Media as biased referees?
Journalism report about Israel and Palestine, the hostile media perception, source contact and objectivity
By, Appels, Daan Student number: 10711511
Master Thesis Political Communication
Abstract
This study offers a qualitative analysis of the media landscape wherein journalists work that write about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Dutch journalists and correspondents that reported about the conflict were interviewed about their use of sources and the way their coverage is perceived by the audience. The results show a very strong support for the 'hostile media perception', that says that even the most objective journalists will be perceived as biased by the public. Furthermore, the results show that there seems to be a blurred
relationship between media outlets that are ideologically further away from a source. This has to do with higher social proximity and source credibility. Although the hostile media
perception is an almost uncontrollable phenomenon, the perception of objective reporting can be enlarged by transparency and the use of a wide spectrum of sources.
Introduction
The conflict between Israel and Palestine is a long lasting conflict that is calling up heavy emotions in the minds of people. The battle is stretching from the battlefield to the media landscape. In every media landscape there are journalists that try to live up to the journalistic norm of objectivity (Hafez, 2002; Cooper, 1989; Schudson, 2001). Fair and accurate reporting are two main values in the SPJ code of Ethics (2015), as well as two central ingredients of journalistic objectivity (Brucker, 1973; Brucker, 1949; Mindich, 2000). Furthermore, inclusiveness is
synonymous of objective reporting (Mindich, 2000). Objectivity also plays a role in source selection and vice versa, as sources try to influence journalists and make it into the news and journalists make a selection between these sources.
Sometimes, the journalists are standing in the line of the fire. Frequently, vilein tongs are shooting their verbal bombs on the journalists. This has to do with both the coverage of the news as the sources a journalist uses (Martien Pennings, 2014; Eindpunt.blogspot.nl, 2013). Unless the Dutch correspondent Monique van Hoogstraten is having a severe schizophrenic disorder, she is being criticized in an almost ludicrous way. She is working in Israel and Palestine for the Dutch NOS Journaal (the news bulletin for the public broadcaster) and is she insulted on the internet. In one blog (Eindpunt.blogspot.nl, 2013) she is put away as a 'confirmed pro-Israel propagandist that only informs herself by the Israeli army and government'. She is perceived biased also in her selection of sources (Eindpunt.blogspot.nl, 2013). On other sites , she is put away towards the other side of the political spectrum (Martien Pennings, 2014; Israel-Palestina Info - actueel, 2014). The title in the blog of Martien Pennings (2014) is the most rude and the least flattering: 'Anti-Semitic rat Monique van Hoogstraten is creating Israel hate again in the NOS Journaal' (title translated by author, DA). Again, when you read the article, her selection of sources is criticized; but now she is perceived biased against Israel. This phenomenon, where partisans of two opposite sides both perceive the same media or journalists as biased, is called the 'hostile media
perception'. So next to the aim of journalists to live up to the objectivity norm, there is something like a hard to control perceived objectivity by the audience.
There is a decent body of evidence for why the media are perceived biased (Vallone et al., 1985; Matheson, 2006; Dalton, Beck & Huckfeldt, 1998). However, little is known about how journalist experience this perceived criticism and how they cope with it, as well as how source contacts influences coverage of journalists.
By conducting qualitative interviews, this study tries to show what are the underlying principles when it comes to source selection and partly why journalists tend to use the sources they use. Source credibility plays a role in this. Furthermore is researched why it is possible that the same journalist is perceived biased by two sides (Vallone, Ross & Lepper, 1985) in one conflict and how journalist cope with this. The study shows that it is hard to live up to the journalistic norm of objectivity in the conflict, with reasons that are less (hostile media perception) and more (source contact) controllable.
Theoretical framework
In this part of the research, the theoretical framework is discussed that will lead to six sub questions.
Objectivity
There is no such thing as objective reported news (Molotch & Lester, 1975). There is such a thing as an objective reality ‘out there’ to be investigated, according to Molotch and Lester (1975). News, on the other hand, is a process through which the things that are important are being created (Molotch & Lester, 1975). Determining what is news is part of the job of professionals: the journalists. They decide what is important and how this important issues appears in the news. Fair reporting is a crucial factor in this journalistic profession (SPJ.org, 2015). Mindich (2000) states that objectivity is often conflated with terms like fairness and inclusiveness. Brucker (1949, 1973) also names fairness as important ingredient of objectivity. Fairness and inclusiveness are terms that seem to show a strong correlation, as fair reporting consists of including all parties involved in a story.
Hafez (2002) and Cooper (1989) say that objectivity is one of the two most important journalistic norms. But some typical characteristics in human nature make it really hard for journalists to fulfill this role as an objective reporter; at least in the eyes of the news consumers.
Hostile media perception and the norm of objectivity
If one looks to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine actors can be seen as a crowd in a stadium during a football match. The fouls of the other team are more hard and occur more frequently than the fouls of the team they support. And to make everything worse, the referee is supposed to be neutral, but is totally whistling in favor of the other team. The strange thing is that supporters of both sides have the feeling that the referee is whistling hostile to the own team. This metaphor is exemplary for the hostile media perception (Vallone, Ross & Lepper, 1985) and shows that in general partisans will always see media as biased against their own opinion. The experiment of Vallone et al., (1985) shows that in the coverage of the Beirut massacre of 1982, both the pro-Arabs and the pro-Israelis valued the general media coverage in favor of the other side, although the coverage was identical. The coverage was by both sides perceived as "likely to sway a neutral person to the other side" (p. 577) and "produced by people
(2004) give three possible explanations for the perceived media bias. The first explanation is given by the different standards of the two opposing parties. Partisans think that their points have to get more attention, because they see the points as more important than the points made by the opposite party. The arguments in favor of their own opinion are in that sense superior to the arguments of the opposite party. Even if the journalist gives a perfect balanced image, the reportage is always perceived as biased in favor of the other party. The second explanation that plays a role in the case of the hostile media perception is selective recall. Participants will remember the information that is inconsistent with their believes better. This means that for example for Palestinians the reportage of Palestinian misdeeds that are reported in the media are better remembered than the reportage of Israeli misdeeds, although they have the feeling that Israel is doing more harm. That gives him the feeling that media are more focusing on Palestinian misdeeds than Israeli misdeeds. The third principle is that people selectively categorize the impulses they observe. Opposing partisans value the same impulses in media content different. Fanatic partisans will value more facts, arguments and ideas hostile to their position, rather than neutral or supportive of their case. This suggests that even if both partisans watch the same content, they might both perceive the content as hostile to their own standing point.
The theory of hostile media perception by Vallone et al., (1985) was later convincingly proven by lots of other studies regarding several political topics. Examples of that are the battle in Bosnia (Matheson, 2006), and the US presidential elections (Dalton et al., 1998). A study by Giner-Sorolla and Chaiken (1994) compares the amount of hostile media perception in the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis and the abortion issue. There was a higher amount of hostile media perception in the conflict in the Middle East than in the conflict inside the uterus of pregnant women.
If we know about the hostile media perception, what does this mean for journalists? One of the four pillars in the SPJ Code of Ethics (2015) is transparency. This famous journalistic guideline says that 'ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one's work and explaining one's decision to the public.' According to the code, part of the job of journalists when it comes to transparency is that they should respond in a quick way to questions about fairness. Fairness is an ingredient of journalistic objectivity as shown before (Brucker, 1973, Brucker, 1949; Mindich, 2000). This means that transparency has an external function when it comes to objectivity. But how do journalist experience this transparency norm? When do they think transparency is useful and when not?
For journalists that write about the conflict between Israel and Palestine, it is likely that it is as hard to live up to the norm of transparency as that it is important. This is mainly because of the omnipresent hostile media perception. It is hard, because journalists will get so many responses on their pieces because they are perceived biased, that responding to them will take a great amount of time. It is important, because it is a great opportunity for journalists to mellow the hostile media perception by explaining choices, form a civil dialogue and to respond to questions about fairness.
The assumable appearance of the hostile media perception in the conflict between Israel and Palestine leads to sub questions (1):
A: Is the hostile media perception playing a role in the coverage of the conflict between Israel and Palestine and how do journalists cope with this phenomenon?
B: Is transparency a way to mellow the hostile media perception or is it a fetter?
C: What are the consequences in terms of the norm of objectivity?
Source contact and the norm of objectivity
Gans (1979) was one of the early adopters of research about the relationship between journalists and their sources, mainly focusing on PR. Based on the conclusion of his research, the
relationship between journalists and their sources can be best described as a love-hate
relationship. This metaphorical tango was later taken over by other researchers (Stromback & Nord, 2006; Wickboldt 2008). Source and journalist depend on each other, but according to Gans (1979), the journalists distrust their sources, because many of them come with self-serving
motives. On the thin ice of trust and distrust, journalists have to decide what source to believe and find credible. Also the daily routines of journalists play a role in how journalists select their sources (Hachigan & Hallahan, 2003; Sigal, 1973; Franklin & Carlson, 2011).
Thrustworthiness (Hofland & Weiss, 1951; Pornpitakpan, 2004; Gans, 1979) and expertise
(Hovland et al., 1953; Eastin, 2001; Giffin, 1967; Pornpitakpan, 2004) are commonly referred to as decisive factors of source credibility. Hovland et al., (1953), as cited in Pornpitakpan (2004), describe trustworthiness as "the degree to which an audience perceives the assertions made to be
ones that the speaker considers valid (p.244)". The journalist can be considered as 'the speaker'
description of Hovland et al., (1953) to describe expertness: "the extent to which a speaker is
perceived to be capable of making correct assertions" (p. 244).
Based on the literature, It is likely that the source 'distrust' as put down by Gans (1979), is higher among sources that do not support the viewing point of the journalist than sources that do so. A source that will have a total different opinion than a source that is having an opinion closer to the one of the journalist, will be perceived less expert and less trustworthy. The study of Clark and Maas (1988) subscribes that. The researchers saw that when it comes to source credibility, the in-group is viewed as much more credible than the out-in-group. They even went as far as calling the in-group influence 'superior' to the out-group influence. This is in line with what Feldman (1984) found. The research showed that the similarity of the source was a major predictor of the
influence the source had. The more similar the source was to the participant, the more influence it had. Therefore, it is likely that a journalist that is working for a title that is more pro-Palestinian will distrust a Israel source (no in-group, not similar in political stance) more than a pro-Palestinian source.
Where the literature about source credibility mainly consists of citizens (as in no journalists) and sources, is the theory about the direct relationship between journalists and the influence of routines in source selection more developed. Sigal (1973) shows that journalists rely on routines, because they need to gather news efficiently. Ryfe (2009) presented similar findings. He analyzed the newsroom of the Daily Times, where a new editor wants the journalist to avoid the public agencies. Within time, the journalist became confused and indignated and changed back to their prior routines. Journalists use routines, because they serve functional and systematic needs. It is functional, because it saves time and money. It is systematic, because journalists see journalism as profession and with profession come professional routines.
This reliance on routines means that there is not a big mobility in the sources that a journalist approaches. If you add to this that Gans (1979) states that a good source is a source that shows social proximity with the journalist in class, ideology and other characteristics, it is likely that journalists fall back on sources that show a higher proximity in ideology. Gans says about that:
"Social proximity is, moreover, influenced by all the structural and demographic factors that shape other relationships, thereby enabling people of similar backgrounds and interests to make contact, and obstructing those who differ. After all, journalists are also members of society" (p.
that there is a big variety in the sources journalists use and that they mainly use sources that fit in their routine pattern. "national journalists -but I expect locals as well- move within a relatively
small and narrow aggregate of sources, which is dominated by the people they contact or who contact them regularly" ( p. 126). In terms of objectivity as a norm and especially the 'ingredient'
inclusiveness (Mindich, 2000), the rigidity of journalists to stick to the same sources and the tendency to approach sources that show social proximity are bad phenomena.
The presumption that journalists will have more contact with sources closer to their own ideology leads to the following sub questions (2):
D: Do journalists have more contact with sources that show more social proximity and are they perceived more credible than sources that are further away from their ideology?
E: How do routines in source approach influence the coverage of the conflict between Israel and Palestine?
Method paragraph
In this paragraph the methods of the study will be discussed. The analyzed data will be collected by conducting qualitative interviews with correspondents and former correspondents that worked in Israel and/or the Palestinian territories and journalists in general that write about Israel and the Palestinian territories. A semi structured topic list is used. Qualitative research is in this case beneficial because it allows the author to change something in the topic list along the way. First, this is important because the author is by any means restricted in his knowledge because he has never been to Israel or the Palestinian territories. New insights may be the cause of a changing topic list. Second, the flexibility makes it possible for the author to deviate from the topic list during the interviews when a respondent says something interesting. In that way, the author can dig more deep into the subject.
The topic list includes questions about attempts of approach by: (online) readers, viewers, ngo’s, embassies, ‘people on the street’, news sources, media advertisers, editors at the desk, place of living of the correspondents, governmental PR, as well as questions about journalistic norms and its perceived importance.
Participants
Eight journalists (N=8) were interviewed in total. Two journalists of De Volkskrant (newspaper), two journalists of Elsevier (weekly magazine), one journalist of RTL Nieuws (TV), one journalist of De Persdienst (national editorial office of eight regional newspapers), one former journalist of De Volkskrant and the NOS Journaal (TV) and one journalist that works for De Persdienst, Elsevier and ANP (press agency) were selected. The journalists were selected by taking a broad sample when it comes to political stance in the conflict. When specifying this political positioning it can be argued that De Persdienst, RTL Nieuws and NOS Journaal 'hover about' the middle. De Volkskrant considers the Elsevier coverage to be more pro-Israel, whereas Elsevier has the opinion De Volkskrant coverage is more pro-Palestine. By taking a broad sample in political sense of the Dutch media landscape, the external validity is enlarged.
Data collection
The interviews were conducted by the author from the 17th of November until the 10th of December. The author works as a journalist for De Persdienst and by contacting their foreign news desk, snowball sampling took place. The interviews lasted from 45 minutes to 90 minutes.
All the interviews were held face-to-face or through Skype. The interviews were conducted and transcribed in Dutch. All the interviews were recorded.
The interviewer used a semi-structured topic list. The interview guide was a directory, but by no means an obligated route. For example, a question about online comments on internet articles was: How often do people react and do the reactions differ between the two camps? The answers of the respondents were the inducement for the next question.
A distinction is made in ‘camps’, namely in pro-Israel actors or lobbyists and pro-Palestine actors and lobbyists. When it came to professional organizations, the distinction was made based on the own knowledge of the author and on an intensive study on Google about organizations that analyze, critique and/or approach journalists. Furthermore, in every interview the author asked the correspondents if they had additions of organizations like these. If they knew new organizations, they were added to the topic list.
At the end of every interview, the interviewer thanked the respondents for their participation, but the interviewer also asked if questions could be asked in the future about some new developments in the research that appeared. Because all the communication before the interview consist of mail traffic, these questions were send by email. The respondents were in this way able to give their opinion on the quote and this leads to more interesting quotes about the subject in the end.
Analysis
Overall the research tries to search for common consensus, differences and patterns in the transcripts of the interviews with the journalists. The raw material was first broken down (open coding) and divided in six subjects: Travels of CIDI; the place where a correspondent lives; choice of words; framing, discourse, selective exposure, ideology; PR (ngo's, governmental, fixers, lobbyism, embassy of Israel, Palestinian representative) and reactions. With quotes that were representative for the subjects were colored, to make it easier to find them back in the transcripts. Together with a professor at the university of Amsterdam, the results were discussed, valued and patterns and differences were explored. In this phase of focused coding, the most illustrative and important quotes for the media hostile perception, source contact and objectivity were selected. After that, the relation between the topics were analyzed by the author.
For a higher internal validity, the author made use of two measures. The first was peer debriefing during the set up of the interview guide and during the phase of analysis. In the setup-phase of the
interviews the relevant topics and questions were discussed and in the phase of analyzing the results there was discussed how the transcript should be interpret. During the whole length of the thesis, the author had contact with famous Palestinian journalist Ruba Mimi, as well as with friends from. This mainly helped in setting up the interview guide and the extra knowledge helped, because the author was able to end up in more detailed questions after answers of some of the respondents.
The second measure were the adjustments to the interview guide after the comments the author gets while doing the interviews. Some suggestions of the journalists were put into the interview guide. For example, there were some questions about the embassy of Israel in The Netherlands. One of the journalists told that although the Palestinians did not have an ambassador, they did have a representative in The Netherlands. some other suggestions changed the questions in the interview guide. One of the questions was: have you ever been in Israel or Palestine for
professional reasons? It appeared to be that this question could be perceived as biased, because
Palestine is not recognized by a significant part of the world. Therefore this was changed into:
have you ever been in Israel or the Palestinian territories for professional reasons?
A third measure to increase internal validity is thick description. The author tried to describe some of the phenomena deep and with more than one quote.
Results
In this paragraph the main results that came out of the interviews are discussed.
hostile media perception
Literally all the correspondents and journalists had quotes that they experienced a hostile media perception and that they recognize the causes of that as described in the literature. It makes it almost impossible for journalists to be perceived as reporters that fulfill the norm of objectivity. Thoughtful word choice and transparency are ways to deal with it, but the rigid frames of the audience makes it hard to be totally transparent.
In the Netherlands, there is a big group of news followers that is interested in the reportage of the conflict, with a big division in pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. A Dutch journalist of Elsevier that is writing about the conflict and is receiving mostly reactions from people in The Netherlands, sees that the frame of the audience is very rigid in this conflict.
"People are already in a frame towards one side or the other. That accounts for this conflict more than for other conflicts."
It was remarkable that the term 'trenches' came back more than once in the transcripts. With that term journalists try to explain how slow the discussion is 'moving', because followers of the conflict are not really willing to change their opinion.
"The Palestinian side will always call me a semi-Zionist, while the Israeli side will call me a
Palestinian-hugger or part of Hamas. Sometimes the comments are really vitriolic and hard (...) People that are already in their trench will never look above their trench. That is what we should do as journalists: look above it."
A correspondent of De Volkskrant expresses himself in likewise words. This quote also shows the different standards (Vallone et al., 1985). It means that people judge and value arguments made by themselves and arguments made by the other party in a different way. In this particular example it is clear that both parties make a distinction between their own arguments that are perceived as 'superior' and the arguments of the other side that are judged as 'inferior'.
"There is much hate, also in The Netherlands. People are crusted in their own world and will not come out of that. Every argument that is not theirs is a wrong and criminal argument. And they tell you that and that is the problem."
The next quote is supportive for the second mechanism that leads to selective recall of partisan people of impulses in media that are opposite to their own (Vallone et al., 1985). In this example the Israelis remember the fact that the journalists writes a negative story about Israel better than the fact that the journalist wrote earlier stories that reflected their own view.
"This summer I made a big report about a bombed neighbourhood in Gaza. Over there, you speak to people and you can not reject that there is a lot of misery and that it looks slightly like Berlin in 1945. But people are very critical towards that, even if I say that one week before I wrote a piece that shows the Israeli side of the story; that rockets are fired towards them. But they want to get their prejudices reaffirmed. That is a pity and in this conflict it is more than anywhere else."
Another factor that leads to the hostile media perception is described by Vallone et al., (1985) with the term selective categorization. In the following quote, a story about a subject that is perceived as neutral by the journalist, is far more sensitive than expected and categorized as non-neutral by partisans.
"On the internet I wrote a piece about some beautiful national park. That seems to be a normal subject, but you will get a lot of reactions anyways, because the park was laying in occupied territory according to some readers. Even the most neutral pieces are very sensitive."
According to a journalist of Elsevier, journalists can try to come close to objectivity, but that it is impossible to reach a total neutral position. Working as a journalist is making choices, like how you select facts. Because of that, every journalist is biased.
"By putting a certain fact first you are already weighting the facts. And with a conflict that is so long lasting, there are a lot of facts you can choose from. You cannot use every fact. So when you are making a selection, you are not anymore objective or neutral, no matter how long your article is."
All the journalists estimate transparency as an important journalistic value. They see it as their duty to explain to people why they made the choices they did. This journalist of Elsevier explains why transparency is important.
"If readers call me or email me about articles that carry my name then it is my duty to reply them as accurate and clear as possible. Sometimes that is time costly, but I always try to answer them. Those people pay money for the magazine and then it is normal that you explain why you come to certain decisions."
Ass much as all the journalists admitted that transparency is a central journalistic value, there is a common sense that the hostile media perception and the stiff attitude of readers and viewers also make it hard to completely fulfil the norm of journalistic transparency. A correspondent in Tel Aviv subscribes that there is a hostile media perception, when he talks about reactions like email, social media or face to face contact. The annoyance he feels when he sees some comments, makes it that he does not want to react on everything.
"People do not come to change their opinion, only to react. If you have seen that for ten times, you think: whatever. I only react when the reactions are well thought and substantively."
A journalist of Elsevier expresses herself in likewise texts.
"I do not react to everything. First I look how serious the reaction is and if someone is very prejudiced by oneself and then I think you cannot fight it. But if it is a serious reaction, I will react serious."
This view of a discussion that is sometimes blurred is shared by a journalist from De Persdienst. If people read a text through a certain 'frame', ending up in this discussion is not the nicest part of the job.
"I receive emails on my personal inbox and I am participating in that discussion. But at a certain point it is useless. After several email exchanges it is clear that they read something that I did not meant that way. (...) People sometimes read from this perspective."
The sensitiveness in the conflict is finding its way into the word choice of the respondents. That is also a finding that reflects a common consensus among the correspondents. It is their way of handling the fragility of their perceived neutrality by the audience. In their articles they weight their words more than in any other conflict. And even if they do that, still there will be a lot of negative response.
"How you choose your words is very important. That is why I mention carefulness as an important journalistic norm in this area. Everything is part of the debate and it all has to do with history. If you use the term 'Jewish state' or 'Palestinian state'; it is very sensitive. If you use them wrong, you will get a lot of complaints. I am way more careful than when I write about Italy."
The following journalist of De Volkskrant also describes words as a matter of sensitiveness. Also words that are perceived as non-biased by a journalist, can be translated and categorized totally different by someone that is involved in the story.
"One time I changed 'Zionist' into 'colonist'. The man that I was talking about was really angry that I called himcolonist. It was not something I did conscious and for me it is not a big difference. For them it is a big difference. Then you notice how sensitive this is."
source credibility
There is support in the data for the notion that journalists have more contact with sources with more social proximity than with sources that lack this amount of social proximity, as predicted in the theoretical framework and that sources closer to the ideology are perceived more credible. Routines seem to narrow the spectrum of sources that is used.
It is fair to say that De Volkskrant will be judged more pro-Palestine by the pro-Israel side, whereas Elsevier will be judged more pro-Israel by the pro-Palestine side. First , this statement is underpinned by two quotes of journalists of both media outlets. The following quote shows that the coverage of Elsevier is more pro-Israel.
“I receive more pro-Israel email (than pro-Palestine email, DA), but that also has to do with the readers of Elsevier. They know what to expect from Elsevier, also because we are more pro-Israel than other media…”
Also a journalist of De Volkskrant had a bright quote about more Palestine coverage on the side of that paper.
“There was a young group of Israelis that united themselves last summer (2014, DA). They thought the reporting was too much based on Palestine. I agreed with them, also in our newspaper."
Much more than the two newspapers, the CIDI (Centrum for Information and Documenting Israel), The Rights Forum and Een Ander Joods Geluid do have a clear profile in terms of the side they support. The CIDI is pro-Israel, The Right Forum and Een Ander Joods Geluid try to focus on the Palestinian case and have a critical look towards Israel. A journalist of Elsevier feels the judgment of CIDI is unfair among other journalists and compares CIDI with The Rights Forum and Een Ander Joods Geluid. He judges the CIDI more factual, what can be seen as a form of expertness and thrustworthiness.
"When I am talking with colleagues about the CIDI, you get the reaction: ah, that is a pro-Israel organisation. But when you talk with them about The Rights Forum and Een Ander Joods Geluid, normally you will not get the reaction: ah, that is a pro-Palestine organisation. But I think that CIDI is more factual than those organisations. But even then, the CIDI is more stigmatized."
This last quote is quite opposite when it is compared with the sayings of a journalist of De
Volkskrant that compares two of the same organisations. In contradiction to the Elsevier journalist he says Een Ander Joods Geluid is more nuanced, while CIDI is considered very biased.
Describing the CIDI as 'very pro-Israel' will have a negative effect in terms of thrustworthiness.
"There are organisations that try to search for nuance, like Een Ander Joods Geluid. They want the two-state-solution. (...) But the CIDI, with Esther Voet (director of CIDI, DA), are very pro-Israel."
But also journalists of a more 'middle party' like De Persdienst show that they search for sources with social proximity. The next quote is from a journalists from their editorial office. Several times during the interview he emphasized that he likes nuance, as well as background stories and contemplative articles. This, because of the complexity of the conflict. The thing he likes in sources is also a less partisan and more nuanced view.
"The last interview I had was with Ari Shavit, an writer of Israel that visited the Netherlands. (...) That man had a message that was reasonably appeased. (...) I consider this interesting people, because they look further than pure ideology."
In terms of source contact, there is a clear difference in the ideology of the contacts between the journalists of Elsevier and De Volkskrant. It has to be clear that those quotes are from journalists that work from The Netherlands, so not the correspondents. In this case, it seems to be more a form of 'media credibility' that shapes the contact, as the sources are not likely to believe that the media will give them an honest chance to make it into the news. Due to reasons described below, the contact between Elsevier and pro-Palestine sources is less than the contact with pro-Israel sources. For De Volkskrant it works the other way around. This is what a journalist of Elsevier has to say about it.
"Likud Nederland (pro-Israel, DA) is approaching me, but there is never a Palestinian organisation that is approaching me. I think that is because they think they will not succeed in making their point in a magazine like Elsevier."
The journalist of De Volskrant takes a critical stand towards her own positioning in the choices of the Gaza war of 2014 and explains why she has less contact with sources that support or represent Israel. Also over here, we can see 'media credibility'. Her primary Palestinian network (routines) was part of the cause of the dominant coverage of Palestinian stories.
"I noticed that it is way easier to speak to Palestinians than Israelis. At a certain point I had quite a big network with people that always wanted to talk. With Israelis that was a bit more sensitive. I think it is really important to speak with people from both sides, but at a certain point I had a network in the Palestinian territories and not in Israel. I also noticed that the newspaper was more focussed on Palestine, because the war was mainly there and because on the side of Israel there were less dead people."
She explains that a weaker social proximity in terms of ideology makes it harder and less tempting to build a network with Israelis involved.
"I also tried to approach Israeli organisations. I tried to call them. Or I could not reach them, or they did not want to participate. Via an Israeli friend in The Netherlands I tried to get in touch with them. But the difference is: the Palestinians are very happy if you do something with their story. (...) They always said: very good, fantastic. But the Israel side wanted me to change every word. (...)."
She also makes it clear that the lesser contact with Israeli sources had its influence on the coverage. This quote, linked with the former citation, is an example where source contact influences the coverage.
"When you look at the coverage this summer (Gaza war 2014, DA), I think you clearly see that the focus was on Palestine and that there was taken little effort to show the Israeli side of the story. I think that is not good and I also blame myself for that."
Role of journalism
Journalists clearly did dare to criticize the own role in the conflict in terms of objectivity. According to some journalists, the way media are forming the debate is not per definition a fruitful way to narrow the gap between the two camps. It is not said that more understanding between the two groups will solve the conflict, but objectivity should require more effort than putting two opposite sides together behind a table in a TV studio. A correspondent of RTL explains why the debates on TV do not give viewers more insight in the conflict. He explains what the role of journalism ought to be.
"In talk shows (...) you will always see the same figures and you can draw before the start how the debate will develop. They put Leon de Winter (pro-Israel) and Harry van Bommel (pro-Palestine) in front of each other. I see that often and I think that you should not offer the Dutch viewer a debate in that way. The situation over here (in Israel and Palestine, DA) is so complex and those debates do not do justify this
complexity. Those people are the people that are already in the trenches and they will always tell you the same story. And that annoys me. You know what you get and that it is not objective. So why would it be objective if you put them opposite to each other and do you think you make people more wise about the subject? That is just not true.
The correspondent also gives a possible alternative.
"Good reports are an alternative for that. In newspapers you can see in the opinion pages what colour a newspaper has got, but in the reports correspondents only show what is happening. (...) Sometimes you see news in the form of an opinion, but that is just bad journalism."
When we continue to look at the role of journalism in the conflict, it makes sense to say that correspondents that see both sides of the stories and that are constantly surrounded by the conflict, can give a more deliberate and up-to-date view to the media followers in their home country than people that already have chosen a side and that are willing to defend their stance. As shown above, nowadays the atmosphere in the media is for a big part formed by a strongly polarized debate in TV shows in a place that is not in Israel or the Palestinian territories. Maybe the weakening financial position of 'the correspondent' within news media is the cause of that. A former correspondent from Tel Aviv shows it with an example from his newspaper.
"A colleague of mine was correspondent for our newspaper, but he died. Since then we did not have a correspondent over there. I went back twice this summer (during the Gaza war, DA), because I knew the situation, as well as a another Israel correspondent from the newspaper. (...) It might have something to do with money. (...) Last months showed us that it is really important that someone is there. Living in a country and spending your time over there is different than just visiting it."
Another correspondent agrees with him and analyses the situation on a more broad level.
"In general, when there are budget cuts, the foreign news office is the dupe, because it is 'costly business'. (...) For some media it is cheaper to send people from The Netherlands by plain to the areas."
A journalist of Elsevier explains that she sees the option of a more deliberative and nuanced debate as a good one, but she thinks the debate should not only focus on that.
“I Understand that a correspondent in Israel thinks like that. They are over there, so they know how it ‘really’ is. But sometimes I think that it is even better to listen also to the opinion of someone that is not involved in the conflict every day, because it can trouble your image.”
According to her, the specific characteristics of TV and their viewers make it impossible to solely focus on extensive background reports from the region itself.
“Reports are nice, but sometimes a heavy discussion is also interesting. It will make it a bit more simple, but in my opinion that is just nice for television. You cannot always tell the complex story. People cannot handle that in a talk show after a long day of work.”
Discussion & conclusion
In this part, conclusions will be drawn upon the research and limitations are discussed. There will also be discussed what implications the research has for further research and social policy.
If there is one main conclusion that can be drawn, it is that it is almost impossible for
correspondents and journalists that report about the conflict between Israel and Palestine, to be perceived completely objective. This is in line with the hostile media perception (Vallone et al., 1985). One of the journalists argued that it is impossible to achieve complete objectivity. But even in the utopian case that there exists a completely neutral journalist, it is likely that he will be blamed for being biased by both sides. Because there is strong support for a hostile media perception in this conflict based on the results, maybe it is a waste of time and energy to worry about it, as the hostile media perception is an almost uncontrollable phenomenon. When someone is a repairman for central heating, it is normal that the repairman that gets the biggest
compliments and less complaints is one of the best repairmen's in business, but this is not
applicable to the profession of journalists. It is possible that the best journalist is getting the most complaints, because he is brave enough to criticize both sides and to draw hard conclusions. is what this research says, is that some of the comments are coming from people that live in
rhetorical 'trenches', as one of the journalists said, and that it is sometimes a mission impossible to get them out of that. For editorial offices it implies that protection of the journalists that write about a conflict that is as sensitive as the conflict between Israel and Palestine is one of the most important obligations. With the arrival of the internet, opinions are more in public and it is not a small thing when people do not have limits and insult you by calling you an 'anti-Semitic rat', although you are trying to do your work as honest as possible.
This research does not imply that journalists should ignore the signs and comments of their readers. The ivory tower is a fragile one, and the readers and viewers will not like journalists that are neglecting their opinion as they are the ones that indirectly and partially pay their salary by subscription fee and attention. Transparency is a main journalistic value (SPJ Code of Ethics, 2015) and with explanation about the choices journalists make, they can mellow the hostile media perception.
Unlike the hostile media perception, the phenomenon where journalists have more contact with sources closer to their own ideology (Gans, 1979), is very controllable. A small political scale in source contact might have a negative influence on objectivity in terms of inclusiveness (Mindich, 2000). This negative effect is enlarged by the reliance of journalists on routines (Ryfe, 2009) and
because more Pro-Israel media perceived sources closer to their opinion more credible than other sources and for the more pro-Palestine side counts the same. This implies that it will affect the frequency to what a source is approached by media and that affects the coverage (Gans, 1979). It is part of the journalistic values and tradition to present a balanced image, although an outlet like Elsevier has the argument on their side that they are an opinion news magazine instead of a newspaper. In terms of objectivity it is arguable that this might influence the accuracy in showing both sides of a story.
One other thing that can be concluded after analyzing the quotes is that next to source credibility, there is something taking place that we best can describe as ‘medium credibility’. Sources are very critical and cynical towards media they do not trust to take over their opinion the way they want it. They even stop approaching them or do not want to talk to a journalist anymore. Because they are so critical towards a journalist and because they want to have a big control about what is written about them, for journalists it is less attractive to approach these sources. This leads to a blurred relationship and in the end to less objective reporting, as journalists do not come close to inclusiveness (Mindich, 2000).
One thing that can be a contribution to discussion, is the way in which the news about the conflict is represented by media. Of course adversarial reporting is one of the most important journalistic values, but it is important to think over the way we present an adversarial discussion. Is it wise to put two people into a studio in The Netherlands or in any country that is not Israel or does not belong to the Palestinian territories and let them discuss the matter? People with a political agenda or with a certain political ideology, who will probably think it is more important not to lose a discussion on national TV then to listen to the arguments of the other? Or is it better to watch a full background report about the issue by a correspondent that is living in the conflict area day in and day out, which ultimate role it is to bring the discussion in a neutral and balanced way? But what has to be noticed according to a journalist is that TV maybe is not the perfect medium to solely present background reports, because people will not maintain their attention after a long day of work when there is only complex material.
In addition to that, this study can be considered as defensive for the position of the correspondents in general. Of course in financial terms it is cheaper to drive a political guest or ideological speaker with a taxi into the studio then to pay for a team of journalists in a foreign country.
According to the quotes of a journalist when it comes to budget cuts, it is seductive to spare on the foreign news post. The big drawback of that is that media are more dependent of the big press agencies and the before mentioned talk show guests with a political stance firm as a rock.
Although having correspondents all over the world is costly, it is advisable to accurate consider if further budget cuts on correspondents are smart.
The main limitation of the research is the small amount of respondents. Although some of the quotes are quite clear and a convincing underline for the theory, it is questionable if the results are representable to a wider population, as only eight journalists are interviewed. Another limitation in terms of representation is the nationality of the respondents. All the interviewees were Dutch and worked for Dutch media. Although some of the phenomena (such as the media hostile effect) discussed in the research are probably things that occur because of some universal human nature, it is possible that a different media landscape or culture in other countries will deliver other results.
The fact that some interviews had to occur via Skype was only an issue with one ex-correspondent of the NOS Journaal, as the connection was bad during ten minutes and some of the answers were not recorded unclouded. Therefore, not all of the quotes could be transcribed during this troubled period.
In future research, it is interesting to see if a more polarized debate leads to more polarization and a sharper hostile media perception. Maybe a more deliberate debate between less partisan and more nuanced voices will make people more informed and less lost in their rhetorical trenches. Maybe the debate should be dominated by scientists, ex-correspondents and other people with a weaker ideological agenda and supplemented with material of current correspondents. An
experimental setting where both a polarized debate and a more nuanced debate are presented to an audience will be suitable for that.
Another important field for further research is the use of sources by media. With a content analysis the use of partisan sources in news media can be recorded. If news media are using significantly more sources that support one side in the conflict, it is good to show this to them with scientific evidence. It is up to the outlets to do something with the results, but it will definitely stimulate them. There is also an opportunity that the audience will dislike the
unbalanced use of source, what might have an impact on the media outlets. Measuring the use of sources is a better way of measuring the objectivity norm of journalists than to rely on the feedback of media consumers, as this perceived objectivity is strongly determined by the mechanisms of the hostile media perception.
reference list
Brucker, H. (1949). Freedom of Information. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Brucker, H. (1973). Communication is power: Unchanging Values in a Changing Journalism. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Cambridge Dictionaries Online. (n.d.). Retrieved January 27, 2015, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/objective?q=objectivity
Clark, R. D., & Maass, A. (1988). The role of social categorization and perceived source credibility in minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(5), 381-394
Cooper, T. W. (Ed). (1989). Communication ethics and global change. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Dalton, R. J., Beck, P. A., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 111-126.
Eastin, M. S. (2001). Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication, 6(4), 0-0.
Eindpunt.blogspot.nl, (2013). Hotel Terminus: Israel-correspondent Monique van Hoogstraten speelt de jodenkaart. [online] Available at:
http://eindpunt.blogspot.nl/2013/07/israel-correspondent-monique-van.html [Accesed 28 jan. 2015]
Feldman, R. H. (1984). The influence of communicator characteristics on the nutrition attitudes and behavior of high school students. Journal of School Health, 54(4), 149-151
Franklin, B., & Carlson, M. (Eds.). (2011). Journalists, sources, and credibility: New perspectives. Routledge.
Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek, and Time. Northwestern University Press.
Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological bulletin, 68(2), 104.
Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1994). The causes of hostile media judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30(2), 165-180.
Hachigian, D., & Hallahan, K. (2003). Perceptions of public relations web sites by computer industry journalists. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 43-62.
Hafez, K. (2002). Journalism ethics revisited: A comparison of ethics codes in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and Muslim Asia. Political Communication, 19(2), 225-250.
Horai, J., Naccari, N., & Fatoullah, E. (1974). The effects of expertise and physical attractiveness upon opinion agreement and liking. Sociometry, 37, 601-606.
Hovland, C., Janis, I., & Kelley, H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public opinion quarterly, 15(4), 635-650.
Palestina Info ~ Actueel, (2014). Open brief aan Monique van Hoogstraten - Israel-Palestina Info ~ Actueel. [online] Available at:
http://www.israel-palestina.info/actueel/2014/06/23/open-brief-aan-monique-van-hoogstraten/ [Accessed 28 Jan. 2015].
Lirtzman, S. I., & Shuv-Ami, A. (1986). Credibility of source of communication on products’ safety hazards. Psychological Reports, 58,707-7 18.
Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1980). Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness, and supporting arguments on persuasion: A case of brains over beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 235-244.
Martien Pennings, (2014). Antisemitische rat Monique van Hoogstraten wekt weer Israëlhaat in het NOS-journaal. [online] Available at:
https://martienpennings.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/antisemitische-rat-monique-van-hoogstraten-wekt-weer-israelhaat-in-het-nos-journaal/ [Accessed 28 Jan. 2015].
Mindich, D. T. (2000). Just the facts: How objectivity came to define American journalism. NYU Press.
Molotch, H., & Lester, M. (1975). Accidental news: The great oil spill as local occurrence and national event. American Journal of Sociology, 235-260.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243-281.
Reid, S. A. (2012). A Self‐Categorization Explanation for the Hostile Media Effect. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 381-399.
Ryfe, D. M. (2009). Broader and deeper A study of newsroom culture in a time of change. Journalism, 10(2), 197-216.
Schmitt, K. M., Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31(6), 623-641.
Sigal, L. V. (1973). Bureaucratic objectives and tactical uses of the press.Public Administration Review, 336-345.
Spj.org, (2015). SPJ Code of Ethics | Society of Professional Journalists | Improving and protecting journalism since 1909. [online] Available at: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp [Accessed 28 Jan. 2015].
Strömbäck, J., & Nord, L. W. (2006). Do politicians lead the tango? A study of the
relationship between Swedish journalists and their political sources in the context of election campaigns. European Journal of Communication, 21(2), 147-164.
Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(3), 577.
Wickboldt, A. K. (2008). Does it take one or two to tango?: language skills, physical appearance, and immigrant integration in Germany (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
