bellyscratch
10th July 2009, 11:53
This essay sets out to explore the claims of ethnocentrism within the mainstream media in Britain, by using the example of the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. It will attempt to find out whether any perceived bias in the reporting of the conflict can be proved, if so what causes this, and whether it can be related to ethnocentrism. To be able to find this out, there must be an investigation into how the news functions from a global perspective, both generally and when there is an international crisis, as well as looking at alternative news sources to see if there is a difference in how they operate or give a different perspective of the conflict. There will be a discussion of a broad range of mainstream media, as well as different alternative media sources to see how they contrast in news reporting. Key authors that will be drawn upon throughout the essay include; Mason (1999), Said (2003), Cottle (2006), Philo and Berry (2004) and Allan (2005).
First of all there must be a clear definition and explanation of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is an ideological construct that can be defined as “the practice of evaluating other groups, and their cultures and practices from the perspective of one's own. In this basic sense, it is possibly a feature of all societies.” (Mason, 1999, 10). However, it “includes the tendency to form and maintain negative values and hostility toward multiple groups that are not one's own.” (Cunningham et al, 2004:1333).
Ethnocentrism, from a Western perspective, is often associated with the concept of Orientalism. Orientalism is a concept that originally came out of Western Europe, mainly Britain and France, and is “a Western style for dominating, restructuring and having authority over the Orient.” (Said, 2003: 3). The 'Orient' is a synonym for the 'East' in contrast to the 'Occident' which is a synonym for the 'West'. From this point of view the East is seen as 'the other' in comparison to the 'norm' of the West. European culture has been “able to manage— and even produce— the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively.” (ibid: 3).
Within the media, ethnocentrism can be seen in two ways; news values and the linguistic representation of 'the other'. In relation to news values, aspects of ethnocentrism can be seen in a study by of Galtung and Rouge in the mid-1960s, which was based on research of foreign news in the Scandinavian press. In this research they found a total of twelve informal rules or codes, which were used in the selection of news stories, but here there will be a focus on the most related to the concept of ethnocentrism.
Firstly, there is the rule of 'conflict'. When reporting conflicts, “'balanced' journalism dictates that 'each story has two sides'” (ibid: 57). The news story must be seen to have some relevance to the audience, so “The proximity of the event is a related factor.” (ibid). When the news is reported there will be elements of simplification to make the story unambiguous and therefore “the diversity of potential interpretations may... be kept to a minimum.” (ibid). The news also mainly focuses on elite nations and:
“gives priority to events in those countries which are regarded as 'directly affecting the audience's well being', such as the USA and other members of the 'first world'. This is at the expense of those events taking place in other places, particularly developing or 'third world' countries”
(ibid: 58)
The last rule that will be mentioned is cultural specificity, where “'maps of meaning' shared by newsworker and news audience have a greater likelihood of being selected” (ibid). This means that there is a greater chance of stories being selected “about 'people like us' at the expense of those who 'don't share our way of life.” (ibid).
These rules contribute to Pilger's concept of 'unpeople' where he states that “certain lives have media value while others are expendable. The killing of those of ‘us’ counts as a crime; the rest are unpeople.” (Pilger, 2003: 137). It seems that the less an audience is deemed to have in common with another group of people, the less important that group are considered in relation to newsworthiness.
The language of the media is also important when considering ethnocentrism, and it is constructed in a way that “can invoke a cultural division between 'us and them'” (ibid: 145). Hall (in Allan 2005) argues that there has been a 'naturalization' of racist ideology in the media, and society in general. He states that there is “a set of complex, often contradictory, social relations” (ibid) which defines how the media functions. This has resulted in two types of racism within the media; 'overt' and 'inferential'. Overt racism is usually confined to right-wing media tabloids which “popularize openly racist ideas” (ibid). Inferential racism, which is more widespread in the British media, is being “inscribed in media coverage as a set of unquestioned assumptions.” (ibid) and is “largely invisible even to those who formulate the world in its terms” (ibid). Within the language of the media, being 'white' is seen as 'the norm' and is therefore rarely used in the description of the said person, where as 'non-white' people are usually described in terms of their skin colour and therefore seen as 'the other'. The same can also be seen in terms of nationality and religion, where non-British and non-Christian people are described to in a way that makes them seem like 'the other'.
Before there can be any discussion of how the news functions during times of crisis, there must be an analysis of how the news functions generally. In an investigation conducted by Lewis et al (2008), there sufficient evidence to prove that four interconnected 'rumours' of newsgathering and reporting practices were true. In the investigation there was an analysis of 'quality' newspapers like the Guardian, The Times, the Independent and the Telegraph and the mid-market tabloid, the Daily Mail. These rumours were “journalists have... become processors rather than generators of the news” (Lewis et al, 2008: 27) due to “an increasingly influential role for public relations professionals and news agencies” (ibid). One reason why this has happened is because “relatively fewer journalists are now required to write more stories to fill ever-expansive pages of national press.” (ibid: 27-8) while workers are “increasingly pressurised and low-paid (ibid: 28). This has led to journalists being “more likely to accept them [sources] without check or criticism” (ibid). So it is now seen that news “is increasingly generated from outside formal media organisations and newsrooms” (ibid). This has been seen as “an inevitable response to maintaining profitability during a period of steady... decline in news readership.” (ibid: 42).
As journalists are now relying on external sources so much, the most powerful sections of society are in a position to take advantage of the situation and therefore making Marx's view that “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas” (in Allan, 2005: 48) even harder dispel. To further support this argument “many political economists argue that news media power is being restricted to an even smaller number (of usually white and male) hands” (ibid: 52) mainly from the 'elite nations', which in turn is another reason to explore the arguments that the media is ethnocentric. This has been seen to back up the perspective that “corporate fears over 'the bottom line' are reshaping judgements about newsworthiness in ways which frequently all but silence alternative or oppositional views.” (ibid).
To explore how the news functions in times of crisis, the Israel-Palestine conflict will be used as an example to support the claims made. First of all a background to the conflict will be given, but due to restrictions in regard to word limit, it will be very brief.
The roots of the conflict around the end of the 19th century, and what is now known as Israel and Palestine, were both apart of the same country, Palestine. According to a census in 1878, there was a Jewish population of “15,011 living amongst a combined Muslim/Christian population of 447,454” (Philo and Berry, 2004: 2). Due to anti-Semitism in Europe, Jewish immigration into Palestine increased and at the same time there was an increasing interest in a movement called Zionism which “stressed the need for Jews to return to the Holy Land as a necessary prelude to the Redemption and the second coming of the Messiah.” (ibid). Here the Holy Land is synonymous with Palestine and within it the Jews were “to create their own state, in which they would constitute and majority and be able to exercise national self-determination.” (ibid: 3) and “deport the native population” (ibid:4). Tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants continued to settle in Palestine, with hostility increasing between the native Arab population and the settlers. “After the First World War Britain was assigned control of Palestine” (ibid: 7). Britain had already promised Zionist leaders of “a Jewish home in Palestine.” (ibid). “Throughout the 1920s Arab hostility to the Zionist project manifested itself in increasingly prolonged outbreaks of violence.” (ibid: 8). In the wake of the Holocaust, there was increased pressure for the Zionist cause and because of the upsurge in violence in Palestine, the British, already weakened from the effects of the Second World War, decided to “hand the question of Palestine to the United Nations.” (ibid: 17). The solution was to have two separate states within the region and the state of “Israel was established in 1948” (ibid: 258), but this meant that “large numbers of Palestinians were displaced from their homeland” (ibid). Violence still continues in the region, but with Israel gaining increasing power in both regions, “after 1967, Palestinians in the occupied territories lived under various forms of military control in which they were ultimately subject to the power of Israel.” (ibid). Israeli settlers still continue take away more Palestinian land, which is made possible with the support from countries like the US who supply “arms and money to Israel.” (ibid: 221).
In a study of how television news covered the Israel-Palestine conflict and how the public understood the news coverage, Philo and Berry (2004) found that there was confusion from the audience's understanding of “the origins and underlying political dimensions of the conflict” (Philo and Berry, 2006: 199). The “gaps in the public knowledge were related to lack of context and explanation of key issues in news bulletins.” (ibid). Journalists have claimed “that part of the reason for the lack of historical context was they were under pressure was they were under pressure from news editors to produce dramatic reports with strong visuals that would catch the attention of the viewer.” (ibid: 201).
The reporting of the conflict gives “very little reference to the military nature of the occupation and its social consequences for Palestinians or to the large number of UN resolutions condemning the occupation.” (ibid: 202). There is not much mention of the “exploitation of Palestinian land and water resources” (ibid) and there is also “a very limited picture of Israeli settlers living in the occupied territories; yet the settlements have a key role in the occupation.” (ibid: 203). Research shows that “less than a fifth of viewers were aware that Palestinian refugees had lost their land and homes during the creation of the Israeli state.” (ibid: 200)
This lack of context gives a distorted view on the whole conflict, usually in favour of the Israeli side, which is shown by the fact “Israeli perspectives on the conflict were featured more prominently than those of Palestinians” (ibid: 202). In the news “the Palestinians are seen to initiate the trouble or violence and the Israelis are presented as 'responding' or 'retaliating'.” (ibid: 203-4). A study in to BBC1 and ITV news showed that the Israelis were six times more likely to be shown as responding to violence than Palestinians. On top of this there was more emphasis on the deaths of Israelis in the conflict, with “differences in the language used for the casualties of both sides... [and] more coverage of Israeli deaths” (ibid: 204), despite the fact that the casualty rate of Palestinians is “much higher than the Israelis.” (Philo and Berry, 2004: 231).
The actions of the Israelis are more likely have “an explanation which could legitimise what they were doing.” (ibid: 245). This is partly due to Israel having a “more efficient public relations machine” (ibid), and with the increasing amount of PR material used in news rooms, as well as more journalists living in Israel that Palestine, it gives a huge advantage to the Israeli side. This comes down to Israel being a 'richer' country, due to their links with the more developed countries in the West. Furthermore, “government intimidation of reporters deemed 'unfriendly' to Israel is routine and sanctioned by the government.” (Ibid: 247). There have been reports “that the Israeli embassy in London has mounted a huge drive to influence the British media” (ibid: 248). The embassy's press secretary has claimed to “have had influence on the BBC” (ibid). Many journalists have been “accused of being pro-Palestinian at best, and at worst anti-Semitic.” (ibid).
Participants from Philo and Berry's research got the impression that Israel was “'an island of democracy' in the Middle East... [while] At the same time, some aspects of Muslim culture were seen as strange and difficult to identify with.” (ibid: 237). This shows that the Israeli people are seen as 'more like us', while the Palestinians are seen as the 'other'. To emphasise this likeness to 'us' since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, “Israel has stressed its role as part of the 'war against terror'... presenting Israel as one part of the Western Alliance.” (ibid: 249).
Due to the US being an elite nation and having a strong political alliance with Britain, they are more likely to have their views represented than key figures from other countries. In light of this, the distortion in reporting is also “magnified by the prominence given to American sources who tended to support the Israeli position.” (Philo and Berry, 2006: 202); but because there is “considerable confusion over the relationship between Israel and the US” (Philo and Berry, 2004: 220), it is not always clear to the audience why the high profile figures, including politicians, from the US would support either side. “There is some evidence to suggest that perspectives on the Middle East adopted by US politicians are strongly influenced by pro-Israeli lobbies.” (ibid: 252).
Despite a strong argument that the mainstream media provides a distorted view of the conflict in favour of Israel, there are certain media organisations that can be seen to dispel this claim. Al-Jazeera has come “to international prominence since 11 September 2001” (Zayani, 2006: 178) and due it being an Arab based media network, has “broadcast content originating from outside western countries and cultures, and thereby expand, or at least inflect, to some appreciable degree the range and breadth of view on world events.” (Cottle, 2006: 163). One way that it has come to such prominence is through the Internet as well as satellite and cable television, where people in the west have access to it. They have managed to disseminate “images and ideas that western governments and interests may prefer to see controlled and censored.” (ibid). The al-Jazeera website seems to support the Palestinian cause, which can be seen by a section of their website called “War on Gaza”(al-Jazeera, 2009), and articles with headlines such as “Gaza: The endless cycle of trauma”(Tolan, 2009) and “Who will save the Palestinians?”(LeVine, 2009). The articles are often accompanied by photos of dead and maimed Palestinian people and children caught within the conflict to provoke an emotional response. These all suggest a war where Palestinian people are the main victims.
Alongside al-Jazeera there other alternative news sources such The Electronic Intifada, which is a website that “publishes news, commentary, analysis, and reference materials about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective.” (EI, 2009). There are also many British based anti-capitalist newspapers (who usually have websites too), such as Socialist Worker, who openly support the Palestinian people against the Israeli government, by having headlines such as, “Break Britain’s links with Israel” (Socialist Worker, 2009a) and “Step up solidarity for Gaza” (Socialist Worker, 2009b). The rise of new media has definitely helped people gain access to these alternative news sources, however, the reason they are still considered alternative is because most people do not use them or do not know about them.
There has also been resistance to these dominant ideas from the general public, shown by the mass protests and condemnation against Israel's military attacks in Gaza throughout December 2008 and January 2009. The biggest of the many protests in Britain had “as many as 100,000 people” (Quinn and Smith, 2009) in attendance. This also included protests aimed at the BBC, from both the public and people who worked within the media; because the BBC, along with Sky television, refused to “air the Gaza humanitarian aid appeal” (Holmwood, 26/1/2009) as they claimed “it risked compromising its impartiality” (ibid).
There is certainly a case to say that the majority of the mainstream media within Britain is ethnocentric, due to it being tied up within the political economy, and being increasingly used to represent the dominant ruling class ideas through their more effective PR techniques. With the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the ruling class of the western nations see Israel as an ally within the Middle East, as “Israel has been granted a unique immunity from criticism in mainstream journalism and scholarship” (Chomsky, 2008: 221). Although this is most prominent in the US, their powerful influence over British society and the British ruling class' own interests in the Middle East, means this is also an issue within Britain. However, there are small sections of the media, which are either alternative media organisations or mainstream media workers, who try resist the dominance of ethnocentric thinking within the media.
Bibliography
Allan, S. (2005) News Culture: Second Edition, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2008) The Essential Chomsky, London: The Bodley Head.
Cottle, S .(2006) Mediatized Conflict, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Cunningham et al (2004) Implicit and Explicit Ethnocentrism: Revisiting the Ideologies of Prejudice, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 30, No. 10, p1332-1346 – October 2004 Available at <http://www.racemattersconsortium.org/docs/implicit_explicit_ethno.pdf> [24/4/2009].
EI (2009) [I]The Electronic Intifada, Available at <http://electronicintifada.net/> [4/5/2009].
Holmwood, L. (26/1/2009) [I]BBC Gaza appeal row:unions protest, guardian.co.uk Available from <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/26/bbc-gaza-appeal-row-unions-protest> [8/5/2009].
Lewis J. et al (2008) [I]Four Rumours and an Explanation, Journalism Practice, Vol. 2, No. 1, p27-45.
Mason, D. (1999) Race and Ethnicity in Modern Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Philo, G. and Berry, M. (2004) Bad News From Israel, London and Sterling, VA: Pluto Press.
Philo, G. and Berry, M. (2006) Bad News and Public Debate about the Israel-Palestine Conflict, in Poole, E. and Richardson, J.E. (eds) Muslims and the News Media, London and New York: I.B. Tauris.
Pilger, J. (2003) New Rulers of the World,London : Verso.
Quinn, B. and Smith, D. (10/1/2009) Tens of thousands join London Gaza protest, guardian.co.uk Available at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/10/gaza-london-protest-march> [8/5/2009].
Said, E. (2003) [I]Orientalism, London: Penguin Books.
Socialist Worker (2009a) Break Britain's links with Israel, Available at <http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16872> [4/5/2009].
Socialist Worker (2009b) [I]Step up solidarity for Gaza, Available at <http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16994> [4/5/2009].
Zayani, M (2006) [I]Arab Public Opinion in the Age of Satellite Television: the Case of al-Jazaeera, in Poole, E. and Richardson, J.E. (eds) Muslims and the News Media, London and New York: I.B. Tauris.
First of all there must be a clear definition and explanation of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is an ideological construct that can be defined as “the practice of evaluating other groups, and their cultures and practices from the perspective of one's own. In this basic sense, it is possibly a feature of all societies.” (Mason, 1999, 10). However, it “includes the tendency to form and maintain negative values and hostility toward multiple groups that are not one's own.” (Cunningham et al, 2004:1333).
Ethnocentrism, from a Western perspective, is often associated with the concept of Orientalism. Orientalism is a concept that originally came out of Western Europe, mainly Britain and France, and is “a Western style for dominating, restructuring and having authority over the Orient.” (Said, 2003: 3). The 'Orient' is a synonym for the 'East' in contrast to the 'Occident' which is a synonym for the 'West'. From this point of view the East is seen as 'the other' in comparison to the 'norm' of the West. European culture has been “able to manage— and even produce— the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively.” (ibid: 3).
Within the media, ethnocentrism can be seen in two ways; news values and the linguistic representation of 'the other'. In relation to news values, aspects of ethnocentrism can be seen in a study by of Galtung and Rouge in the mid-1960s, which was based on research of foreign news in the Scandinavian press. In this research they found a total of twelve informal rules or codes, which were used in the selection of news stories, but here there will be a focus on the most related to the concept of ethnocentrism.
Firstly, there is the rule of 'conflict'. When reporting conflicts, “'balanced' journalism dictates that 'each story has two sides'” (ibid: 57). The news story must be seen to have some relevance to the audience, so “The proximity of the event is a related factor.” (ibid). When the news is reported there will be elements of simplification to make the story unambiguous and therefore “the diversity of potential interpretations may... be kept to a minimum.” (ibid). The news also mainly focuses on elite nations and:
“gives priority to events in those countries which are regarded as 'directly affecting the audience's well being', such as the USA and other members of the 'first world'. This is at the expense of those events taking place in other places, particularly developing or 'third world' countries”
(ibid: 58)
The last rule that will be mentioned is cultural specificity, where “'maps of meaning' shared by newsworker and news audience have a greater likelihood of being selected” (ibid). This means that there is a greater chance of stories being selected “about 'people like us' at the expense of those who 'don't share our way of life.” (ibid).
These rules contribute to Pilger's concept of 'unpeople' where he states that “certain lives have media value while others are expendable. The killing of those of ‘us’ counts as a crime; the rest are unpeople.” (Pilger, 2003: 137). It seems that the less an audience is deemed to have in common with another group of people, the less important that group are considered in relation to newsworthiness.
The language of the media is also important when considering ethnocentrism, and it is constructed in a way that “can invoke a cultural division between 'us and them'” (ibid: 145). Hall (in Allan 2005) argues that there has been a 'naturalization' of racist ideology in the media, and society in general. He states that there is “a set of complex, often contradictory, social relations” (ibid) which defines how the media functions. This has resulted in two types of racism within the media; 'overt' and 'inferential'. Overt racism is usually confined to right-wing media tabloids which “popularize openly racist ideas” (ibid). Inferential racism, which is more widespread in the British media, is being “inscribed in media coverage as a set of unquestioned assumptions.” (ibid) and is “largely invisible even to those who formulate the world in its terms” (ibid). Within the language of the media, being 'white' is seen as 'the norm' and is therefore rarely used in the description of the said person, where as 'non-white' people are usually described in terms of their skin colour and therefore seen as 'the other'. The same can also be seen in terms of nationality and religion, where non-British and non-Christian people are described to in a way that makes them seem like 'the other'.
Before there can be any discussion of how the news functions during times of crisis, there must be an analysis of how the news functions generally. In an investigation conducted by Lewis et al (2008), there sufficient evidence to prove that four interconnected 'rumours' of newsgathering and reporting practices were true. In the investigation there was an analysis of 'quality' newspapers like the Guardian, The Times, the Independent and the Telegraph and the mid-market tabloid, the Daily Mail. These rumours were “journalists have... become processors rather than generators of the news” (Lewis et al, 2008: 27) due to “an increasingly influential role for public relations professionals and news agencies” (ibid). One reason why this has happened is because “relatively fewer journalists are now required to write more stories to fill ever-expansive pages of national press.” (ibid: 27-8) while workers are “increasingly pressurised and low-paid (ibid: 28). This has led to journalists being “more likely to accept them [sources] without check or criticism” (ibid). So it is now seen that news “is increasingly generated from outside formal media organisations and newsrooms” (ibid). This has been seen as “an inevitable response to maintaining profitability during a period of steady... decline in news readership.” (ibid: 42).
As journalists are now relying on external sources so much, the most powerful sections of society are in a position to take advantage of the situation and therefore making Marx's view that “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas” (in Allan, 2005: 48) even harder dispel. To further support this argument “many political economists argue that news media power is being restricted to an even smaller number (of usually white and male) hands” (ibid: 52) mainly from the 'elite nations', which in turn is another reason to explore the arguments that the media is ethnocentric. This has been seen to back up the perspective that “corporate fears over 'the bottom line' are reshaping judgements about newsworthiness in ways which frequently all but silence alternative or oppositional views.” (ibid).
To explore how the news functions in times of crisis, the Israel-Palestine conflict will be used as an example to support the claims made. First of all a background to the conflict will be given, but due to restrictions in regard to word limit, it will be very brief.
The roots of the conflict around the end of the 19th century, and what is now known as Israel and Palestine, were both apart of the same country, Palestine. According to a census in 1878, there was a Jewish population of “15,011 living amongst a combined Muslim/Christian population of 447,454” (Philo and Berry, 2004: 2). Due to anti-Semitism in Europe, Jewish immigration into Palestine increased and at the same time there was an increasing interest in a movement called Zionism which “stressed the need for Jews to return to the Holy Land as a necessary prelude to the Redemption and the second coming of the Messiah.” (ibid). Here the Holy Land is synonymous with Palestine and within it the Jews were “to create their own state, in which they would constitute and majority and be able to exercise national self-determination.” (ibid: 3) and “deport the native population” (ibid:4). Tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants continued to settle in Palestine, with hostility increasing between the native Arab population and the settlers. “After the First World War Britain was assigned control of Palestine” (ibid: 7). Britain had already promised Zionist leaders of “a Jewish home in Palestine.” (ibid). “Throughout the 1920s Arab hostility to the Zionist project manifested itself in increasingly prolonged outbreaks of violence.” (ibid: 8). In the wake of the Holocaust, there was increased pressure for the Zionist cause and because of the upsurge in violence in Palestine, the British, already weakened from the effects of the Second World War, decided to “hand the question of Palestine to the United Nations.” (ibid: 17). The solution was to have two separate states within the region and the state of “Israel was established in 1948” (ibid: 258), but this meant that “large numbers of Palestinians were displaced from their homeland” (ibid). Violence still continues in the region, but with Israel gaining increasing power in both regions, “after 1967, Palestinians in the occupied territories lived under various forms of military control in which they were ultimately subject to the power of Israel.” (ibid). Israeli settlers still continue take away more Palestinian land, which is made possible with the support from countries like the US who supply “arms and money to Israel.” (ibid: 221).
In a study of how television news covered the Israel-Palestine conflict and how the public understood the news coverage, Philo and Berry (2004) found that there was confusion from the audience's understanding of “the origins and underlying political dimensions of the conflict” (Philo and Berry, 2006: 199). The “gaps in the public knowledge were related to lack of context and explanation of key issues in news bulletins.” (ibid). Journalists have claimed “that part of the reason for the lack of historical context was they were under pressure was they were under pressure from news editors to produce dramatic reports with strong visuals that would catch the attention of the viewer.” (ibid: 201).
The reporting of the conflict gives “very little reference to the military nature of the occupation and its social consequences for Palestinians or to the large number of UN resolutions condemning the occupation.” (ibid: 202). There is not much mention of the “exploitation of Palestinian land and water resources” (ibid) and there is also “a very limited picture of Israeli settlers living in the occupied territories; yet the settlements have a key role in the occupation.” (ibid: 203). Research shows that “less than a fifth of viewers were aware that Palestinian refugees had lost their land and homes during the creation of the Israeli state.” (ibid: 200)
This lack of context gives a distorted view on the whole conflict, usually in favour of the Israeli side, which is shown by the fact “Israeli perspectives on the conflict were featured more prominently than those of Palestinians” (ibid: 202). In the news “the Palestinians are seen to initiate the trouble or violence and the Israelis are presented as 'responding' or 'retaliating'.” (ibid: 203-4). A study in to BBC1 and ITV news showed that the Israelis were six times more likely to be shown as responding to violence than Palestinians. On top of this there was more emphasis on the deaths of Israelis in the conflict, with “differences in the language used for the casualties of both sides... [and] more coverage of Israeli deaths” (ibid: 204), despite the fact that the casualty rate of Palestinians is “much higher than the Israelis.” (Philo and Berry, 2004: 231).
The actions of the Israelis are more likely have “an explanation which could legitimise what they were doing.” (ibid: 245). This is partly due to Israel having a “more efficient public relations machine” (ibid), and with the increasing amount of PR material used in news rooms, as well as more journalists living in Israel that Palestine, it gives a huge advantage to the Israeli side. This comes down to Israel being a 'richer' country, due to their links with the more developed countries in the West. Furthermore, “government intimidation of reporters deemed 'unfriendly' to Israel is routine and sanctioned by the government.” (Ibid: 247). There have been reports “that the Israeli embassy in London has mounted a huge drive to influence the British media” (ibid: 248). The embassy's press secretary has claimed to “have had influence on the BBC” (ibid). Many journalists have been “accused of being pro-Palestinian at best, and at worst anti-Semitic.” (ibid).
Participants from Philo and Berry's research got the impression that Israel was “'an island of democracy' in the Middle East... [while] At the same time, some aspects of Muslim culture were seen as strange and difficult to identify with.” (ibid: 237). This shows that the Israeli people are seen as 'more like us', while the Palestinians are seen as the 'other'. To emphasise this likeness to 'us' since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, “Israel has stressed its role as part of the 'war against terror'... presenting Israel as one part of the Western Alliance.” (ibid: 249).
Due to the US being an elite nation and having a strong political alliance with Britain, they are more likely to have their views represented than key figures from other countries. In light of this, the distortion in reporting is also “magnified by the prominence given to American sources who tended to support the Israeli position.” (Philo and Berry, 2006: 202); but because there is “considerable confusion over the relationship between Israel and the US” (Philo and Berry, 2004: 220), it is not always clear to the audience why the high profile figures, including politicians, from the US would support either side. “There is some evidence to suggest that perspectives on the Middle East adopted by US politicians are strongly influenced by pro-Israeli lobbies.” (ibid: 252).
Despite a strong argument that the mainstream media provides a distorted view of the conflict in favour of Israel, there are certain media organisations that can be seen to dispel this claim. Al-Jazeera has come “to international prominence since 11 September 2001” (Zayani, 2006: 178) and due it being an Arab based media network, has “broadcast content originating from outside western countries and cultures, and thereby expand, or at least inflect, to some appreciable degree the range and breadth of view on world events.” (Cottle, 2006: 163). One way that it has come to such prominence is through the Internet as well as satellite and cable television, where people in the west have access to it. They have managed to disseminate “images and ideas that western governments and interests may prefer to see controlled and censored.” (ibid). The al-Jazeera website seems to support the Palestinian cause, which can be seen by a section of their website called “War on Gaza”(al-Jazeera, 2009), and articles with headlines such as “Gaza: The endless cycle of trauma”(Tolan, 2009) and “Who will save the Palestinians?”(LeVine, 2009). The articles are often accompanied by photos of dead and maimed Palestinian people and children caught within the conflict to provoke an emotional response. These all suggest a war where Palestinian people are the main victims.
Alongside al-Jazeera there other alternative news sources such The Electronic Intifada, which is a website that “publishes news, commentary, analysis, and reference materials about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective.” (EI, 2009). There are also many British based anti-capitalist newspapers (who usually have websites too), such as Socialist Worker, who openly support the Palestinian people against the Israeli government, by having headlines such as, “Break Britain’s links with Israel” (Socialist Worker, 2009a) and “Step up solidarity for Gaza” (Socialist Worker, 2009b). The rise of new media has definitely helped people gain access to these alternative news sources, however, the reason they are still considered alternative is because most people do not use them or do not know about them.
There has also been resistance to these dominant ideas from the general public, shown by the mass protests and condemnation against Israel's military attacks in Gaza throughout December 2008 and January 2009. The biggest of the many protests in Britain had “as many as 100,000 people” (Quinn and Smith, 2009) in attendance. This also included protests aimed at the BBC, from both the public and people who worked within the media; because the BBC, along with Sky television, refused to “air the Gaza humanitarian aid appeal” (Holmwood, 26/1/2009) as they claimed “it risked compromising its impartiality” (ibid).
There is certainly a case to say that the majority of the mainstream media within Britain is ethnocentric, due to it being tied up within the political economy, and being increasingly used to represent the dominant ruling class ideas through their more effective PR techniques. With the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the ruling class of the western nations see Israel as an ally within the Middle East, as “Israel has been granted a unique immunity from criticism in mainstream journalism and scholarship” (Chomsky, 2008: 221). Although this is most prominent in the US, their powerful influence over British society and the British ruling class' own interests in the Middle East, means this is also an issue within Britain. However, there are small sections of the media, which are either alternative media organisations or mainstream media workers, who try resist the dominance of ethnocentric thinking within the media.
Bibliography
Allan, S. (2005) News Culture: Second Edition, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2008) The Essential Chomsky, London: The Bodley Head.
Cottle, S .(2006) Mediatized Conflict, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Cunningham et al (2004) Implicit and Explicit Ethnocentrism: Revisiting the Ideologies of Prejudice, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 30, No. 10, p1332-1346 – October 2004 Available at <http://www.racemattersconsortium.org/docs/implicit_explicit_ethno.pdf> [24/4/2009].
EI (2009) [I]The Electronic Intifada, Available at <http://electronicintifada.net/> [4/5/2009].
Holmwood, L. (26/1/2009) [I]BBC Gaza appeal row:unions protest, guardian.co.uk Available from <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/26/bbc-gaza-appeal-row-unions-protest> [8/5/2009].
Lewis J. et al (2008) [I]Four Rumours and an Explanation, Journalism Practice, Vol. 2, No. 1, p27-45.
Mason, D. (1999) Race and Ethnicity in Modern Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Philo, G. and Berry, M. (2004) Bad News From Israel, London and Sterling, VA: Pluto Press.
Philo, G. and Berry, M. (2006) Bad News and Public Debate about the Israel-Palestine Conflict, in Poole, E. and Richardson, J.E. (eds) Muslims and the News Media, London and New York: I.B. Tauris.
Pilger, J. (2003) New Rulers of the World,London : Verso.
Quinn, B. and Smith, D. (10/1/2009) Tens of thousands join London Gaza protest, guardian.co.uk Available at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/10/gaza-london-protest-march> [8/5/2009].
Said, E. (2003) [I]Orientalism, London: Penguin Books.
Socialist Worker (2009a) Break Britain's links with Israel, Available at <http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16872> [4/5/2009].
Socialist Worker (2009b) [I]Step up solidarity for Gaza, Available at <http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16994> [4/5/2009].
Zayani, M (2006) [I]Arab Public Opinion in the Age of Satellite Television: the Case of al-Jazaeera, in Poole, E. and Richardson, J.E. (eds) Muslims and the News Media, London and New York: I.B. Tauris.