Palestinian-Israeli Media Study Shows How the ‘Other’ Gets Short Shrift in the Midst of Tragedy
By Orly Halpern
Neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian media show photos of civilians from the ”other side” who have been killed, according to a joint Palestinian-Israeli study. This is only one example that both Professor Mohammed Dajani of the Sartawi Center of Al-Quds University and Professor Gadi Wolfsfeld of the Truman Institute of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem encountered in their research of their respective medias.
In four months researching how the Israeli and Palestinian media perceived the ”other,” the professors discovered how journalistic mechanisms are used by both sides to exaggerate, misrepresent, dehumanize, and encourage hostility toward the ”other.” Their findings were revealed to local Palestinian, Israeli, and foreign journalists in January.
The research, “Media Images of the ”Other” in Israel and the Palestinian Territories,” was funded by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung Foundation. The findings included commentary by Dr. Hanna Siniora, publisher of The Jerusalem Times, a daily English-language Palestinian paper, and Shmuel Rosner, news director at Ha””aretz, a daily Hebrew-language Israeli paper.
The professors gave examples illustrating the use of journalistic mechanisms to make their readers believe “that ”our” victims are a tragedy and ”theirs” are statistics, our actions are legitimate and theirs are evil, our aspirations are noble and theirs are despicable,” said Wolfsfeld.
The depiction of only one side””s tragedy is accomplished by the location and space allotment of the news items and by personal and dramatic descriptions versus impersonal and analytical descriptions, which dehumanize the ”other.” For example, the killing of a civilian in the conflict would be put on a front page if he were from the ”side” of that media, and on a much later page with less coverage if he were from the ”other” side.
Moreover, newspapers give a sense that “we”re all in this together, so that we can identify with the tragedies,” said Wolfsfeld. Ethnic and nationalistic solidarity are stimulated by the use of flags in photographs as well as cultural and religious symbols. The names ”Passover Massacre” and ”Al-Aqsa Intifada” help readers identify with those involved, as does the use of flags in photographs.
According to Wolfsfeld and Dajani, both Israeli and Palestinian medias dehumanize the ”other” side. This is particularly obvious in the impersonal descriptions of the ”other”s” victims. Israeli media avoids giving names, printing photographs, and giving personal details of Palestinian civilian casualties, said Wolfsfeld, but will give the background of assassinated Palestinians involved in attacks against Israel.
“A targeted strike is put in the context of the person who carried out terrorism or will, without arguing the point,” described Wolfsfeld. “The question is what the media emphasizes or doesn”t emphasize. Instead of mentioning the civilians killed, it indicates the act [the terrorist] did.”
Similarly, Dajani described how after Palestinian militants operations against Israel, there are “no photos of the family [of Israeli casualties] or of mourning; just the operation.”
Each side tries to legitimize its own actions by telling patriotic stories of those involved and by using military descriptions. Moreover, the use of maps, military operation names (such as ”Operation Defensive Shield”), and weapon names, sterilizes the events, according to Wolfsfeld, rather than describing the actual action and its consequences.
In order to validate the noble aspirations of one side and the despicability of the other, the medias make “discriminate use of journalists and selective or no use of [the other”s] journalists,” noted Wolfsfeld adding, that by contrast, “in Belfast, both Protestant and Catholics work in all the news media.”
Another mechanism to disenfranchise the other side is through the use of language. The ”other” side ”claimed,” while the respective media”s side ”declared” or ”stated” is a common formulation. Dajani said the use of vague language also contributes to hostility, as in an example from one Palestinian paper that stated ”a large number of women and children were killed.”
Although Rosner and Dr. Siniora acknowledged the exaggerations and misrepresentations, they explained why it happens.
“Regarding Jenin there certainly was Palestinian exaggeration,” admitted Siniora, “But Israel prevented coverage, which is the advantage it has because any Israeli officer can show a paper and say this is a closed military zone. How can the press tell the facts if it can””t go and see them? So we fell into the trap of being inaccurate.”
“The role of any newspaper is not only as a journalistic tool but also as a tool in creating a sense of community among its readers,” said Rosner. “It has some obligation toward the community it serves and, if the community feels grief, anger and frustration towards the Palestinians, there is no chance the newspaper will not mirror or reinforce these feelings towards the other side.”
Rosner also expressed the fear of losing readers: “We have to consider how far we must go from our readers that they are able to read and still stay with us, and not abandon the newspaper.”
Both professors say there were few examples of news items that showed understanding of the tragedies of the other side, although there were some notable exceptions. In general, both people”s medias contribute to mobilizing public opinion toward conflict and war, they said.
The source: Orly Halpern is a freelance journalist based in Jerusalem. Distributed by Common Ground News Service / Middle East.