to stay and co-exist with Israelis (Barkho, 286). However, the most significant complaints about the western media included that there were conspiracies, editorial bans, and other bottlenecks that made very difficult for pro-Palestinian views to appear in the American media. During the same period, pro-Israeli critics also accused the western media of a number of things including moving away from their objective coverage of conflicts to making unfavorable references to Israel while presenting the Palestinians in a favorable way. The critics accused the media of a range of issues related to favoring Palestinians, these included the portrayal of Arab institutions as in favorable terms to the American readers, sanitizing the PLO and downplaying it terrorist activities, and devoting disproportionate attention to Israel’s operations on the West Bank (Richardson and Barkho, 598). More importantly, it was pointed out that the inability of the broadcast media to present historical backgrounds of the conflict in detail had resulted to the unfavorable portrayal of Israel’s cause in the conflict. Language, Facts and Structure in Recent Reports Just like in the older media reports, the predominant view among critics of current media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that western is biased towards Israel while media from Arabic country and other parts of the world like China and Eastern Europe leans towards the Palestinians (Fan and Weimman, 2003). Some of the critique on the media with regard to the conflict includes that Israeli actions have often been presented as mere responses to Palestinian aggression; this is blamed for the misinformation of the general public into thinking that the conflict is largely caused by Palestinians (Barkho, 287). It has also been observed that there is strong emphasis on Israeli casualties on the news as compared to Palestinians although the later accounts for over three times the casualties Israelis suffer in the conflict. Bias has also been reported in the language used while reporting on issues concerning Palestinians and Israelis. Negative terms including ‘brutal murder’, ‘lynching’, and ‘atrocity’ are most commonly used to describe Israeli deaths. On the other hand Israeli aggressive groups that attack Palestinians are commonly referred to as ‘vigilantes’ or ‘extremists’ (Fahmy and Johnson, 259). Presenting graphic information as it is: Al Jazeera’s Approach One of the notable methods applied by international media houses in trying to overcome the issue of bias or perceived bias in reporting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is through live reporting of graphic information (Fan and Wimman, 2003). Al Jazeera is the first Arab, and international, media house to present viewers with 24-hour news coverage of the events of 2008- 2009 Israeli incursion of Gaza. Critiques of Al Jazeera point out to its support for Arab and Muslim geopolitical goals while others see it as a powerful voice representing the aspirations of Arabs and Muslims. During the conflict, Al Jazeera was popular for relaying visual messages of destruction and civilian casualties. The media networks’ broadcasts emphasized the suffering brought upon the civilians in Gaza in the few instances that it could capture them or receive them from contacts in the region. This strategy of broadcasting graphic images from the war front is not particularly new as it was common right from the Second World War to the 1970s but in the past two decades it is not considered ethical and desirable in the media. This can be observed particularly in the US and Europe where not many media houses are willing to broadcast such images live on television because society does not approve. International networks such as CNN and BBC broadcasted only limited and edited version of the graphic images about the conflict in Gaza thus appearing biased and incompetent in not portraying the reality about what was really happening in the area (Stein, 143). There are not yet many studies that analyze the opinion of viewers about graphic and wartime images of human suffering and death; however the few that have been carried out indicate that this largely depends on culture. Viewers in the Arab world are content to see such images but in the western world these are not encouraged. Whichever way this is looked at, it is evident that Al Jazeera enabled most of the world to know firsthand and judge for themselves what was going on during the conflict (Fahmy and Johnson, 261). Similarly, the network decided to release the unedited WikiLeaks reports about the Israel-Palestine conflict and deliberations going as far back as 1948. This was presented under the title of ‘Palestine Papers’ and contained a lot of historic information that is useful to the audience to judge for themselves what has transpired all these years (Zayani, 27). Case: Media article by Palestinian journalist (Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada) An article titled “Military incursions into Palestinian areas: Have we lost a clear sense of the scale of Israel repression during the 10-month-long Palestinian revolt against military occupation?” by Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian journalist, appeared on the website of media agency called ‘The Electronic Intifada’ on 16th of August 2001. From the onset, the article does not mention the Israeli claims or reasons for incursion. Instead, the article mainly concentrates on the plight of the Palestinians and the reasons leading to incursion from the Palestinians’ point of view. The article, both in structure, content and even language illustrates the bias that has been highlighted above in media reports depending on the loyalty of media houses. The online media organization for which Abunimah reports is a Palestinian organization and therefore it is not surprising that the article would be biased towards the Palestinians. This is largely because it is largely fighting for the Palestinian cause and is therefore focused on highlighting the wrongs committed by Israel on the Palestinian people while portraying Israelis in the worst terms possible. The article starts by highlighting that this is not the first incursion by Israel into ‘Palestinian territory’. It points out that while this is the first time for a long time that the incursion has involved sending tanks into Palestinian territory. This is in reference to Israel’s incursion into Jenin in August 2001. The tone of the article puts emphasis on the territory being Palestinian apart from indicating that the violations by Israel have been going on through other means including helicopters and fighter planes but the act of sending tanks just indicates escalation of the violations. Even though the article entirely avoids any mention of the Israeli reasons for the incursion (context of the situation), it highlights the violent approach of the Israeli by indicating that they destroyed a police barracks. The article goes on to highlight the illegitimacy of the incursion by pointing out to flouting of serious territorial boundaries by crossing into territory given to the Palestinian Authority by the Oslo accords of 1993. According to Abunimah (1), Israeli tanks have severally violated international agreements by entering Palestinian territories and destroying different properties. He alludes to the fact that even the BBC recognized this violation and its implication in the conflict as it implied Israel could flout the borders set down by the Oslo accord. It is evident that the journalist is quoting from the BBC to lend credence to his article and give the assertions of violation of territory and violence more authority. The article goes on to blame the BBC, ABC, The Times, and the Associated Press for leaving out important details about the incursion by just focusing on the ‘foray’ into Palestinian territory while ignoring the fact that this has been going on for long and it has involved considerable atrocity. This article is a classic example of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict viewed from the perspective of one of the parties. Conclusion It is evident that there has been a long time controversy over how the media portrays the Israeli-Palestinian conflict irrespective of whichever side an observer sympathizes with. This study indicates that the first deficiency of the media has been reporting on this conflict without providing the accurate context or history of the situation, this has left many people around the world, most of who don’t know the history, unable to make clear interpretations about what has been going on. Secondly the media is evidently vulnerable to pressure from lobby groups on both sides who try to gain favorable reporting for their cause. It is evident also that although the bias in media reporting goes both ways, pro-Israeli media coverage has had the edge over the years in international media because of the various factors including strong and more extensive lobby groups, and the country’s connections to the USA and UK. Al Jazeera is the only international Pan-Arab media house that has come to challenge the status quo by reporting, mostly in real time and with full graphics, what goes on in the war front in this conflict. Although the graphics depicting violence and human suffering, particularly on the Palestinian side does not augur well with people in western countries, it is viewed favorably in Arab countries and other parts of the world as the best way to show what is going on without being biased. However, Al Jazeera has also been accused of bias towards the Palestinians just as CNN, BBC and other American and European media houses have been accused of favoring Israel. Works Cited Abunimah, Ali. “Military incursions into Palestinian areas: Have we lost a clear sense of the scale of Israel repression during the 10-month-long Palestinian revolt against military occupation?” The Electronic Intifada 16 Aug. 2001. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. Aked, Hilary. BBC bias? Reporting on Israel and the Palestinians. Open Democracy, 10 Dec. 2012. Web, 29 Apr. 2014. Barkho, Leon. "The Bbcs Discursive Strategy And Practices Vis-À-Vis The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict." Journalism Studies 9.2 (2008): 278-294.Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. Deprez, Annelore, and Karin Raeymaeckers. "Bottlenecks In The Coverage Of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Coverage Of The First And Second Intifada In The Flemish Press." Media, War & Conflict 4.2 (2011): 185-202. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. Fahmy, Shahira, and Thomas J. Johnson. "Show The Truth And Let The Audience Decide: A Web-Based Survey Showing Support Among Viewers Of Al-Jazeera For Use Of Graphic Imagery." Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 51.2 (2007): 245-264. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. Fan, David P., and Gabriel Weimann. "Quotes And Agendas: Israelis Vs. Palestinians On Media, Public And Policy Agendas." Conference Papers -- International Communication Association (2003): 1-29. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. Richardson, John E., and Leon Barkho. "Reporting Israel/Palestine." Journalism Studies 10.5 (2009): 594-622. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. Sidin Ahmad, Ishak, and Ozohu-Suleiman Yakubu. "War Journalism And The Israel/Palestine Zero-Index Shift Hypothesis." Global Media Journal: Mediterranean Edition 7.2 (2012): 21-30. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 27 Apr. 2014 Stein, Rebecca L. "Impossible Witness: Israeli Visuality, Palestinian Testimony And The Gaza War." Journal For Cultural Research 16.2/3 (2012): 135-153. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. Zayani, Mohamed. "Al Jazeera’s Palestine Papers: Middle East Media Politics In The Post-Wikileaks Era." Media, War & Conflict 6.1 (2013): 21-35.Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. Read More