To sit and reflect on everything i have learned in this ILA course is quite the feat- no single blog entry will do it justice. Nonetheless extracting thematic links between all of the blogs with everyone's overarching conclusions seems feasable, as i noticed individual classmate reactions share many parallels. we've all acquired perceptions that have evolved quite drastically over the course of the semester- but mapping that evolution has been rather interesting, and the blog manages to trace the personal journey rather effectively.
I have to share that this is my first time ever keeping a blog and interacting with this communication interface. There are little nuances i have yet to figure it- like how to post a PDF file link (learning how to jazz up my background layout took a bit of time as well) but posting something that is written with a much more informal approach- a stylized stream-of-consciencousness has been quite an experience. Like a journal, i felt compelled to write not in a reportive journalistic manner, but rather using a personal undertone, sharing my personal experiences, interactions with family/friends, absorption of the material, and exploration of related issues in U.S politics, literature, international media/music, etc. What was weird was that i was writing for myself, but knew it would be read by others, a private purpose shared with the public (blog characteristics took some time getting used to). The blog served as an outlet to voice my opinions, but perhaps still
Reading over other classmates blog has revealed how much this course opened up or further enhanced a new realm of the media landscape to us all. The Arab World for many really is approached as "foreign so-called 'other'" because of the little exposure and interaction people have with it. Only in recent decades as a result of war/conflict has the news media coverage shifted its focus to include the Middle East region with more depth. Politics departments and history courses also have further enabled students to specialize in the Middle East (once far less common). Looking over blog entires you see that many classmates felt cultured and open-minded until they re-assessed their perceptions of the Arab world and preconceived notions of Islam. I personally travel to the middle east yearly to visit family in Israel, and grew up with much exposure to news coverage of that region of the world- but particularly from a western, pro-american, not surprisingly pro-israeli lens. This course completely reversed and realigned many students former perceptions- particularly focusing on Arab Media & Modernity. It seems that almost all of us referenced youtube clips, movies, and news articles, or scholarly publications to challenge our former notions and foster personal growth. Interestingly the course touched upon israel-palestinian conflict which for me has always been the sole focus of that region, yet broadened the content to include a much larger Arab sphere. We all blogged about the alarming Mumbai attacks, The election race- and McCain's Marginalizing campaign,
Although usually rather outspoken, i found myself more introspective and reflective during class discussions, analyzing and challenging my prior knowledge. My former exposure to some of these topics during my childhood, or even in courses at NYU such as international politics of the Middle East, looking at the formation and development of a lot of the countries we discussed, got thoroughly questioned. The comparative media systems paper i wrote and researched for over a month and a half last year ( and posted) would be conducted rather differently with much more elaborate conclusions if i were to revisit it after taking this course- proving how much my notions have evolved. The same could probably be said for every single person in the class- the beginning of the course and the last day, represent a morphed indivual- the manifestation of good education.
I loved what Molly said about The media celebritizing terrorism as it is the media " plastering Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and countless other 'terrorists' faces on the nightly news. These men were made famous by media coverage and then made infamous through their own deeds and misdeeds" as she questions are fighting terrorism by informing the public or rather perpetrating the cycle? we've seen that we like many others, though we represent a highly educated demographic which much of the country sadly doesn't belong to, came into the course with western perspectives, ideals, and prejudices. Only with exposure to eastern, Arab, and other international perspectives can the marginilized skewed notions be properly challenged not perpetuated.
The East versus West, The Clash, The Orient, are all theoretical constructs fed to the masses to think in a particular way. If courses such as this get taught all over the country and around the world or more importantly the information gets disseminated, communication barriers can finally be broken through mutual understanding and universal (not limited) concern.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Spurlocks: where in the world is OBL?
"WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN" seems like quite the interesting documentary, which i read about on Sarah's blog. I have yet to see it, and actually heard nothing about it prior, which i find rather surprising as his Spurlock's former documentary "SuperSizeMe" one of my favorites, actually stirred quite a lot of publicity. perhaps the controversy surrounding his first documentary occured, probably because he massacured one of the biggest American food empires the imfamous McDonalds.
Yet with all of the "war on terror" talk in our country and washington politicos spewing out criticisms of anti-american propaganda, perhaps it isn't so surprising this didn't get #1 advertising spots on television, or perhaps it isn't the advertising approach he was aiming for. Who knows- either way, i know i just placed an order on amazon for the documentary, and after i watch it i will surely update this blog with my thoughts. This along with Slumdog Millionare, and House of Saddam (http://www.hbo.com/films/houseofsaddam/index.html) are on my winterbreak: "to see list"
I hope some others check it out and tell me their thoughts
Documentary Website: http://www.whereisobl.com/site/#/videos/
IMDB INFO: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0963208/
Yet with all of the "war on terror" talk in our country and washington politicos spewing out criticisms of anti-american propaganda, perhaps it isn't so surprising this didn't get #1 advertising spots on television, or perhaps it isn't the advertising approach he was aiming for. Who knows- either way, i know i just placed an order on amazon for the documentary, and after i watch it i will surely update this blog with my thoughts. This along with Slumdog Millionare, and House of Saddam (http://www.hbo.com/films/houseofsaddam/index.html) are on my winterbreak: "to see list"
I hope some others check it out and tell me their thoughts
Documentary Website: http://www.whereisobl.com/site/#/videos/
IMDB INFO: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0963208/
The background of where in the world is Osama by Morgan Spurlock:
When Morgan Spurlock and his wife find out they are expecting a child in an unsafe world that faces multiple terrorist and environmental threats, Morgan decides to track down the world's most wanted and dangerous terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, undergoes self-defense training, takes all required medical shots, and sets out to travel to Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan amongst others to try and locate the man who has managed to elude the American army for nearly a decade. His fears, generated due to biased media coverage that Muslims and Arabs are hostile, are laid to rest when he does encounter friendly, and quite refreshingly well educated, hospitable, politically matured men and women, who are well aware of America's faulty 'foreign policy', and do not subscribe to Jihad nor to the Taliban nor Osama's terror-tactics. But he does encounter some hostility, quite ironically, in two of America's allies - Israel and Saudi Arabia - and it is on the soil of Pakistan - his country's ally against the so-called War Against Terror - is where he eventually hopes to find Osama. The questions does remain: will he able to find him where many others have purportedly failed? And most importantly will he be allowed to remain alive after finding him? Written by rAjOo (gunwanti@hotmail.com)
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Comparative Media Systems (ME media coverage of Israel-Palestinian conflict)
while working on my Arab Television Report and during my final weeks of the course while conducting research, i was compelled to revisit a comparative media systems paper i wrote for my globalization course last year- where i conducted primary research on online media outlets covering the israeli-palestinian conflict. (if anyone would like to see the excel chart with my findings i will gladly forward it) it was interesting to revisit this research, as i am approaching it with quite a different lens. I think i would revamp the project and have different findings- or conclusions now that ihave a different perspective on Al-Jazeera. Where i perhaps previously concluded their covereage of the ME conflict as more overtly political, the critical coverage is necessary and part of journalistic autonomy (if it is a representation of many Arab peoples' sentiments- which it is) The same could be said for Haaretz coverage (which is often considered a more radical media source anyways). *Paper Below
Hila Raz
4/22/08
COURSE: Mass-Media Globalization
Middle East Media: A Hybrid of East and West?
Comparative Media Systems: Haaretz. Al Jazeera. CNN
Abstract:
This research presents a comparative content analysis of the US and Middle Eastern online news outlets: CNN, Haaretz and Al Jazeera and their framing of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict. The study assesses the relationship between the particular media systems and the political landscape in which they formed to conclude how ties between government and media effect reporting. Furthermore, how does the nature of a particular media system influence its supposed “objectivity” in regards to the Middle East Conflict? By picking media outlets considered to have polarized agendas concerning the conflict, specifically Haaretz and Al Jazeera, the comparison to CNN will give a more diversified perspective of the conflict. As all the outlets have high readership and prominent influence, I will explore the viewpoints they present. Where along the spectrum of Neo-Liberal, Democratic Corporatist, and Polarized pluralists do CNN, Haaretz and Al Jazeera fall? Does political parallelism or stronger partisan affiliation result in limited viewpoint on the Israel-Palestinian conflict or does it frame the issue with a more critical and objective lens? In assessing the three different Media Systems where does the notion of journalistic autonomy and pluralism come in? How does the relationship between media and state influence the reporting? Even though all three media outlets are not parallel mediums in origin, their sphere of influence both nationally and on the international front in reporting around the clock coverage of the Middle East, made them relevant media systems to compare. The media outlets share the commonality of delivering widely circulated Internet news coverage on the conflict all with English translation despite some being printed initially in a different language.
With todays growing reliance on the Internet it comes as no surprise that online news is in a sky rocketing developmental phase. As print media revenues continue to suffer, more and more newspapers are heading online to reach out to a broader audience, the lines even being blurred between print media and broadcast media, evident by CNN and Al Jazeera. With heavy international circulation and few limitations to access of Internet news, I found it relevant to compare the online sources.
Middle East Conflict Coverage in the US, Israel and the Arab World.
CNN: Cable News Network, a major American news television network founded in 1980 by Ted Turner, introduced the idea of 24-hour television news coverage Rating as America’s number one cable news source, CNN has also expanded globally through CNN international, now servicing more than 1.5 billion people in over 212 countries and territories. The particular area of focus for the content analysis sampled news articles from the news website CNN.com, which started initially in 1995 as an experiment and has grown into one of the most popular news websites in the world. Although CNN remains a distant second in international news coverage it makes extensive use of affiliated reporters who are often not credited in online articles, but deliver a more immediate, less detached style of coverage. Though some criticisms portray CNN as having a “liberal” or “anti-American” bias, interestingly enough much criticism that stems from Middle Eastern nations accuses CNN of reporting news from a “pro-American perspective.” However, (Benson + Hallin) suggest that “In US by contrast the legal tradition of the first amendment supremacy strongly limits such forms of regulation” (29) The liberal classification of the American Media system as an unbiased media outlet supports that “since middle of 19th century American Journalism has been more information and fact oriented (B+H, 29). Juxtaposing CNN online coverage of the Middle East conflict beside Middle East sources can reveal biases, testing that “pro-American” criticism fully.
Al Jazeera meaning the “Island” is also a satellite television network based in Qatar, which was founded in 1996 with a $150 million grant from the Emir of Qatar: Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa. . It is widely believed internationally that inhabitants of the Arab world are given limited information by their governments because of the authoritarian political structure of the regimes and that furthermore, the media often convey biases in line with governmental views. Interestingly, many people in the Middle East consider Al Jazeera a more trustworthy source of news information than government and foreign channels because it relies on “contextual objectivity” for its controversial news approach, highlighting the tension between objectivity and audience appeal. Al- Jazeera was the first time Arabs realized “it was possible to have an Arab institution they could respect.” Prior to its arrival many Middle Eastern citizens were limited to state-censored TV stations and it is now believed to be the most popular Arab media outlet. Al Jazeera introduced a level of freedom of speech on television that was previously unheard of in many middle eastern Arab countries, by presenting controversial views regarding the governments of many Persian gulf states by broadcasting dissenting news. However, critics accuse Al Jazeera of using sensationalism to increase audience share despite its supposed objectivity, hence this content analysis will test the extent of it being a politicized press.
Haaretz in Hebrew literally translates into “the land” referring to the Land of Israel or “Eretz Israel”. It was chosen as the representative media outlet of Israel because despite some other Israeli newspapers considered more popular, it is considered to have influence greater than its circulation numbers because of its following amongst the Israeli Intelligentsia. The other two most distributed newspapers in Israel are daily tabloid newspapers. Maariv (translation the evening) only circulates in Hebrew and Yedi’ot Aharonot (translation latest news) provides the viewpoint of secular centrist and moderate left-wingers. Haaretz readership includes Israel’s middle and upper classes, academics, professionals, and the government. Being Israeli I was interested in critically analyzing a media text considered the most “leftist” newspaper in the country, which often stirs controversy. The positioning of the newspaper may suggest an Israeli bias, yet anti-Israel commentators and lobbyists often quote it, putting forth diversified viewpoints with harsh criticisms. Even though its circulation doesn’t come close to CNN and Al Jazeera, Haaretz is known to present viewpoints highly referenced internationally by various partisan affiliations linked to both sides reporting the conflict, therefore making it the most applicable media outlet. Founded in 1918 by the Schocken Family, Haaretz is Israel’s oldest Daily newspaper written in Berliner format. Similarly to CNN and Al Jazeera, Haaretz expanded to online circulation, with a core readership of 65,000 with the Hebrew edition and another 15,000 subscribed to the English edition. The articles are more analytical and considered more influential among government leaders, interestingly President Shimon Peres exclusively blogs for the newspaper.
Hypotheses:
1. H1: “it is a common assumption in liberal model theory that state intervention in the media markets is likely to have a censoring or inhibiting effects on the news” (B+H, p. 30). Considering the media systems from a binary model perspective comparing state intervention versus no state intervention would categorize the media systems based on either libertarian or authoritarian nature of the political landscape in the respective countries. The democratic political nature of the U.S and Israel with no state intervention in the media and the existence of a capitalistic system and free market would categorize them “Liberal” and therefore more critical because of supposed heightened journalistic autonomy and moderate pluralism offering very “information oriented journalism” (H+M p.73). Whereas Al Jazeera, founded with close ties to Qatari government, suggesting a somewhat Polarized pluralist model would result in ME media coverage to be more censored or less critical of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict than US and Israeli coverage.
2. H2: The nature of relationships between these three media systems and their respective government would suggest that the nature of political autonomy would parallel journalistic autonomy. This doesn’t support a binary state versus no state intervention model but rather a spectrum in the relationship between media systems and political landscape. Starting with the US where the “Liberal” media system and the democratic government both value freedoms. The Democratic Political landscape of Israel rooted in a free market yet elements of socialist policy like Kibbutzim, universal health care, and the mandatory military draft to place Haaretz somewhere in the middle as a Democratic Corporatist model. Haaretz’s deep involvement in country politics and influence from intellectual elite viewpoints grounds it in the middle of the 3 media systems. I would expect limited journalistic autonomy in Al Jazeera as a result of the influences from the authoritarian Qatari regime placing it close to the Polarized Pluralist Model.
3. H3: Perhaps Haaretz offers “leftist” framing of the conflict from the Israeli perspective and Al Jazeera politicizes discourse with close ties to government officials and party elites “who have been shown to have privileged access to journalists and as a result news tends to be ‘indexed’ to the elite government and party officials”(Benson and Hallin, P.30). Because of “greater state intervention and closer relations between the media and political field” perhaps either Haaretz or Al Jazeera, or both may have a stronger “indexing effect” thus in fact offering a more critical framing of the Middle East Conflict (p.30). Are both Haaretz and Al Jazeera DC models? Political instrumentalization tends to be more prevalent in the two, yet CNN results as a more objective media system with external pluralism offering a wide range of viewpoints.
4. H4: The roots of Al Jazeera came from the BBC Arabic Service which fostered a somewhat Liberal British journalistic autonomy and professionalism, but it was one of the “few fully Arab news stations, run, staffed, and financed by Arabs and broadcast from an Arab country.” The dynamic of the media system fused with the contact of Qatari regime and authoritarian political landscape somewhat impedes the level of pluralism to one which is more external and instrumental in nature, making it a hybrid media system that frames the conflict with a more limited frame. Haaretz founded in Israel’s democracy by a private company also has a Liberal foundation. However some governmental policies with socialist tendencies, and strong government influence due to the small geographical landscape and political turmoil in the region cause the spheres of influence between media and government to often intersect. Haaretz also represents a hybrid media system but one favoring more autonomy and internal pluralism, with a wider range of viewpoints on the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Yet both media systems offer more critical reporting of the Middle East than CNN, due to elements political instrumentalism.
Methodology:
The Sample was constructed in the collecting of articles from these three media sources: CNN, Al Jazeera and Haaretz over the course of 6 weeks. The time frame included selections from the end of February-mid April (with the majority of articles from end of March/early April). The time frame extended longer than my initial projection because while collecting articles I found that “Middle East” coverage often focused on developments in Iraq and other countries with which the U.S is heavily engaged in Foreign Policy, and not solely on my specialized topic of the Israel/Palestine issue. To retrieve a large enough data pool with diverse article content to conduct my random sample, the 6-week time frame was necessary. From April 29th- I collected approximately 15 online articles for each media outlet: Al Jazeera, Haaretz, and CNN. During this time period the articles were collected from their respective websites and emailed to my project article archive titled “Global Media Project” in my gmail account.
The total 45 article sample dwindled after omitting some non-journalist articles that often cited AP, those that didn’t offer sufficient length/content, a few which became inactive article links due to the website removing their content (this happened twice with Al Jazeera articles due to the controversial topic of the article published) or some that fell out of the date range of the study, but ended up in the sample because of links and topic relevancy. The final article pool then got further filtered until I retrieved the random sample based on those guidelines. After chronologically organizing my remaining articles I conducted the random sample by picking every 3rd article for each newspaper source, ending up with 6 articles per media outlet.
My variables used to compare the media systems included: schema, tone, viewpoint, narrative style, citations, and framing of articles due to titles. (See Table 3 outlining research results) I assessed both schema and tone attempting “to measure the overall manner in which the story was reported by the journalist” (Benson and Hallin, p.31). Schema “the general lens through which politics is approached” (Benson and Hallin, p.31) fell into the general categories of policy, ideology and report. Policy focused on which policy to achieve a solution for the ME conflict often dealing with the development of peace dialogue or a 2-state solution. Ideology was rooted on fundamental values, which often “transcended particular policies” (Benson and Hallin, p.31). The final report schema was used to categorize an article that had the nature of a report, which often dealt with killings from both sides referring to violence in the Gaza territories. The next assessment dealt with tone and viewpoint attempting to capture political viewpoint of the articles, which ranged from neutral, balanced, negative, to critical. Coding for manifest or latent meaning was key and “stories were coded negative or partisan only when such negative passages clearly dominated the story” (Benson and Hallin, p. 32). The narrative or “voice” was linked with the style of the articles describing articles as fact based or opinionated, well cited, formal or informal (use of I/we/personal voice) and lastly when, where, and by whom citations appeared. The frequency, diversity of sources, and dispersion of sources some referenced and some directly quoted helped assess the viewpoint of the article as neutral or not more objectively. Also the comparison of titles of the articles, and layout helped solidify the overall characterization and framing of each media system- what is the initial first impression one receives when looking at each online news outlet?
As Amy Jasperson and Mansour O. El-Kikhia discuss in Chapter 7 of Framing Terrorism “the language of war and coverage of dissent reinforced suppression of opposition views” (Norris, 2007: 114). Does the framing of “terrorism” visible in these three media systems, of the Middle East Conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians parallel this notion? The “governance frames concern how far the news media reported either consensual support or critical dissent with political leaders” (Norris. 2007: 116) The comparative media content analysis looks into whether CNN, Al Jazeera’s and Haaretz’s Media Coverage on the Israel-Palestinian conflict suggests a governance frame focused on policy and ideology. Even when reporting seems rather neutral, there seems to still be a governance frame where national leaders are united in agreement against a perceived external threat to the country. How often does this occur in the case of Haaretz but also in Al Jazeera’s commitment to the Palestinian side where the news media coverage generates and reinforces support for the administration and its security policies?
My conclusions concerning objectivity and extent of pluralism resulted from assessing the supposed framing as “media framing is a mechanism of influence in which journalists employ a frame of interpretation in presenting an issue to the public” by actively constructing, selecting and structuring information to organize a particular reality (Norris, 2007: 113-114).
Blumerand and Gurevitch proposed in 1975 four dimensions for comparative analysis, which I strived to achieve in coding my article sample: 1. Degree of state control over mass media organization 2. Degree of mass media partisanship 3. Degree of media-political elite integration 4. The nature of legitimizing creed of media institutions (Hallin + Mancini, p.21). My findings break down the all of the criteria listed above.
Findings:
Looking into each media system I assessed strong or week media circulation and the Development of markets. CNN has incredibly high circulation #1 source in US, as does Al Jazeera second leader not far behind BBC has a major news outlet for Arab world. Haaretz within Israel doesn’t have comparable circulation, because of the small population of the country Israel in which it’s based, compared to the other two systems, but gets a lot of coverage abroad with US readership and international reference. Considering the degree and nature of state intervention in media system for Al Jazeera: “political parties in Qatar are still outlawed, as is anything that vaguely resembles one and opposition is not tolerated and there is still no real debate about how the country is run” (Hugh Miles, P. 16). A documentary I watched “Control Room” depict the Arab news media system as a much more pluralistic challenge to the authoritarian regime. Samir Khader, a senior producer of Al Jazeera, claims the network's purpose is to shake up the rigid infrastructure of Arab society, which he believes has fallen behind, culturally and technologically, because of its social intolerance to other cultures perspectives often propagandist nature of Al Jazeera” (Control Room). Paradoxically, another clip shows Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf himself accusing the television organization of transmitting American propaganda. There’s a wide controversial spectrum concerning this coverage captured in the documentary, which provided another depiction of the media outlet.
In my content analysis, my Table 3 chart correlates with the list and citations for article titles. The sampling showed Haaretz to be most well cited, balanced, neutral, and policy/report oriented. My title comparisons showed Haaretz to be often critical but with pluralistic viewpoints representing both sides and therefore providing the most balanced agenda. Out of 6 articles 2 included references to officials from the Palestinian and Israeli Side: Hamas official/ IDF sources. The titles included one “Israel Defense Sources: Hamas Wants to Maintain Gaza Quiet” (Harel. Amos, 3/25/08) and “Hamas Official: Israel refused offers for temporary cease-fire” (Khoury, Jack, 4/6/08).
Another two Haaretz articles from the sample, articles 5 and 6, had titles reporting both Israeli and Palestinian Gaza killings such as “2 Israeli civilians killed” (Azoulay, Yuval; 4/10/08) or “IDF kills 8 Palestinians” (Issacharoff, Avi; 4/12/08) in the headline. The final article had a rather critical framing in the title questioning the notion of “abusing democracy?” (Lieberman, Avigdor, 3/28/08).
For CNN the articles were extremely policy oriented often discussing hope for Peace or attempt at achieving a two-state solution, but the contributors were never provided on the page only reference to location of CNN where article was written, and sources/citations lacked specificity in the articles. Although CNN was extremely fact based and neutral, it had an underlying Israel focus and latent American bias. The coverage seemed to have an American agenda in framing of ME conflict the titles including references to American Politicians such as Cheney and Carter. Article 1 from the sample was titled: “Cheney: Israel, Palestinians must make sacrifices for Peace” (CNN.com, 3/23/08). The other, article 5: “White House urges Carter not to meet Hamas Leader” (CNN.com. 4/10/08). Interestingly enough the reports on Gaza killings also provided two articles one, confirming deaths from Palestinian Security Sources: “Child killed, family wounded in Gaza fighting” (CNN.com. 4/6/08), the other “Palestinians Kill 2 Israelis in Raid” (CNN.com. 4/9/08) gave an Israeli death account.
Al Jazeera’s titles often used sensationalized or critical diction, which set the tone for the article. Examples of such sensationalized, charged diction is visible in the title “Israel’s Holocaust against Gaza” (Amayreh, Khalid, 3/4/08) or in Scott, Frank’s “Israel: Time to Boycott, Divest and Sanction” (3/28/08). Particular diction such as “holocaust, boycott, and chaos” got categorized as extremely manifest and politicized. A lot of the articles policy based such as “Big Bang or Chaos: What’s Israel up to?” (Baroud, Ramzy, 3/18/08) were critical in nature, which can be positive as it offers great insight, necessary in terms of challenging common viewpoints, however it delivered a rather clear Anti Israel agenda, with one sided advocacy. This suggests a narrow range of pluralism in the 6 article sample capturing a rather external “strong viewpoint identity.”
The narrative voice and style of the journalists in the three media systems also greatly varied on a spectrum of formality, opinion versus fact based, first person versus omniscient unaffiliated narrator, and references or source citations which often help provide a more “balanced” or in some cases a “biased” perspective. CNN often would make references to visits of U.S officials such as Cheney Bush and Condoleezza Rice to the Middle East and offer Israeli quotes on policy, but always in a report fashion. Quotes and references were usually in format of “he said, she said” CNN got coded as neutral for 6/6 articles, however on various accounts such as “Hamas and Hamas alone is responsible for what happens in Gaza” (CNN.com, 4/6/08), “U.S Policy is that Hamas is a terrorist organization” (CNN.com, 4/10/08) or “Hezbollah is listed by Israel, the United States and several Western nations as a terrorist Organization” (CNN.com. 4/8/08) the projection of an U.S/Israel agenda was rather clear in most CNN articles. Haaretz cited a wide range of sources often elites or government officials from both sides with sources like Moussa Abu Marzouk deputy head of Hamas political Bureau referenced in, Jack Khoury’s “Hamas Official: Israel refused offers for temporary cease-fire” (Haaretz.com, 4/6/08). In only one article did Haaretz use first person narrative, the rest were all in a formal and fact based narrative style. Al Jazeera often used first person narrative with phrases such as “in my view or I think” which were completely absent in CNN reporting. 4/6 Al Jazeera articles resort to the use of I or We (see table 3). Noam Chomsky’s fully loaded article “the most wanted list” states “the terminology is accurate enough, according to Anglo-American discourse, which defines “the world” as the political class in Washington and London (and whoever happens to agree with them on specific matters” (Chomsky, 3/29/08, p.1) contesting that if “for a moment we can adopt the perspective of the world we might ask ‘which criminals are wanted the world over’” (Chomsky, 3/29/08, p.6). This exemplifies the critical nature of Al Jazeera, which probably was the most interesting content to analyze due to its inclusion of personal opinions and injection of framed interpretations. Al Jazzier articles were the longest most elaborate articles usually with the most critical statements of the government and officials- usually on the Israeli side. There was critique of: personal behavior, general ideas, policies, government performance or ethics, political strategies etc. Al Jazeera critics Israel harshly often with sensational extreme discourse such as terminology like “failed prime ministers” regarding Olmert “for his lamentable, ill-conceived, and destructible war in Lebanon” and Barak for his “stubborn inability to seize the chance of peace (Patrick, Seale, 3/26/08, p.1).
In the Haaretz article Tzipi Livni the Israeli foreign minister is quoted saying highly controversial things in Haaretz. The newspaper tagged as a “leftist” newspaper, often cited as radical allows criticizing of the government and extreme viewpoints that many national governments would not permit. First Livni “defended Israeli Defense forces’ operations against Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip as necessary for the advancement of Peace negotiations, she also expressed concern at what she termed a growing trend of de-legitimization of Israel in world public opinion” (Haaretz: Ravid, 3/25/08, p.2). It is not in most internationally circulated newspapers read by the government officials, elites, and intellectuals of society where you will find a foreign minister publicly questioning the legitimacy of a nation, especially Israel, with its fragility and controversy in the Middle East. Haaretz expressed: “only in Israel can citizens take the law into their own hands; only in Israel is lawlessness the law of the land… yet the law that exists in our law books is never noticed” (Haaretz, Lieberman, 3/28/08, P.1-2). Here you see the journalist Avigdor Liberman the chair of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party exemplifying strong partisan ties. She demands of citizens “whether Jewish, Muslim, or Christian” to remain “loyal to the state and its values as a Jewish State” (Haaretz, Lieberman, 3/28/08, P.1-2) but doesn’t advocate silencing of protest or any infringement of freedom of expression.
Conclusion:
Erwin Franklin from Jerusalem Post concluded “journalism is a enterprise in social judgment. Journalism plucks from this infinite flow those events deemed worthy of public regard, reporting them as honest witness…journalism is guardian of public trust” (Hallin and Mancini, P. 40- 41). The notion of “interpretive judgment” where “all newspapers have a character of their own, telling the story of the present as they perceive it” “autonomy matters- to preserve not neutrality, but the integrity of this process of ‘social judgment’” (Hallin and Mancini, P. 41). ” That’s where framing and agenda comes into play while assessing how each of these online media systems want to tell the story of the ME conflict?
In “Comparing Media Systems Three Models of Media and Politics,” Hallin and Mancini discuss the idea of “clause de conscience” in relation to journalistic autonomy. Their example gave “French journalists the right to compensation when the ideological line of their paper was changed by management” which has relevance to Israel. “Conscience clauses are distinctive to polarized pluralist systems where conflict over the political line of the news media is relatively sharp” Like France, Israel also has such laws (Hallin and Mancini, p.116). The discussion manages to cast doubt on notion “that political parallelism and journalistic professionalism cannot coexist” which has direct relevance to Al Jazeera and also to Israel (H+M, p.41). Al Jazeera reported with high journalistic professionalism despite being rooted in elements of political parallelism. Interestingly two of the Al Jazeera articles in my initial sample were not retrievable for viewing when I proceeded to select the articles for the random final sample; perhaps there is some control? This suggests that the filtering and perhaps “censoring” of some controversial press had to be removed as the web link to the particular articles left me with a blank Al Jazeera news page (probably conscious decision of Al Jazeera journalists, but unexpected regardless). One of them had a controversial title: “Israeli soldier accused of spying for Hezbollah” also left me empty handed. Though not directly from Al Jazeera source it sub-headlined: “HAIFA, Israel (AFP) - A career soldier in the Israeli army has been charged with high treason for allegedly spying for Lebanon's pro-Iran Hezbollah militia, a military official said on Monday.”
Contrary to a prior assumption that media and political proximity inhibits critical news coverage or perhaps results in censorship, the comparative content analysis demonstrates that more critical coverage results in Middle East Media outlets, apparent from neutral, critical, or negative partisan tones in articles from Haaretz and Al Jazeera. My results support Hypothesis 4, presenting Haaretz and Al Jazeera as hybrid models of the Liberal/Democratic Corporatist, and Polarized Pluralist models. The range of criticism, narrative construction, viewpoints, and referenced sources is far greater in both Middle Eastern Hybrid Models than in the U.S. CNN coverage of the Middle East Conflict. However in assessing the notion of objectivity, more often than not the two hybrid models offer a somewhat politicized or partisan agenda in confronting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The results convey Al Jazeera as most “biased” resulting from informal, 1st person opinionated narration, which for 3/6 articles was both negative and critical- 50% of the sample. The U.S coverage often less interesting to read, presented a rather consistently neutral framing of the conflict, or what some might coin as “more objective” Although the U.S came out 100% neutral and fact based the CNN coverage coveys a pro-Israel view in which the spectrum of pluralism still seems surprisingly external. CNN often conveying a U.S agenda and citing primarily American Politicians or Israeli officials with which the U.S government has direct ties. Al-Jazeera also conveyed an external pluralism with a strong viewpoint identity siding with Palestinian motives, often negative, or highly critical of the Israeli government and policies. Interestingly much of the Al Jazeera Schema (see Table 3) was ideologically based. Yet both the media systems of Al-Jazeera and Haaretz offer more critical reporting of the Middle East than CNN, due to elements political instrumentalism. CNN was liberal and neutral with an “U.S/Israel agenda.” The Haaretz media system is a Hybrid falling between Democratic Corporatist and Liberal models, but higher up on the triangle diagram closer to Polarized Pluralist model (H+M, p.70). Al Jazeera also results as a hybrid Middle Eastern Media system but falls closer to the democratic Corporatist and Polarized pluralist model, perhaps somewhat centered in the triangular Hallin and Mancini Media System Model.
My research results from the 18 coded articles coincide with many elements of Hallin and Mancini’s The Mediterranean or Polarized Pluralist Model, which is why Haaretz and Al Jazeera were influenced, by PP elements in the spectrum of media systems. The Mediterranean model is characterized by “an elite-oriented press with relatively small circulation and corresponding centrality of the electronic media. The press is marketed by a strong focus on political life, external pluralism, and a tradition of commentary-oriented or advocacy journalism persists more strongly. Instrumentalism of the media by the government, political parties and industrialists with political ties is common.” (H+M, p.73) Also my initial questioning in some hypotheses of journalistic autonomy in the Middle Eastern Media systems broke some Hallin and Mancini’s categorizations of Mediterranean models. They claim that the professional realm of "journalism is not as strongly differentiated from political activism and the autonomy of journalism is often limited” in Mediterranean countries “characterized by particularly explicit conflicts over the autonomy of journalists” (H+M, p.73) Though some of my finding support that notion as power and authority within news organizations has been more openly contested in PP Models, my findings disprove that autonomy of journalists was limited both in Al Jazeera and Haaretz. For Al Jazeera the state did play a large role as owner, regulator, and funder of the media, though capacity to regulate effectively is limited apparent from the harsh criticism, and injected opinions in the articles.
Perhaps however, such viewpoints make the coverage more realistic and representative of sentiments from that part of the world? Is it even possible to convey total neautrality? And is that a positive thing?
Article Sample Titles
Parallels Table 3
• http://www.haaretz.com/
1. Harel. Amos. “Israel Defense Sources: Hamas Wants to Maintain Gaza Quiet” Haaretz.com. 3/25/08
2. Ravid, Barak. ”Olmert threatens ‘Painful’ steps against Hamas, rules out truce” Haaretz.com. 3/26/08.
3. Lieberman, Avigdor. “Abusing Democracy” Haaretz.com. 3/28/08.
4. Khoury, Jack. “Hamas Official: Israel refused offers for temporary cease-fire” Haaretz.com. 4/6/08.
5. Azoulay, Yuval. “2 Israeli Civilians Killed in attack by Gaza Infiltrators” Haaretz.com. 4/10/08.
6. Issacharoff, Avi. “IDF Kills 8 Palestinians, including 2 children, in Gaza” Haaretz.com. 4/12/08.
•
• http://www.cnn.com/ (Article Sample)
1. “Cheney: Israel, Palestinians must make sacrifices for Peace” CNN.com. 3/23/08
2. “Child killed, family wounded in Gaza fighting” CNN.com. 4/6/08
3. “Israel Holds emergency drill amid attack worries” CNN.com. 4/8/08
4. “Palestinians kill 2 Israelis in raid” CNN.com. 4/9/08
5. “White House urges Carter not to meet Hamas Leader” CNN.com. 4/10/08
6. “Israeli, Palestinian leaders hold talks on Gaza” CNN.com. 4/13/08
• http://www.aljazeera.com/ (Article Sample)
1. Amayreh, Khalid. “Israel’s Holocaust Against Gaza” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 3/4/08.
2. Baroud, Ramzy. “Big Bang or Chaos: What’s Israel up to?” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 3/18/08.
3. Seale, Patrick. “A Middle East Regime Needing Change” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 3/26/08.
4. Scott, Frank. “Israel: Time to Boycott, Divest and Sanction” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 3/28/08.
5. Chomsky, Noam. “The Most Wanted List” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 3/29/08.
6. Littlewood, Stuart. “What Journalists avoid asking about Israel” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 4/07/08.
References
Primary Research
Amayreh, Khalid. “Israel’s Holocaust Against Gaza” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera
Magazine. 3/4/08.
Azoulay, Yuval. “2 Israeli Civilians Killed in attack by Gaza Infiltrators” Haaretz.com.
4/10/08.
Baroud, Ramzy. “Big Bang or Chaos: What’s Israel up to?” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera
Magazine. 3/18/08.
Chomsky, Noam. “The Most Wanted List” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 3/29/08.
Harel. Amos. “Israel Defense Sources: Hamas Wants to Maintain Gaza Quiet”
Haaretz.com. 3/25/08
Issacharoff, Avi. “IDF Kills 8 Palestinians, including 2 children, in Gaza” Haaretz.com.
4/12/08.
Khoury, Jack. “Hamas Official: Israel refused offers for temporary cease-fire”
Haaretz.com. 4/6/08.
Lieberman, Avigdor. “Abusing Democracy” Haaretz.com. 3/28/08.
Littlewood, Stuart. “What Journalists avoid asking about Israel” Aljazeera.com
Aljazeera Magazine. 4/07/08.
Ravid, Barak. ”Olmert threatens ‘Painful’ steps against Hamas, rules out truce”
Haaretz.com. 3/26/08.
Scott, Frank. “Israel: Time to Boycott, Divest and Sanction” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera
Magazine. 3/28/08.
Seale, Patrick. “A Middle East Regime Needing Change” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera
Magazine. 3/26/08.
“Cheney: Israel, Palestinians must make sacrifices for Peace” CNN.com. 3/23/08
“Child killed, family wounded in Gaza fighting” CNN.com. 4/6/08
“Israel Holds emergency drill amid attack worries” CNN.com. 4/8/08
“Palestinians kill 2 Israelis in raid” CNN.com. CNN.com. 4/9/08
“White House urges Carter not to meet Hamas Leader” CNN.com. 4/10/08
“Israeli, Palestinian leaders hold talks on Gaza” CNN.com. 4/13/08
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera
Secondary Research
Benson, Rodney and Hallin, Daniel C. How States, Markets, and Globalization Shape the
News: The French and U.S National Press 1965-97. European Journal of
Communications. SAGE Publications: Los Angeles. 2007.
Hallin, Daniel C. and Manciini, Paulo. Comparing media systems Three Models of
Media and Politics. Cambridge University Press: 2004.
Mamdani, Mahmood. Good Muslim Bad Muslim. America The Cold War. And the Roots
of Terror. Three Leaves Press. USA. 2004
Miles, Hugh Al-Jazeera. Grove Press: New York, 2005.
Norris, Pippa. M Kern, M Just Eds. Framing terrorism. Rowledge: New York and
London, 2003.
Noujaim, Jehane Control Room. Documentary. 2004
Oifi , Mohammed El. Influence without Power: Al Jazeera and the Arab Public Sphere; Zayani, Mohamed. The Al Jazeera Phenomenon Critical Perspectives on New Arab
Media. Paradigm Publishers: Boulder. 2005.
Hila Raz
4/22/08
COURSE: Mass-Media Globalization
Middle East Media: A Hybrid of East and West?
Comparative Media Systems: Haaretz. Al Jazeera. CNN
Abstract:
This research presents a comparative content analysis of the US and Middle Eastern online news outlets: CNN, Haaretz and Al Jazeera and their framing of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict. The study assesses the relationship between the particular media systems and the political landscape in which they formed to conclude how ties between government and media effect reporting. Furthermore, how does the nature of a particular media system influence its supposed “objectivity” in regards to the Middle East Conflict? By picking media outlets considered to have polarized agendas concerning the conflict, specifically Haaretz and Al Jazeera, the comparison to CNN will give a more diversified perspective of the conflict. As all the outlets have high readership and prominent influence, I will explore the viewpoints they present. Where along the spectrum of Neo-Liberal, Democratic Corporatist, and Polarized pluralists do CNN, Haaretz and Al Jazeera fall? Does political parallelism or stronger partisan affiliation result in limited viewpoint on the Israel-Palestinian conflict or does it frame the issue with a more critical and objective lens? In assessing the three different Media Systems where does the notion of journalistic autonomy and pluralism come in? How does the relationship between media and state influence the reporting? Even though all three media outlets are not parallel mediums in origin, their sphere of influence both nationally and on the international front in reporting around the clock coverage of the Middle East, made them relevant media systems to compare. The media outlets share the commonality of delivering widely circulated Internet news coverage on the conflict all with English translation despite some being printed initially in a different language.
With todays growing reliance on the Internet it comes as no surprise that online news is in a sky rocketing developmental phase. As print media revenues continue to suffer, more and more newspapers are heading online to reach out to a broader audience, the lines even being blurred between print media and broadcast media, evident by CNN and Al Jazeera. With heavy international circulation and few limitations to access of Internet news, I found it relevant to compare the online sources.
Middle East Conflict Coverage in the US, Israel and the Arab World.
CNN: Cable News Network, a major American news television network founded in 1980 by Ted Turner, introduced the idea of 24-hour television news coverage Rating as America’s number one cable news source, CNN has also expanded globally through CNN international, now servicing more than 1.5 billion people in over 212 countries and territories. The particular area of focus for the content analysis sampled news articles from the news website CNN.com, which started initially in 1995 as an experiment and has grown into one of the most popular news websites in the world. Although CNN remains a distant second in international news coverage it makes extensive use of affiliated reporters who are often not credited in online articles, but deliver a more immediate, less detached style of coverage. Though some criticisms portray CNN as having a “liberal” or “anti-American” bias, interestingly enough much criticism that stems from Middle Eastern nations accuses CNN of reporting news from a “pro-American perspective.” However, (Benson + Hallin) suggest that “In US by contrast the legal tradition of the first amendment supremacy strongly limits such forms of regulation” (29) The liberal classification of the American Media system as an unbiased media outlet supports that “since middle of 19th century American Journalism has been more information and fact oriented (B+H, 29). Juxtaposing CNN online coverage of the Middle East conflict beside Middle East sources can reveal biases, testing that “pro-American” criticism fully.
Al Jazeera meaning the “Island” is also a satellite television network based in Qatar, which was founded in 1996 with a $150 million grant from the Emir of Qatar: Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa. . It is widely believed internationally that inhabitants of the Arab world are given limited information by their governments because of the authoritarian political structure of the regimes and that furthermore, the media often convey biases in line with governmental views. Interestingly, many people in the Middle East consider Al Jazeera a more trustworthy source of news information than government and foreign channels because it relies on “contextual objectivity” for its controversial news approach, highlighting the tension between objectivity and audience appeal. Al- Jazeera was the first time Arabs realized “it was possible to have an Arab institution they could respect.” Prior to its arrival many Middle Eastern citizens were limited to state-censored TV stations and it is now believed to be the most popular Arab media outlet. Al Jazeera introduced a level of freedom of speech on television that was previously unheard of in many middle eastern Arab countries, by presenting controversial views regarding the governments of many Persian gulf states by broadcasting dissenting news. However, critics accuse Al Jazeera of using sensationalism to increase audience share despite its supposed objectivity, hence this content analysis will test the extent of it being a politicized press.
Haaretz in Hebrew literally translates into “the land” referring to the Land of Israel or “Eretz Israel”. It was chosen as the representative media outlet of Israel because despite some other Israeli newspapers considered more popular, it is considered to have influence greater than its circulation numbers because of its following amongst the Israeli Intelligentsia. The other two most distributed newspapers in Israel are daily tabloid newspapers. Maariv (translation the evening) only circulates in Hebrew and Yedi’ot Aharonot (translation latest news) provides the viewpoint of secular centrist and moderate left-wingers. Haaretz readership includes Israel’s middle and upper classes, academics, professionals, and the government. Being Israeli I was interested in critically analyzing a media text considered the most “leftist” newspaper in the country, which often stirs controversy. The positioning of the newspaper may suggest an Israeli bias, yet anti-Israel commentators and lobbyists often quote it, putting forth diversified viewpoints with harsh criticisms. Even though its circulation doesn’t come close to CNN and Al Jazeera, Haaretz is known to present viewpoints highly referenced internationally by various partisan affiliations linked to both sides reporting the conflict, therefore making it the most applicable media outlet. Founded in 1918 by the Schocken Family, Haaretz is Israel’s oldest Daily newspaper written in Berliner format. Similarly to CNN and Al Jazeera, Haaretz expanded to online circulation, with a core readership of 65,000 with the Hebrew edition and another 15,000 subscribed to the English edition. The articles are more analytical and considered more influential among government leaders, interestingly President Shimon Peres exclusively blogs for the newspaper.
Hypotheses:
1. H1: “it is a common assumption in liberal model theory that state intervention in the media markets is likely to have a censoring or inhibiting effects on the news” (B+H, p. 30). Considering the media systems from a binary model perspective comparing state intervention versus no state intervention would categorize the media systems based on either libertarian or authoritarian nature of the political landscape in the respective countries. The democratic political nature of the U.S and Israel with no state intervention in the media and the existence of a capitalistic system and free market would categorize them “Liberal” and therefore more critical because of supposed heightened journalistic autonomy and moderate pluralism offering very “information oriented journalism” (H+M p.73). Whereas Al Jazeera, founded with close ties to Qatari government, suggesting a somewhat Polarized pluralist model would result in ME media coverage to be more censored or less critical of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict than US and Israeli coverage.
2. H2: The nature of relationships between these three media systems and their respective government would suggest that the nature of political autonomy would parallel journalistic autonomy. This doesn’t support a binary state versus no state intervention model but rather a spectrum in the relationship between media systems and political landscape. Starting with the US where the “Liberal” media system and the democratic government both value freedoms. The Democratic Political landscape of Israel rooted in a free market yet elements of socialist policy like Kibbutzim, universal health care, and the mandatory military draft to place Haaretz somewhere in the middle as a Democratic Corporatist model. Haaretz’s deep involvement in country politics and influence from intellectual elite viewpoints grounds it in the middle of the 3 media systems. I would expect limited journalistic autonomy in Al Jazeera as a result of the influences from the authoritarian Qatari regime placing it close to the Polarized Pluralist Model.
3. H3: Perhaps Haaretz offers “leftist” framing of the conflict from the Israeli perspective and Al Jazeera politicizes discourse with close ties to government officials and party elites “who have been shown to have privileged access to journalists and as a result news tends to be ‘indexed’ to the elite government and party officials”(Benson and Hallin, P.30). Because of “greater state intervention and closer relations between the media and political field” perhaps either Haaretz or Al Jazeera, or both may have a stronger “indexing effect” thus in fact offering a more critical framing of the Middle East Conflict (p.30). Are both Haaretz and Al Jazeera DC models? Political instrumentalization tends to be more prevalent in the two, yet CNN results as a more objective media system with external pluralism offering a wide range of viewpoints.
4. H4: The roots of Al Jazeera came from the BBC Arabic Service which fostered a somewhat Liberal British journalistic autonomy and professionalism, but it was one of the “few fully Arab news stations, run, staffed, and financed by Arabs and broadcast from an Arab country.” The dynamic of the media system fused with the contact of Qatari regime and authoritarian political landscape somewhat impedes the level of pluralism to one which is more external and instrumental in nature, making it a hybrid media system that frames the conflict with a more limited frame. Haaretz founded in Israel’s democracy by a private company also has a Liberal foundation. However some governmental policies with socialist tendencies, and strong government influence due to the small geographical landscape and political turmoil in the region cause the spheres of influence between media and government to often intersect. Haaretz also represents a hybrid media system but one favoring more autonomy and internal pluralism, with a wider range of viewpoints on the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Yet both media systems offer more critical reporting of the Middle East than CNN, due to elements political instrumentalism.
Methodology:
The Sample was constructed in the collecting of articles from these three media sources: CNN, Al Jazeera and Haaretz over the course of 6 weeks. The time frame included selections from the end of February-mid April (with the majority of articles from end of March/early April). The time frame extended longer than my initial projection because while collecting articles I found that “Middle East” coverage often focused on developments in Iraq and other countries with which the U.S is heavily engaged in Foreign Policy, and not solely on my specialized topic of the Israel/Palestine issue. To retrieve a large enough data pool with diverse article content to conduct my random sample, the 6-week time frame was necessary. From April 29th- I collected approximately 15 online articles for each media outlet: Al Jazeera, Haaretz, and CNN. During this time period the articles were collected from their respective websites and emailed to my project article archive titled “Global Media Project” in my gmail account.
The total 45 article sample dwindled after omitting some non-journalist articles that often cited AP, those that didn’t offer sufficient length/content, a few which became inactive article links due to the website removing their content (this happened twice with Al Jazeera articles due to the controversial topic of the article published) or some that fell out of the date range of the study, but ended up in the sample because of links and topic relevancy. The final article pool then got further filtered until I retrieved the random sample based on those guidelines. After chronologically organizing my remaining articles I conducted the random sample by picking every 3rd article for each newspaper source, ending up with 6 articles per media outlet.
My variables used to compare the media systems included: schema, tone, viewpoint, narrative style, citations, and framing of articles due to titles. (See Table 3 outlining research results) I assessed both schema and tone attempting “to measure the overall manner in which the story was reported by the journalist” (Benson and Hallin, p.31). Schema “the general lens through which politics is approached” (Benson and Hallin, p.31) fell into the general categories of policy, ideology and report. Policy focused on which policy to achieve a solution for the ME conflict often dealing with the development of peace dialogue or a 2-state solution. Ideology was rooted on fundamental values, which often “transcended particular policies” (Benson and Hallin, p.31). The final report schema was used to categorize an article that had the nature of a report, which often dealt with killings from both sides referring to violence in the Gaza territories. The next assessment dealt with tone and viewpoint attempting to capture political viewpoint of the articles, which ranged from neutral, balanced, negative, to critical. Coding for manifest or latent meaning was key and “stories were coded negative or partisan only when such negative passages clearly dominated the story” (Benson and Hallin, p. 32). The narrative or “voice” was linked with the style of the articles describing articles as fact based or opinionated, well cited, formal or informal (use of I/we/personal voice) and lastly when, where, and by whom citations appeared. The frequency, diversity of sources, and dispersion of sources some referenced and some directly quoted helped assess the viewpoint of the article as neutral or not more objectively. Also the comparison of titles of the articles, and layout helped solidify the overall characterization and framing of each media system- what is the initial first impression one receives when looking at each online news outlet?
As Amy Jasperson and Mansour O. El-Kikhia discuss in Chapter 7 of Framing Terrorism “the language of war and coverage of dissent reinforced suppression of opposition views” (Norris, 2007: 114). Does the framing of “terrorism” visible in these three media systems, of the Middle East Conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians parallel this notion? The “governance frames concern how far the news media reported either consensual support or critical dissent with political leaders” (Norris. 2007: 116) The comparative media content analysis looks into whether CNN, Al Jazeera’s and Haaretz’s Media Coverage on the Israel-Palestinian conflict suggests a governance frame focused on policy and ideology. Even when reporting seems rather neutral, there seems to still be a governance frame where national leaders are united in agreement against a perceived external threat to the country. How often does this occur in the case of Haaretz but also in Al Jazeera’s commitment to the Palestinian side where the news media coverage generates and reinforces support for the administration and its security policies?
My conclusions concerning objectivity and extent of pluralism resulted from assessing the supposed framing as “media framing is a mechanism of influence in which journalists employ a frame of interpretation in presenting an issue to the public” by actively constructing, selecting and structuring information to organize a particular reality (Norris, 2007: 113-114).
Blumerand and Gurevitch proposed in 1975 four dimensions for comparative analysis, which I strived to achieve in coding my article sample: 1. Degree of state control over mass media organization 2. Degree of mass media partisanship 3. Degree of media-political elite integration 4. The nature of legitimizing creed of media institutions (Hallin + Mancini, p.21). My findings break down the all of the criteria listed above.
Findings:
Looking into each media system I assessed strong or week media circulation and the Development of markets. CNN has incredibly high circulation #1 source in US, as does Al Jazeera second leader not far behind BBC has a major news outlet for Arab world. Haaretz within Israel doesn’t have comparable circulation, because of the small population of the country Israel in which it’s based, compared to the other two systems, but gets a lot of coverage abroad with US readership and international reference. Considering the degree and nature of state intervention in media system for Al Jazeera: “political parties in Qatar are still outlawed, as is anything that vaguely resembles one and opposition is not tolerated and there is still no real debate about how the country is run” (Hugh Miles, P. 16). A documentary I watched “Control Room” depict the Arab news media system as a much more pluralistic challenge to the authoritarian regime. Samir Khader, a senior producer of Al Jazeera, claims the network's purpose is to shake up the rigid infrastructure of Arab society, which he believes has fallen behind, culturally and technologically, because of its social intolerance to other cultures perspectives often propagandist nature of Al Jazeera” (Control Room). Paradoxically, another clip shows Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf himself accusing the television organization of transmitting American propaganda. There’s a wide controversial spectrum concerning this coverage captured in the documentary, which provided another depiction of the media outlet.
In my content analysis, my Table 3 chart correlates with the list and citations for article titles. The sampling showed Haaretz to be most well cited, balanced, neutral, and policy/report oriented. My title comparisons showed Haaretz to be often critical but with pluralistic viewpoints representing both sides and therefore providing the most balanced agenda. Out of 6 articles 2 included references to officials from the Palestinian and Israeli Side: Hamas official/ IDF sources. The titles included one “Israel Defense Sources: Hamas Wants to Maintain Gaza Quiet” (Harel. Amos, 3/25/08) and “Hamas Official: Israel refused offers for temporary cease-fire” (Khoury, Jack, 4/6/08).
Another two Haaretz articles from the sample, articles 5 and 6, had titles reporting both Israeli and Palestinian Gaza killings such as “2 Israeli civilians killed” (Azoulay, Yuval; 4/10/08) or “IDF kills 8 Palestinians” (Issacharoff, Avi; 4/12/08) in the headline. The final article had a rather critical framing in the title questioning the notion of “abusing democracy?” (Lieberman, Avigdor, 3/28/08).
For CNN the articles were extremely policy oriented often discussing hope for Peace or attempt at achieving a two-state solution, but the contributors were never provided on the page only reference to location of CNN where article was written, and sources/citations lacked specificity in the articles. Although CNN was extremely fact based and neutral, it had an underlying Israel focus and latent American bias. The coverage seemed to have an American agenda in framing of ME conflict the titles including references to American Politicians such as Cheney and Carter. Article 1 from the sample was titled: “Cheney: Israel, Palestinians must make sacrifices for Peace” (CNN.com, 3/23/08). The other, article 5: “White House urges Carter not to meet Hamas Leader” (CNN.com. 4/10/08). Interestingly enough the reports on Gaza killings also provided two articles one, confirming deaths from Palestinian Security Sources: “Child killed, family wounded in Gaza fighting” (CNN.com. 4/6/08), the other “Palestinians Kill 2 Israelis in Raid” (CNN.com. 4/9/08) gave an Israeli death account.
Al Jazeera’s titles often used sensationalized or critical diction, which set the tone for the article. Examples of such sensationalized, charged diction is visible in the title “Israel’s Holocaust against Gaza” (Amayreh, Khalid, 3/4/08) or in Scott, Frank’s “Israel: Time to Boycott, Divest and Sanction” (3/28/08). Particular diction such as “holocaust, boycott, and chaos” got categorized as extremely manifest and politicized. A lot of the articles policy based such as “Big Bang or Chaos: What’s Israel up to?” (Baroud, Ramzy, 3/18/08) were critical in nature, which can be positive as it offers great insight, necessary in terms of challenging common viewpoints, however it delivered a rather clear Anti Israel agenda, with one sided advocacy. This suggests a narrow range of pluralism in the 6 article sample capturing a rather external “strong viewpoint identity.”
The narrative voice and style of the journalists in the three media systems also greatly varied on a spectrum of formality, opinion versus fact based, first person versus omniscient unaffiliated narrator, and references or source citations which often help provide a more “balanced” or in some cases a “biased” perspective. CNN often would make references to visits of U.S officials such as Cheney Bush and Condoleezza Rice to the Middle East and offer Israeli quotes on policy, but always in a report fashion. Quotes and references were usually in format of “he said, she said” CNN got coded as neutral for 6/6 articles, however on various accounts such as “Hamas and Hamas alone is responsible for what happens in Gaza” (CNN.com, 4/6/08), “U.S Policy is that Hamas is a terrorist organization” (CNN.com, 4/10/08) or “Hezbollah is listed by Israel, the United States and several Western nations as a terrorist Organization” (CNN.com. 4/8/08) the projection of an U.S/Israel agenda was rather clear in most CNN articles. Haaretz cited a wide range of sources often elites or government officials from both sides with sources like Moussa Abu Marzouk deputy head of Hamas political Bureau referenced in, Jack Khoury’s “Hamas Official: Israel refused offers for temporary cease-fire” (Haaretz.com, 4/6/08). In only one article did Haaretz use first person narrative, the rest were all in a formal and fact based narrative style. Al Jazeera often used first person narrative with phrases such as “in my view or I think” which were completely absent in CNN reporting. 4/6 Al Jazeera articles resort to the use of I or We (see table 3). Noam Chomsky’s fully loaded article “the most wanted list” states “the terminology is accurate enough, according to Anglo-American discourse, which defines “the world” as the political class in Washington and London (and whoever happens to agree with them on specific matters” (Chomsky, 3/29/08, p.1) contesting that if “for a moment we can adopt the perspective of the world we might ask ‘which criminals are wanted the world over’” (Chomsky, 3/29/08, p.6). This exemplifies the critical nature of Al Jazeera, which probably was the most interesting content to analyze due to its inclusion of personal opinions and injection of framed interpretations. Al Jazzier articles were the longest most elaborate articles usually with the most critical statements of the government and officials- usually on the Israeli side. There was critique of: personal behavior, general ideas, policies, government performance or ethics, political strategies etc. Al Jazeera critics Israel harshly often with sensational extreme discourse such as terminology like “failed prime ministers” regarding Olmert “for his lamentable, ill-conceived, and destructible war in Lebanon” and Barak for his “stubborn inability to seize the chance of peace (Patrick, Seale, 3/26/08, p.1).
In the Haaretz article Tzipi Livni the Israeli foreign minister is quoted saying highly controversial things in Haaretz. The newspaper tagged as a “leftist” newspaper, often cited as radical allows criticizing of the government and extreme viewpoints that many national governments would not permit. First Livni “defended Israeli Defense forces’ operations against Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip as necessary for the advancement of Peace negotiations, she also expressed concern at what she termed a growing trend of de-legitimization of Israel in world public opinion” (Haaretz: Ravid, 3/25/08, p.2). It is not in most internationally circulated newspapers read by the government officials, elites, and intellectuals of society where you will find a foreign minister publicly questioning the legitimacy of a nation, especially Israel, with its fragility and controversy in the Middle East. Haaretz expressed: “only in Israel can citizens take the law into their own hands; only in Israel is lawlessness the law of the land… yet the law that exists in our law books is never noticed” (Haaretz, Lieberman, 3/28/08, P.1-2). Here you see the journalist Avigdor Liberman the chair of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party exemplifying strong partisan ties. She demands of citizens “whether Jewish, Muslim, or Christian” to remain “loyal to the state and its values as a Jewish State” (Haaretz, Lieberman, 3/28/08, P.1-2) but doesn’t advocate silencing of protest or any infringement of freedom of expression.
Conclusion:
Erwin Franklin from Jerusalem Post concluded “journalism is a enterprise in social judgment. Journalism plucks from this infinite flow those events deemed worthy of public regard, reporting them as honest witness…journalism is guardian of public trust” (Hallin and Mancini, P. 40- 41). The notion of “interpretive judgment” where “all newspapers have a character of their own, telling the story of the present as they perceive it” “autonomy matters- to preserve not neutrality, but the integrity of this process of ‘social judgment’” (Hallin and Mancini, P. 41). ” That’s where framing and agenda comes into play while assessing how each of these online media systems want to tell the story of the ME conflict?
In “Comparing Media Systems Three Models of Media and Politics,” Hallin and Mancini discuss the idea of “clause de conscience” in relation to journalistic autonomy. Their example gave “French journalists the right to compensation when the ideological line of their paper was changed by management” which has relevance to Israel. “Conscience clauses are distinctive to polarized pluralist systems where conflict over the political line of the news media is relatively sharp” Like France, Israel also has such laws (Hallin and Mancini, p.116). The discussion manages to cast doubt on notion “that political parallelism and journalistic professionalism cannot coexist” which has direct relevance to Al Jazeera and also to Israel (H+M, p.41). Al Jazeera reported with high journalistic professionalism despite being rooted in elements of political parallelism. Interestingly two of the Al Jazeera articles in my initial sample were not retrievable for viewing when I proceeded to select the articles for the random final sample; perhaps there is some control? This suggests that the filtering and perhaps “censoring” of some controversial press had to be removed as the web link to the particular articles left me with a blank Al Jazeera news page (probably conscious decision of Al Jazeera journalists, but unexpected regardless). One of them had a controversial title: “Israeli soldier accused of spying for Hezbollah” also left me empty handed. Though not directly from Al Jazeera source it sub-headlined: “HAIFA, Israel (AFP) - A career soldier in the Israeli army has been charged with high treason for allegedly spying for Lebanon's pro-Iran Hezbollah militia, a military official said on Monday.”
Contrary to a prior assumption that media and political proximity inhibits critical news coverage or perhaps results in censorship, the comparative content analysis demonstrates that more critical coverage results in Middle East Media outlets, apparent from neutral, critical, or negative partisan tones in articles from Haaretz and Al Jazeera. My results support Hypothesis 4, presenting Haaretz and Al Jazeera as hybrid models of the Liberal/Democratic Corporatist, and Polarized Pluralist models. The range of criticism, narrative construction, viewpoints, and referenced sources is far greater in both Middle Eastern Hybrid Models than in the U.S. CNN coverage of the Middle East Conflict. However in assessing the notion of objectivity, more often than not the two hybrid models offer a somewhat politicized or partisan agenda in confronting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The results convey Al Jazeera as most “biased” resulting from informal, 1st person opinionated narration, which for 3/6 articles was both negative and critical- 50% of the sample. The U.S coverage often less interesting to read, presented a rather consistently neutral framing of the conflict, or what some might coin as “more objective” Although the U.S came out 100% neutral and fact based the CNN coverage coveys a pro-Israel view in which the spectrum of pluralism still seems surprisingly external. CNN often conveying a U.S agenda and citing primarily American Politicians or Israeli officials with which the U.S government has direct ties. Al-Jazeera also conveyed an external pluralism with a strong viewpoint identity siding with Palestinian motives, often negative, or highly critical of the Israeli government and policies. Interestingly much of the Al Jazeera Schema (see Table 3) was ideologically based. Yet both the media systems of Al-Jazeera and Haaretz offer more critical reporting of the Middle East than CNN, due to elements political instrumentalism. CNN was liberal and neutral with an “U.S/Israel agenda.” The Haaretz media system is a Hybrid falling between Democratic Corporatist and Liberal models, but higher up on the triangle diagram closer to Polarized Pluralist model (H+M, p.70). Al Jazeera also results as a hybrid Middle Eastern Media system but falls closer to the democratic Corporatist and Polarized pluralist model, perhaps somewhat centered in the triangular Hallin and Mancini Media System Model.
My research results from the 18 coded articles coincide with many elements of Hallin and Mancini’s The Mediterranean or Polarized Pluralist Model, which is why Haaretz and Al Jazeera were influenced, by PP elements in the spectrum of media systems. The Mediterranean model is characterized by “an elite-oriented press with relatively small circulation and corresponding centrality of the electronic media. The press is marketed by a strong focus on political life, external pluralism, and a tradition of commentary-oriented or advocacy journalism persists more strongly. Instrumentalism of the media by the government, political parties and industrialists with political ties is common.” (H+M, p.73) Also my initial questioning in some hypotheses of journalistic autonomy in the Middle Eastern Media systems broke some Hallin and Mancini’s categorizations of Mediterranean models. They claim that the professional realm of "journalism is not as strongly differentiated from political activism and the autonomy of journalism is often limited” in Mediterranean countries “characterized by particularly explicit conflicts over the autonomy of journalists” (H+M, p.73) Though some of my finding support that notion as power and authority within news organizations has been more openly contested in PP Models, my findings disprove that autonomy of journalists was limited both in Al Jazeera and Haaretz. For Al Jazeera the state did play a large role as owner, regulator, and funder of the media, though capacity to regulate effectively is limited apparent from the harsh criticism, and injected opinions in the articles.
Perhaps however, such viewpoints make the coverage more realistic and representative of sentiments from that part of the world? Is it even possible to convey total neautrality? And is that a positive thing?
Article Sample Titles
Parallels Table 3
• http://www.haaretz.com/
1. Harel. Amos. “Israel Defense Sources: Hamas Wants to Maintain Gaza Quiet” Haaretz.com. 3/25/08
2. Ravid, Barak. ”Olmert threatens ‘Painful’ steps against Hamas, rules out truce” Haaretz.com. 3/26/08.
3. Lieberman, Avigdor. “Abusing Democracy” Haaretz.com. 3/28/08.
4. Khoury, Jack. “Hamas Official: Israel refused offers for temporary cease-fire” Haaretz.com. 4/6/08.
5. Azoulay, Yuval. “2 Israeli Civilians Killed in attack by Gaza Infiltrators” Haaretz.com. 4/10/08.
6. Issacharoff, Avi. “IDF Kills 8 Palestinians, including 2 children, in Gaza” Haaretz.com. 4/12/08.
•
• http://www.cnn.com/ (Article Sample)
1. “Cheney: Israel, Palestinians must make sacrifices for Peace” CNN.com. 3/23/08
2. “Child killed, family wounded in Gaza fighting” CNN.com. 4/6/08
3. “Israel Holds emergency drill amid attack worries” CNN.com. 4/8/08
4. “Palestinians kill 2 Israelis in raid” CNN.com. 4/9/08
5. “White House urges Carter not to meet Hamas Leader” CNN.com. 4/10/08
6. “Israeli, Palestinian leaders hold talks on Gaza” CNN.com. 4/13/08
• http://www.aljazeera.com/ (Article Sample)
1. Amayreh, Khalid. “Israel’s Holocaust Against Gaza” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 3/4/08.
2. Baroud, Ramzy. “Big Bang or Chaos: What’s Israel up to?” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 3/18/08.
3. Seale, Patrick. “A Middle East Regime Needing Change” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 3/26/08.
4. Scott, Frank. “Israel: Time to Boycott, Divest and Sanction” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 3/28/08.
5. Chomsky, Noam. “The Most Wanted List” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 3/29/08.
6. Littlewood, Stuart. “What Journalists avoid asking about Israel” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 4/07/08.
References
Primary Research
Amayreh, Khalid. “Israel’s Holocaust Against Gaza” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera
Magazine. 3/4/08.
Azoulay, Yuval. “2 Israeli Civilians Killed in attack by Gaza Infiltrators” Haaretz.com.
4/10/08.
Baroud, Ramzy. “Big Bang or Chaos: What’s Israel up to?” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera
Magazine. 3/18/08.
Chomsky, Noam. “The Most Wanted List” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera Magazine. 3/29/08.
Harel. Amos. “Israel Defense Sources: Hamas Wants to Maintain Gaza Quiet”
Haaretz.com. 3/25/08
Issacharoff, Avi. “IDF Kills 8 Palestinians, including 2 children, in Gaza” Haaretz.com.
4/12/08.
Khoury, Jack. “Hamas Official: Israel refused offers for temporary cease-fire”
Haaretz.com. 4/6/08.
Lieberman, Avigdor. “Abusing Democracy” Haaretz.com. 3/28/08.
Littlewood, Stuart. “What Journalists avoid asking about Israel” Aljazeera.com
Aljazeera Magazine. 4/07/08.
Ravid, Barak. ”Olmert threatens ‘Painful’ steps against Hamas, rules out truce”
Haaretz.com. 3/26/08.
Scott, Frank. “Israel: Time to Boycott, Divest and Sanction” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera
Magazine. 3/28/08.
Seale, Patrick. “A Middle East Regime Needing Change” Aljazeera.com Aljazeera
Magazine. 3/26/08.
“Cheney: Israel, Palestinians must make sacrifices for Peace” CNN.com. 3/23/08
“Child killed, family wounded in Gaza fighting” CNN.com. 4/6/08
“Israel Holds emergency drill amid attack worries” CNN.com. 4/8/08
“Palestinians kill 2 Israelis in raid” CNN.com. CNN.com. 4/9/08
“White House urges Carter not to meet Hamas Leader” CNN.com. 4/10/08
“Israeli, Palestinian leaders hold talks on Gaza” CNN.com. 4/13/08
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera
Secondary Research
Benson, Rodney and Hallin, Daniel C. How States, Markets, and Globalization Shape the
News: The French and U.S National Press 1965-97. European Journal of
Communications. SAGE Publications: Los Angeles. 2007.
Hallin, Daniel C. and Manciini, Paulo. Comparing media systems Three Models of
Media and Politics. Cambridge University Press: 2004.
Mamdani, Mahmood. Good Muslim Bad Muslim. America The Cold War. And the Roots
of Terror. Three Leaves Press. USA. 2004
Miles, Hugh Al-Jazeera. Grove Press: New York, 2005.
Norris, Pippa. M Kern, M Just Eds. Framing terrorism. Rowledge: New York and
London, 2003.
Noujaim, Jehane Control Room. Documentary. 2004
Oifi , Mohammed El. Influence without Power: Al Jazeera and the Arab Public Sphere; Zayani, Mohamed. The Al Jazeera Phenomenon Critical Perspectives on New Arab
Media. Paradigm Publishers: Boulder. 2005.
LINK TV is INCREDIBLE
after exploring further the coverage of this website and links really are pretty incredible
http://www.linktv.org/silence (click above) to see a music video that was created by link tv for amnesty international titled: "The Price of Silence"
http://www.linktv.org/silence (click above) to see a music video that was created by link tv for amnesty international titled: "The Price of Silence"
Here's the description for the video-
Created in 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) set forth the basic rights of every human being, yet 60 years later in places the world over, violence, poverty and oppression hold sway.
To commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the UDHR, and to remind the world that violations of Human Rights are unacceptable anywhere, at any time, Link TV has produced a video, "The Price of Silence" for Amnesty International.
Set in the United Nations, the artists appear on the stage of the General Assembly, flanked by huge screens whose images reflect the lyrics, or project performances from foreign locations. Starting with just Stephen Marley, the performance grows until a full band occupies the stage, singing and rapping, and the delegates are out of their chairs, cheering and dancing.
"The Price of Silence" is a true labor of love, the result of generous donations of time and talent on both sides of the camera. The song is based on "Cancion Protesta" which was donated by Aterciopelados and Nacional Records, produced by Andres Levin through Music Has No Enemies, and performed by an all star cast of international artists who have added their own lyrics. All of them are human rights activists and several are refugees. The video was directed by Joshua Atesh Litle, and although everyone looks like they are performing at the U.N., in fact all the artists and delegates were composited in through the visual effects wizardry of The Syndicate in L.A., Phoenix Editorial | Designs in San Francisco, and a team of NY-based artists.
Renowned Arab Scholars
In continuing to feed my curiosity in this newly exposed realm of Arab Media, i have also taken interest in further exploring Arab scholars.
In reading about some of the authors of the articles we read over the coursee of the semester i stumbled upon the father of Lila-Abu-Lughod, who used to teach at NYU, and married a world renowned politics professor and theorist formerly at NYU- Timothy mitchell. Interestingly the two professors now teach at columbia, but i wiki-ed her father and found this interesting biography and article.
http://www.jerusalemquarterly.org/details.php?cat=1&id=113
(you can access the link by clicking the title of the post)
In reading about some of the authors of the articles we read over the coursee of the semester i stumbled upon the father of Lila-Abu-Lughod, who used to teach at NYU, and married a world renowned politics professor and theorist formerly at NYU- Timothy mitchell. Interestingly the two professors now teach at columbia, but i wiki-ed her father and found this interesting biography and article.
Ibrahim Abu-Lughod (Arabic: إبراهيم أبو لغد, February 15, 1929 — May 23, 2001) was a Palestinian (later American) academic, characterised by Edward Said as "Palestine's foremost academic and intellectual"[1] and by Rashid Khalidi as one of the first Arab-American scholars to have a really serious effect on the way the Middle East is portrayed in political science and in America". [2] His student Deborah J. Gerner wrote that he "took on the challenge of interpreting U.S. politics and society for the Palestinian community as well as eloquently articulating Palestinian aspirations to the rest of the world."[3]
He passed away in 2001 but returned to jaffa a coastal city adjacent to Tel Aviv before his passing to live in his childhood homeland, and this article was written for the jerusalem quarterly about her father.http://www.jerusalemquarterly.org/details.php?cat=1&id=113
(you can access the link by clicking the title of the post)
Monday, December 8, 2008
Arab Television Landscape Report
The Arab Television Landscape & U.S Involvement Report
Department of M.C.C
By Hila Raz
December 2009
Department of M.C.C
By Hila Raz
December 2009
Abstract
The content of this report provides an overview of the contemporary Arab Television landscape, secondly analyzes the relationship between the U.S and Arab Media and finally projects how U.S involvement should evolve concerning media presence in the Middle East. Focusing on both news media and entertainment programmatic trends in various key media producing Arab countries will reveal what forces led to the development of the transnational Arab media. The structural and historical evolution of some of the primary Arab media outlets resulted from shifts in ownership, government/state control, competitors, commercialism, foreign involvement and the role of advertising, however most significantly changed after the 1990’s emergence of satellite technology. Arab Programming often tagged as “anti-western” propaganda has led to unfounded U.S involvement in the Arab Media landscape. The establishment of American Media outlets solely broadcasted in the Middle East to instill “American Sentiments” must be challenged. In the current globailized world of transnational satellite programming the U.S ought to limit its involvement in the Arab television landscape to entertainment programming. The future relationship of the U.S in the Arab Media Landscape ought to diminish media its imperialism attempting to combat “Anti-American Propaganda.”
Table of Contents
I. Arab Television Industry (Structural & Historical Evolution)……... p.4-7
Introduction to Arab Networks
Ownership & Competition
Media Landscape Evolution
II. Programmatic Trends (cause/effect)……………………………………. p.7-9
Arab Entertainment Programs
U.S programmatic influence
External Forces: Liberalization & Globalization
III. U.S Involvement and Relationship with Arab Television………… p.9-11
Context of U.S Involvement
Purpose of U.S Media Presence: Counter Anti-Western sentiments
IV. The Future Landscape of Arab Media……………………………….. p.11-13
Development of U.S and Arab media relations
Arab Media Evolution Projection
V. Bibliography……………………………………………………………. p.14-15
Arab Television Industry
Up until the 1950’s-60’s the media landscape throughout the entire Middle East region was managed and profited by the colonizing powers. The advent of all Middle East television and Radio networks later introduced by those colonial powers fostered a shift from public broadcasting to national ownership. That shift from public to national control took place in 1948 in Israel, 1952 in Egypt, and throughout the 1950’s-70’s to the rest of the region. According to the renowned media scholar Andrew Hammond: “it would be no exaggeration to say that the model for media as a weapon for state control in the Arab world was established by the Egyptians.” Egypt quickly became the transnational Arab media source creating and exporting the most programmatic content throughout the Arab World. However the significant shift in the landscape of the Arab Television Industry occurred in during the 1990’s with the emergence of satellite technology. Prior to the satellite breakthrough Arab government monopolies operated and controlled the media outlets completely relying on national unity, political control, and the banning of private groups. Media monopolies dictated the landscape by 1954 in Morocco, 1956 in Iraq, and in additional countries such as Algeria and Lebanon.
The control was maintained using two power systems: one included the strict- control model where there was no criticism of the government policy where the state-owned media served as a mouthpiece to deliver the governments political platform; or the latter was a loyalist model where the media outlets were loyal to the monarchies and favored but not owned. Countries such as Morocco, Tunisia, Kuwait, and Qatar adopted the loyalist system while Israel and Lebanon served as the Middle East region exceptions, embracing the free media market. The four media systems adopted by countries in this region cover the entire spectrum of government-media-audience dynamics conveying the levels of journalistic autonomy, state-control, and media ownership. The four systems are: Nationalized: government controlled, funded, and filtered (ex. Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Algeria) Loyalist: independent but corresponds with government agenda (ex. UAE, Qatar, Oman) Diverse: free from government involvement, competitive open market (Kuwait, Morocco, Yemen + Israel, Lebanon) Transitional: undetermined fusion of government involvement and private control (Egypt).
The transnationalisation of the media landscape created divergence in broadcasting formats: between public service formats of top-down control, rooted in overtly political, ideological neutrality, and non-commercial incentives. The public service aims to educate the masses (such as the BBC) to commercial networks such as the (U.S Media Market) focused on commercial gains, entertainment, and presentation of a spectrum of perspectives. In 1991 MBC: the Middle East Broadcasting Center, currently a private Dubai operated network, started in London as the first satellite, free-to-air multi-channel media group of its kind in the Arab world. MBC 1 took to the airwaves during the Gulf War in 1991 with the first-ever independent pan-Arab news. Over the past 15 years, MBC added five TV and two radio channels, a drama series and hit reality TV shows, with a strong commitment to local programming it continues to serve as the number one family viewing option in the region Middle East coverage. Other Arab nations quickly followed suit which the establishment of their own networks such as: Al Manar- meaning the “lighthouse,” founded in 1991 as Hezbollah’s resistance media network based in Lebanon.
Interestingly, The forces of deregulation and liberalization in the West have led to the transformation of broadcasting form mainly a cultural to an economic activity in the last few decades. Though in many Arab Nations the Media is still state regulated to some extent the process of ‘setting the media free’ has transformed broadcasting institutions based on notions of public service into ones concerned with commercial or quasi-commercial objectives. One would assume the arrival of commercialization would increase profits, but Al Jazeera interestingly unlike some other Arab networks makes very little in profits as a result of not being supported by the Saudi Arabian government. Also it has “cut the umbilical cord to state funding in some regards.
The satellite revolution of the 1990’s led by Saudis, Qataris, and the Lebanese infringed upon Egypt as the transnational Arab media hegemony. As the media infrastructure of the Arab world shifted in the 1990’s with the introduction of satellite media networks, governments formerly controlling their national media coverage were suddenly challenged by borderless transmission. The first Arab satellite TV network to challenge the realm of individual Arab governments was Al-Jazeera, the first leading, 24 hour, Arabic-language news network delivering fair local coverage with exposure to the often underrepresented Arab perspective in global media of the Middle East. It was during the historical moment in which the United States invaded Afghanistan, in 2001, that the mapping of truly transnational Arab Media landscape commenced.
This transition in Arab Television, which began in 1996 with the establishment of the Al Jazeera headquarters based in Doha, Qatar, changed the Middle Eastern Media Landscape forever. It can be argued that for the first time since the early 1970’s Al Jazeera managed to unite Arabs behind a single issue. With the Middle East population over 300 million, the majority of which is young and living in very strict societies ruled by governments who whish to stay in power and maintain control at any cost, it seems that with its launching, al Jazeera managed to target a previously untapped audience. Although half of the Middle East population is illiterate, filled with dreams of liberation and basic freedoms the network provides an interstate representation of civil rights and liberties.
Despite its leading ratings, being a global competitor to CNN many Arab governments have been highly critical of the media outlet blaming that its coverage of the Palestinian uprising “threatened the stability of their regimes and exposed them to criticism by their own people.” Ironically, Egypt and Jordan have been more critical of al Jazeera than has Israel, which could theoretically ban al Jazeera correspondents from operating freely within its borders if it believed it helps incite Palestinians to riot. Today more than 350 channels exist, “free to air” on satellite television in the Arab world with no subscription necessary. Although many networks are deemed sensationalist or polarized, perhaps by western media critics, they aim to provide an authentic local perspective. Following Al Jazeera’s footsteps other stations surfaced, in 1996 the LBC: Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation founded initially in 1985 went Global, generating most popular Lebanese programs and then in 2003 Press TV emerged, an Iranian Tehran based station generating what was often tagged as oppositional anti-American sentiment surfaced.
Programmatic Trends
As Negrine and S. Papathanassopoulos discuss in The Internationalisation of Television: a “key indicator of internationalization is the degree of commonality of television programs across frontiers- the more programs are shared and exchanged the more television fare of different countries begins to look alike.” Post 1990’s the abundance and diversity of Arab Media Programs has spiked dramatically in addition to higher foreign programmatic imports. Lila Abu-Lughod exploration of Egyptian serials exemplifies one popular realm of Arab programmatic production and its effects. Her demonstration exemplifies how the serials produce a national community in Egypt. Because the television in Egypt is state-controlled, as is the case with many other Arab media outlets, Lila assesses how the entertainment in Egypt provided to these large audiences that cross boundaries of class, gender, and region, articulates with national politics, policies, and cultural identities. In studies of media in the non-Western world alarms are often sounded about cultural imperialism in the domination of national culture and production by international imports, usually from the U.S. and Britain. But Egypt, much like India, Brazil, and Mexico, produces and even exports a healthy amount of film and television programming of its own. She demonstrates that within Egypt, local productions are often more popular and widely viewed than imported films and television serials, which are subtitled and there- fore largely inaccessible to the non-literate population. Her analysis of the internal politics of these national productions alongside who controls these messages and who is excluded in the serials reveals a lot about Egyptian and Arab culture. While these Ramadan serials can range in topic and setting, the mini series air exclusively during the holy month of Ramadan, when most Muslim families spend the day fasting and the evening watching television with their families. These shows “account for nearly a quarter of the years advertising revenues, the equivalent of American sweeps weeks combined with the Super Bowl,” demonstrating how strong a presence the media and commerce are making in the Muslim world.
Another example of a program in the programmatic sphere of the Arab media landscape includes the hit show ‘Star Academy.’ Marwan M. Kraidy’s research on the Star Academy, a programme launched by LBCI in December 2003, which quickly became the most controversial show in the history of Arab satellite television, depicts the pan-Arab media event as a platform for political discourse. Kraidy considers connections between the entertainment industry and politics and further narrows the case study to show links between reality TV and politics. The show thus became political as it “articulated an alternative view of public participation in the public process” and recognizably was a local format adaptation. However despite the dramatic growth in the Arab Media landscape with programmes like Star Academy, some may still be inclined to apply the “media imperialism thesis” to the Middle East. Countries such as the USA dominate both national and international media structures and contents whereby they impose their cultures, values, and ideologies on the receiving nations. Some tag this as a process of domination that is intentional or part of a ‘conspiracy’ whereas some describe it as an imbalance of trade, dealing with imports and exports often with the west and ‘developing countries’ but the programmatic media development in the Arab region proves how its development. There are all these false notions of a supposed-backwards Arab world- when really most major leading Arab Nations are media producing nations, which have fully embraced modernity. The constant development and expansion of local Arab programs resulting in increased ratings, such as the case with these Ramadan Serials, proves that the Arab World wants and relates to its own cultural content. This notion is only further supported by Berlusconi’s view ‘that equal quality domestic product will always triumph over foreign product.’ With that in mind the assessment of U.S involvement and future relationship with the Arab Media Landscape is more than necessary.
U.S Involvement and Relationship with Arab Television
Despite pluralistic representations in the Arab media and what many consider to be programmatic expression of modernity, the new public sphere created by the Arab Media has stirred much controversy, especially concerning U.S relations. Al Hurrah operated by The Middle East Television Network, Inc., a non-profit corporation funded by the U.S. Congress through the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) airs in 22 Arab nations via satellites. Its programming is reportedly often met with skepticism, being thought of as American propaganda although the Lebanese director, Muafac Harb, maintains that one of the missions of his network is to deliver accurate and balanced coverage. Anne Marie Baylouny discusses Al-Hurrah: “The U.S. station accused of preaching, condescension, and cultural inappropriateness. Its name, the “free one,” assumes the traditional U.S. stance of representing the better society but contradicts its actual journalistic nature” Another news media network that has stirred much skepticism has been Al Arabiya, a Dubai based station, widely popular in the Arab world, that isn’t owned or regulated by the U.S but rather harshly criticized. Al-Arabiya has been regularly critiqued by the U.S. government for its news coverage of Iraq, which allegedly incites violence against the U.S coalition there. After broadcasting footage of masked men inciting attacks against Iraqi Governing Council members as well as U.S. interests in Iraq, Al-Arabiya was banned several times. Their Baghdad office was shut down and their equipment seized following the airing of an audiotape that claimed to be the voice of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein calling on the Iraqi people to resist the U.S.- led forces. Though its coverage is sometimes viewed as provocative, founder Walid al Ibrahim, who reportedly views the work of the station as a step toward advancing the Arab World and freeing it from dictatorship and repression, promised that their coverage would be objective and accurate. The BBC reported, "Across the Arab world, Al-Arabiya probably has about 20 million viewers, as compared to Al-Jazeera's 35 million."
R.S Zaharna discusses how on the surface footage is very different, however below the surface the American networks and Al Jazeera appear to share the same philosophy and approach, covering the story from a local angle and the audience’s perspective. Hence you see, Americans focusing on the Military goals, weaponry and troops, whereas al Jazeera assesses Iraq from the personal up-close perspective, where many viewers have family members living in Iraq (Zaharna, p.199) . Here we see to perspectives from opposite sides of the reporting spectrum providing to differing local angles. It is rather significant to note that Al-Jazeera English is censored in the United States, resulting from fears that it should be banned because Osama Bin Laden was using it for secret encoding or so-called terrorist goals. Donald Rumsfeld even went so far as to call it “the mouthpiece of terrorism.” In the revolutionary documentary Control Room, created in 2003 about the Iraq War, the highly critical documentary of U.S incentives conveyed that American sentiments or approach should not be: “Democratize or I’ll shoot you” or “bombing people into submission” (Control Room, 2003). The U.S involvement in the future landscape of the Arab Media has to be thoroughly revised.
The Future Landscape of Arab Media
Mark Yudof put the role of the government well- “what seems as first blush a paradox or antinomy… may really be a question of balance” acquiring the balance between government power and media influence. The role of the media will have a lasting effect on the development of the relationship of these two international spheres of influence. What may at first appear to be mutual incompatibility between the Arab World and the West, can be mediated by the media and overcome. Is it true as Hussein Amin, a communications professor from the American University in Cairo suggests: “that in the new world of television, censorship basically does not exist?” . One sociology professor disagreed claiming that the new freedom is “contrived at best” with “one step forward and two steps back” but with censorship only some of the “red lines are gone.” In the coming years will new Arab media outlets that arise be able to challenge Al-Jazeera’s credibility, audience size, and financial resources? As of right now no Arab Satellite TV network other than al Jazeera has ever attempted to present Arab views, opinions, and beliefs with such “vigor and legitimacy” even Al-Arabiya still lagging behind short of 15 million viewers. Perhaps as more Arab satellite channels and entertainment outlets spring up, while Al-Jazeera continues to develop its massive media enterprise, the polarizing notions of the “anti-Islam” U.S and the “anti-American” Arab world will fade. There exists a flourishing possibility that the evolution of Middle Eastern Media sphere will dissipate the perceived antinomy of the Arab world and modernization.
As progressive media centers such as Al-Jazeera and media networks like it continue to dominate news content in the Arab World and in the transnational media landscape, Arab television has a long road ahead. By offering unique coverage and transmitting news content across oceans, further dispelling stereotypical perceptions, U.S involvement in the Arab media production will perhaps be even more so less accepted and eventually terminated (as Al-Hurrah ratings are already alarmingly low). David Chambers for Middle Eastern Times OP-ED expressed: “Expect also to see Al-Hurrah TV drop from its average 1 percent rating to 0 percent” being state-sponsored channel of “retro-style propaganda.” He advised the U.S. Government to "pull the plug" on al-Hurrah, hoping it will recognize …”Democracy should mean first and foremost open access to information” (David Chambers). Despite some lash back from individuals highly critical of its “Arab agenda” the Arab Media will become more widely circulated in the international sphere in the coming decade. Will the U.S using “soft power” truly sway Muslim world public opinion? For news media content probably not. They don’t fall for “Americanized propaganda” they read right through it. But in terms of entertainment media- with all of the U.S sought after programming, there’s a good chance the demand for U.S Programme formats will only increase in the Arab media landscape.
Amahl Bishara, an assistant professor of anthropology at Tufts University, recently spent two years in the West Bank studying media, and observed that MBC2, which carries American movies, was particularly popular “ (Amahl Bishara). There’s an acute understanding of the difference between the U.S. government and the American people,” she said. “And they look at U.S. entertainment as just that, entertainment.” It appears that demand for American-produced television shows is stronger than it has ever been as American culture is blossoming even in the Middle East despite polls consistently showing starkly negative views of the United States. Viacom started MTV Arabia last fall and introduced Nickelodeon Arabia in July on satellite services — endeavors that entail lessons in cultural sensitivity. Much of America’s programming is beamed to Middle Eastern audiences from two satellite channels, MBC2 and MBC4, airing American shows such as ABC sitcom “8 Simple Rules,” “Inside Edition” and the Oprah Winfrey show. The increasing Arab audience proves there’s more than enough demand for American entertainment programs. That is where America should get involved in Arab Television- predominantly in the entertainment sphere not with disseminating political agenda (though some do argue entertainment is fused with some subliminal political sway). The U.S must stop perpetuating this Arab propaganda and Islamic terrorism message to the West, so that the Arab World and the West finally overcome the “media terrorism relationship.”
Bibliography
Lila Abu-Lughod. ‘Finding a Place for Islam: Egyptian Television Serials and the
National Interest.’ Public Culture 5(3): 1993. P. 493-513.
Tim Arango. World Falls for American Media, Even as It Sours on America. New York
Times: Nov. 30th, 2008. Retrieved December 2, 2008 from
Al-Arabiya TV. “Pan-Arab TV talk show discusses media-terrorism
relationship” BBC Monitoring Middle East. BBC Worldwide Monitoring. Dubai: June 3, 2008. Retrieved December 1, 2008. Lexis-Nexis.
BBC Monitoring Middle East. March 13, 2008 “Al- Arabiya talk show views role of BBC
Arabic TV, Western, Arabic media.” BBC Worldwide Monitoring: Retrieved December 1, 2008. Lexis-Nexis.
BBC Monitoring Middle East. February 27, 2008 “Qatar's Al-Jazeera TV
holds seminar on Arab Media Charter.” BBC Worldwide Monitoring: Retrieved December 1, 2008. Lexis-Nexis.
Anne Marie Baylouny. Alhurra, the Free One: Assessing U.S. Satellite Television in the
Middle East. . Strategic Insights, Volume IV, Issue 11: November 2005. Retrieved December 3, 2008 from
David Chambers. Op-Ed: BBC Arabic TV. Middle East Times. Newsworld
Communications Inc. Dec 7th.2008.
Andrew Hammond. Popular Culture in the Arab World. 2007. Chapter 7 & 11. 2007.
Mahmoud Mamdani. Good Muslim Bad Muslim. America The Cold War. And the Roots
of Terror. Three Leaves Press. USA. 2004
Mohammed El- Nawawy and Adel Iskandar. Al-Jazeera, How the Free Arab News
Network Scooped the World and Changed the Middle East. Westview Press: 2002.
R. Negrine and S. Papatanassopoulos. The Internationalisation of Television. Pinter
Publishers: London. 1990.
Jehane Noujaim. Control Room. Documentary. 2004
Lawrence Pintak. Reflections in a Bloodshot Lens: America, Islam, and the War of Ideas.
2006.
Monroe E. Price. Television, The Public Sphere, and National Identity. Oxford University
Press: 1995.
William A. Rugh. Arab Mass Media: Newspaper, Radio and Television in Arab Politics.
2004.
Naomi Sakr. Arab Television Today. I. B. Tauris & CO, London: 2007.
Naomi Sakr, Ed. Arab Media and Political Renewal: Community, Legitimacy and Public
Life: 2006. p.44-55. [Kraidy, Marwan 2007. ‘Idioms of Contention: Star Academy in Lebanon and Kuwait’]
Jack G. Shaheen. The TV Arab. Bowling Green State University Popular Press: Ohio:
1984.
Helga Tawil-Souri. Arab Television In-Class Lecture. Islam, Media & The
West, New York University. November 3, 2008.
Helga Tawil-Souri. Arab Television In-Class Lecture. Islam, Media & The
West, New York University. November 5, 2008.
Mohamed Zayani. Al Jazeera Phenomenon: Critical Perspectives on a New Arab Media.
2005.
References
Link TV.org Mosaic: http://www.linktv.org/whoweare
MBC: http://www.mbc.net/about-mbc-en/
Al-Ahram: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/index.htm
Al-Manar: http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/Programs.aspx?language=en
Press-TV: http://www.presstv.ir/aboutus.aspx
LBC: http://www.lbcgroup.tv/LBC/Templates/AboutUs.aspx
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Sami Yusuf and the Idan Raichel Project
Our discussions of Sami Yusef and others alike led me to draw parallels to artists doing similar things in Israel (during this entire course, seeing i come from an Israeli background i have found myself juxtaposing both cultures, and drawing endless parallels). idan Raichel like Sami Yusef is trying to bridge universal divides and create more diverse music. Click on the post title to get taken to the WIKI site giving background about the Idan Raichel Project. An israeli band comprised of a diverse group of members, some ethiopian, who have created a truly revolutionary musical sound and message in Israel
Here are links to Idan Raichel's You tube clips of my favorite songs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KBmw_y3Wl0 (titled "mimamakim"- the depths)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnGHZM-Yclw&feature=related (titled: "habayta"- home)
Here are links to Idan Raichel's You tube clips of my favorite songs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KBmw_y3Wl0 (titled "mimamakim"- the depths)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnGHZM-Yclw&feature=related (titled: "habayta"- home)
Where does Media Now Stand?
During my research for my paper i fell upon this website: Live Arabic TV: talfazat.com that linkd to many of the top Arab channels (click on this post title and it will take you to the link: http://www.talfazat.com/en/live-tv/). Some of the channels included are: MBC 1, Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera channel, and others from Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon etc. sadly To access the actual channel you have to pay between 15-20$ , but there were listed so many additional channels i'd never heard of prior that i then went to look up on you tube.
I also decided to revisit Mosiac TV which we looked at in class.
http://www.linktv.org/mosaic/about
I also decided to revisit Mosiac TV which we looked at in class.
http://www.linktv.org/mosaic/about
Mumbai: atrocities
Coming home for thanksgiving I was not expecting to hear of a new terrorist attack the eve upon my arrival in Boston, while sitting at the Dinner table. Why can’t the world just stop the unnecessary killing and hate and live in peace for once?
Seeing constant updates on casualty counts increasing and death counts climbing while reading such articles "India Faces Reckoning as Terror Toll Eclipses 170" immediately takes me to flashbacks of hearing about Israeli suicide bombing attacks- i'm sure for others who come from regions of turmoil the response can be the same.
The fact that such a small group of individuals were able to inflict so much damage, killing so many innocent civilians is frightening and angering.
Click on the post title to get taken to this NY Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/world/asia/30mumbai.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Seeing constant updates on casualty counts increasing and death counts climbing while reading such articles "India Faces Reckoning as Terror Toll Eclipses 170" immediately takes me to flashbacks of hearing about Israeli suicide bombing attacks- i'm sure for others who come from regions of turmoil the response can be the same.
The fact that such a small group of individuals were able to inflict so much damage, killing so many innocent civilians is frightening and angering.
Click on the post title to get taken to this NY Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/world/asia/30mumbai.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
“Noodle” An Israeli Film
Sitting at home with my parents over thanksgiving break, the volume blaring in the basement as we sat around the television to watch this “ immigrant story” with the subtitles on, so my friend Katherine could understand the Israeli movie “noodle.” The Film recently won best film in Israel and in the Montreal film festival in 2007 and I couldn’t help but analyze the film without voices from our class discussions coming to mind. The film tells the story of a Chinese family that like many immigrant families from Asia which come to Israel to find work (often they are philippino) end up working as house-cleaners and helpers often assisting with elderly grandparents that live at home. The specific story here dives into the life of Miri a women who was widowed by the lost of 2 husbands who served in he IDF and has a women who come to her house to clean and often brings her little son Noodle along. One day the mother leaves the son, promising to return shortly, until it is revealed she was deported back to Beijing living the six year old boy with this widowed Israeli flight attendant living at home with her divorced sister. The plot unfolds to trace the relationship that forms between the two sisters and this Chinese boy, and their determination to unite him with his mother. The only trouble is that illegal immigrants are unaccounted for, and this child has no citizenship-neither in Israel nor in china.
Brilliantly directed, the film traces their daily lives over the course of a few months, trying to communicate with this boy, who in many regards fully embodies a stereotypical image of “the orient” and is treated as the other, unreachable and not understood in this Israeli society. Yet somehow, they manage to communicate as they slowly learn each other’s languages (the Israeli sisters and the boy) and embrace the universal non-verbal forms of communication, becoming fully invested in the mission of getting him “home”
But is “home” for Noodle in china where his mother was deported? Or is home in Israel where he was born and raised his entire life, though he speaks not a word of Hebrew? This torn identity reminded me of some of the books we read earlier in the semester and is definitely something that immigrants and refugees all over the world some coming from the Arab Countries have to deal with.
At first I was rather astounded by the film, extremely sarcastic in tone, it began depicting this boy slurping Chinese noodles, in what I found to be a rather stereotypical manner. Yet as i continued to observe, remaining open-minded and taking an analytical approach (the class theories streaming through my consciousness, some of which i blurted out to share with the other viewers- only to be told that my academic lens has incapsulated all i do, which i guess is a positive thing) i realized that despite some rather limited representations, the movie was striving to send a universal message of accpetance and anti-clash notions.
I loved it, my parents liked it a lot, and both of my friends, neither of whom speaks Hebrew- enjoyed it thoroughly- I definitely recommend it. I found myself relating it to the many discussions we had (My rating: ****) i would be curious to hear what fellow ILA Arab Media students would have to say in reaction to the film.
Brilliantly directed, the film traces their daily lives over the course of a few months, trying to communicate with this boy, who in many regards fully embodies a stereotypical image of “the orient” and is treated as the other, unreachable and not understood in this Israeli society. Yet somehow, they manage to communicate as they slowly learn each other’s languages (the Israeli sisters and the boy) and embrace the universal non-verbal forms of communication, becoming fully invested in the mission of getting him “home”
But is “home” for Noodle in china where his mother was deported? Or is home in Israel where he was born and raised his entire life, though he speaks not a word of Hebrew? This torn identity reminded me of some of the books we read earlier in the semester and is definitely something that immigrants and refugees all over the world some coming from the Arab Countries have to deal with.
At first I was rather astounded by the film, extremely sarcastic in tone, it began depicting this boy slurping Chinese noodles, in what I found to be a rather stereotypical manner. Yet as i continued to observe, remaining open-minded and taking an analytical approach (the class theories streaming through my consciousness, some of which i blurted out to share with the other viewers- only to be told that my academic lens has incapsulated all i do, which i guess is a positive thing) i realized that despite some rather limited representations, the movie was striving to send a universal message of accpetance and anti-clash notions.
I loved it, my parents liked it a lot, and both of my friends, neither of whom speaks Hebrew- enjoyed it thoroughly- I definitely recommend it. I found myself relating it to the many discussions we had (My rating: ****) i would be curious to hear what fellow ILA Arab Media students would have to say in reaction to the film.
Yemenite Jahnun
Saturday Nov 29th:
On the Saturday of break, I went to have a Classic Yemenite Brunch – Jahnun a slowly baked delicious dough served with freshly made tomato sauce, alongside fresh salad, and hard boiled eggs, at one of my best friends Sarai’s house, who’s mother Tami is of Yemenite decent and immigrated to Israel at a very young age. After coming to the U.S she maintained her Yemenite cooking/baking traditions religiously. Every week the aroma of freshly baked pitas made at 4am the night before Friday dinner where classic Yemenite chicken soup prepared with cumin (a native middle-eastern spice native to Syria, which gives it its rather strong mustard-like color) or the smell of the Jahnun baking over night into the wee hours of Saturday morning is a guarantee.
Since going off to our respective universities it has become a tradition that I join their Brunch sitting tightly packed around a table full of delicious foods ready to dive in usually accompanied by at least another 5 guests. The best part of these meals aside from the food is the discussions that always surface. This visit Naama, another guest, shared she had gone on a program while at School that brought a group of American Students to the Palestinian Territories- I knew a political or rather serious conversation would unravel at the table. She proceeded to describe the horrific conditions they witnessed and terror she felt while there (forced to keep her dual Israeli identity a secret) especially when she was stopped by Palestinian Patrollers who looked at their passports and
Sarai’s mother who is a perfusionist also revealed that earlier in her career she and a group of doctors and medical experts went on a trip to the Palestinian territories sponsored by healthcare NGO aimed at improving medical assistance and hospital conditions, which are truly atrocious in those areas. As the conversation progressed she recapped an incredible story of coming to Minnesota where her husband was from when she first moved to the U.S and meeting and befriending a couple from Saudi Arabia at her university. She described the fear of knowing they hated Israelis, as they openly discussed it sometimes around her husband in their home, but she always kept it a secret and kept her home open to them. Over the course of a few years she explained that they came to be each others closest friends in Minnesota, the truth of her Yemenite origins and Israeli upbringing was kept a complete secret (she told them she had been born and raised in the states). But I sat there listening and wondered was that secrecy truly necessary? Would they not have befriended Tami and her American husband had the truth been revealed? Perhaps, but perhaps not, what does it say about our society then, and perhaps where we’ve gotten to now? Not that racism doesn’t still exist in today’s modern American society. As we have learned Arabs are often marginalized or stereotypically depicted especially as a result of 9/11, however my experience at NYU is that I’ve never met a students of various backgrounds (ethnic, religious, or racial) that didn’t feel comfortable expressing themselves as they are, and where they came from.
But perhaps back then in Minnesota in the early 80’s things were different- who knows. Yet the rest of her story revealed that their friendship continued for many years as they came over to their house a couple times a week regularly, and eventually she revealed her real identity and despite initial anger the connection was maintained. Her fear perhaps stemmed out of the fact that immigrants to Israel of Yemenite, Moroccan, or other darker skinned descendants often were treated (and at times still are) treated as second-class citizens or the “other” in Israel. She said by connecting on a human level, sharing the joys and hardships of daily life experiences, they became extremely close- through the universal links of humanity (which we discussed early on in the semester) and thus were able to truly get to know one another- stripped from prejudices. The conversation dove right into not only topics of Middle Eastern tension, but discussions of the other and how people seen as foreign are treated in different societies. Other Yemenite Friends who were also present
Although Jahnun is extremely difficult to prepare, I am attaching a traditional recipe and urge you to find a good middle eastern restaurant that serves it or attempt to make it as I did (I helped her mother one morning to fold and prepare the dough and in the aftermath of preparations my efforts were sadly called sabotage )
On the Saturday of break, I went to have a Classic Yemenite Brunch – Jahnun a slowly baked delicious dough served with freshly made tomato sauce, alongside fresh salad, and hard boiled eggs, at one of my best friends Sarai’s house, who’s mother Tami is of Yemenite decent and immigrated to Israel at a very young age. After coming to the U.S she maintained her Yemenite cooking/baking traditions religiously. Every week the aroma of freshly baked pitas made at 4am the night before Friday dinner where classic Yemenite chicken soup prepared with cumin (a native middle-eastern spice native to Syria, which gives it its rather strong mustard-like color) or the smell of the Jahnun baking over night into the wee hours of Saturday morning is a guarantee.
Since going off to our respective universities it has become a tradition that I join their Brunch sitting tightly packed around a table full of delicious foods ready to dive in usually accompanied by at least another 5 guests. The best part of these meals aside from the food is the discussions that always surface. This visit Naama, another guest, shared she had gone on a program while at School that brought a group of American Students to the Palestinian Territories- I knew a political or rather serious conversation would unravel at the table. She proceeded to describe the horrific conditions they witnessed and terror she felt while there (forced to keep her dual Israeli identity a secret) especially when she was stopped by Palestinian Patrollers who looked at their passports and
Sarai’s mother who is a perfusionist also revealed that earlier in her career she and a group of doctors and medical experts went on a trip to the Palestinian territories sponsored by healthcare NGO aimed at improving medical assistance and hospital conditions, which are truly atrocious in those areas. As the conversation progressed she recapped an incredible story of coming to Minnesota where her husband was from when she first moved to the U.S and meeting and befriending a couple from Saudi Arabia at her university. She described the fear of knowing they hated Israelis, as they openly discussed it sometimes around her husband in their home, but she always kept it a secret and kept her home open to them. Over the course of a few years she explained that they came to be each others closest friends in Minnesota, the truth of her Yemenite origins and Israeli upbringing was kept a complete secret (she told them she had been born and raised in the states). But I sat there listening and wondered was that secrecy truly necessary? Would they not have befriended Tami and her American husband had the truth been revealed? Perhaps, but perhaps not, what does it say about our society then, and perhaps where we’ve gotten to now? Not that racism doesn’t still exist in today’s modern American society. As we have learned Arabs are often marginalized or stereotypically depicted especially as a result of 9/11, however my experience at NYU is that I’ve never met a students of various backgrounds (ethnic, religious, or racial) that didn’t feel comfortable expressing themselves as they are, and where they came from.
But perhaps back then in Minnesota in the early 80’s things were different- who knows. Yet the rest of her story revealed that their friendship continued for many years as they came over to their house a couple times a week regularly, and eventually she revealed her real identity and despite initial anger the connection was maintained. Her fear perhaps stemmed out of the fact that immigrants to Israel of Yemenite, Moroccan, or other darker skinned descendants often were treated (and at times still are) treated as second-class citizens or the “other” in Israel. She said by connecting on a human level, sharing the joys and hardships of daily life experiences, they became extremely close- through the universal links of humanity (which we discussed early on in the semester) and thus were able to truly get to know one another- stripped from prejudices. The conversation dove right into not only topics of Middle Eastern tension, but discussions of the other and how people seen as foreign are treated in different societies. Other Yemenite Friends who were also present
Although Jahnun is extremely difficult to prepare, I am attaching a traditional recipe and urge you to find a good middle eastern restaurant that serves it or attempt to make it as I did (I helped her mother one morning to fold and prepare the dough and in the aftermath of preparations my efforts were sadly called sabotage )
THANKSGIVING BREAK
During my thanksgiving break at home, I recapped different discussions and observations I made while with family and friends. They remained typed but not blogged but were finally summarized on my train ride back to Manhattan.
Most of these next posts show the dates over break when these occurred.
Most of these next posts show the dates over break when these occurred.
The Modern & Western Divide? An Illusory construct
Prior to enrolling in this class I considered myself rather cultured, worldly, open-minded. Most people don’t brand themselves as racist or prejudice, but every individual inhabits preconceived notions some which perhaps brand. My perception of the Arab world or a typical Arab village hit me hard, when we had the architecture specialist come in to talk about Dubai development. He asked the class early on what first came to our mind when we hear “Arab village.” I along with others, but to my surprise, immediately conjured an image in my head of a dirt road, perhaps including an outdoor market place, and undeveloped- definitely a far cry from a leading metropolis. But of course there are many in the Arab world. I grew up in an extremely liberal inclusive community and have traveled quite a bit over the last few years to eastern and western Europe while studying abroad. Even when I was younger, exposed to cultural differences I took international politics of the Middle East last semester to expose myself to the history of the middle east region and understand more of Israel’s context in relation to its neighboring countries. I have always been a proponent and advocate of a two state solution- which I truly hope that perhaps will result in the coming 50 years or century- only so long as people from both sides want it.
Yet until sitting in this course and forcing myself to analyze my perceptions and knowledge of the Arab world i have reversed and challenged preconceived notions that i didn't know i had. Do Modernity and a Western lifestyle have to co-exist interdependently? why is it that much of the world or perhaps the western world perceives the West as the developed and the Rest as lagging (our centrist perceptions)? it's not that the solely the West has thriving cities and other regions don'tt but the real descrepencncy results because of societal perceptions, self-interests, and economic goals inhibiting equal world development. Perhaps those interferences serving as the force inhibiting perception and full development The Arab World or any region such as Africa. The course proved that the Arab World can embrace modernity and continue to live as it wishes- proving that the divide does have to me the modern west and the rest. modernity isn't owned by the west- it has been claimed and ought to be embraced by many more.
Yet until sitting in this course and forcing myself to analyze my perceptions and knowledge of the Arab world i have reversed and challenged preconceived notions that i didn't know i had. Do Modernity and a Western lifestyle have to co-exist interdependently? why is it that much of the world or perhaps the western world perceives the West as the developed and the Rest as lagging (our centrist perceptions)? it's not that the solely the West has thriving cities and other regions don'tt but the real descrepencncy results because of societal perceptions, self-interests, and economic goals inhibiting equal world development. Perhaps those interferences serving as the force inhibiting perception and full development The Arab World or any region such as Africa. The course proved that the Arab World can embrace modernity and continue to live as it wishes- proving that the divide does have to me the modern west and the rest. modernity isn't owned by the west- it has been claimed and ought to be embraced by many more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)