The Branjelina Industry

I read this The Guardian artcile a few months ago and I found it quite interesting. Although it does not go further in the discussion, it worths taking a few minutes to read it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jun/24/magazines-media-aniston-jolie-pitt

Framing a Global Crisis: An Analysis of the Coverage of the Latest Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Al-Jazeera and CNN

This paper analyses the media coverage of the latest conflict between Israel and Palestine which took place between the 27th of December 2008 until the 18th of January 2009[1]. It was chosen as it is a war generally widely reported by the media around the world and therefore it can be quite useful in the discussion of global crisis reporting which is what this paper intend to engage. The main question this study proposes to answer is regarding the global aspect of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Which elements seen in media reports and in historical and economical relations make Palestine a global crisis? In addition to that, this paper also does a framing analysis on the discourse used by two (considered) opposite channels, the CNN and the English version of Al-Jazeera, during the coverage of the conflict in order to complement and support the points of view expressed.

Firstly, the paper focus on to the discussion about the role of the media in a globalised world, drawing from literature on the determinants of international news coverage in an attempt to examine the myths surrounding media globalisation [2] as well as its main characteristics. The work of Kai Hafez (2007), who analysed the myths, Thomas J. Johnson and Shahira Fahmy’s (2008) study on Al-Jazeera, as well as Divya C. McMillan’s (2007) and Jean K. Chalaby’s (2006) discussions about hybridization are the main points examined in this part and are directly related to the case of the media coverage of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Once understood the discussions surrounding media globalisation, the second part of this paper tries thus to answer the main question by examining what makes a crisis global and hence what is global about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Simon Cottle’s global crisis reporting (2009) analysis is the main source used along with Guy J. Golan’s (2008) examination of newsworthiness and examples taken from the framing analyses to complement and reinforce the arguments proposed.

Lastly, the paper exposes the findings of the framing analyses carried out during the 23 days of the conflict. It thoroughly compared the discourse and elements (image edition, interviews selection, issues framed, etc) utilised as well as the extent of the coverage by the American channel CNN and the English-language version of the Arab network Al-Jazeera. Other networks such as BBC, Euronews and Deutsche Welle were also analysed though in a more quantitative way so that it could be better understood the extent of the attention paid for this particular conflict.

[1]On the last days of 2008, Israel started a series of military attacks in the Gaza Strip that only had an ended 23 days later with both sides declaring unilateral cease-fires and Israel removing its troops. During the conflict, more than one thousand Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed and thousands of Gazans had to flee their homes and were left with no running water and buildings were badly damaged. According to Israelis authorities, the offensive began to stop Hamas throwing rockets into their territory and the smuggling of weapons through the tunnels between Palestine and Egypt. Palestinian authorities as well as the international community condemned such act and in September 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) published a report in which accused both Israel and Palestine of committing war crimes.
[2] Globalisation has been used by many scholars with different backgrounds to describe a certain phenomenon that has been happening to mankind In this paper, we use the term to refer to the increase of interconnectivity and interdependence that not only the media producers have been facing, but also the very media consumer, mainly on television which is our focus.

See the whole article:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AW_d0_v0zsNBZGhodnE5Nm1fNGR3cjhjNWN3&hl=en

Aliens and Framing

Like cinema, news also uses narratives to represent reality. Although many journalists claim that they only report a certain fact impartially, many researches revealed that the news are in fact constructed. By selecting the issue to be covered and deciding the form the story will be constructed, journalist are already framing and not only objectively reporting.

Framing thus can be done in relation to its content and to its form. When choosing what to cover and how to cover a certain issue, journalists are automatically influenced by their own experiences, racial, sexual and gender orientation as well as geographic and generational identities. The form this issue is going to be covered is exemplified by Marguerite Moritz. “The prominence given to that coverage in terms of headline size or minutes of airtime, as well as the choice of words, images, audio and video all plays a role in framing a story and thereby in influencing audience perceptions of content and meaning (Moritz, p.322)”.

Similarly, cinema industry also uses different forms of framing. If we watch the film Good Night, Good Luck, for instance, we will notice that the fact of being filmed in black and white, the portray of journalists as the heroes and the insertion of historical texts and archival images, are all elements of the framing work and hence contributed to the categorization of the film as a docudrama and gave some veracity to it.

Another specificity of news framing is denominating and stereotyping “aliens”, or in other words, foreigner cultures and peoples or unknown minorities and groups. These framings vary according to political and historical changes, as Marguerite Moritz has observed in her studies about the changing in the coverage of gay issues throughout the decades in the US media. In the 1980s, the gays were the “aliens” as they “(...) were typically framed as outside the mainstream, formulated routinely as the discursive other (Moritz, p.322). Initially, the reports portrayed gays as “sick, pervert and criminal” and only after several civil rights movements and the formation of many associations, the US media started to discuss other issues, even though not broadly, such as gay marriage and child adoption.

Other example of aliens is the US media and government framing of their enemies that have gone from the communists during the Cold War to the Arabs of the “War on Terror”. Films have also changed the nationality of their aliens throughout the years. While analysing the stereotyping of Arabs, Debra Merskin points out the role of Hollywood in vilification and uses Basinger (Lyman,2001,p.81) quotation to illustrate this. “We’ve had the IRA as villains, we’ve had the international drug dealers, we’ve had the Arabs, and we’ve had vague Asians who weren’t quite sure what country they were from (Merskin, p.164)”.

Furthermore, if we analyse most of the examples of news framing cited above we will notice that they will be most influential in shaping the audience’s perception of the world when the “alien” or the issue in question is unknown. Debra Merskin exemplifies the case of the Arab “aliens”, which there is a historical combination of (mis)information that has worked to construct an enemy image in the popular imagination. This can be similarly seen in Good Night, Good Luck’s portrayal of the communism paranoid by American society. Framing, thus, help us understand how journalists and films display values and judgments in the products they create.

As consequences of framing, voices may not be heard and some crisis and conflicts may be simply ignored by the media, like Darfur and Congo war, as well as some stories may be reported partially according to economical and political interests. Furthermore, it may cause hatred and xenophobism in a territory and may leave the world more troubled as it already is.

What is terrorism? Some thoughts on the subject...

Saint Augustine once told the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. "How dare you molest the sea?", asked the great Greek Emperor. "How dare you molest the whole world?", replied the pirate and he went on. "Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you doing it with a great navy are called an emperor". This story illustrates perfectly how the concept of terrorism has been used (mainly) by western governments.

They use this term to label atrocities that target the west. September 11th, London Bombings and more recently Mumbai shootings (although India is not a western country, it is inserted in the economic and geopolitical dynamic) are just few examples of how the term has been used. However, if we stop and think, what is the real concept of terrorism? Are they just violence acts towards the west?

There is a definition argued by many authors as the most appropriated. It is ironicaly in the British law in the Prevention of Terrorism Act and it says "Terrorism means the use of violence for political ends and includes ANY use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear". So would it not be terrorism what the USA has been doing in Iraq, Israel has been doing in Palestine and what England did in Northern Ireland? Similarly, all these countries used violence for political (and economical) ends and left population in a constant state of fear.

Hence, in this case it can be concluded that labelling something as a terrorism act is intimately connected to questions of power and inlfuence. Certainly, if a powerful nation such as the USA says someone is a terrorist it will hold a bigger weight than if the member of a Palestinian community says that Israeli Government is commiting terrorism. Saint Augustine has certainly anticipated the concept of terrorism. Pity the powerful nations always forget to use it properly.

Palestine is not that far from Ireland

Thats the photo of one of the murals in Northern Ireland which depicts

solidarity with the Palestinian cause.

Palestine and Ireland have more things in common than most people presume. Unfortunately, the media portrays the conflict in Palestine as something distant from us (western countries), caused only by the hatred and intolerance between two communities. Not long ago, the troubles in Northern Ireland also received this “treatment” by the media. As a result, this superficial coverage leads to misinformation and misjudgements instead of contributing to social conscience and changes, which are considered one of the media’s major roles. Thankfully, there are some alternative means of communication, such as the murals and more recently the internet blogs, that give voice to those ignored (or censored) by the traditional media (radio, TV and press) and provide different points of view.

Furthermore, I would like to recommend two documentaries that I believe were able to follow the principles of true journalism, due to their in-depth criticism, balance and willingness for social changes. They are called Occupation 101 and The Iron Wall. With strong images, interviewees from both sides and astonishing statistics, both films provide a better understanding of the conflict and after watching them, it gets easier to recognise the links with Northern Ireland’s troubles. Both conflicts are deeply related to an unfair occupation; therefore they are more political than religious. They deny the oppressed citizens the most basic human rights, such as freedom of movement and speech. Moreover, these citizens are confined to ghettos and refugee camps with no access to good education, health and no infra-structure. Gaza is Northern Ireland’s working class neighbourhood, but in a poorer and “walled” situation.

The conflicts in Northern Ireland and Palestine have “terrorist” groups, such as Hamas and IRA, but isn’t it also terrorism what the soldiers did (and have been doing) to the citizens? The grand author Noam Chomsky uses a Saint Augustine’s story to metaphorically exemplify the way the term terrorism has been (mis)used. One pirate is captured by Alexander the Great who asks “How dare you molest the sea?” and the pirate simply replies “How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with only a little ship I am called a thief; you doing it with a great navy are called an emperor”. In other words, western countries along with Israel have been using the term “terrorism” to label their enemies, instead of recognising that what they are doing is also terrorism, if it can be defined as the use of violence for political ends, putting a section of the public in fear.

In both wars, thousands of houses were demolished, homes broken and families torn apart by both sides. Palestinian and Israeli and Catholics and Protestants. These are just a few links. I hope they will be enough to show that Palestine is not that far way.

PS: There are some Irish activists fighting for the Palestine cause. They regularly organise protests, boycotts and meetings. These are two websites where you can find out more about their work:

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) - http://www.ipsc.ie/index.php

Free Gaza Movement - http://freegaza.org/

Occupation 101: You just can’t imagine unless you see it...at least

“Why did they break everything? Come and look at my clothes... smell them. It’s gas! What can I do? I didn’t even enjoy the sunglasses that my dad gave me (...) How am I supposed to enjoy all of my belongings? How? Enjoy my things with what?” This is just one of a few astonishing words you will hear from the people from Palestine while watching Occupation 101. It was said by a little girl not older than five, looking straight to the camera while showing the reporter her burnt house.

I was given this documentary while going back home from work by an activist protesting on the main street of Galway, Ireland. As I told the man I was a journalist he asked me to tell the world what I was due to watch. Very sceptical, I went home and began watching it. What could have been a sensationalist – due to its strong images – and biased film, turned out to be one of the most revealing documentaries about the situation in Palestine. For a moment, I found myself quite naive as my previous knowledge was based on superficial media reports.

Now I can surely say that I am more aware about the real situation in the country and willing to do what I was told by him: share what I have seen, unfortunately, from my comfortable living-room. So, while you and I are not able to go there and see with our own eyes, I would like to share some thoughts and raise some questionings. I will try to do what all journalists in the world should be doing: opening someone’s eyes about the troublesome world we live in and try to help the people in Palestine somehow. I will raise some reflections, leaving behind personal judgments and picking sides. Exactly as it was done in the documentary.

Living in a Prison
The film begins with images of many conflicts spread around the globe. It shows the similarities between Africa, Northern Ireland and Palestine. All are drown into refugee camps, hatred and apartheid. The film criticises the media for portraying the conflict in Palestine as something genuinely cultural when, actually, it is more political than we think. It shows not only houses being demolished, but also homes being broken, as well as dreams and hope. It explains the roots of the conflict and what has been in fact done away from the media’s sight.

The first question the film tries to answer is the meaning of the word occupation. It is, the film concludes, the fact of being under military rule. The situation there is very simple to sum up in theory: Israel (along with its international “partners”) chose Palestine region to set a country where all Jew could finally live together under their laws and costumes. For this, they began demolishing Palestinian houses and build settlement for the families, so Israeli could have more land to build their so dreamt country. By doing this, Israel could assure more control for itself as many Palestinians would be forced to leave the country. In practise, it has not been that simple, on the contrary, it has been bloody and bitter.

The second question I was about to make myself was rapidly answered by the film: Why Palestine? Before answering this question, the film demystifies some exhausted conceptions about the region. One of them says that Palestine, mainly Jerusalem, is a place of continuous struggles between Jews, Catholics and Arabs. It is true that centuries ago, during the Crusades there were many clashes between these three religions. However, it is also true that before the Israeli came to set its nation, Palestinian Catholics and Arabs used to live in harmony. The first clashes began in the 1920’s, when lands were taken from Palestine and given to European Jews and many Palestinian were massacred. After the Second World War, European countries, headed by England, took to the United Nations the issue about creating Israel by dividing Palestine. It did not take too long and in 1948 Israel was created under the “blessing” of the UN and instability was brought to the region.

This is the moment that the documentary could have taken only the Palestinian side and ignore what the Jew went through during the Second World War. The film goes on hearing not only Palestinian, American and European Specialists about the conflict, but also Jews who believe that they had the right to have their own land, but recognise that the way it has been done is absurdly wrong. Many Jews activists have been fighting for the Palestine cause, not against as we (the public) tend to believe. That is definitely the view I share with both documentary and interviewees.

Why then?
So, answering to the question Why Palestine?, the film comes up with some explanations. Firstly, it shows that it was chosen by a minority due to the belief of Jerusalem as the Promise Land for the Jewish religion. But for the vast majority, Palestine was chosen because of the house and loans that were given in the beginning of the XX century to the Jews. What many people do not know is that the occupation in Palestine is illegal according to the Genebra Agreement.

Uncle Sam’s big aid
According to Richard Falk, Professor of International Law at Princeton, Israel receives as much foreign economic assistance as all the countries combined in the world. From 1949 to 1996, the US alone donated 62.5bi to the country. The documentary goes on showing some astonishing statistics:
- Israel has approximately 5.8mi people, which means that $10,775 is spent per person, while America and Africa together have around 1.05bi, which means only $59 of aid per person;
- Of the total aid the US gives annually, Israel alone receives one third;
- In March 2003, the US government approved $10bi in aid for Israel. At the same time, it withheld a $3,5bi grant to upgrade the training of First Responders, those who would be the first to respond to a terrorist attack.
- Spent domestically that $10bi could buy health care coverage or pay for nearly 1,5mi American children to attend “Headstart” child development programs to help to prepare them for school. Or simply help States offset the costs of one the worst fiscal crises.
- From 1949 to 2006, the US aid to Israel amounted to $108bi. Today it is in the region of $2.5bi per year; in other words, around $7mi per day;
- From September 2000 to February 2007, more than four thousand Palestinians were killed by Israeli, while around one thousand Israeli where killed by Palestinian;
- 935 children were killed in the conflict during these years; 816 Palestinians against 119 Israeli;
- Israel is currently the most extensive violator of UN Security Council Resolutions. The US has used its Veto power more than forty times in the UN to defend Israeli violations of international law.
One thing that comes straight to mind when facing such statistics is the reason behind the US generosity towards Israel. The answer is more obvious than it seems: because Israel is the perfect ally to assure control and influence in a quite troublesome region. As a result, it is not mere coincidence the fact that Israel is now the fifth largest nuclear power and the second country with largest fleet, only behind the US. Now things seem to make sense, don’t they?

Life goes on
While Israel grows as one of the main powers in the world, life goes on in what is left for the Palestinian. Freedom of movement as well as access to health and education is denied to them on a daily basis. According to World Bank Estimates, unemployment is now reaching 53% of the population and 75% of Palestinian live in poverty with less than $2 a day. They used to work in Israel region, but without freedom of movement, they were left with no choice but to leave their jobs as they were due to be arrested by bored soldiers for no reason. The children are no longer willing to live as they are tired of being demoralised and seeing their parents being beaten. The little girl of the beginning of the article is the portrait of this reality; she deso not feel like playing with their few toys in a house smelling gas. The young do not have easy access to University as they are concerned about Student Visas and check points. As one Palestinian girl, who also went to University in the US, recalls: “ I felt completely different. While in the US they would be worried about making friends, here I am worried about crossing the border to attend my class”.

The Refugee Camps continue a reality in Palestine. It houses more than 4.2mi people. Gaza, one of the most portrayed by the media, was built to open space for Israeli settlers. In 2005, Israel announced that was leaving Gaza and it was welcomed by the media and international leaders as an unprecedented sacrifice in the name of the peace, when, in fact, the country was only CUMPRINDO International Laws. They left the town, but not the borders, controlling the departures and arrivals of every citizen of the devastated poor city. Definitely, living in a prison is a mere euphemism for the Palestinians of Gaza.“Could you live here? You couldn’t because the conditions here are horrible and you’d be terrified whenever the missiles strike and the walls begin to crack”, says a boy not older than 13, looking straight to the camera.

What about the Israeli people? They indeed live a completely different life. However, to my surprise, I could realise while watching the final statements that they, in general, are unaware of the real situation on the other side of the fence, although the number of Israeli activists supporting Palestine have been increasing considerably. The film also says that many Israeli soldiers are beginning to refuse serving the occupation forces. Maybe something is really changing in the region.

There must be someone somewhere... in the Media
Facing the facts above, why did the media choose not to report the struggle of Palestinian to live a fair life to the ordinary audience? Because it is too busy reporting superficially about Suicide Bombers instead of showing the policy of home demolitions.

I confess I was looking forward to hearing what the documentary would say about the Suicide Bombers. It is a very delicate subject and I found quite wise to leave it to the end of the film. That was the last piece of the jigsaw I needed to fix so that I could rely on 100% of what I had been told by the documentary so far. If they tried to justify and defend the attacks, I thought to myself, by only saying that they are the occupation’s fault, it would be quite disappointing not to feel completely confident about what I have just learnt. Fortunately, once again my point of view about the issue was once again shared between the filmmakers and the interviewees.

A report that examined the background of 87 suicide attacks concluded that “suicide bombers often experience personal trauma related to the Israeli forces prior to their volunteering such as the death of injury of a family member. Indeed, nobody likes to be under someone’s occupation and the whole world needs to see what has been done there, but these Bombers have chosen the wrong way to voice these protests.

Just like the Jews had the right to have their own land but chose the wrong medium of doing it, the Suicide Bombers had the reason to fight against occupation but ended up opting for the wrong way. In the end of the day, everyone is right and wrong at the same time. If this is the final message of the film, then I strongly recommend it. I do hope it is.

PS: This film can be found on Youtube.com