It could be easy to take a generalist approach when looking
at the Israeli media. However, we can nonetheless advance some theories about
the reaction of the media should Israel and the Palestinians begin another
round of negotiations towards signing a peace agreement. Although a peace
settlement of one form or another is arguably in everybody’s long term
interests, the media is likely to exaggerate the content of peace talks in one
form or another.
Context is everything. Media outlets, traditional and
otherwise, are wrestling among each other for decreasing revenues. In such a
climate, sensationalist pieces make better cover – and generate more revenues
(or at least, that’s how much of the prevailing thinking goes). In peace
negotiations, the process often moves at a snail’s pace. Another round of negotiations
towards peace (“here we go again”) is likely to stimulate some nationalist
comment in the newspapers and elsewhere.
The peace negotiations are sure to stir up the “rally
around the flag” rhetoric that becomes commonplace in media outlets during
wartime. It’s not difficult to envisage a situation whereby Israeli negotiators
are seen to give some concessions to the Palestinian side. It’s unlikely the
concessions would be too significant in their impact but the Israeli media
response is likely to converge around how Israel is, “giving in to terrorists”
or “bowing to international pressure.”
In fact, an international element (America, Europe, the
G8, etc.) will likely play some role, active or passive, in future peace
negotiations. This could create a voice within the Israeli media, which
questions the need for any outside participation at all. As much as every
country and economic bloc has its own issues to contend with, the media is
likely to draw comparisons between the UK and Northern Ireland. So, for
example, “Northern Ireland has more so-called peace walls now than it did
before the Good Friday Agreement and the UK wants to lecture us on how to
achieve peace?”
Narrative-building like this is common in media, not just
in Israel. In times when there is less headline-creating news, features – and
political features – become more common. Features are open to being driven by
narratives rather than what is happening. So, whereas the news would report
about representatives from both sides entering a room, a lot of back and forth,
and little outcome to report, a feature might present a narrative about these
negotiations being part of a bigger Middle Eastern plot to oust the Israeli
government.
Furthermore, when conflicts are polarized, as is the case
in Israel, there is a tendency for people to view politicians from the other
side as not only representatives of the people but almost representations of their people. So, when Israeli media outlets,
rightly or wrongly, portray leaders of Hamas as anti-Semitic fundamentalists,
there is a natural tendency (not just in Israel) for people to view all
supporters of Hamas in the same light. Polarized views become the norm, whereas
in reality, populations are like everything else – there is a normal curve
representing all views across the political spectrum.
Once peace negotiations have been concluded – with a
resolution or without - how the media presents what occurred within the
negotiations is likely to impact on future efforts for peace (be they
negotiations, efforts on the ground, etc.). Although war makes better print
coverage than peace; the examples of Lord Kitchener’s “Britain Needs You”
poster from 1914, or its American equivalent featuring Uncle Sam from 1917 or
even Russian wartime propaganda posters
(«Не болтай!»
meaning “Don’t talk!” being the most famous). Somewhat regrettably, it is
difficult to recall any peacetime slogans, imagery or print from these
countries.
However, one piece
of research in particular, on the role of media in (relative) peacetime in
Israel (Wolfsfeld and Alimi, 2008) makes an outstanding contribution to the
existing literature. The authors note that that is an “inherent contradiction
between news and peace,” but note that leaders on either side of a conflict
have the ability to initiate stories that provide hope to their people.
Likewise, some form of peace can create novel news structures about “the other
side.” They comment, “even negative stories about diplomatic and economic
relations between the countries remind people that something fundamentally has
changed and that normalization is possible.”
Bibliography
Wolfsfeld, G., Alimi, E.Y., Wasfi, K. (2008). News Media and
Peace Building in Asymmetrical Conflicts: The Flow of News between Jordan and
Israel. Political Studies: 2008 Vol. 56, pp. 374–398
No comments:
Post a Comment