Framing Israeli-Palestine conflict in Estonian media compared to
Israeli and Arab media during the wave of violence in 2015-2016
Master Thesis
Kärt Kallaste Student-ID: 11445556 Supervisor: Michael Hameleers
Master’s programme Communication Science Graduate School of Communication
University of Amsterdam 1 February 2019
2
Abstract
Various studies on the framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have revealed similar results: media portrayal of the conflict is unbalanced. This study contributes to the existing body of research by analyzing news framing in Estonia, since being geographically and politically unaffected by the conflict, it relies on media as the only source about the situation between Israel and Palestine. The study focused on the framing during the latest wave of violence that occurred in 2015-2016, as with high number of casualties it attracted growing media attention from Estonia. Textual framing was analysed through the presence and use of various framing devices, derived from previous studies on this conflict’s framing and organised into four “framing” blocks (Entman, 1993): main definition of the issue, main causers of the issue, moral judgement of the issue and suggested solution. The results from Estonian media were compared with selected Israeli newspaper Haaretz and Arab media channel Al-Jazeera to place the findings in a wider context. Results indicate that Estonian media framed the conflict from predominantly Israeli perspective, ignoring significant parts of information that were crucial for explaining the Palestinian perspective.
Keywords: framing, Israeli-Palestine conflict, Estonian media, Al-Jazeera, Haaretz
Introduction
“We condemn, in the strongest terms, all attacks against Israelis and Palestinians alike. The recent wave of knife attacks and shootings is particularly appalling. There can be no justification for such despicable acts... [however] This crisis would not have erupted, I suggest ... if Palestinians did not still live under a stifling and humiliating occupation that has lasted almost half a century”
3 UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson, Briefing to the Security Council, 22 October 2015 (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs [OCHA], 2016)
The last quarter of year 2015 witnessed the highest recorded number of casualties in Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 2005 (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs [OCHA], 2017). The wave of violence that started in Jerusalem in September 2015 and spread throughout the rest of West Bank, Gaza and Israel, continuing until June 2016, resulted in the deaths of 35 Israeli and 243 Palestinian people, among them 63 Palestinian children (OCHA, 2017).
The conflict between Israel and Palestine is one of the longest ongoing territorial disputes between two nations and has remained a sensitive issue on the global agenda for over fifty years, attracting wide attention from international news and media scholars (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010; Elmasry, 2009; Elmasry, Shamy, Manning, Mills & Auter, 2013). Expanding from political and humanitarian crises, the issue has become a media battle over shaping the international public’s opinion about the causes of the conflict and the main obstacles to its peaceful solution.
Although the nature of the conflict is a complex combination of religious, nationalistic, territorial and humanitarian disputes, media has become one of the important factors further reinforcing it (Gannot, 2013) – since it has the power to affect public opinion on international level and readiness to cooperate on a local level, it has the capacity to influence the course of the conflict and its resolution (Wolfsfeld, Frosh & Awabdy, 2008).
News framing of the Israeli-Palestine conflict has been rather widely researched. However, most studies have focused on the media coverage in these Western countries that are politically more invested in the conflict (mainly the United States) (Dobernig, Lobinger & Wetztein, 2010; Fahmy & Neumann, 2012) or the conflict’s coverage in Israeli and Arab
4 media, which have certain political motivations for choosing their respective news frames (Feuerstein & Mandelzis, 2017; Gutmann, 2005; Wolfsfeld et al., 2008).
As an important next step, this paper looks at the news coverage of the conflict in a country that is geographically unaffected and politically rather disinvested in the conflict: Estonia. Since news frames can be particularly credible for media audiences when they cover issues or national groups that audiences have little or no contact with outside from news (Liebes & Kampf, 2009), we could predict that framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Estonian media is especially effective in affecting locals’ understanding of the conflict and opinions about its main causes and desired outcomes. A better understanding of the content features may thus be relevant to understand how public discourse is shaped through the media.
Due to its geopolitical positions, it is particularly interesting to analyse Estonia’s media attitude regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a member of the European Union, it officially supports the union’s approach to the conflict and the two-state resolution with independent State of Palestine (Aymat, 2010; Dieckhoff, 2005). However, as a small country bordered with Russia, it greatly depends on the military protection of NATO and the United States of America, and thus has carefully avoided declaring any opposing views to the policies of the USA – a country that has mostly pro-Israel media views and is a supporter of the one-state solution (Elmasry, 2009; Sloan & MacKay, 2007).
This study will analyse the framing used in Estonian media about the Israeli-Palestine conflict during the most recent wave of violence in 2015-2016 and compare it to news frames used in Arab and Israeli media. Comparison with two other medias will help to point out the potential information gaps or prejudices in Estonian media compared to the medias of the parties to the conflict. The aim of this study is to create a better understanding how media of
5 the country that is unaffected by the Israeli-Palestine conflict, describes and evaluates the world’s longest ongoing conflicts by answering the following research question:
How does Estonian media frame the Israeli-Palestine conflict during the wave of violence in 2015-2016 and how does it differ from media frames used in Israeli and Arab media?
Theoretical background
The use of framing devices on the Israeli-Palestine conflict
The central concept of this research, news framing essentially means selecting aspects of the reality that are emphasized through the media to “make them more salient in a communicating text” (Entman, 1993, p.52). News frames as “reality constructs” are considered powerful tools in encouraging audiences to interpret selected issues in a certain way, that is embedded in the frame, and thus shaping public understanding of different political, social or economic situations.
Although media idealistically aims for truthful and objective news coverage, using frames to interpret socio-political reality is inevitable (Sloan & MacKay, 2007; Somerville, 2017), since every media channel and every journalist operates in a different system of political, social and cultural values and beliefs, that are accepted as unquestionable truths in this specific society (Pan & Kosicki, 1993; Somerville, 2017).
Communication scholar Entman has stated that frames typically “diagnose, evaluate and prescribe” (1993, p. 52) through the use of various “devices” – by quoting certain information sources or by repeting selected phrases and connecting them to meanings that are previously familiar to audiences (Entman, 1993). Through these “devices”, news can draw focus on some parts of the reality and make them more memorable to audiences, while overlooking other parts of the same information (Entman, 1993).
6 Framing of the Israeli-Palestine conflict has been analysed in multiple empirical studies with focus on frame variances across time (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010; Elmasry, Shamy, Manning, Mills & Auter, 2013) and across regions (Dobernig, Lobinger & Wetztein, 2010; Fahmy & Neumann, 2012). Studies have found competing narratives (pro-Israeli versus pro-Palestinian) in the medias of the parties to the conflict (Feuerstein & Mandelzis, 2017; Gutmann, 2005; Wolfsfeld, Frosh & Awabdy, 2008) and in the medias of other countries (Dobernig et al., 2010; Fahmy & Neumann, 2012).
Most studies have found that some bias is prevalent in the coverage about the conflict. By conveying underlying frame indicators, coverage of the conflict is mostly imbalanced and partial. Number of studies on Western news have proved the dominance of pro-Israeli frame (Deprez and Raeymaeckers, 2010; Dobernig et al., 2010; Elmasry, 2009), while Israeli and Arab media have been found to convey their perspective messages – Arab media, as a supporter of Palestine, has used framing supportive to Palestinian cause, and Israel has used framing that is supportive to its cause (Elmasry et al, 2013; Liebes & Kampf, 2009; Wolfsfeld et al., 2008).
A number of different aspects or „devices“ regarding the conflict’s framing have been looked at in these studies. As “loaded” words are considered important indicators of an underlying frame (Entman, 1993; Matthes & Kohring, 2008; Pan & Kosicki, 1993), many framing studies have looked at the use of certain labels in the context of Israeli-Palestine conflict. Phrases like „terrorists“ and „Palestinian Authority-administered territories“ have been linked to pro-Israeli frame while terms like „martyrs“ and „occupied territories“ have been connected with pro-Palestine framing (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010; Sloan & MacKay, 2007). According to previous studies, Palestinians are more often named with „heavily charged labels“ (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010, p. 100), like „extremist“, „radical“,
7 „martyr“ and „terrorist“, while the word „occupier“ is more often applied to Israelis (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010).
Previous studies on the conflict have also analysed who are communicated as the victims and who as the perpetrators in case of violent clashes. Through certain labels (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010; Elmasry et al., 2013; Wolfsfeld et al., 2008) news determine who are communicated as the main victims. An analysis of the news coverage of First and Second Intifada in Flemish newspapers (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010) found that Palestinians were covered more often as victims in the news’ headlines, but during Second Intifada increasingly more as perpetrators. An analysis of Arab TV channels Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabya during 2008-2009 Gaza conflict found that Palestinians were portrayed more as victims. However, the study explained that the news simply reflected reality – death count on Palestinian side was considerably higher.
Different authors have argued that the use of Israeli and Palestinian sources is also unbalanced (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010; Elmasry et al., 2013; Korn, 2004) – depending on the position of the media, either predominantly Palestinian (Elmasry et al., 2013) or Israeli sources (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010) are quoted in articles. In Western media, Israeli military and political sources are used as the dominant source of information, while occasionally Palestinian citizens, „terrorists“ and politicians are also quoted (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010).
Various studies have found that media tends to provide little, if any, background information about the conflict (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010; Wolfsfeld et al., 2008). A study on the conflict’s coverage in Flemish newspapers found that as an explanation to the conflict, most often were mentioned the occupation of Palestinian territories and its connection to Israel, somewhat frequently America’a aid to Israel, large number of Palestinian refugees and Israeli acts, that were framed as necessary security measures or anti-terrorist acts
8 (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010). The lack of context in the news is clearly an issue, as it might lead to audiences not understanding the nature and the causes of the conflict and as a result not being able to make informed judgements about the issue and suitable solutions.
Another important framing device is the dominant topic selection in articles (Entman, 1993). Israeli-Palestine conflict can be covered with from a broad range of topics: humanitarian crises, Israel’s illegal actions for acquiring more territory, international efforts for ending the conflict etc. A study conducted on the media coverage during the violent conflict in Gaza in 2008-2009 found that two larger Arab TV channels were mostly focusing on two specific topics: war recap with the numbers of victims and international or national efforts for ending the conflict, other possible focuses were largely overlooked (Elmasry et al., 2013, p.759).
As previous studies on the conflict have focused on various different framing devices, in this research the selected framing devices will be organised under four main parts of a frame structure as defined by Entman (1993): 1) a definition of the main issue, 2) an identification of the causer(s) of the issue, 3) moral judgment(s) of the situation and 4) a preferred and explained solution to the situation. Based on this frame’s structure logic, previously identified framing devices will be organized accordingly: article’s main topic, quoted information sources and context information will correspond to the definition of the main issue; communicated perpetrators will be identified as the main causers of the conflict and used labels would imply the underlying judgement of the situations.
It is important to mention that previous studies have not analysed if and what solutions have been suggested to the conflict. But since Entman (1993) has identified it as one of the important frame elements, this study will also look for the presence of offered resolutions. In general, two possible resolutions have been suggested to the Israel-Palestine conflict – one-state or two-one-state solution. Proponents of the one-one-state solution have supported the
9 establishment of one common state with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians from three territories (Israel, West Bank and Gaza) regardless of religious or racial differences (O’Leary, 2016). Supporters of two-state solution suggest the creation of two independent states – State of Palestine and State of Israel with secure, recognised borders as pre-1967 (O’Leary, 2016).
Israeli-Palestinian conflict from different contextual lenses
The latest violent tension between Israel and Palestine started in September 2015, when Israeli soldiers forcefully entered Islam holy site Al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem, to arrest alleged Palestinian “stone throwers”. Clashes between Israeli soldiers, civilians and Palestinian civilians erupted around the mosque compound and quickly spread throughout the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory in West Bank and Gaza and to Israeli territories.
Due to an increase in violence in the last three months of the year, 2015 witnessed the highest number of casualties among West Bank Palestinians, but also among Israeli forces and civilians since 2005. In total 144 Palestinians, among them 30 children, and 22 Israelis were killed, and 14 078 Palestinians and 212 Israelis injured during the violent conflict in the last quarter of 2015 (OCHA, 2016). The violent tension in Israel and Palestinian territory continued until the middle of 2016, although the number and intensity of the clashes and attacks decreased during the 2016 resulting in fewer people injured and killed (OCHA, 2017).
As expressed by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the main concerns during the wave of violence were the Palestinians’ attacks on Israelis, the excessive use of force by the Israeli soldiers that resulted in extrajudicial executions and settler violence against Palestinians (OCHA, 2016).
The wave of violence attracted wide attention of international and foreign national medias, including in Estonia. Although Estonian media did not cover the situation in a profound manner, the conflict nonetheless became a regular topic on daily news. For getting a
10 better understanding of the specific potential Estonian media attitudes regarding the Israeli-Palestine conflict in 2015-2016, it is necessary to look at the political and geopolitical positions of Estonia.
As a member of European Union, Estonia has officially followed the union’s collective convergence to the conflict (Aymat, 2010). Supportive of two-state solution, EU has affirmed Palestinian right for self-determination and condemned Israeli actions that go against international law – namely the construction of illegal settlements and acquisition of territory by war (Dieckhoff, 2005).
However, regardless of its official position, EU’s role in conflict resolution has proved to be insignificant. Since the Oslo Process, the principal role in managing conflict resolution between the Israelis and Palestinians has belonged to the United States and Europe’s role has been marginalized to supporting Palestine state building only with funds and technical help (Aymat, 2010). Although peace in Middle East is an important goal for the European Union, good relationships with United States have been considered just as substantial, if in some cases even not more (Aymat, 2010; Dieckhoff, 2005).
It also needs to be taken into consideration that the European Union consists of 28 countries with own economic and political interests and different foreign relations. Therefore, there is a discrepancy between the countries attitudes’: some countries in Western Europe are sensitive to the responsibilities deriving from international law and some countries in Eastern Europe are defending Israeli actions due to their own ideology or geopolitical reasons (e.g. Estonia) (European Union External Action [EEAS], 2016).
As a small country (with population of 1.3 million) and bordered to the east by Russia, Estonia’s geopolitical position is fragile (Mandelbaum, 2018). It depends greatly on the military protection of NATO and the United States, and as a result of its weak position, the country has abstained from strongly opposing to the views expressed by the United States. As
11 US has maintained strong relations with Israel, also largely influenced by political and religious Jewish lobby groups active in the US politics, US has remained generally supportive of Israel’s course of action moving towards one-state reality (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010).
Therefore, Estonia is in an interesting position regarding the conflict – as a member of the European Union, the country formally follows the union’s approach to the conflict, but as a small country depending on the military protection of the United States, it can not afford going publicly against the US course of action.
This study aims to answer the central research question:
RQ: How does Estonian media frame the Israeli-Palestine conflict during the wave of violence in 2015-2016 and how does it differ from media frames used in Israeli and Arab media?
For answering this question, the study analyses the use of different framing devices that have been employed in previous empirical studies on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. These devices will help to answer the main research question through sub-questions organised according to Entman’s (1993) frame structure:
RQa: What does Estonian media frame as the main issue of the conflict and how does it differ from issues framed in Israeli and Arab media?
RQb: Who does Estonian media frame as the perpetrator and who as the victim in the conflict and how does it differ from findings in Israeli and Arab media?
RQc: What kind of labels does Estonian media predominantly use about Israelis and Palestinians and how do these differ from labels used in Israeli and Arab media?
RQd: What solution does Estonian media suggest to the conflict and how does it differ from Israeli and Arab media?
12
Method
Sample
A quantitive content analysis was conducted in the selected Estonian, Israeli and Arab media during the 2015-2016 wave of violence between Israel and Palestine.
According to Statistics Estonia, Estonians rely on Internet as the main platform for news – about 60 per cent of the whole population and 100 per cent of young adults are using Internet for media consumption (Kõuts-Klemm, Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, Siibak & Lauristin, 2017). Therefore, the data for current study was collected from the four Estonian online media pages with most visitors: online channel of biggest Estonian daily newspaper Postimees
www.postimees.ee, online channel of second biggest Estonian daily newspaper Õhtuleht
www.ohtuleht.ee, most read news portal www.delfi.ee and online news of Estonian Public Broadcasting www.err.ee (Gemius, n.d.).
For comparison with Israeli and Arab news, additional data was collected from online news of Haaretz, Israel’s oldest daily newspaper with international reach, and online news of Al-Jazeera, most widely known Arab media channel. Al Jazeera and Haaretz were chosen due to their international reach and English language edition, and 4 most popular media pages from Estonia were chosen to have a balanced number of articles from each country. Although Estonian media has started to cover the conflict more in recent years, the relative number of articles is still low compared to the number of articles published in medias directly affected by the conflict.
Al-Jazeera is considered one of the leading news sources for Arab and Muslim countries (Elena, 2016; Elmasry et al., 2013). It is a Qatari state funded broadcaster, that since its establishment in 1996 has extended into a large international network with television channels and online news in multiple languages. The broadcaster is trusted by Arab audiences
13 more than any Western news channels and thus is believed to be one of the more influential news sources for local regions (Elmasry et al., 2013).
Israel’s oldest newspaper and currently one of the main daily newspapers, Haaretz is quality newspaper with high circulation among the Israeli political and economic elites (Korn, 2004; Slater, 2007), also acting as a news source for other local media (Korn, 2004). It is not considered representative of local dominant views, as it also gives voice to more liberal views and is critical of some Israeli policies (Slater, 2007). However, Haaretz also publishes articles and opinion pieces by journalists and representatives of centrist and right-wing views and is being respected as factually accurate newspaper (Slater, 2007).
The online news archives of all six digital media channels were searched with the keywords “Palestine” and “Israel” for news published between September 2015 (the start of the 2015 wave of violence between Israel and Palestine) and July 2016 (the end of the wave of violence). After excluding articles that were considered irrelevant (e.g. sports, art etc) in the context of current research, a total sample of 391 articles was derived from 6 channels. The highest number of articles – 174 – was published in Al Jazeera, 112 articles in Haaretz and 105 articles in 4 Estonian online news channels (63 – Postimees, 30 – ERR, 8 – Delfi, 4 – Õhtuleht). For a balanced comparison with Arab and Israeli media, four Estonian medias are recoded into one. The selected unit of analysis is a single written news story including title and subtitle.
Coding
A frame is considered a pattern of meaning that is composed of several separate previously defined items (Matthes & Kohring, 2008). For answering the research question, a codebook consisting of 59 such items was designed (Appendix I). The items are composed based on previous studies on the conflict’s framing (Deprez & Raeymaeckers, 2010; Elmasry et al.,
14 2013; Wolfsfeld et al., 2008) and the preliminary analyses of the conflict’s coverage in Estonian, Israeli and Arab media. The items are organized under four main blocks that correspond to Entman’s (1993) defitinion of a frame structure: 1) a definition of the issue (10 items), 2) a definition of the main causers/causes of the issue (8 items), 3) a moral judgement of the issue (31 questions), and 4) a suggested solution to the issue (5 questions).
The introductory section in the codebook asks for general information about each chosen unit of analysis: 1) link of the article, 2) the media channel, 3) date of publication; 4) number of words and 5) type of the article. The introductory section will give information about some general differences between medias of three regions: what is the average length of the article, who are the authors of the articles etc. A definition of the issue is measured through 10 questions: 1) the main topic of the article (violence recap, political relations etc.), 2) whether article conveys one or both of Israeli and Palestine sources, 3) the four main sources who are quoted (Israeli politicians, Palestinian civilians etc.) and 4) if and what (up to four pieces of) context the article has provided about the conflict from recent or further past. The main causes and causers of the issue are measured through who are communicated as the main violators versus the main victims in the article. Moral judgement of the issue is measured through counting the different labels applied to Israelis and Palestinians (e.g. Palestinians as innocent bystander or terrorists), to their acts (e.g. Israeli attack versus incident) and to the territories (e.g. administered versus occupied territories). Solution to the conflict is measured by if and what solutions to the situation (one-state or two-state solution) were suggested in the article and by whom.
The four main indicators corresponding to four subquestions are organised into following scale constructions.
15 Main issue of the conflict is measured through three framing devices: focus topic of the article, used sources (are sources from both parties of the conflict used?) and provided context about the conflict. Although the main topic of the article and pieces of context provided can be of a neutral nature (not clearly pro-Palestine or pro-Israeli), differences between the three media settings in the use of these elements provide an understanding what pieces of information about the conflict Estonian media is focusing on compared to Israeli and Arab media. The balance of used sources and specific used sources will give an understanding if Estonian media is sourcing information equally from Israeli and Palestinian representatives.
Main causers of the conflict
Main causers of the conflict were equalized with who are communicated as the main sources of violence in the articles that depict violence. In relation to this, this section also looks at who are communicated as the main victims. If victims or sources of violence are communicated in the title of the article, it adds extra strength to the frame.
Moral judgements of the conflict
As mentioned before, moral judgements of the issue are measured by counting the different labels applied to Israelis and Palestinians, their acts and territories. Many of the measured labels are negatively loaded (e.g. terrorist, murder etc) or correspond to pro-Israeli (e.g. Palestinian Authority-administered areas) or pro-Palestinian frames (e.g. occupied territories, illegal settlements etc) and thus give an understanding of whose side has media opposed through more negative labelling and whose perspective is mainly communicated.
16 Solution to the conflict is measured by if and what solutions are suggested as suitable for resolving the conflict and who are quoted as suggesting these solutions. As one-state solution and two-state solution are the two main suggested solutions, each article will be coded for the presence of either solution.
Intercoder reliability
One person completed the content analysis on all units of analysis. To assess intercoder reliability, a second independent coder coded a randomly selected sample of 39 articles – approximately 10% of the total sample of 391 articles. Krippendorff’s alpha (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007) was used to measure the intercoder reliability of all the main variables included in the analysis. Alpha values of the entire list of main variables is reported in Appendix 2. The results indicate a relatively high reliability on most main variables ranging between alpha values of 0.65 to 1.00, where lower values correspond to nominal dichotomous variables (presence of different labels), where significant number of cases are rated with 0. Thus, in these cases a smaller alpha value (e.g. 0.65) is accepted. Some variables with very low reliability were excluded from further analysis, e.g. label “murderer” applied to Palestinians or Israelis; “incident” applied to Palestinian acts.
Results
The results of the content analysis show some differences and some similarities in the ways Estonian media, Al Jazeera and Haaretz covered and framed the Israel–Palestine conflict during the wave of violence in 2015-2016.
Firstly, analysis show a significant difference in the articles’ length (F(2,388) = 97.969, p = .000) – Estonian media has invested on average about 183 words on the conflict (M = 182.88, SD = 175.56), while Israeli newspaper Haaretz has covered the conflict about
17 ten times the extent (M = 986.76, SD = 616.443) and Al Jazeera about six times (M = 586.04, SD = 372.39). These findings are comprehensible, since Estonia is less affected by the conflict and thus dedicates less space for its news than Haaretz as the newspaper in the conflict’s party or Al-Jazeera which is geographically closer to the conflict.
There is also a difference in the authors and types of the articles. About half of the news that are published in Estonian media are reported from external news agencies (47.6%), while most of the news articles in Haaretz are written by the journalists or editors of the newspaper (43.8%) and in Al Jazeera in combination sourced from external news agencies and the editorial boards of the paper (40.6%). These findings are an indicator of Estonian media relying mostly on outer information sources (external news agencies, foreign media channels), while Haaretz and Al-Jazeera have the resources and interest to use own journalists or editors for gathering the extra information about the conflict.
Definition of the main issue
Between three media settings are significant differences on the dominant articles’ topics (χ2 = 223.722, p < .001). The complete overview of coded topics and their distribution is listed in Table 1. Most articles in Estonian media (57.14%) and Al-Jazeera (67.82%) are about the 2015-2016 conflict; however, most of these articles in Al-Jazeera (37.93%) are strongly focused on Palestinian victims (victims defined in title or lead), while in Estonian media there are more articles that are focused on Israeli victims (17.14%) than Palestinian victims (13.33%). In Haaretz, a smaller amount (25.89%) of all the articles are on the recent violence and only some are strongly focused on the victims of one or the other side. Articles in Haaretz are instead on the general recap of the conflict (37.5%), giving an overview of the beginning or other historic parts of the conflict. These results indicate that Al-Jazeera and Estonian media are more inclined towards either side of the conflict, in Estonian case slightly more towards Israeli victims.
18 Table 1. Main topic of the articles per media
Estonian media Al-Jazeera Haaretz
Main topic % % % Conflict during 2015-2016 26.67% 28.74% 18.75% Focus on Israeli victim(s) 17.14% 1.15% 2.68% Focus on Palestinian victim(s) 13.33% 37.93% 4.46% Punitive measures applied on Palestinians by Israel 6.67% 13.22% 0.89% Violation of Palestinian human rights (e.g. imprisonment of children etc) 0% 9.77% 10.71% Organised attack by Palestinians on Israel (e.g. Hamas) 4.76% 0% 0.89% General/historic
Israeli-Palestine conflict recap 5.71% 0% 37.5%
International public expressing opinion on
conflict or its resolution 20.95% 3.45% 8.04%
Other 4.76% 2.3% 16.07%
Overall 100% 100% 100%
χ2 (16, N = 391) = 223.722, p < .001.
There are also significant differences in quoting sources (χ2 = 76.068, p < .001). About half (48.57%) of the articles in Estonian media have quoted neither side of the conflict, therefore only recounting information collected from external channels. However, majority (36.19%) of Estonian articles with quoted sources are citing only Israeli spokespeople, while three times less are citing only Palestinian sources. This is similar to Haaretz, where about half (53.57%) of the articles are not citing any sources and 10.71% of articles are citing only Palestinian sources. However, only Israeli spokespeople are quoted in 20.54% of articles which is less
19 than in Estonian newspapers. These results communicate a predominance of Israeli sources in Estonian media, that is even greater than in Israeli media. Although Israeli sources are probably more accessible, this should not be an excuse for reflecting predominantly one side of the conflict. There is also diffence in balanced quoting – about one third (31.61%) of articles in Al-Jazeera and 15.18% in Haaretz are citing both Israeli and Palestinian spokespeople, while only 4.76% of Estonian articles are equally balanced.
Table 2 demonstrates the nature of the quoted sources. Most quoted sources are Israeli army or police and Israeli politicians. Estonian media is quoting mostly Israeli politicians (22.86% of the articles), Israeli army or police (20.95%) and Western politicians (17.14%), Palestinians and other sources are quoted considerably less. Similarily to Estonian media, Israeli Haaretz is also mostly quoting Israeli politicians (15.18%) and Israeli army or police (11.61%). Al-Jazeera is using more balanced information sources – 38.51% of articles quote Palestinian experts and almost equal number of articles (36.21%) quote Israeli army or police representatives. These results indicate that Israeli sources are considerably more quoted in Estonian media, similarly to Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
Table 2. Specific spokespeople quoted per media
Estonian media Al-Jazeera Haaretz
Quoted spokespeople Nobody 30,48% 9,77% 45,54% Israel Politician 22,86% 22,99% 15,18% Army or police 20,95% 36,21% 11,61% Expert 1,90% 6,90% 9,82% Civilian 0,00% 0,00% 0,89% Palestinian Politician 7,62% 13,22% 7,14% Police 0,00% 1,15% 0,00% Expert 4,76% 38,51% 8,93% Civilian 2,86% 23,56% 8,93% Activist 0,00% 1,72% 0,00% Hamas 5,71% 4,60% 0,89% Western Politician 17,14% 11,49% 6,25% Expert 1,90% 8,05% 5,36%
20
Civilian 0,95% 0,00% 0,89%
Arab Politician 0,95% 1,72% 0,00%
Journalist of the newspaper
1,90% 8,05% 0,00%
Note: Single article can quote multiple spokespeople.
Content analysis demonstrates rather minimal contextual reporting in Estonian media and Haaretz (see Table 3). Almost half of the articles published in Estonian media (43.81%) and almost half in Haaretz (44.64%) do not provide any contextual information about the conflict, compared with 7.47% of articles in Al-Jazeera. Compared with Al-Jazeera and Haaretz, Estonian media provides more contextual information that is in some way inclined: e.g. almost one third of the articles are referring to Palestinian terror as the reason behind the recent conflict (compared with 2.30% and 3.57% in Al-Jazeera and Haaretz) and 7.62% of the articles are referring to Palestinian terror as the reason behind the overall, long-term conflict (compared with 0 articles in Haaretz or Al-Jazeera). If the articles in Estonian media provide contextual information it is mostly about the recent, 2015-2016 conflict and much less about further past and the start of the conflict, especially when compared to Al-Jazeera and Haaretz that provide more general context about the conflict. For example, only 4.76% of the articles in Estonian media explain that Jewish settlements in West Bank are illegal under international law, compared with almost quarter of the articles in Al-Jazeera and about 15% in Haaretz. Many important pieces of contextual information – such as occupation of Palestinian territories or special status of Jerusalem – are rarely discussed.
Estonian media adopted Israeli perspective in communicating the main issue of the conflict, this is evident in the dominant topics of the articles (focus on Israeli victims over Palestinian victims), quoted sources (one third of articles quoting only Israeli sources – mainly Israeli politicians and army) and the provided context that was inclined – framing Palestinian terror as the reason behind conflict, recent and long-term.
21 Table 3. Context provided about the conflict per article
Estonian media Al-Jazeera Haaretz
Context provided % % % None 43.81% 7.47% 44.64% Context from recent past 6.67% 1.72% 4.46% Al-Aqsa temple mount 7.62% 31.03% 2.68% Palestinian terror 29.52% 2.30% 3.57% Israeli violence 0% 52.30% 6.25% Demolition of homes 0% 10.34% 0.89% Punitive regulatory measures 1.90% 20.11% 1.79% Recent casualities recap 26.67% 64.37% 8.93% Recent imprisonments recap 0% 9.77% 2.68% Context from further past 0.95% 0% 4.46% Occupation of 1967 4.76% 9.77% 4.46% Occupation of Palestinian territories 3.81% 6.32% 6.25% Illegality of Jewish settlements 4.76% 24.71% 14.29% Israelis acting against Palestinian terror 7.62% 0% 0% Special status of Jerusalem 0% 3% 2%
Note: Single article can contain multiple pieces of context about the conflict.
Definition of the main causers and victims
Content analysis proves significant differences between media outlets in defining the main violators (χ2 = 114.984, p < .001) and the main victims in the conflict (χ2 = 88.008, p < .001). Estonian media portrays Israelis and Palestinians as equal victims of the violence – both Israelis and Palestinians have been communicated as victims in 38 articles (a single article can convey multiple reported cases). However, in Al-Jazeera and Haaretz, Palestinians have been
22 identified as victims more frequently than Israelis – in Al-Jazeera in 142 cases against 42 and in Haaretz in 37 cases against 15, corresponding to the actual numbers of victims from both sides (OCHA, 2017).
The results show an even larger difference in reporting the main violators. Both Al-Jazeera and Haaretz have framed Israeli actors (soldiers, settlers etc) as the violators more frequently than Palestinians – Al-Jazeera in 140 cases against 35 and Haaretz in 23 cases against 16. Interestingly, Estonian media has more frequently framed Palestinian actors (children, protesters etc) as the violators: in 54 cases Estonian media has defined Palestinian actors as the violators or the causers of the violence and in 35 cases it has defined Israeli actors. These results indicate, that although Estonian media equally frames both Israelis and Palestinians as victims in the violent conflicts, it frames Palestinians as the violators in more cases than the Israelis.
As title can add extra strength to frames (Entman, 1993), the study also analysed who were communicated as victims and violators in titles of the news. Results prove that there are statistically significant differences in which victims (χ2 = 79.037, p < .001) and violators (χ2 = 87.172, p < .001) are highlighted in titles of the news in three media settings. Results also indicate a difference who are highlighted as violators and victims in the title versus who in the general text. When the general text of the Estonian articles frame Israelis and Palestinians somewhat equally as victims, but in more cases puts the focus on Palestinians as the violators, then headlines of these articles show a different picture. Although Estonian headlines have depicted Palestinians as violators in 26 titles, which is more than in Al-Jazeera (10 titles) and Haaretz (6 titles), then Israelis are shown as (reactive) aggressors in almost equal amount: 24 titles, compared with 67 titles in Al-Jazeera and 11 titles in Haaretz. The biggest difference is that Estonian headlines have depicted Israelis as victims in more articles than have Al-Jazeera or Haaretz: 19 titles versus 3 in Al-Jazeera and 8 in Haaretz. Palestinians have been framed as
23 victims in 24 titles in Estonian media, but even Haaretz has highlighted Palestinian victims in more cases – 26 – and Al-Jazeera in 95.
In general article body Estonian media equally framed Israelis and Palestinians as victims, however, in titles Estonian media placed the focus on Israeli victims over Palestinians, thus communicating Israelis as the main victims. Interestingly, in headlines Palestinians and Israelis both were framed as violators, but in general text Palestinians were more strongly focused as violators.
Moral judgement of the issue
The study proves that different labels are applied to Israelis and Palestinians. Main labels that Estonian media uses about Palestinians are criminal (in 18 articles) and Arab or Muslim (in 15 articles), more used are also terrorist (in 9 articles) and extremist (in 8 articles). In comparison most used labels in Al-Jazeera are innocent or unarmed bystander (57 articles) and also Arab or Muslim (in 24 articles). Haaretz has mainly labelled Palestinians as terrorists (in 22 articles) and second most as Arabs or Muslims (in 15 articles). One-way ANOVA shows that statistical differences between three media settings are in using labels terrorist (F(2,388) = 10.414, p = .000), innocent (F(2,388) = 43.869, p = .000), extremist (F(2,388) = 8.077, p = .000) and criminal (F(2,388) = 6.964, p = .001), where Estonian media labels Palestinians significantly more as extremists or criminals compared with Al-Jazeera and Haaretz.
For Israelis Estonian media does not use any labels. Most often are Israelis referred to as “Jews” or “Jewish” – in Estonian media in 24 articles in, compared with 54 articles in Al-Jazeera and 34 articles in Haaretz. In 6 Estonian articles Israelis have also been labelled as occupying power, but this is significantly less than in Al Jazeera (38 articles) and Haaretz (18 articles) (F(2,388) = 3.544, p = .030). Another label that has been applied to Israelis with significant differences between three groups is “settler”, that in Estonian media is mentioned
24 only once, compared with 98 articles in Al-Jazeera and 24 articles even in Haaretz (F(2,388) = 47.260, p = .000). These results indicate that Estonian media uses heavily loaded labels such as “criminal” and “extremist” with Palestinians, but apart from “Jews” or “Jewish” does not use any other labels with Israelis, instead it labels Israelis as the occupying force or settlers significantly less than Al-Jazeera and even Haaretz.
There are also differences when comparing the labels used for acts committed by Palestinians versus Israelis. Estonian media has labelled Palestinian acts mostly as attacks (55 articles), terrorism (15 articles) and murder or massacre (14 articles) and less as crime (7 articles). When comparing the results with Al-Jazeera and Haaretz, Estonian media has some similarities with Haaretz in labelling Palestinian’s acts – Haaretz has similarly used mostly labels “attack” (in 25 articles) and “terrorism” (in 19 articles). However, interestingly Al-Jazeera has used word “attack” in even more articles – 86 articles. One-way ANOVA shows statistical differences between three media settings with all these labels: attack (F(2,388) = 14.755, p = .000), murder or massacre (F(2,388) = 9.944, p = .000), crime (F(2,388) = 6.654, p = .001) and terrorism (F(2,388) = 7.322, p = .001), where Estonian media labels acts committed by Palestinians significantly more as murder, massacre or crime compared with Al-Jazeera and Haaretz.
Although according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, extrajudical executions of Palestinians by the Israeli soldiers were one of the main concerns during the wave of violence in 2015-2016 (OCHA, 2016), Estonian media has mentioned Israeli forces’ crimes or extrajudical killings in only 1 article, compared with 41 articles in Al-Jazeera (F(2,388) = 20.116, p = .000). Estonian media has mostly used more neutral word „killing“ when talking about acts by Israelis (in 17 articles), next is used label „attack“ (9 articles) and justifying „reaction“ (6 article), which is applied to Israeli acts significantly more than in Al-Jazeera or Haaretz (F(2,388) = 6.963, p = .002).
25 Although „occupied territories“ is most used territorial label about Palestine in all three media settings, Al-Jazeera has used this label six times more than both Estonian media and Haaretz (F(2,388) = 61.419, p = .000). Differently from Al-Jazeera and Haaretz, Estonian media has in some cases (6 articles) also used Israeli label „Palestinian Authority-administered labels“ that has not been used in Al-Jazeera or Haaretz (F(2,388) = 3.865, p = .022).
Israeli territories have been labelled significantly differently in three media settings. Interestingly, Estonian media has most often labelled Israel as „Jewish State“ (in 18 articles), compared with only 1 article in Al-Jazeera and 8 in Haaretz (F(2,388) = 16.715, p = .000). Both Al-Jazeera and Haaretz have talked about Israeli settlements (66 and 31 articles), compared with 15 articles in Estonian media (F(2,388) = 7.966, p = .000). Al-Jazeera has somewhat frequently highlighted that these settlements are illegal under the international law (35 articles), but Estonian media and Haaretz have almost not mentioned this at all (1 and 5 articles) (F(2,388) = 16.731, p = .000).
Estonian media used more neutral labels (e.g. Jewish or reaction) for Israelis and significantly more inclined labels (e.g. criminal or terrorism) for Palestinians than Haaretz or Al-Jazeera. Estonian media used significantly less stronger labels (e.g. occupying force or extrajudical killing) about Israelis than did Haaretz and Al-Jazeera.
Suggested solution to the issue
Analysis demonstrate that any solution to the conflict is mentioned in very few articles in all three media settings: 12 articles in Estonian media, compared with 18 articles in Haaretz and only 8 articles in Al-Jazeera. One-way ANOVA indicates that the differences between the medias are significant (F(2,388) = 4.731, p = .009).
26 The main suggested solution in all three media settings is two-state solution, while one-state solution has been suggested also somewhat frequently only in Haaretz. Estonian media and Al-Jazeera have mainly referred to Western politicians as the sources of suggested solutions, Haaretz has mostly quoted Israeli experts.
These results indicate that Estonian media similarily to Haaretz and Al-Jazeera has communicated a solution to the conflict very rarely, but when it has, it has not derived from the European Union official convergence to the two-state solution.
Discussion
This study contributes to the existing body of research on the framing of Israel and Palestine by analysing the conflict’s news framing in the media of a country, which geopolitical position makes it hard to predict if and whose side – Israeli or Palestinian – might its media predominantly communicate. As a member of the European Union, Estonia has officially supported Palestinian right for self-determination through two-state solution (Dieckhoff, 2005), however, as a dependent of the NATO’s protection it has refrained from strongly contesting the public positions of the United States, a strategic ally to Israel.
The framing devices analysed in this study were organised under four main “building blocks” of a frame as defined by Entman (1993), thus making it also the first study to analyse if and what resolutions to the Israeli-Palestine conflict are promoted in different media settings – in this case Estonian, Israeli and Arab media. Findings from three media outputs demonstrated that focus is on the conflict and the accompanying issues, with minimal information provided about possible solutions to ending it. The small number of articles that suggested any resolution, communicated mostly two-state solution; however, at the same time admitting that the current course of the conflict is making this close to impossible to reach.
27 Content analyses indicated that Estonian media framed the conflict mainly from Israeli perspective through various framing devices: quoting predominantly Israeli sources and focusing the news on Israeli victims over Palestinian victims. Though both Estonian media and Haaretz provided only minimal context information about the conflict, the little background information that Estonian media provided was inclined, explaining the recent violence as a reaction to Palestinian “terror”. Missing was the information that would explain Palestinian perspective, the special status of Jerusalem, where the recent conflict started, or mention extrajudicial executions or settler violence against Palestinians or imprisonment of Palestinian children that were expressed as the main concerns during the wave of violence by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA, 2016).
Although Palestinian victims were mentioned in about same number of Estonian articles as Israeli victims, Palestinians were significantly more framed as the violators in the conflict, and in Estonian headlines the focus was put on Israeli victims instead of Palestinians. A telling indicator of who were morally judged as the causers of the conflict was the different use of labels on Palestinians versus Israelis. Similarily to a previous study by Deprez and Raeymaeckers (2010, p.100), it was found that in Estonian news more “heavily charged labels” like “criminal”, “terrorist” or “extremist” were applied to Palestinians, while Israelis were most often defined through neutral “Jewish” or “Jews”. Estonian media also used significantly less informing labels (e.g. occupying force or extrajudical killing) about Israelis than Haaretz or Al-Jazeera.
Media has the power to affect public opinion on the conflict (Wolfsfeld et al., 2008) and even more so in geographically unaffected countries like Estonia, for whom media is the only source of information about the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Consequently, media has a great responsibility in providing truthful and balanced coverage that communicates the perspectives of both parties of the conflict, not overlooking important parts that are crucial for
28 understanding the entire nature of the conflict – including information about Israeli occupation, illegal settlements and extrajudicial killings by Israeli security forces (OCHA, 2016).
29
References
Aymat, E. B. (2010). European involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Chaillot Paper, 124.
Caspi, Dan and Limor, Yehiel (1999) The In/Outsiders: the media in Israel. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Deprez, A., & Raeymaeckers, K. (2010). Bias in the news? The representation of Palestinians and Israelis in the coverage of the First and Second Intifada. International Communication Gazette, 72(1), 91-109.
Dieckhoff, A. (2005). Europe and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Inroads, (16), 52-62. Dobernig, K., Lobinger, K. & Wetztein, I. (2010). Covering conflict: Differences in visual and verbal news coverage of the Gaza crisis 2009 in four weekly news media. Journal of Visual Literacy, 29(1), 88-105.
Elena, M. (2016). Framing international media in the face of social movements: CNN and Al-Jazeera English in the fall of Morsi. Communication & Society, 29(3).
Elmasry, M. (2009). Death in the Middle East: An analysis of how the New York Times and Chicago Tribune framed killings in the second Palestinian intifada. Journal of Middle East Media, 5(1), 1-46.
Elmasry, M. H., Shamy, A. E., Manning, P., Mills, A., & Auter, P. J. (2013). Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya framing of the Israel–Palestine conflict during war and calm periods. International Communication Gazette, 75(8), 750-768.
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
European Union External Action (2016). Middle East peace process. Retrieved from
https://eeas.europa.eu/diplomatic-network/middle-east-peace-process/337/middle-east-peace-process_en
30 Fahmy, S., & Neumann, R. (2012). Shooting war or peace photographs? An examination of newswires’ coverage of the conflict in Gaza (2008-2009). American Behavioral Scientist, 56(2), 1-26.
Feuerstein, M., & Mandelzis, L. (2017). Israeli college students challenge media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Conflict & Communication, 16(1).
Gada, M. Y. (2016). Resurgent voices on the Israel-Palestine conflict: An appraisal of the alternative pathways towards resolving the conflict. Intellectual Discourse, 24(1), 171.
Galloway, C. (2005). Hot bullets, cool media: The Middle East’s high stakes media war. Journal of Communication Management, 9(3), 233-245.
Gannot, S. A (2013). A Force of Distortion: Effects of Media Bias on the
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Interpolations. Retrieved from
http://www.english.umd.edu/interpolations/5423
Gemius (n.d). Retrieved from https://opa.gemius.ee/
Gutmann, S. (2005). The other war: Israelis, Palestinians, and the struggle for media supremacy. San Francisco: Encounter Books.
Hameleers, M. & Vliegenthart, R. (2016). Framing the Participatory Society: Measuring Discrepancies Between Interpretation Frames and Media Frames. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(2), 257-281.
Hayes, A. F. & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures 1(1), 77-89.
Korn, A. (2004). Reporting Palestinian casualties in the Israeli press: The case of Haaretz and the Intifada. Journalism studies, 5(2), 247-262.
Kõuts-Klemm, R., Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P., Siibak, A. & Lauristin, M. (2017). Internetikasutus ja sotsiaalmeedia kasutus. In P. Vihalemm et al. (Eds). Eesti ühiskond
31 kiirenevas ajas: elaviku muutumine Eestis 2002-2014 Mina. Maailm. Meedia tulemuste põhjal. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Liebes, T., & Kampf, Z. (2009). Black and white and shades of gray: Palestinians in the Israeli media during the 2nd intifada. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(4), 434-453.
Loit, U., & Harro-Loit, H. (2017). Media pluralism monitor 2016: monitoring risks for media pluralism in EU and beyond: country report: Estonia.
Mandelbaum, M. (2018). Estonia and the kindness of strangers. The American Interest. Retrieved from https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/11/23/estonia-and-the-kindness-of-strangers/
Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 258-279.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Estonia (2018, November). Israel. Retrieved from https://vm.ee/en/countries/israel?display=relations
O’Leary, B. (2016). Power-sharing and partition amid Israel–Palestine. Ethnopolitics, 15(4), 345-365.
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55-75.
Seib, P. (2012). Al Jazeera English: Global news in a changing world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93-109.
Slater, J. (2007). Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The New York Times versus Haaretz, 2000–06. International Security, 32(2), 84-120.
32 Sloan, W. D. & Mackay, J. B. (Eds.). (2007). Media bias: Finding it, fixing it. North Carolina: McFarland.
Somerville, K. (2017). Framing conflict – the Cold War and after: Reflections from an old hack. Media, War & Conflict, 10(1), 48-58.
Tankard, J. W. (2001). The Empirical Approach to the Study of Media Framing. In: Reese, S. D. et al. (Eds.). Framing Public Life (pp.111-121). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2016, June). Fragmented Lives: Humanitarian Overview 2015. Retrieved from
https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/default/files/annual-humanitarian-overview_10_06_2016_english.pdf
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2017, May). Fragmented Lives: Humanitarian Overview 2016. Retrieved from
https://www.ochaopt.org/content/fragmented-lives-humanitarian-overview-2016
Vihalemm, P. & Kõuts-Klemm, R. (2017). Meediakasutuse muutumine: internetiajastu saabumine. In P. Vihalemm et al. (Eds). Eesti ühiskond kiirenevas ajas: elaviku muutumine Eestis 2002-2014 Mina. Maailm. Meedia tulemuste põhjal. Tartu, Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Wolfsfeld, G., Frosh, P., & Awabdy, M. T. (2008). Covering death in conflicts: Coverage of the second intifada on Israeli and Palestinian television. Journal of Peace Research, 45(3), 401-417.
Worlds of Journalism (2017). Data and Key Tables: 2012-2016. Retrieved from
33
Appendix I – Codebook
General Information
1. Number of the article [NUMBER]
Type the article’s order number as its’ identification number (e.g. 1, 2, 3 etc).
2. Media channel [CHANNEL]
Type the number that corresponds to the online media channel, where the article was published. E.g. type 66, if the article was published in Haaretz.
11 www.postimees.ee 22 www.uudised.err.ee 33 www.delfi.ee 44 www.ohtuleht.ee 55 https://www.aljazeera.com/ 66 https://www.haaretz.com/
3. Date of publication [DATE, format DD/MM/YYYY]
Article’s date of publication typed according to the requested format [DD/MM/YYYY].
4. Number of words [NR_WORDS]
Type the number of words in the article as a number (e.g. 280). Count the words in the text including the title and subtitles, but excluding the titles for visuals (for photos or videos), tweets, extracts from text, links and titles of additional articles, publishing date and source (author’s name) of the article.
34 5. Type of article [TYPE]
Here you code the type of the article (news or opinion piece) and the author type of the article (journalist, news agency, guest author etc.). Carefully read the descriptions of each code to choose a suitable one.
10 News, documentation – the article is reporting what happened, and not expressing opinion: what somebody thinks of what happened. Choose this code if it is unclear who the author of the article is. However, if some author (journalist, news agency or guest author) has been marked either in the front or back of the article, choose one of the following numbers.
11 Journalist(s) or editor(s)– author(s) of the news is the journalist or editor of the newspaper (e.g. Arp Müller, Raivo Kooli etc.)
12 Editorial board – the publishing news channel has been indicated (E.g. Õhtuleht.ee, Al Jazeera etc.)
13 News agency or agencies- news agency (e.g. BNS, AFP, simply Agencies etc.) has been marked.
14 Guest author(s) – author of the article is somebody outside of newspaper, not a journalist or member of the editorial board of the newspaper
15 News agency/agencies and editorial board – both the publishing channel and a news agency or agencies have been indicated (e.g. Al Jazeera and agencies)
20 Opinion piece, editorial or commentary – the article is expressing some opinion: what somebody thinks of a situation, issue, trend etc. Choose this code if it is unclear who the author of the piece is. However, if some author (journalist or guest author) has been marked as the author, choose one of the following numbers.
35
21 Journalist(s), editor(s) or columnist(s) – author(s) of the opinion piece is the journalist, columnist or editor of the newspaper (E.g.
22 Guest author(s) – author(s) of the article is somebody (e.g. an expert or journalist from another newspaper) who is not a member of that newspaper (E.g. Ian Shapiro, Nicholas Strong etc)
30 Interview – when article is in the form of an interview: journalist is asking questions from another person.
99 Unknown type – if the article does not respond to any of the above descriptions, code 99.
Framing of the conflict
Definition of the main problem
6. Topic(s) of the article [ART_TOPIC]
What is the main topic that the article focuses on? Carefully read through the list and choose the best fitting option for each article.
10 Clashes or conflict between Israelis and Palestinians during 2015/2016 (if clashes are portrayed in a more general manner – neither side is especially victimised in the prominent parts of the article: in the title, lead)
11 There is a strong focus on Israeli victim(s) (e.g. Israeli victim(s) portrayed in the title, lead etc.)
12 There is a strong focus on Palestinian victim(s) (e.g. Palestinian victim(s) portrayed in the title, lead etc.)
36
20 Punitive measures applied on Palestinians by Israel (e.g. home demolitions, temporarily restricted entrance to Jerusalem, regulations allowing Israeli security force to shoot Palestinian stone throwers)
40 International public expressing opinion on the conflict or its resolution
50 General Israeli-Palestine conflict recap (e.g. retrospect on the beginning of the conflict)
60 Violation of Palestinians’ (human) rights (e.g. denying food/water to people, imprisonment of children etc)
70 Organised attack by Palestinians (e.g. attack by Hamas, organised attack on Jewish holy site etc)
99 Other. If none of the above mentioned topics is suitable, than code 99.
7. Are both Israeli and Palestinian side quoted in the article? [QUOTED_SIDES] 0 Neither Israeli or Palestinian side is quoted in the article
1 Israeli spokesperson/spokespeople are quoted, but not Palestinian 2 Palestinian spokesperson/spokespeople are quoted, but not Israeli 3 Spokespeople from both Israel and Palestine are quoted
8-11. Sources quoted [QUOTE_SOURCE]
Who is quoted in the article or whose quote is referred to in the article? You can mark up to four sources under questions 8-11.
0 Nobody
11 Israeli politician(s) (e.g. government representative)
12 Israeli army or police (e.g. spokesperson for the Israeli army) 13 Israeli expert(s) (e.g. professor)
37
15 Israeli settler (i.e. Israeli living in a settlement, e.g. Hebron) 21 Palestinian politician(s) (e.g. Palestinian President)
22 Palestinian police (e.g. spokesperson for the Palestinian police) 23 Palestinian expert(s) (e.g. expert from Palestinian Red Cross) 24 Palestinian civilian(s) (e.g. family member of a Palestinian victim) 25 Palestinian activist/protester etc.
26 Hamas (e.g. spokesperson of Hamas)
31 Western politician (e.g. representative of UN)
32 Western expert (e.g. professor at a University in the United States) 33 Western civilian, e.g. tourist
41 Arab politician
50 Journalist of the newspaper
99 Other. If the article quotes a source or sources that are not in the above list, than code 99.
12-15. Context provided [CONTEXT]
Does the article provide any context or explanation to the conflict? You can choose up to four pieces of context provided in the article, writing the suitable numbers under questions 12-15.
0 None
10 Context from near future, i.e. dating back to start of the recent escalation in violence (September 2015)
11 Conflict over Al-Aqsa compound
12 Palestinian terror – e.g. Palestinian(s) killed Israeli civilian(s) 13 Israeli violence – e.g. Israeli settlers/police killed Palestinian(s) 14 Demolition of Palestinian homes, olive trees
38
15 Punitive regulatory measures by Israel on Palestine – restricted access to Jerusalem
16 Recent conflict recap about number of victims
17 Recent conflict recap about number of people imprisoned
20 Wider issues of the Israeli-Palestine conflict
21 The occupation of 1967
22 The occupation of Palestinian territories 23 The illegality of Jewish settlements 27 Israelis acting against Palestinian terror 29 The special status of Jerusalem
Definition of the main causers/cause(s) and victims
16-17. Source of violence [SOR_VIOLENCE]
If the article includes descriptions of violence, then who are defined as the main sources?You can name up to two under questions 16-17.
0 Article does not include descriptions of violence
88 Article does include descriptions of violence, but does not mention the source 10 Palestine/Palestinian(s) 11 Palestinian child/children 12 Palestinian protester(s)/demonstrator(s)/stonethrower(s) 13 Hamas 20 Israel/Israeli(s) 21 Israeli settler(s) 22 Israeli soldier(s)
39
99 Other. If the article does not mention any of the above as the source of violence, than code 99 and specify the mentione source in your own wording.
18-19. Violator in lead or title [SOR_TITLE]
If you identified the sources of violence in previous question, than are these sources also named in the title of the article? Answer under questions 18 and 19.
0 No 1 Yes
20-21. Victims [VICTIM]
If the article includes descriptions of violence,then who is/are defined as the main victim(s)? You can name up to two under questions 20-21.
0 Article does not include descriptions of violence
88 Article does include descriptions of violence, but does not mention the victim(s) 10 Palestinian(s) in general or Palestine
11 Palestinian child/children
12 Palestinian protester(s)/demonstrator(s) 13 Palestinian refugees
20 Israeli(s) in general or Israel 21 Israeli child/children 22 Israeli force
23 Israeli settler
99 Other. If the article does not mention any of the above as the victim(s), than code 99 and specify the victim(s) in your own wording.
40 If you identified the victims in previous question, than are these victims also named in the title of the articles? Answer under questions 22-23.
0 No 1 Yes
Judgement of the situation
Labels applied to Palestinians and Israelis
24. Is label „terrorist“ or „terrorist state“ applied to Palestine or Palestinian(s) in this article?
[PAL_Label1]
0 No
1 Yes, in the text
2 Yes, in the title
25. Is label „murderer“ or „killer“ applied to Palestinian(s) in this article? [PAL_Label2] 0 No
1 Yes, in the text 2 Yes, in the title
26. Is label „Arab“ or „Muslim“ applied to Palestinian(s) in this article? [PAL_Label3] 0 No
1 Yes, in the text 2 Yes, in the title
27. Is label „innocent“, „bystander“ or „unarmed“ applied to Palestinian(s) in this article?
[PAL_Label4]
0 No
1 Yes, in the text 2 Yes, in the title
