Contested Truths -
A monopoly of voice?
By:
Johannes Wahlström
1.
Introduction
As we
proceed into the new millennium we are bombarded with a constantly
growing flow of information. Some even go so far as calling this the age
of information. Let us for a moment postulate an equal sign between
knowledge and information, where the flow of information and its control
subsequently becomes the single most important aspect of democracy (as
it presupposes an informed population). Modern man does not get most of
his knowledge about his surroundings and the world he lives in through
empiricism, but he does so through other channels, most often through
second (3rd, 4th…) hand information. More and more
we have to rely upon other people and institutions on telling us what
and why things are occurring, subsequently pre-digesting a large part of
our knowledge.
The
largest transmitter of information in our days is the mass media. Here a
fraction of a percent of the (western) world population decides what the
rest of the world is to know (and not to know). Most news media
legitimate themselves and their presentations through a claim of
objectivity. But can unadulterated objectivity exist at all? Here an
eyebrow is raised, as there seems to be at least a possibility that
things are not the way they ought to be. If this seemingly alarming
premonition is enough for a further examination, I urge my fellow reader
to consider the following questions; Does mass media portray the world
we live in following certain discourses, and in that case what do they
consist of? What affects the general line of portrayal in different
contexts? Are people influenced by what is said in the media? How? It
would hereby be of value to consider the relationship between the Media,
the people, and power in search for interrelationships.
As a
point of departure in clarifying the media situation, this paper will
focus on the conflict in the Middle East. Foremost there will be a
comparative examination on how various media (newspapers and
television-news) in Sweden, Israel and the US portray the situation, to
see if a pattern of positioning can be seen. The analysis will further
try to point at the relationship between media portrayal and public
opinion (i.e. with help of polls). Finally this paper will explore any
disparity of political decisions with the public and media.
2.
Media Studies -A Historical Perspective
As
people started communicating media took its first shape. With technical
and social evolution the medium has constantly changed its face and
form. From oral, to written, proceeding to printed and airborne
(electronic), media’s purpose has been for the transmitter to bestow a
knowledge/information/view upon the receiver. In accordance with Jan
Sjökvist, oral communication and oral media limited the size of a group
due to the extensions of face-to-face interactions (Sjökvist 1991:101).
The transmitter(s) of information (usually the chief or elderly) had to
have direct contact with the people in order for the group to have a
common conception of reality. As society evolved, written language made
it possible for ”explicit cultural legitimisation” (ibid. 1991:102),
thus ensuing a centralisation of responsibility and power (i.e. through
religion) where the social systems control the cultural ones. Modern
society, with its use of printing, further developed distribution of
information on a larger scale, fostering uniformity and synchronisation
of the people with an creation of national identities (Anderson
1996:48). The revolutionary change in distribution of information
between oral and modern society was not only in the form and spread of
information. As the distance between speaker (transmitter) and listener
(receiver) increased so did its ”egalitarian relationship” (see Olsen
1987:145-152) which makes it possible to engage in a genuine discussion.
The
paradigms in media studies have changed numerous times during the past
century. In the beginning of the 20th century the meta-theory
of the effect of media was that of immense influence and strength.
Social scientist supposed that if the content of media was violent,
people would be affected in a violent way (Strömbäck 2000:64). This
perception lost ground as a series of test on the Vietnam war (ibid.)
seemed to prove that media only transmitted information and could not
change peoples opinions. Later studies have altered the meta-theory in
the sense that the influence of media has grown. Media not only
influenced people through what they said but also by its medium. They
postulated a pacifying effect on the receivers that changed their entire
cognitive capacity, and in accordance with McLuhan altered the ratio
among the senses, changing their mental processes when the information
was interiorised and habitualised (McLuhan 1964:43). The development of
this new paradigm was not only due to a change of view but also due to
the fact that media itself evolved and became of greater importance in
people’s lives.
Later
anthropological and sociological studies on media (i.e. Dornfeld 1998,
Hannerz 1998) have focused on how the people behind media create their
information as well as how it is transmitted, including the dimension of
the people ”behind the news”. These studies have shown how journalists,
reporters, researchers etc. become integrated into the social structure
which they (re)produce.
3. The
Middle East -A Case Study
If our
obscure interest in war is a fetish or merely an obvious care for
humanity is a question without a simple answer. What can be said is that
news reporting, in order to reach certain reader/viewer/listener quotas
have been resorted to a degree of sensationalism (see i.e. Haslam and
Bryman 1994:190), where ”tasty” action has received a disproportionate
amount of attention. Why some conflicts receive more attention than
others can only be connected to the degree it interest us, being how
close the situation is to our heart. This is of course a very circular
answer, but will be treated with greater analytical attention further
on.
3.1
Background
The
Middle East conflict has been one of those conflicts that has received
great attention in the western world. Politicians all over the world
have taken sides, and people (in the west) have more opinions about this
conflict than many others, where for example Americans see the region as
being the only one in the world where American interest and involvement
are of ”vital importance” (Gallup poll: http://www.gallup.com//poll/indicators/indmideast.asp).
Further on it is interesting to point out that different countries have
taken different sides in the conflict since 1948 and earlier. People
have had varying opinions based on where in the world they live, and
what cultural, ethnic and national identity they have. The question is
how, and foremost why?
In the
Zionist state of Israel the ”free” media coverage of the crisis between
the state and the Palestinians tends as well as its people (in
accordance with democracy) to be rather defending of the state actions
as shall be seen in the following text. The ”Arab World”, as could be
seen in massive demonstrations across the Middle East and Northern
Africa, strictly support the Palestinians. American coverage and its
people tend to support Israel (Gallup poll: http://www.gallup.com//poll/releases/pr001016.asp).
Whereas Sweden, with its long history of neutrality has tended to lay
its support on the Palestinian side, with for example Prime-minister
Palme. I must before proceeding point out that the aim of this study is
not to prove what is the objective truth (if there is at all such a
thing) or who is right or wrong. I intend on the contrary to show how
different truths contest against each other and are assimilated by the
people.
In the
comparison between media coverage of the Middle East conflict, with a
focus on America, Israel and Sweden, there at first glance seems to be a
missing denominator; namely Palestinian or ”Arab” media. Since we live
in the Western world, we have to abide by it’s standards, with public
discourse and general opinions. It seems to be so that we (in the West)
tend to have a strong prejudice against the ”Arab World”, as well as its
media. If I in this study would have made a comparison between Israeli
and Palestinian media coverage and found a clear difference in the
portrayal of the conflict, it would be easy to, in accordance with
modern discourse, discard the Palestinian perspective as propaganda and
lies spread by Muslim fundamentalists. It is exactly this bias that
makes this study relevant, as a disparity within the ”Western democratic
World” can be so profound as shall be shown.
In the
end of September 2000, Likud party leader Ariel Sharon (also former
military commander who is claimed responsible for the slaughter of
thousands of Palestinians), accompanied by a small army of police,
marched in to one of the holiest Muslim sanctuaries in the world,
claiming its right to the Jewish people. This provocation sparked
massive riots and a beginning of the new Intifada, an uprising.
Obviously the Palestinian rebellion, resulting in a massive loss of
lives, did not merely depend upon this provocation. The
Israeli-Palestinian conflict has its roots in a history of over half a
century (some would even say millennia) and must be regarded in its full
context.
3.2
Media Portrayal
One
could say that it is obvious that media in a country at war, would
portray their own side and people as the ”good guys”, and the opposing
side as the perpetrators and ”bad guys”. The dichotomy would be, in
accordance with Strauss, necessary for upholding the nation and loyalty
of the people. So far so good. The paradox appears as mass media in
modern democracy is supposed to be objective, which is their main
legitimisation in order to sustain public confidence (Sorlin 1994:72).
As I
have already implicated Israeli press tends in general to be very
pro-Israeli, which can be seen in the following example as we compare
different coverage. On the 18th of October 2000 the Israeli
Defence Forces (I will in the following text refer to them as IDF)
reported on how a settlement on the West-Bank was charged by a mob of
150 Palestinians equipped with axes and knives (www.idf.il 18/10). Two
settlers, in self defence, fired at the ground in an attempt to scare
them away and accidentally killed one and injured five. It is
interesting to point out that the IDF is not only a military organ in
Israel, but also a social one that controls the two major public radio
stations. They are also a major source in the coverage of Israeli media.
The settlers who were arrested an hour after the shooting were suspected
of murder by the police. Ha’aretz, being the most respectable newspaper
in the country[1]
followed the military line although slightly softer and claimed the
killing of the Palestinian could have been retaliation for the
destruction of Joseph’s tomb[2].
CNN and TIME also followed the military line, the only difference being
that they reported that the Palestinians where farmers harvesting their
olives. The BBC (News 18/10) as well as DN (Dagens Nyheter) on the other
hand reported on how armed settlers attacked and murdered Palestinian
peasants who where harvesting olives (Shachar 18/10). As a parenthesis
it could be added that on the 24th of October the settlers
where released by Israeli court due to a ”lack of evidence”.
This
example is just one of many. Most often the difference between the
coverage from various press is noticed in their careful choice of words
and details, as well as what receives more attention. The second of
October Ha’aretz reported on the murder of an Israeli border guard,
Yossi Tabjeh, 27 (the description of him and his family proceeds an
entire page). The report continues on Palestinian stone throwing, where
”one of the victims of a large stone was district police chief Yair
Yitzhaki, who lost consciousness and was evacuated” (Harel 2/10). CNN
(World Report 2/10) on this day reports on injured Israeli soldiers,
while DN (Shachar 2/10) focuses on how the IDF launched helicopter
attacks on civilian Palestinians, firing anti-tank missiles (resulting
in a number of casualties). The 13th of October two Israeli soldiers
were killed in Nablus, Israeli media cabled the news as immense
headlines where the YA wrote about the ”tomb of blood” and made this
into a three page story. Also Ha’aretz and the CNN made a great deal out
of this, with statements such as; ”you cant make peace with Satan’s
children” (Ha’aretz 13/10) and ”brutal murder” (World Report 13/10). The
story was clearly mentioned in Swedish press but focused more on Israeli
”retaliatory” helicopter attacks on Nablus (Shachar 13/10; Edvardson
13/10). Are these reports even on the same conflict?
Another
example of the disparity of attention can be seen in an incident on the
9th of November when the Israeli Ha’aretz (Arbeli 9/11) and
The JP (Jerusalem Post) wrote on a ”terror murder” of a Jewish border
worker in Gaza, continuing a several page report on her life and the
monstrosity of the Palestinian attack. As a footnote both of the papers
added (on the last page) that the death toll in Gaza also included four
Palestinians. The BBC, DN, SVD (Svenska Dagbladet) and Metro retold the
order absolutely vice-versa, focusing on the death of the Palestinians.
CNN differed from the above by placing the killing of the Israeli in the
same proportion, receiving the same amount of focus as seven Palestinian
victims on the same day. On the 14th of November another
incident of killing of Israelis came to the headlines. The JP and
Ha’aretz (Harel 14/11) repeated their former line by reporting several
pages on two civilians and two soldiers killed by Palestinian
terrorists. Here again it was merely added that three Palestinians were
also killed. DN’s (Nathan Shachar) as well as (Cordelia Edvardson) SVD’s
correspondents put the killings in relation to each other adding that
the civilians where indeed settlers (having more weapons than the
Palestinians), who are perceived as the corner stone of the occupation
force. They continued with the fact that, as a result, the Israeli
military had sealed off all West Bank towns (practically imprisoning the
population). The CNN (World Report 14/11) on the other hand focused on
the Israeli casualties, but the main bias could be seen as the same
report included earlier statements from Barak and Arafat. Barak ”called
for a long-term peace with the Palestinians” while Arafat said ”that the
Palestinians would not give up their fight to evict Israeli troops from
Palestinian-held territories”. In this report it clearly seems as though
the Palestinians are indeed biting the stretched out hand of peace. It
is not odd to find that major news corporations report on more or less
the same stories, it is however interesting to see how much freedom they
have to pursue their own perspectives. In the same incident the BBC
reported on the killings, but also focused on the Israeli blockades of
Palestinian towns.
Before
proceeding I would like to point out that national media is not entirely
monotone and identical. Compared to each other Israeli newspapers can
indeed be different. As for example two articles on the 21st
of December in The JP and Ha’aretz, where even the headings reveal the
differing positions of the papers. The JP heading was as follows: 4
Palestinians die in Gaza clashes; Israeli stabbed near capital (Dudkevitch
21/12), and Ha’aretz: Four Palestinians killed in Gaza Strip shootings (Harel
21/12). Further, Ha’aretz reveals that two of the killed Palestinians
were fire-fighters, who’s killing, the IDF called a ”tragic error”. The
JP on the other hand says that the killed were ”members of the
Palestinian Civil Defence force”, mentioning no error what so ever.
Despite of these differences one can say that there is still a common
vantage point within national media.
It
seems to be rather popular nowadays to talk about misconceptions and
deceptions of media portrayal. As long as it is someone else’s media.
The JP had an article on the 9th of November on ”The Media’s
Propaganda war” by Daniel Doron (9/11). Here the author states that the
CNN and BBC are ”actively engaged in a propaganda war designed to
delegitimise Israel”. Every time any of the news channels mentions
killed Palestinians, and in some way differs in the reports made by
Israeli press, the author of the article claims that this is due to
anti-Semitism and Arab propaganda. Where the article fails in showing
the stand of western media, it succeeds in showing the opinion and
position of the Israeli press. Contrary to this, a survey on the 24th
of October, by the international Zionist organisation The
Anti-Defamation League (ADL), shows that ”editorials in U.S. newspapers
overwhelmingly support Israel in latest rounds of Mideast clashes” (ADL:
http://www.adl.org/frames/front_media_watch.html). I must firmly point
out that ADL is considered as wholly pro Israeli. It had for example, a
full page advertisement in Ha’aretz on the 16th of October
saying ”Israel we are with you” and condemning the Palestinians. What
this report shows however, despite of its obvious bias, is indeed what
it says, namely that American newspapers tend to be pro-Israeli. As goes
for propaganda, the report from JP is much more understandable, since it
believes that the Israeli perspective is the correct one, and that all
opposing ones are merely discrediting Israel. The survey by ADL shows
that even these radical pro-Israelis believe that the Israeli vantage
point is fairly shared and portrayed by American press.
3.3
Opinions
As the
violence in the Middle East escalates, so does the public opinion of the
conflict. More and more Israelis feel that one should be harder on the
Palestinians and that their leniency has been the source of the
conflict. Likud, the right-wing party, is gaining ground in opinion
polls on the premise that the military should show less restraint with
Palestinians (Verter 20/12). In the US a recent Gallup poll (13th-14th
of October 2000) shows that 41% of the population supports Israel
whereas approximately 11% support the Palestinians, the rest have no
greater opinion. Further, the poll reveals that ”Americans who follow
the situation more closely are more likely than average to come down on
the side of the Israelis” (Gallup poll: http://www.gallup.com//poll/releases/pr001016.asp).
Swedish opinion and positioning in the conflict has become less intense
since its climax during Palme. Those Swedes who are at all engaged in
the conflict, tend historically to position themselves on the
Palestinian side, where organisations such as ”Palestinagrupperna” have
had a large public support. In the ongoing conflict the general public
tends to be supportive of the Palestinians (see Persons ord får kritik
DN 14/10).
3.4
Politics
It is
perhaps not even necessary to point out where in the conflict the
Israeli state positions itself, but to clarify the situation it should
not only be in black and white. The Israeli government does, however,
portray the Palestinians as the perpetrators where the leadership does
not fulfil its bargains in the peace-process, has no control over its
population and is, very simplistically put; the villain. On the 20th
of November, Israeli government’s public affairs co-ordinator, Nahman
Shai, released a ”White Book” presenting the Palestinians and Yasser
Arafat as ”systematic violators of agreements signed with Israel, and as
a leader who never abandoned terror as a means to reach his policy
goals” (Verter 21/11). Ha’aretz described this book as ”part of a
world-wide propaganda campaign” (Ibid.). Obviously there are fractions
in the Knesset that do not support the militaristic line of the
government, but these are for the moment in minority and have no greater
voice. On the contrary the condemnation of Palestinians is hardening as
the Likud party with Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu is gaining
ground, forcing the ruling Labour Party to adopt more rightwing actions.
The US
seems to have taken an official line of neutrality towards the Middle
East conflict, but as we shall see, this is in fact not the case. In the
beginning of October (SVD- TT 3/10) the United Nations General Assembly
attempted to condemn Israel for the use of ”extensive violence” against
civilians. All countries in the assembly had signed the impeachment, but
the United States vetoed it. Later, a condemnation was passed (UN
resolution 1322), on an American premise that Israel would not be
directly accused or pointed out. On the 14th of October US
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Madeleine Albright accused the Palestinians
for placing Israel ”under siege” (Carlbom 14/10). Further on, as the
violence during October escalated, with a growing death toll on the
Palestinian side, the Palestinian leadership demanded an independent UN
team to review the violence. The American as well as Israeli leaderships
rejected this and proposed that a team lead by the American CIA should
do the investigations (meeting in Paris 4/10). In case the US acts as a
neutral part in the peace-process, we should further ask ourselves why
American subjectivity is so rooted in the perceptions of Palestinian
supporters in the Arab-World?
As has
already been stated, Sweden has had a long history of supporting
Palestinians in the conflict. In a study by the Swedish Foreign Affairs
Department, it is stated how the Swedish government positions itself in
the conflict. In accordance with UN resolutions 242 (1967) and 338
(1973), the Swedish government supports a Palestinian self-rule and a
withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories of 1967, as
well as a condemnation of the Israeli annexation of Jerusalem (Regeringskansliet
1999:24). During the past few years the Swedish line has become more
lenient towards Israel as it, according to the study, ought not to
deviate from that of the European Union (Ibid.). In an interview in
Dagens Nyheter with Hans Dahlgren, Swedish Cabinet Secretary, it is
stated that due to Sweden’s expected chairmanship in the EU, Sweden
cannot condemn Israel (DN 25/10). Earlier Prime Minister Göran Persson
(10/10) had already expressed his sympathy for Barak and his actions,
Leading to a massive critique of the prime minister, who replied that he
cannot condemn Israel merely to satisfy the Swedish public opinion
(Quoted in DN 13/10). Despite of these statements, the Swedish Foreign
Affairs Department, with Minister of Foreign Affairs, Anna Lindh, in the
lead, expressed a condemnation of Israeli actions.
3.5
Summary of the Study
As a
very simplistic portrayal of the situation we could posit a rough
division of Israeli contra Palestinian support. In general Israeli
politics, people and media portray and see the Palestinians as the
antagonists. One must accentuate, however, that this is very general,
and that there of course exist differing opinions in all camps. The same
goes for American politics and media, as well as a majority of the
population that have an opinion at all. In Sweden the situation is
reversed, where the press and people tend to take the Palestinian side
(see i.e. Dominique 1998:4). The Swedish government has however become
less condemning of Israel, despite of its official line.
Before
attempting to answer why this disparity occurs, one must point out that
all three of these countries (Israel, the US and Sweden) are considered
to be democratic nations with a free press and a freedom of speech. In
the beginning of this text I claimed that I would not attempt to find an
objective truth, for this is exactly where the problem is. In order for
media to be trustworthy it presents its coverage as objective and
truthful. But as we see, various media portray their truths in sometimes
completely contrary ways. It is hereby of utter importance to examine
what can be the cause of this. What, in other words, affects media’s
coverage and portrayal in a given situation?
4.
Producing Media -Contested Truths
The
intention of the preceding study was to question the objectivity of
media, and to point a finger on its influence on people. According to
the liberalist ideology, the freedom of choice and a diversity of
various autonomous media will lead to a diverse spectrum of views and
information. (Sorlin 1994:30) This is to a greater or lesser extent the
ruling paradigm in most of the western democratic world. There are,
however, flaws in this perspective, where the control of media becomes
increasingly concentrated, and their portrayals become more and more
homogenous. Among other things, the constant need for media to please
their sponsors and reach larger audience has, as will be shown further
down, a devastating effect on the contents of the projected material.
4.1
Channelling Information
Mae
West used to say that is better to be looked over that overlooked.
Looking over however, gives a distorted picture of reality. We can no
longer follow the path of Geertz (Geertz 1973), and believe that we can
interpret cultures and situations as texts. As I have attempted to show,
objectivity does not exist in the world of media, and it hereby becomes
interesting to see what biases and what sort of selectivity lays as a
base in the channelling of information to the public.
In
order to avoid strong conspiracy theories on conscious media
manipulation for the moment, we shall look to what factors can indeed
change the contents and portrayal of news. There is a general aversion
against the idea that media tells us what to think. It does, however,
clearly tell us what to think of (see i.e. Sorlin 1994:94). Or as
Wittgenstein put it, ”what we cannot think, we cannot think; we cannot
therefore say what we cannot think”. The parallel with Orwell’s 1984 is
not to be dismissed where the language newspeak clearly limited what
people could think of. Of course this is drawing the comparison to the
extreme, since we may think of what we please. Media however, decides
what is important to think of. This is known as media selectivity (Ussher
1994:127), where the press works as a gatekeeper (see i.e. Bourdieu
1998:68), filtering all information through the ”correct” journalistic
discourse and the general view of the paper or channel (ibid. 1998:71).
This bias in reporting is based on two factors. The first one being,
what will receive greater audience, and the second, what it is
acceptable to say in accordance to the ruling paradigm (Strömbäck
2000:154). When considering audience figures, news reporting is
influenced by sensationalism, as to beat the competitors and have a
story being ”newsworthy” (Haslam and Bryman 1994:190). This means that
different newspapers eagerly join in on each others stories and scoops,
as not to disappoint their readers (listeners/viewers). Competition,
according to Bourdieu, hereby tends to ”homogenise the supply of
information” (Bourdieu 1998:104)
By
bearing in mind the mentioned obstacles for ”objective reporting”, it
should be added that ”mass media content is a socially created product,
not a reflection of an objective reality” (Strömbäck 2000:156). The fact
that media reporting is always intended for a public; makes news
coverage the more circular. Political correctness or public discourse,
call it what you please, forces media companies to be careful with what
they report, and bear in mind that it is easier to transmit what people
want to receive. Here our social and cultural bias comes into focus,
when it is said that what is in one country perceived as news and truth,
can often be seen as sheer propaganda in another country[3].
Take for example the increasingly popular Hollywood movies, which help
Americans maintain a sense of nationalism (see Billig 1995:150). Despite
their popularity, we (in the rest of the world) cannot appreciate these
films in their fullest cultural contexts, namely as a sense of personal
and social reinforcement.
4.2 The
Reporter
When
discussing media portrayal, we are caught in our own use of words.
Foremost, the concept of media is a great abstraction, as it is the
description of a large interrelated network of people working to produce
and disseminate information. Hereby one must take a look at the people
involved in the production of news, and how they can affect it.
The
above mentioned reasons for media subjectivity could be categorised as
somewhat unintentional. There exists however, less ethical manipulations
of media (although perhaps not intentionally harmful), where distortion
(mainly a habit of the tabloid press) and omission of detail plays a
greater role (Haslam and Bryman 1994:191). The journalist often has to
remove some details in order to make a story more reader-friendly. As
the journalists are schooled into a pre-existing system of news
reporting they also deal with a certain amount of self-censorship
(perhaps even unknowingly), where he/she acts and reports on what is
approved of by the editors. As the disagreements are solved through
authority and hierarchy (Dornfeld 1998:81), the reporters do what they
must to earn a living and not be omitted entirely.
In our
days, the phrase ”socially competent” has become of greater importance
in the employment of staff. A new competition for IQ, the EQ has been
developed, and it seems obvious that reporters, who’s jobs consist of
dealing with, and examining the world and its people, must have a degree
of ”social competence”. But what does this mean? Is a socially competent
person someone who can handle and communicate freely with people?
someone who is not too stubborn and bends softly in the wind? Perhaps.
But social competence is also ”obedience, flock-mentality and a trust in
those in power” (See Palmaer 2000). With the use of this definition,
most dictatorships have required socially competent collaborators, and
it is not for nothing that I mention that the chiefs of staff want their
reporters to be ”socially competent” and work smoothly in the machinery
(I will deal with the hierarchy of media corporations further down). In
all honesty, who wants a reporter who doesn’t (want to) fit in with the
general line of the company?
One
must further on remember that reporters are people like anyone else,
they can be fooled, cheated and manipulated like any other person. Nor
are reporters flawless, which could be seen by their deception during
the Kosvo crisis by Nato, where Western media eagerly swallowed Nato’s
exaggerations and lies about the ongoing war[4].
In this situation, as in any other, mass media had to rely upon a
varying degree of credible sources for its coverage. As the director of
the Institute for Media Analysis, Edward Herman, puts it, ”information
from sources that may be presumed credible…reduce investigative
expenses, whereas material from sources that are not seemingly credible,
or that will elicit criticism and threats, require careful and costly
checking” (Herman 1990:81). Nato and American government were in the
eyes of western media, during this situation seen as more credible than
Yugoslav sources (Russian media perceived it the other way around), and
therefore relied upon them. Reporters are furthermore, despite their
schooling loaded with bias, meaning that they (choose to) see some
things and not others.
A clear
example of reporter subjectivity can be seen in Phillip Knightley’s
(1989) First Casualty. Here Emerson Neilly a reporter for the Pall Mall
Gazette on the war in Transvaal, depicted how adolescents who were
defending a Boer trench had been bayoneted by British soldiers. While
admitting that this was a horrible slaughter, he could not help adding
that ”if any shame attaches to the killing of the youngsters it must
rest on the fathers of those who brought them there” (Knightley
1989:73-74). This can only be seen as a complete incapacity to think
beyond the logic of ones own country. And as Sorlin put it, an
”unquestionable rectitude” (Sorlin 1994:136).
The
anthropological discussion of emic contra etic perspectives is of
importance in journalistic coverage, and perhaps even more so in the
case of the Middle East. Before any coverage can take place, a person
who is to work as a corespondent needs to be found. The fact that Europe
and the US has had a large population of Jews, has rendered them more
applicable than average for this job. Ulf Hannerz (1998), in the article
Reporting from Jerusalem, makes a distinction between ”expatriate” and
”immigrant” corespondents, where the immigrants tend to be Israelis
representing the emic perspective of the situation, whilst the
expatriates are more in contact with the audience and their interests
(ibid. 1998:551). It should be added that immigrant reporters are much
cheaper than their expatriate colleagues, meaning that they are more
often chosen (ibid. 1998:553). Returning to the discussion of emic/etic,
it could be said that anthropological discourse tends to prioritise the
emic view as it gives a clearer description of the situation and how
people experience it. I must however note that an Israeli coverage of
the Middle East (as well as a Russian coverage of the Caucasian
conflict), is not the emic perspective of the situation, it is rather,
an ethnocentric one. The absence of autonomous Palestinian sources and
reporters makes the coverage of this conflict more one-sided. Hannerz
continues by mentioning that most of the correspondents stationed in
Jerusalem do not even speak Arabic (ibid. 1998:566), thereby violating
the primal rule of the emic coverage by not even understanding the
language of half of the part in question. It can of course, in
accordance with the liberal ideology, be argued that journalists are
well trained and professional and do therefore not let their own
opinions conceal the truth. Besides, the ethnical background of a
reporter doesn’t necessarily colour the person’s opinions. What can be
said is that reporters indeed can have an influence on the dissemination
of news, depending on how they portray it, but it must also be
remembered that they are part of a larger structure (as for example:
media corporation, schooling, society).
4.3 A
Monopoly of Voice
One of
the greater dangers of media is that which took, and still takes place,
in totalitarian regimes, being the loss of alternative opinions. When
all media sing one thing in one voice and show only one position, there
can be no talk of discussion or a manifold of view. But surely this only
takes place in totalitarian regimes, not in our democratic society? Lord
Beaverbrook, the proprietor of Daily Express and one of the most
influential tycoons of the inter-war period, confessed very frankly that
his purpose in running a paper was not to increase his profits, but ”to
disseminate his ideas” (Sorlin 1994:110). Profit, can here in accordance
with Weber’s definition, be seen as a profit in the interest of the
tycoon, where the main goal is to dominate the world of information.
Should we trust that the media magnates are altruistic and good-hearted
people only because they say so? Ought this be enough to venture our
faith and possibility to destine our own lives?
There
are two contending paradigms of mass communication studies. One is,
according to Mark Schulman, called ”the structural-functionalist social
science of mainstream communication studies, while the second uses a
critical or social class-based foundation for analysis, influenced by
Marxism” (Schulman 1990:114). The structural- functionalist approach can
also be fitted within the traditions of the liberal-pluralist research,
meaning that they believe that through a freedom of choice and a ”free
press”, information flows freely and unabridged. Believing that Western
media may not be perfect, but as good as it gets. In this study I would
however like to be a little more creative, as well as questioning the
ruling paradigm, and therefore accentuate the problems of Western media.
Hereby, we are encountered by the Marxist view of media, which stresses
their ideological function that contributes to maintaining pubic
consent. Media are according to this view concentrated in the hands of a
small number of people, whose ideas are widely disseminated to shape
peoples minds. Here the ownership of the means of communication,
economic power and class domination are closely connected and condition
each other (see i.e. Sorlin 1994:118). It is further claimed that
through for example economical dependence, media has a function to
convince those who use them (believe, buy, conform), and are hereby
ideological tools ”paid and manipulated by the ruling class in order to
reproduce and perpetuate the system which produced them” (Sorlin
1994:90). However, Ideology, it should be stressed, is not the same as
propaganda as it is not a conscious occurrence.
With
the era of globalisation, multinational corporations are mushrooming,
merging and growing beyond epic proportions. As do media enterprises.
The Time-Warner corporation, being one of the largest of its kind, owns
an immense amount of newspapers and television channels, where the CNN
is one of its most notorious pearls. The oligopolisation of media
results in a decrease of alternatives, and opinions and voices are
monopolised as they lack a counterbalance. When many small papers
observe each other and cover mainly the same topics, with the same
sources, it could be considered as dangerous, it is however nothing
compared to the consequence of multinational corporations doing the same
thing.
As news
is claimed to be objective and truthful, a discrepancy ensues when an
opposing ”truth” appears. If press A says that X is the truth, and Press
B says that Y is the truth, a conflict is bound to occur. The only way
to legitimise one’s own ”truth” is by discrediting the opposing one. A
good example can bee seen in the Middle East conflict, where the IDF
systematically targeted and bombarded Palestinian radio and television
broadcast as well as the press, under the premise that it was
disseminating lies and propaganda (IDF 13/10: http://www.idf.il).
5.
Media and Influences
In the
following section I will focus on two points. One being how media
coverage is consciously influenced by various powerful organisations and
enterprises, and the other, how the receivers of information are
influenced by the media exposure. It would be utterly naive to think
that media, which according to a recent study (Josefsson 2000), accounts
for 11,5 hours of an average American’s day, does not influence people.
5.1
Pulling the Strings
When we
read a book we consider its relevance in accordance to who wrote it and
for what purpose: Likewise, it is of vital importance to consider who
disseminates, produces and finances mass media and for what gain. Many
people would dismiss various conspiracies as just that; conspiracies.
Perhaps we should not be frightened by this, but still attempt to
speculate about who can, and for what purpose, manipulate the outcome of
mass medial information.
Let us
first see how hierarchies and authoritative power is distributed in the
sphere of media. At the top of a media corporation are the owners,
below, the managers, and in a receding line various editors and
journalists. The owners of a newspaper are those who decide whom to
proclaim as president (el presidente) who in his turn chooses his
vassal, the chief of staff (commander and fateful right-hand of el
presidente), who in a hierarchical order appoints and keeps an eye on
the various reporters (the deceitful peons). Barbro Hedwall (editorial
writer, DN) confirms that certain owners indeed do interfere, and do so
rather repeatedly, on who is to do what in the corporation. She also
claims in an interview (Hedwall 12/10) that this strengthens the already
existing idea of what should and should not be written. Through this
clandestine, and sometimes entirely open influence, the owners of a
media enterprise can indeed have their say on the output. Pierre
Bourdieu (1998:28) supports the notion that owners of a media enterprise
have political control through appointing chief directors. He further
means that there is a political compliance due to unemployment among
journalists.
As most
of the press and ether-media in the Western world is financed through
private sponsorship and commercials, it should be noted that those who
contribute with this money can have a say in what is distributed. A
recent study by Tomas Lappalainen (2000), journalist and media
communications researcher, claims that right-wing liberal papers get
more income from advertisements than their leftist competitors, despite
the fact that they may have fewer readers. In Sweden this could be seen
when SVD had larger revenues from adverts that its competitor DN (which
is considered less right-wing) with nearly twice as many readers. Also
the Daily Herald (a newspaper aimed at the working class), before it
went into bankruptcy had five times as many readers as The Times, but
only half as large advertisement revenues. Chief editor of the newspaper
Stockholm News, Jon Åsberg, also confirms this disparity in an
interview. He claims that the reason to why there is no leftist morning
press in Stockholm is due to it’s ”incapacity to succeed on the market
and get sponsorship” (Åsberg 12/10). It could be added that
advertisements hold for approximately 75% of the revenue of an average
newspaper and almost 100% of broadcasters (Herman 1990:80). There are
probably many reasons for this inconsistency in advertising, resulting
in 80% of Swedish morning press being liberal while the majority of the
population is not (Lappalainen 2000:170). But the fact that there is
such a political disproportion at all, is enough to reconsider the
innocence and impartiality of the sponsors.
Political leaders also have a say in what mass media produces, be it
through hints, censorship or economic sanctions, the output can indeed
be altered. As an example, many communist papers have been banned in the
United States, on the premise of being ”threats to the nation”. The same
thing could be seen in the Soviet Union, but reversed, as well as Sweden
where racist texts are illegal. What impels governments to take
different standings is, however, a much to big a question to be tackled
here.
Lobbyist organisations are often spoken of as an effective force in
influencing those in power. Noam Chomsky (1998:17) tackles this question
in the book Fateful Triangle, where he claims that ”no pressure group
will dominate access to public opinion or maintain consistent influence
over policy-making unless its aims are close to those of elite elements
with real power”. This does obviously not mean that the influence of
lobbyist organisations can be completely discarded, it does mean,
however, that various elements of power support each other in the form
that suits them. It can hereby be said that US government support of
Israel, comes from the thesis that ”a powerful Israel is a strategic
asset for the United States” (ibid. 1998:20). For those who this
”strategic asset” is indeed an asset (i.e. oil corporations, and those
effected by oil prices), government policy is regarded as favourable,
and may choose to be supportive of media that places these actions in a
favourable light. Josefsson (2000) writes about a study by mass media
scientist, Robert McChesney, Rich media, poor democracy, who describes
the synergy-effects of media corporations. By this he means that the
nine largest media corporations (owning a majority of global media
industry), are all conglomerates, where small corporations support each
other. The (in comparison) small corporations can be of different
characters, where one can for example be an oil producer, the other a
car producer, the third a movie corporation and a fourth a newspaper.
One can imagine that it would be unwise for the newspaper editor to
publish too much on environmental problems involving oil and cars. On
the other hand the editor could be encouraged to give the movie
corporation’s film a good critique.
Media
corporations must not be conglomerates in order for them to have certain
political and economical interests on a macro level. Posit yourselves
the 1995 presidential elections in Russia, the first round of elections
has rendered the ”democratic” candidate Yeltsin against ”communist”
Ziuganov. This was the greatest democratic choice the Russian people (or
any people for that matter) had been faced with, ever. A choice between
a return to communism or a continuing on the road of capitalism. In the
summer of 1999, while visiting Moscow, I stumbled on a
television-program on the government channel the RTR. Here, the
directors and star reporters of Russian television channels and
newspapers were defending their portrayal of the elections. There had
been a public notion that the election coverage had not been dealt with
quite fairly by the media, and these people were now defending their
actions. Completely astound I noticed that they did not deny the
allegations, that they had portrayed Yeltsin as the best candidate, and
Ziuganov as a deranged lunatic who would bring the country to civil-war.
Now that communism was abandoned, media had become free, which was
wonderful. In case communism would return, they said ”our media would
loose its autonomy, so we were merely protecting our self-interests” (RTR
21/6 1999). The elections ended with a marginal victory in favour of the
”democratic” candidate.
5.2
Receiving Information
It
could be said that there are as many ways of interpreting information as
there are people. This does however not mean that certain patterns
cannot be seen. What may influence people’s interpretations can be
divided over a few points. On an personal level, people shape what they
receive in accordance with what they have already received. This could
be personal experiences, cultural heritage, involvement with other
people, earlier media exposure etc. CNN accidentally made a good comment
on this point in a commercial for the channel. It portrayed a Bedouin
near the ancient Jordan city of Petra. He had lived sheltered from the
modern world all of his life, with only sporadic contact with other
people, he was ignorant and unknowing of anything better. Now that he
got his hands on a television with access to the CNN, it revolutionised
his life. The Bedouin became a better and more complete person, and the
heading said; because ”you are what you know” (on the time of writing a
running commercial on CNN). This slogan does indeed pinpoint the problem
with the lack of discussion and alternative opinions in mass media.
While
discussing how media influence people’s opinions and choices, there is a
popular belief that the voice of media does not actually have such a
great impact, and that all choices when it comes down to it are our own.
Let us for a moment consider commercials. In 1986 approximately 2% of
U.S. gross national product was spent on advertising (Kellner 1990:243),
today’s figures are probably more than doubled. It would hereby be
utterly naive to think that all this money is spent on nothing, that it
gives no effect. Some would say that commercials only inform people of
various goods that are already demanded for, but in our consumerist
society, commercials seem to create needs rather than relief from them.
In the same way that people are influenced in the desire of
appropriating (buying) a good, they can be influenced in appropriation
of opinions. In 1998, when Stockholm had applied for the summer Olympics
of 2004, the low support among the inhabitants was seen as a great
obstacle to being elected. The government and the Olympic Committee,
then decided to launch a costly lobbying campaign, in order to ”create
an opinion” among the people. A few months later there was a strong
public support for the games. The scenario is reoccurring. According to
Journalist Dan Josefsson, there seems to be a general idea among
politicians that democracy means public support, so in order to gain
this support one must persuade the people to vote the right way, by
creating opinion (Josefsson 2000:22). This is precisely what commercials
intend to do; to buy support. If people’s opinions can in this sense be
”bought”, either through commercials or political lobbying, we must
indeed re-evaluate the modern concept of democracy.
Mass
communication has with its evolution and growth been able to reach an
immensely larger population than ever before. Through it’s effect on
people, mass media has according to McLuhan been able to turn the psyche
and society into a single echo chamber (McLuhan 1967:299). This could be
seen in Orson Welles’ radio broadcast about an invasion from mars
(incidentally a lot of people believed it was true), or Hitler’s
propaganda speeches. The force of mass media is here imminent as it has
the power to retribalise mankind in a reversal of individualism into
collectivism (ibid.). The modern popularity of individualism and it’s
absurdity is well portrayed by Monty Python in Life of Brian. Brian
preaches before a huge crowd, he tells them that they do not need a
leader; -”you are all individuals!”. And in one voice they reply, -”yes,
we are all individuals! tell us more!”. In our case Brian is
conceptualised by mass media enterprises, who all claim that we are free
individuals and have the right to choose whatever we please (as long as
we chose that which there is a demand for, otherwise we are
marginalised), but the choice makes no difference (Coca-Cola or Pepsi,
Democrats or Republicans). As we are all supposed to be different, we
become identical by the difference. It hereby seems as though radical
individualism and collectivism are indeed closely related. In other
worlds, we are influenced much the same as in totalitarian regimes, the
only difference being that it is much more unnoticed (and less
centralised). The famous Czech author Zdener Urbanak commented on this
in the 1970s, by saying that in totalitarian societies people have
developed a skill of reading between the lines, while in the West people
lack that capacity because they do not think they need it. But, he
meant, they do, because illusions are more effective than censorship.
As I
have stated earlier, sensationalism and competition of western media has
a tendency to render it rather homogenous. This can lead to the fact
that mass media can have a disproportionate and cataclysmic effect on
public opinion. Bourdieu (1998:89) tells us of how a local newspaper
reported on the murder of a girl in France. The competing newspapers
soon joint in on the coverage and blew it immensely out of proportions
as they competed over audience. As the story escalated, the people
became strongly involved and started urging for revenge, leading to a
reinforcement and re-implementation of lifetime sentences. In this
example the newspapers proved their power, their ideology. Ideology is
here, in accordance with Sorlin (1994:94), defined to the fact that
everybody is obliged to hear about the murder (war etc.) and therefore
believe it is vital. Merely because there exist many competing
newspapers does not mean that they express competing ideas, on the
contrary, they tend not to, leading to a homogenisation of opinion.
”Opinions necessitate democracy, as well as democracy necessitates
opinions; these are two sides of the same coin”-Herbert Tingsten (former
chief editor, DN). It is in our days wholly admitted in editorial
offices that the purpose of newspapers is not merely to convey
information or express opinions, it is to create them. Messages, in
accordance with Sorlin, ”do not reproduce elements of the world, rather,
they produce them” (Sorlin 1994:25). What I am getting to is that the
role of media as producer of opinions, does indeed produce opinions, but
not as diverse as could be expected. Furthermore, a study by George
Gerbner shows that ”heavy viewers are substantially more likely to label
themselves as being ”moderate” rather than either ”liberal” or
conservative” (Gerbner 1994:31). This could be explained by the fact
that mass media try to reach as broad an audience as possible and not
repel people of differing views.
When
people build their opinions about various situations, they use what they
already have in their luggage to define their positions. As I have
already stated, a person’s luggage can consist of everything from past
experiences to cultural and social milieu. What I am trying to show is
how past media experiences can add to the connotations of contemporary
situations. In Covering Islam, Edward Said (1997) shows how the
ethnocentric conception of orientalism from the time of British
imperialism has prevailed and been reinforced. He shows how American
media have depicted the Arab World as irrational and obfuscating since
the 1970s; as Islam. Said continues that Islam entered the consciousness
of most Americans because it has been connected to newsworthy issues
like oil, Iran and Afghanistan, or terrorism. All that Muslims ever did
(including Palestinian’s fight for independence) in the picture of
American media was, according to the author, equated with Islam. And
since Islam has become the personification of everything American values
disapprove of, it has for some reason since the end of the Cold War come
to represent ”America’s major foreign devil” (ibid. 1997:7). Considering
that mass media and their immense technological advances have, according
to Sorlin (1994:45), opened distant places for people that they would
otherwise ignore, the picture portrayed by media has had a stronger
effect on the perception of these areas. Here again, differing
economical, political and ideological interests have played a massive
role in the unfolding of the dichotomy between Islam and The West. It
should, however, be noted that this opposition is not as imminent in
Europe as in America, due to the fact that Europe has a closer encounter
with the Muslim World (Said 1997), both on a personal and governmental
level. The perceived opposition between Islam and the West can be seen
in Samuel Huntington’s (1998) highly irrational, yet celebrated article
The Clash of Civilizations?, where he in a prediction of the future,
postulates a dangerous conflict between the West and Islam.
It is
often said that media is a mirror of the world, and that all its
distortions are due to our cultural and national bias. Well perhaps this
cannot be entirely discarded, as there seems to be a relationship with
how we view the world and how our media projects it. Surely this is a
question of the chicken and the egg, but it can be seen how mass media,
and in particular popular media reinforce public misconceptions and
stereotypes. An example is the Hollywood movie industry which constantly
depicts Muslim fundamentalists as villains (during the Cold War this
role was efficiently filled by the communist threat). Billig (1995:152)
depicts how during the Gulf War, American wrestling pantomime paralleled
the war. ”Sergeant Slaughter” carrying the Iraqi flag, faced ”Hulk
Hogan” waving the stars and stripes. ”Never before could have Good and
Evil been so clearly signified in a wrestling ring”. The gangster is,
according to Sorlin (1994:93), ”an ideological fabrication, where the
public identifies an ascribed personality of the gangster in films and
stories to a contemporary situation”. News coverage cannot alone be
responsible for the general American hatred of communists (communism) or
their aversion towards Muslims (Islam).
5.3
Alternative Media and Democracy
The
question of alternative media is whether it is an alternative or merely
Alternative (underground, odd, alienated). As the public choice in the
major media channels is diminishing and alternative voices more seldom
get a say, the opening for a public debate looses its place. The best
way of holding an argument is by fighting contra-arguments. When the
contra-arguments get less attention in the public debate and is indeed
marginalised, people with disparate opinions seek to make themselves
heard on other arenas. Those who happen to hear these deviant voices,
which have not been given room in the public discussion of mass media,
tend to have less power withstanding them, or relying more upon them
than otherwise. The consequence of which can be the contrary of what is
desired, with growing opposition and extremist groups, such as neo-nazis
etc. The situation can be compared to that of Eastern European states
during their communist era. In Poland, Tomas Gerholm (1993:141,143)
writes, the opposition had no control over public media, which meant
that there was no room for an open. In turn this lead to the fact that
the ”Underground” press became more trusted than its official rival. Of
course, you may say that the public distrust of mass media is not as
imminent in our days as it was then, but perhaps questioning the media
is not a danger for democracy, but is necessary for their continued
function. Democracy is not only threatened by the fact that people are
more and more influenced on what to think, but also on what happens when
deviant extremists gain ground.
6. A
Prospect of the Future
Many
people seem to be hoping for technological advances as a major
emancipation of voices and opinions, and to some extent this has been so
with the development of the internet. The idea that technology will
organise and emphasise on grass-roots is according to Peter Manuel
(1993:4) the coming democratic order. When he wrote his book Cassette
Culture, he was emphasising the technology of cassettes in India. He
meant that the new cassette technology had liberalised the medium and
given it an ”emancipatory use”; being decentralised, interactive and
collective in the production. Almost a decade after his study, we can
see how multinational music organisation gathered their forces and
created the CD. There seems to be a constant battle between those who
try to free the public word and those who copyright it (for better or
worse), as is the situation with mass media. Only time can foretell
whether the power of controlling the output of information will remain
in the hands of ”a prosperous few or a restless many”.
7.
Conclusion
In a
world of mediated information, power lays in the control of
communication. I have aimed at showing how mass media in general and
specifically news reports portray biased versions of reality. That there
has to be a reason for news disparity, is clear, but the reason itself
is not as clear. I have tried to portray how organisations and people
make use of their authority and power to influence the outcome of news,
as well as how people receive this information, and how this affects
their perception of reality.
There
is a common saying among anthropologists, that human worlds are
culturally constructed. What this means is that we conceptualise our
surroundings and understand it through our cultural and social heritage.
After analysing the influence media has on people, we can re-evaluate
this stance, or at least the concept of culture. If culture creates our
worlds, so does it then create media, which according to the
structuralist notion, ought to re-create culture and society. But
culture and society are not static, so it cannot simply be a question of
society re-creating itself. This is, however, a question much too big to
be debated at this instance. What can be said, however, is that culture
in the sense that it influences society is embedded in people but is
also created by them. In other words, people have a considerable say in
what media produce and portray.
In the
portrayal of the Middle East conflict, my aim was to compare the ”free
press” in a few societies often depicted as ”democratic”. The analysis
proved that despite the claim of objectivity and impartiality,
”democratic” media tends to be influenced and biased as any other.
Influence on media portrayal, as has been shown, can come from
economically or politically strong groups, ”the market” or the readers,
as well as those who produce the output of media. Considering to what
extent media form our perception of the world, and their role as opinion
creators in democratic societies, makes it very important to keep an eye
on those who influence media. When discussing influences on media, and
in particularly the Middle East conflict, one often talks about Jewish
lobbying groups, or anti-Semitic lobbying groups, etc, etc. Surely it is
important to see who are behind the curtain. It has however not been the
objective of this study to point fingers at individual conspirators, but
to show that there is indeed a motion behind the curtain, candid from
the general audience and (if at all) depicted as a natural and highly
desired state. Now that the curtain has fallen, the actors can be
unmasked, and the ownership and control of information can be
transferred to its rightful owners- the people.
List of
references:
Printed
Sources:
Anderson, Benedict: Den föreställda gemenskapen. MediaPrint AB, Udevalla,
1996
Billig,
Michael: Banal nationalism. Sage Publications, London, 1995
Bourdieu, Pierre: Om televisionen. Brutus Östling, Stockholm, 1998
Chomsky, Noam: Fateful triangle. Pluto Press, London, 1998
Dominique, Stefan: Israel i svenska media. E&D Publications, Malmö,
1998
Downing, Mohammadi (ed.): Questioning the media. Sage Publications,
London, 1990
Dornfeld,
Barry: Producing Public Television, Producing Public Culture. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1998
Geertz,
Clifford: The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New York, 1973
Gerbner
George: Growing up with television: The Cultivation Perspective. In
Bryant Jennings & Zillman Dolf (eds.): Media effects, Advances in Theory
and Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsadale, 1994.
Gerholm,
Tomas: Att korrigera verkligheten. In Hannerz Ulf (ed.): Medier och
kulturer. Carlssons, Stockholm, 1993
Hannerz,
Ulf: Reporting from Jerusalem. Cultural Anthropology 13(4):548-574. 1998
Haslam,
Cheryl and Bryman Alan: Social Scientists Meet the Media. Routledge,
London, 1994
Herman, Edward: Media in the U.S. Political Economy. In Mohammadi
Downing (ed.)- Questioning the media. Sage Publications, London, 1990
Huntington, Samuel: The Clash of Civilizations. Touchstone, London,
1998
Josefsson,
Dan: Välkommen till Dramafabriken. Ordfront förlag, Stockholm. 2000
Kellner,
Douglas: Advertising and Consumer Culture. In Mohammadi Downing (ed.)-
Questioning the media. Sage Publications, London 1990
Knightley,
Phillip: The first casualty. Pan Books, London, 1989
Lappalainen,
Tomas: Fri oppinionsbildning eller åsiktsmonopol. In Dan Joseffson
(ed.). Välkommen till Dramafabriken. Ordfront Förlag, Stockholm 2000
Manuel, Peter: Cassette culture. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 1993
McLuhan,
Marshall: Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man- Nal Signet Books,
New York, 1964.
McLuhan,
Marshall: Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man- Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London, 1967.
Olson,
David: Television and literacy. In Michael Manley-Casimir & Carmen Luke
(eds.): Children and Television. Praeger, New York, 1987
Palmaer,
Carsten: Om Kosovo kriget. Ordfront, 10/2000
Regeringskansliet:
Tradition och förnyelse. UtrikesDepartementet, Stockholm, 1999
Said,
Edward: Covering Islam. Vintage, London, 1997
Schulman, Mark: Control Mechanisms Inside the Media. In Mohammadi
Downing (ed.)- Questioning the media. Sage Publications, London, 1990
Sjökvist,
Jan: Media cognition and society. University of Lund department of
Social Anthropology, Lund, 1991
Sorlin,
Pierre: Mass Media. Routledge, London, 1994
Strömbäck,
Jesper: Makt och medier. Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2000
Ussher,
Jane: Media representations of Psychology. In Haslam Cheryl and Alan
Bryman (eds.)- Social Scientists Meet the Media. Routledge, London, 1994
Articles:
Arbeli,
Aliza: Woman killed in Gaza ambush. Ha’aretz, 9/11
Carlbom,
Mats: Våldet raserar Clintons förhoppningar. Dagens Nyheter, 14/10-2000
Doron,
Daniel: The Media’s Propaganda war. The Jerusalem Post, 9/11-2000
Dudkevitch,
Margot: 4 Palestinians die in Gaza clashes; Israeli stabbed near
capital. The Jerusalem Post, 21/12-2000
Edvardson,
Cordelia: Israel hämnas lynchade soldater. Svenska Dagbladet, 13/10-2000
Harel,
Amos: Border policeman dies at Joseph’s Tomb. Ha’aretz, 2/10-2000
Harel,
Amos: A fatal wrong turn. Ha’aretz, 13/10-2000
Harel,
Amos: Four Israelis shot dead in two attacks. Ha’aretz, 14/11-2000
Harel,
Amos: Four Palestinians killed in Gaza Strip shootings. Ha’aretz,
21/12-2000
Hass,
Amira: Settlers kill villager, Ha’aretz, 18/10-2000
Shachar,
Nathan: Våldet sprider sig in i Israel. Dagens Nyheter, 2/10-2000
Shachar,
Nathan: Israel bombade PLO-fästen. Dagens Nyheter, 13/10-2000
Shachar,
Nathan: Våldet fortsätter trots uppgörelse. Dagens Nyheter, 18/10-2000
Verter,
Yossi: White Book tiger unleashed. Ha’aretz, 21/11-2000
Verter,
Yossi: Elections set for February 6. Ha’aretz, 20/12-2000
Ether
Media:
CNN
World Report: 2/10-2000; 13/10-2000; 18/10-2000; 9/11-2000; 14/11-2000.
BBC
News: 18/10-2000; 9/11-2000; 14/11-2000.
RTR
Novosti: 21/6-1999
Internet:
Gallup
poll 1: http://www.gallup.com//poll/indicators/indmideast.asp
Gallup
poll 2: http://www.gallup.com//poll/releases/pr001016.asp
Anti
Defamation League: http://www.adl.org/frames/front_media_watch.html
Israeli Defence Forces: http://www.idf.il
Interviews:
Barbro
Hedwall: Editorial writer , Dagens Nyheter, 12/10-2000
Jon
Åsberg: Chief editor, Stockholm News, 12/10-2000
[5]
most people however read tabloids and get their information from
television
[6]
more tabloid papers, such as The Jerusalem Post and Yediot Aharonot,
retold the military version word by word
[7]
for further detail see Said 1997
[8]
this was all revealed in the media after the conflict had ended, but
received very little coverage, for further information see i.e. Palmaer
2000
|