The news media and the second intifada

[Violet_Crumble]

The role of the news media in violent conflicts, from Iraq and Afghanistan to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, is a major concern to combatants, publics, and media professionals alike. A scholar who has closely followed news coverage of the second Palestinian intifada which broke out in September 2000 draws three significant lessons from the way the issue has been depicted on both sides.






The first lesson: adapting to the needs of the media

The first lesson of news presentation of the second Palestinian intifada has to do with the increasingly powerful belief on both sides of this conflict that the struggle over the news media can be just as important as the battle on the ground. Israelis and Palestinians are both very aware that they are playing to an international audience and, as always, there is a major struggle over who should be cast as aggressor and who as victim.

The dependence on the international news media is especially strong for the Palestinians. As the weaker side, the media is one of the only means they have of convincing other countries to intervene. One of the most powerful roles the news media can play in such conflicts is when they become “equalisers” by allowing the weaker party to enlist the support of third parties. This was certainly what happened in the first intifada (from 1987) in which the Palestinians were extremely successful at placing their plight on the international agenda.

<snip>

There is also clear evidence of the increasing importance attributed to media considerations in planning Israeli military operations. Indeed, such efforts have produced a new term in military parlance: “low signature” operations. The term originates in the field of radar, but has now come to refer to actions that will not be easily captured by the press.

One of the fears of using helicopters against Palestinian positions is that they can lead to extremely damaging pictures that will be shown on international television news broadcasts. Camera crews however are much less likely to capture the moment when individual terrorist leaders are killed.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-97-1428.jsp

[vierundzwanzig]

1. Even if that was so

(and I believe the article doesn't make that convincing of a point), I fail to see the problem with 'correcting the imbalance of power'.

Assuming that the media overstate the case of violence against Palestinians (which they don't, since the body count is 3-4 times that of the Israelis and they live under constant demeaning conditions) - wouldn't they merely show the moral behavior to support the weaker side of a struggle?

[Violet_Crumble]

2. I thought it did make some interesting points...

I didn't see the article saying that there's a problem with correcting the imbalance of power, not that media atttention really corrects any imbalance, but merely helps it be a bit less of a lop-sided balance than it would be if there was no media attention. I thought the article was pointing out how powerful the use of the media can be in a conflict and how the media isn't particularly interested in reporting about peace, both of which I totally agree with. I was a bit surprised to read about how IDF troops are trained how to deal with the media before being sent to the Occupied Territories, because from what I can work out, many of them fail that training dismally, or are actually being trained to harrass and shoot at journalists...

Violet...

[Resistance]

3. Pretty interesting study

I liked the suggestion at the end about editors inviting journalists from the 'other' side.

Also important was the observation on how news about peace is dramatically under-reported.