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.