Introduction

On March 14, 2006, a sizeable Israeli force broke into the prison compound in Jericho, partially destroying it and arresting its inhabitants. Television stations from around the world broadcast live pictures of dozens of Palestinian men in their underwear looking defeated and humiliated.1 This report examines media coverage of the action in Jericho from March 14 to March 17 in the three major Israeli newspapers, Yedioth Ahronoth, Ma’ariv and Ha’aretz, and in the three major nightly television newscasts on Channel 1, Channel 2 and Channel 10. As we shall see, in the first day following the action the entire Israeli media united to justify the Israeli action and debase the Palestinian side in an extraordinary display of national pride. On the second day, the television newscasts tried to raise some critical questions that begged to be asked. The newspapers, for their part, continued to emphasize the victory celebration.

The first day’s coverage: “fast and elegant”

In the first day following the action, as recounted above, the media showed a sense of unity and pride. For example, in a front-page commentary in Yedioth Ahronoth on March 15, under the headline A MOMENT OF NATIONAL PRIDE military affairs commentator Alex Fishman wrote: “We can momentarily put aside the cynicism and chatter of the elections. We have the right to be proud today. There are decisions that are cornerstones in building the national ethos […]” This mood dominated the Israeli media coverage, as indicated by the following examples:

• GOT THEM (Ma’ariv, March 15, 2006, main headline and caption accompanying pages 2-8).
• ACCOUNT CLOSED (Yedioth Ahronoth, March 15, 2006, main headline and caption, pages 2-6).
• IDF PRESENTS: JUDGMENT DAY (Ma’ariv, March 15, 2006, main headline, pages 2-3).
• FAST AND ELEGANT (Ma’ariv, March 15, 2006, page 3).

“Haim, first of all there is no action more justified than this one, I think you will agree with me on that…” (Correspondent Yoav Limor at the beginning of Channel 1 newscast on March 14, 2006).

To View the Full Report as PDF (445 KB)

On April 15, 2010, the interior ministry of the deposed government in Gaza carried out the first executions issued by the higher military court in the Strip against two people charged with collaboration with the Israeli occupation. Another execution was carried out on the 18th of May against three men convicted of murder.

The executions, which took place without ratification by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, generated varying reactions from Palestinian factions, especially Fateh and also from human rights organizations working in Gaza.

These two incidents received varying coverage in the three newspapers. The editorial lines were clear for each newspaper towards internal events linked in one way or the other to the internal political split and the ramifications of this split on the local media.

In its coverage of the first execution, Al Ayyam gave it the lead headline (three lines) in its April 16, 2010 edition, appearing as the following:

To View the Full Report as PDF (4.5 MB)

Introduction

In January, 2010, on the eve of the Viva Palestina Life Line convoy's arrival, which was carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip from 17 countries, the Palestinian-Egyptian border became the scene of clashes and confrontations between the Egyptian security forces and Palestinian protestors. The Palestinians were protesting the ban on the convoy entering the Strip, which at the time resulted in the death of one Egyptian soldier and the injury of dozens of protesters. The two sides exchanged accusations over responsibility for the death of the Egyptian soldier and the ensuing clashes and injuries on the Palestinian side. At the time and until today, it has remained unclear which side was responsible for the unrest and the ensuing repercussions, especially the soldier's death. This event was chosen for its significance and its impact on the Palestinian arena including its ramifications regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, especially the Israeli siege on the Gaza Strip.

How did the three Palestinian papers cover this event?

There was a clear discrepancy between the three newspapers in their coverage of this event, whether in terms of where on the front page of each newspaper the news item about the event was placed and the choice of headline. There were also differences in the content and accuracy of the news material. The largest discrepancy was between Al Ayyam on the one hand and Al Hayat Al Jadida and Al Quds on the other.

In Al Ayyam, for example, the news item was the lead headline, placed on the right hand side of the front page, since it was the most significant event of the day. Its headline was comprised of three lines:

To View the Full Report as PDF (5.4 MB)

Introduction

Nations embroiled in nationalist conflicts tend to adopt narratives that support the righteousness of their struggle and which accentuate the negative traits and intentions of the other side, as well as its responsibility for the ongoing suffering and for the absence of a solution. This is how the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is covered by media outlets on both sides, often in mirror images, with each side presenting an opposite story. For example, the Palestinian media narrative emphasizes the occupation—whose victims are the Palestinians—and paints the government of Israel as aggressive, opposed to peace and responsible for violent events in the region. On the other side, Israeli media outlets emphasize the violent and terrorist foundations of the Palestinians’ conduct and their unwillingness or inability to reach a solution. The Israelis, in this telling, are the victims of a conflict in which they are not to blame. Beyond these different perceptions and interpretations of reality, essentially similar patterns of coverage can be found on both sides, which de-legitimize and dehumanize the other. These patterns of coverage heighten mutual suspicions in both nations, fan the flames of the conflict and make it harder to find a solution.

Recognition of the media’s profound influence on the conflict has led the Israeli organization Keshev and the Palestinian organization MIFTAH to work together from both sides of the conflict in order to try to change how the conflict is depicted in the media discourse in both nations. This is done in the hope that such cooperation may lead to more balanced, fair and comprehensive coverage and, perhaps, as a result, a better reality.

This practical guide to teaching critical reading of news materials arises from a unique cooperative project that has been carried out continuously since 2004. In this joint project Keshev and MIFTAH each analyze news coverage in the major media outlets on their “own side” and attempt to influence journalists and editors to change patterns of coverage that are problematic and biased.

Two parallel goals have guided the creation of this guide. First, it is designed to instill skills for critical reading, in general. A second goal is to promote critical media consumption in the specific context of the Israeli-Arab conflict. As mentioned above, over the years media on both sides have played a complicated and not always positive role in the conflict’s development. The media has had a central role in defining the conflict and its significance for the Israeli and Palestinian public. Critically reading the messages contained in news coverage can neutralize to some extent the media's ability to shape consumers' perspectives according to short-term media interests and can also neutralize the influence of those elements that exert pressure on the media. It is our hope that this guide will enable media professionals to develop new means of self-criticism that will allow them, in time, to create news coverage that does not perpetuate the conflict, but which might actually contribute to its resolution.

The methodology1 that underlies this guide makes it possible to clearly present the systematic failings in news coverage on both sides. It is based on a distinction between two principal stages in the news-making process – writing and editing.

At the first stage reporters and columnists compose their texts and send them to their news editors. The editors receive other texts as well, from press agencies, public relations firms, and so on.

At the second stage, the editors produce the final product: They determine which texts will appear in the newspaper or broadcast. The editors determine the placement of the text (on the front page or on page 17, at the beginning of the broadcast or after a commercial break); they select the photographs that go with each item; they design the layout of the pages and determine the sequence of items in the broadcast; and they compose headlines (including sub-headlines and photo captions in newspapers, the headlines of television news broadcasts and the words spoken by the anchor).

In the view of most news producers and news consumers the second stage, the editing stage, is mainly technical. According to popular perceptions, the truly important work is done in gathering and writing news material. Editors merely "prepare" this material for print or broadcast. This perception is wrong, for two complementary reasons: First, editorial work determines news messages no less than the work of the reporters, and in some ways even more so. Second, in reading the news media consumers rely on material produced by editors much more than on material produced by reporters. The fact that an article appears on the front page and not on page 17; the specific phrasing of a particular headline; the appearance of a photo beside an article; the words spoken by a news anchor before an item is broadcast – all of these factors have a decisive influence on consumers' understanding of the news. Furthermore, many studies show that media consumers often limit themselves to reading headlines (or viewing the headlines of a news broadcast) and in many cases they do not even get to the texts of the news items (or the rest of the broadcast edition). In such cases, the perception of the news is determined almost exclusively by the work of the editors. This fact has far-reaching significance, since a meticulous review of news material at both stages of the process, writing and editing, reveals that the materials produced at each stage are not parallel. The headlines of newspapers and news broadcasts are not merely short neutral summaries of the news. In most cases, the headlines tell a very different story than that which is told by the reporters. Along with the placement of an item, its graphic saliency, the accompanying visuals, and so on, the headlines tell a story of their own and this significantly influences news consumers.

To be clear – the problem is not limited to the fact that once in a while the results of editorial work do not reflect the contents of the articles themselves. The point is that the discrepancies between headlines and texts are systematic. A meticulous review of newspapers and television news broadcasts reveals that certain components of reality, which appear in the articles themselves, are systematically marginalized by editors, while others are systematically highlighted.

The techniques that appear in this guide reveal these systematic discrepancies through attention to a series of key criteria.

Further in this guide each criterion will be explained through the use of examples culled from actual media coverage in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority. It is important to note that becoming familiar with these criteria is just a first step toward learning to read media items more critically. The research method employed here is based on attention to a combination of criteria in ways that reveal recurring editing patterns that bias the coverage.

This guide aims to help users identify the tell-tale signs of these patterns, to understand their significance and to learn from them how to read the news in a more profound way; in other words, how to "read between the lines".

To View the Full Text as PDF (4.11 MB)

Foreword

This is the fourth report issued by The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy- Miftah on the media coverage for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in coordination with Keshev- Center for the Protection of Democracy in Israel on monitoring the media coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The goal of the project is to facilitate the development of a bold and professional media, and a culture of tolerance, moderation and understanding between the two peoples, through monitoring, research, advocacy and lobbying activities without infringing upon the freedom of the media and the freedom of expression.

In our previous report, we essentially addressed the type of media coverage through the unilateral disengagement from Gaza Strip and clarified that the Palestinian media had been trapped in the official story and had not attempted at challenging it. We also made a number of recommendations, most notably that in order to diverge from the official story, the media must distance itself from the circle of influence of the Authority and become independent.

In this report we discuss the media coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict during the Palestinian Legislative Council Election, specifically the campaigning of the different electoral blocs from 3 January 2006 to 23 January 2006, due to the extreme importance of that period, during which the Palestinian forces sought to win the support of the Palestinian public opinion for their different programs, and during which the ability of the Palestinian media to influence voters and urge them to choose what best suits their interests could be monitored.

Since the launching of the election campaigns, the Media Monitoring Unit at MIFTAH divided the subjects to be monitored into the following categories:

1. Palestinian media coverage of the positions of the different electoral blocs towards Jerusalem: Was the subject raised by the blocs? How was it raised? Under what headings was the Jerusalem issue addressed? For example, supporting the steadfastness of the people of Jerusalem, isolating Jerusalem from its surroundings by the Wall, means of confronting the situation, inviting the people of Jerusalem to participate in the elections, gatherings and demonstrations in Jerusalem if they occurred, special programs on the participation of Jerusalemites in elections; was the limited participation in Jerusalem overlooked and why? What were the policies, if any was drawn, adopted by electoral blocs for enhancing participation. How were these policies presented and what space did they occupy in the Palestinian media?

2. The political programs of the electoral blocs: How did the media present the programs of each bloc; what were these programs, and did they focus on popular, armed or nonviolent struggle? Did these programs propose political plans for resolving the conflict, and what were those plans? Did the Palestinian media seek to highlight the political differences, if they existed, between political blocs? Was there any bias to a certain party and what was the nature of such bias? Did the electoral blocs focus more on internal issues, such as corruption and security disorder, or on the conflict with Israel? Did the blocs address the Road Map, and how did the media present such an issue?

3. Hamas in the media: Hamas participated for the first time in the Legislative Election. How did the media present their political program, or the discourse of its political leaders? Is there any contradiction between participation in the Election and what Hamas maintains regarding its rejection of the Oslo Agreement and its outcome, including the authorities and commitments; how was this presented?

4. The Palestinian political prisoners: How did the media present the process of the participation of prisoners in elections, whether through their presence in electoral lists, or through their denial of their right to vote? Did the media focus on that issue? Was this issue present in the media in the first place, and how was it presented to the public?

5. Israeli closure of Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the practices of the Israeli occupation: How did the media address the fact that Jerusalem was closed against candidates? Did the media highlight the impact of the closure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip on candidates, and how did it address the fact that Israeli authorities denied the candidates freedom of movement through fixed, mobile or flying checkpoints? Did the Palestinian media cover the Israeli occupation measures against candidates, lists and voters, specifically those measures that negatively influence the elections process?

It should be pointed out that a large part of this issue overlaps with the two subjects on Jerusalem and Hamas. For this reason we tried to avoid repetition, despite the fact that occupation practices inside Jerusalem may be listed under the subject of Jerusalem, closures or under abusive practices of the occupation against the electoral process as a whole.

To View the Full Report as PDF (255 KB)

This is the third report issued by the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy – MIFTAH, on the media coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in coordination with Keshev-Center for the Protection of Democracy in Israel.

MIFTAH announced its initiative to monitor the Palestinian media in June 2004 and hence formed its own media unit in cooperation with a steering committee comprised of Palestinian media experts. The unit's goal is to develop the Palestinian media discourse to better serve Palestinian goals and rights by pointing out and changing the weak points in the Palestinian media through media reports, press releases, workshops and meetings with journalists and political and media decision makers. It also sought to achieve a higher level of professionalism in the Palestinian media because this is the only means of reaching an understandable, credible and truthful media discourse. Here, MIFTAH would like to stress that its positive and open relationship with the Palestinian media will inevitably help in reaching this goal, strengthened by a true desire for change by the Palestinian media.

In this report, MIFTAH addresses the Palestinian media discourse through the unilateral disengagement process. Although this process officially began on August 15, 2005, MIFTAH began its monitoring for the purpose of preparing the report at the beginning of August and carried through until the end of the month. Hence, it covers the voluntary evacuation of settlers as well as the compulsory evacuation, the start of the demolition of settlements, and coordination between the Palestinian and Israeli sides. Throughout the monitoring period, the Media Monitoring Unit recorded 120 hours of broadcasts from Palestine TV on a daily basis from 7:00 in the evening until 11:00 at night in addition to other time slots in the morning and evening hours that were not recorded but were monitored to corroborate the nature of the overall television coverage. In addition, three Palestinian newspapers were monitored on a daily basis.

To better explain the method of the media coverage of the disengagement and the overall framework in which it was carried out in order to understand the content of the Palestinian media discourse and the messages being sent by the media to the public, the Media Monitoring Unit divided the monitoring subjects into the following categories:

Information presented to the public on the disengagement, the settlements and crossings and the future of lands evacuated by Israel: The Unit’s objective was to understand the nature and context of the press reports and television programs that provided information to the Palestinian public on the disengagement plan including the reasons for the plan, information on the settlements and the evacuation process. The monitoring also included the negotiations with Israel on the Rafah and Mintar crossings and the airport and seaport, in addition to the safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza via the Beit Hanoun crossing, the negotiations over the Salah Eddin axis and the deployment of Egyptian troops. The Unit also aimed at understanding the nature of information presented to the people about the future of lands to be evacuated by Israel, the greenhouses and the industrial zone.

The terminology used by the media for the disengagement process: Was this process a “withdrawal,” “liberation,” “disengagement,” “evacuation,” “departure” or “expulsion?” Also, was the Palestinian media influenced by the statements and language used by Palestinian officials in news bulletins, television programs and in newspapers?

To View the Full Report as PDF (2.33 MB)

Introduction

This is the second report that MIFTAH-The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Democracy-issues in coordination with Keshev- Center for the Protection of Democracy in Israel-on the media coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The goal of the project is to facilitate the development of a bold and professional media, and a culture of tolerance, moderation and understanding between the two peoples, through monitoring, research, advocacy and lobbying activities without jeopardizing the freedom of expression.

In our first report, issued in March 2005, we studied the Palestinian media landscape extensively, paying special attention to its components and its shortcomings, as well as to the overriding circumstances under which it operates. We also reviewed our work methodology and presented our definitions of such issues as incitement, dehumanization, de-legitimization of the other, and other forms of bias, acknowledging that these definitions were developed by MIFTAH, and that there may be others with which we may agree or disagree.

In the first report, we focused mainly on the way the media covered the unilateral Gaza Disengagement Plan and the Road Map. We also focused on the coverage of the victims of the conflict on both sides, highlighting in particular, what is ignored by the Palestinian media. We reached several conclusions, the most important of which was the fact that nothing qualified the labeling of the Palestinian media as "incitement to violence." We did find, however, that there were instances of bias, the most important of which was a lack of objectivity in covering the Road Map. We also found no criticism of some Palestinian militant groups’ activities, some of which contradict international laws. We also found that the human dimension is absent from the conflict, and the victims are treated as mere abstract figures, in a way that denies the conflict its human dimension, without which it becomes difficult to embark on a bridge-building process which can help in reaching a just and durable solution based on international law.

At the end of the report, we recalled the recommendations made by the Media Monitoring Unit in its analysis of the media coverage of the Presidential Elections in January 2005. The essence of these recommendations was the adoption of a modern media law that liberates the media from the power and domination of the state or any other authority which may deter it from carrying out its task freely and objectively.

What characterizes our first report is a concentration on the print media, because we did not, at the time, have sufficient material to issue an elaborate enough report on the Palestinian Satellite Channel, since we only started monitoring it in the middle of December 2004. In this report, however, we focus on the Palestinian Satellite Channel, as well as on the print media.

To View The Full Report as PDF File (2.48)MB

The traditional role of the media as reporters of the truth can play an important role in conflicts. A key function of the media is to provide the public with the information necessary to make good decisions. It is important to realize that decisions are not only based on events but also very much on how events are presented. The media can seek to confirm or question official accounts, reveal official deceit, and correct errors of omission. Recent advances in the field of information technology have enabled the media to have a much greater impact on public opinion than ever before. The media provide the public with an indispensable service. It is one of the pillars of modern society.

Since the 1993 Oslo Accords which brought limited autonomy to Palestinian society, the tasks of the Palestinian media have changed radically. On the one hand, the media is expected to contribute to nation-building based on the prospective that the endgame of the Accords will be an independent, free, and democratic Palestinian state. On the other hand, it must deal with the reality that most of the Palestinian territory that will be the territory of the future Palestinian state is still occupied, and that it would indeed be early to shift the focus of the media away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the two missions should not have to contradict each other since an honest, authentic, investigative, non-biased and informative media will serve both goals.

The spirit of the Oslo Accords made confidence-building between Palestinians and Israelis an indispensable condition to moving ahead in the peace process, and it gave the media in Palestine and Israel a decisive role in the difficult process of creating this crucial common ground. However, the failure of Camp David negotiations in July 2000 and the eruption of the second Intifada soon afterwards proved both sides’ failure in achieving this mission.

Acknowledging the importance of the media in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in particular, MIFTAH-The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy and KESHEV-Center for Protection of Democracy in Israel agreed to launch a joint project monitoring media coverage and professionalism on both the Palestinian and Israeli sides. The project will ultimately facilitate the development of an independent media and a culture of moderation, tolerance, and understanding between the two peoples, through monitoring, research, advocacy, and lobbying activities without jeopardizing the freedom of expression. What follows is a report on the first stage of this research project, scheduled to continue through 2005 and 2006

To View The Full Report (284KB)