- : Ms Word, Ms Word Format
- : 70 Pages
- : ₦5000
- : 1-5 Chapters
- Click to DOWNLOAD Materials
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CNN AND ALJAZEERA’S COVERAGE OF THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI CONFLICT OF 2014
ABSTRACT
This study analysed the published broadcast transcripts of CNN International and Aljazeera English to find out if both news outlets had differences in their coverage of Palestinian-Israeli conflict of July 08th, 2014 to August 26th, 2014. This is because previous studies have revealed that there were inaccuracies and inconsistencies of news content by the international media on their coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict over a long period of time and this hugely contributes to international indifference and inaction concerning the conflict. Specifically, the study sought to examine the differences in tone, depicting of victim and villain hood frames and citation of sources by CNN International and Al Jazeera English. Framing theory was chosen as the appropriate theory with specific focus on content bias. Content analysis was adopted to analyse the data collected. Findings show that both stations had contrasting tones, victim and villain hood frames and sourcing of information differences on their coverage of the 2014 Gaza war. The study concludes that CNN International was more balanced in citing of sources, but still adopted the general official Israeli/American tone of framing the Palestinians as villains and the Israelis as victims while Al Jazeera English adopted a defensive position, framing the Palestinians as victims and the Israelis as villains. Therefore, this study recommends among others that, both networks should strive to ensure that their reports are always balanced in tone, when depicting victims and villains of the conflict and also both Palestinian and Israeli sources should be cited.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………….. | i | |
| DECLARATION………………………………………………………… | ii | |
| CERTIFICATION………………………………………………………. | iii | |
| DEDICATION…………………………………………………………. | iv | |
| ACKNOWLEDGMENT………………………………………………… | v | |
| ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………… | vii | |
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………. viii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY…………………………. 1
1.2 PROFILE OF AL JAZEERA ENGLISH……….………………………… 8
1.3 PROFILE OF CNN INTERNATIONAL…….…………………………… 9
1.4 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ……………………………… 10
1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES……………………………………….. 11
1.6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS………………………………………. 11
1.7 JUSTIFICATION…………………………………………………… 12
1.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH…………………… 12
1.9 SCOPE………………………………………………….. 13
1.10 LIMITATION TO THE STUDY…………………………. 14
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………… 15
2.2 CONFLICT .……………………………………………………………… 15
2.3 MEDIA AND CONFLICT REPORTING………………………………….18
2.4 MEDIA COVERAGE OF PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI CONFLICT……… 31
2.5 REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES………………………………
2 2.6 DIRECTION OF MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI
CONFLICT…………………………………………………………………33
2.7 MEDIA FRAMING OF THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI CONFLICT… 34
2.8 MEDIA SOURCING PATTERNS ON THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI
CONFLICT …………………………………………………………………………. 47
2.9 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK………………………………… 49
2.10 SUMMARY………………………………………………………………….. 51
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………. 52
3.2 RESEARCH METHOD………………………………………………. 52
3.3 INSTRUMENT OF DATA COLLECTION………………………. 52
3.4 INTERCODER RELIABILITY TEST……………………………… ..…… 53
3.5 CONTENT UNIVERSE……………………………………………….. 53
3.6 DATA DESCRIPTION AND SOURCES………………………………… 53
3.7 UNIT OF ANALYSIS…………………………………………………….. 54
3.8 CATEGORIES AND MEASUREMENT………………………………. 54
3.9 METHOD OF DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION ……………………………………………….. 55
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………. 56
4.2 DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS………………………. 56
4.3 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS…………………………………….. 60
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………. 75
5.2 SUMMARY ………………………………………………………… 75
5.3 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………….. 77
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………….. 78
5.5 FURTHER RESEARCH…………………………………………… 79
REFERENCES…………………………………………….. 81
APPENDIXES……………………………………………… 89
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Background to the Study
One of the most controversial wars in contemporary history, both in terms of ideological powers and continued struggle for over 70 years, is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The most recent outburst of the conflict in 2014, commonly known as the Gaza War, attracted extensive global media coverage. This conflict in a series of continuous clashes between the Israelis and the Palestinians – is exceptionally significant in terms of the extensive media coverage of the conflict which involved Israeli soldiers, armed combatants and civilians.
Being one of the longest in modern history, the ramifications of the daily events of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict go well beyond the clashing parties, attracting the attention of millions of people in many parts of the world. It is also extremely violent, continuously involving killing, assassination, injury, house demolition, and imprisonment. Dowty (2008:222) calls it the ―perfect conflict‖ that has a ―self-generating power for continued devastation and destruction‖ because each of its two sides has a strong sense of victimhood and a strong belief that it is in the right.
The media‘s universally accepted role is to inform the public at large. In situations of conflict, war, or other tumultuous circumstances, this role entails more responsibilities. As with the Palestine-Israel conflict, there are ethnic and demographically, sometimes ideologically, opposed sides to represent fairly. For decades now, the conflict has persisted, alternately heating up and cooling down but never truly being resolved.
Media coverage of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict in recent years has been associated with international political, economic and social ideologies (Tucker, 2008). This happened due to the efforts of the media influence of Iran, Europe, Middle East, America and Israel.
The evolution and rapid changes in international communication that occurred in the world led to a great divergence of views and to an emergence of trends and beliefs that take media as a vehicle to pass ideologies and stances to the world. What matters in this regard is the role of international media coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict which is considered to be loaded with ideological leanings and bias (Johnson &Milani, 2010).
The roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be traced back to the late nineteenth century when Zionism emerged as a national Jewish movement aiming to solve the problems of European Jewry by establishing ―an overwhelmingly, if not homogenously, Jewish state in Palestine‖ (Finkelstein, 2003:6), which was then part of the former Ottoman Empire. The major turning point for the Zionist movement came during World War I when Britain, which was to become the de facto ruler of Palestine after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in the war, issued the 1917 Balfour Declaration, undertaking to ―facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people‖ (Chomsky, 1999:90). At the beginning of the British mandate, however, the vast majority of the inhabitants of Palestine were Arab Muslims (650,000) and Christians (80,000), and Jews were only about 7.5% (60,000) of the population (Pappe, 2006:73).
The conflict can be divided into three stages. The first is the period from the late 1800s, when political Zionism emerged as a response to protests and anti-Semitism in Europe. Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, proposed in 1897, the establishment of an independent Jewish state in Palestine, the Biblical homeland of the Jewish people. The World Zionist Organization subsequently committed to the creation of a Jewish homeland in
Palestine and the Jewish National Fund (JNF) began to purchase land in Palestine ―for the purpose of settling Jews‖ in 1907 (Davis 2003: 85). This started the Jewish immigration to
Palestine, which was said to be ―a land without people for a people without land‖.
The second stage started after the Holocaust in November 1947, when the United
Nations General Assembly adopted the Partition Plan (Resolution 181). This recommended partition of the Mandatory Palestine, which had been under British rule since 1917, and the establishment of a Jewish state on about 55 percent of the territory, as well as a UN administered regime in the city of Jerusalem, holy for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. In May
1948, David Ben Gurion and the Jewish People‘s Council unilaterally declared the establishment of Israel, ―the Jewish State in Palestine‖, while leaving Israel‘s borders unspecified (Mayer 2008: 218).
Since Jewish leaders understood that a Jewish state would not survive with a large and hostile Arab minority, Palestinian land was consequently seized and 700,000 Palestinians uprooted (Morris, 2009:109). Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan then initiated a war against Israel over the Palestinian issue. Israel won and seized control over the Negev and the Galilee, while Jordan annexed the West Bank, and Egypt occupied Gaza.
The third period of the conflict started in June 1967 after Israel‘s victory in the SixDay War. Israel then annexed East Jerusalem and began the occupation of the West Bank and
Gaza, Golan and Sinai, adding about 1.5 million Arabs to the area under its control (Morris 2009: 70).
Israeli settlements and ―facts on the ground‖ have been constructed in the occupied territories since September 1967. In 2012, about 500 000 Israeli settlers were living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (Peace Now 2012). However, under Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon‘s rule in 2005, Israel withdrew both its civilian and military presence from the Gaza Strip, but kept its control over the airspace and coastal line. Following the control of power in Gaza by Hamas in 2007, Israel blockaded the area.
In the period since 1967, there have been two violent Palestinian uprisings against the occupation: the First Intifada (1987-1993) and the Second Intifada (2000-2005), leading to severe material and human loses on both sides. Intifada in Arabic means ―throwing off‖.
Israel started the construction of the Separation barrier in 2002, dividing the Israeli population from the Palestinians in the West Bank. Throughout this period till date, the United States has provided Israel with substantial military and economic support (Mark 2005). Israel has been the largest annual receiver of U.S. foreign assistance since 1976, receiving 3 billion dollars in grants annually since 1985 (Mark 2005).
It should be noted that till date, Israel still controls the vast majority of the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip which is also still defined as occupied territory by the United Nations.
Occupied territories in this context refer to the West Bank and Gaza, occupied by Israel in 1967, as well as East Jerusalem, annexed by Israel in the same period.
Caplan (2009) argues that conception of righteousness and the expectation of the fulfilment of legitimate claims is an outstanding part of the conflict. Both sides insist on their right to the land and both feel that they have been deprived of their rights in various respects. He is of the opinion that the conflict gravitates around these rights which are absolute and not negotiable. He went further to state that for the conflict to be resolved, the following questions have to be answered: who was the first in the land and whose land is it? Is Zionism a national liberation or a colonial expansionist movement? Is Arab/Israel/Palestinian violence justified or must it be condemned? How did the Palestinians become refugees and why are they still considered to be refugees? Are the areas conquered in 1967 to be considered as occupied and can Israel build there? Does the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) attempt to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Arab state? etc. As one can easily see all of these questions will be answered in a diametrically opposing manner by the respective parties. Therefore, in Caplan‘s point of view, these questions are not winnable; because no side will yield to the other‘s account.
According to Schulze (1999) the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is as a result of the political and historical contexts of the environment of both parties. She further reflected that their negotiating approaches are primarily maximalist, with neither side being willing, except under extreme pressure from outside political actors—such as the United States and the
European Union—to step back from the brink of absolute confrontation. She notes, ―the pattern that emerges is one of entrenched positions, dubious motives, poor timing, uninspired leadership and psychological obstacles‖ Schulze (1999:96).
Cultural differences have affected the decision making process of the two parties. Palestinians and Israelis are simply different with respect to their approach to decision making. According to the cultural identifier methodology of Hofstede (1997), these differences are distinguished by the fact that the Israelis tend to be individualistic and make decisions using a generally flat decision making hierarchy while the Palestinians reflect more of a collective society and exhibit a hierarchical decision making style Hofstede (1997). Sadly, the cultural identifier that both sides share is an enhanced tendency for confrontation and conflict. Cohen (1997) sees language barrier as a problem because the result is two different negotiating communication styles hindered by translations between at least three different languages (Arabic, Hebrew, and English).
Throughout the conflict, Israel, with the United States and the European Union, referred to the violence against Israeli civilians and military, as terrorism. The motivations behind Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians are multiple. However, a common motive is to eliminate the Jewish state and replace it with a Palestinian Arab state, Sela(2002).
Hamas views the conflict as a religious jihad:
The PLO‘s agreement to support the participation of a Palestinian delegation from the west bank and Gaza strip in the Madrid Peace Conferences in late October 1991 further fueled the tension between Fatah and Hamas, which embarked on an intensive campaign against the very idea of territorial compromise and peacemaking with the Jews as religiously forbidden and politically inconceivable.
(Sela, 2002, p. 339).
Hamas, therefore uses suicide bombing as one of its defence tactics to attack the
Israelis. A 2007 study of Palestinian suicide bombings during the second intifada (September
2000 through August 2005) found that 39.9% of the suicide attacks were carried out by
Hamas, 2.64% by Fatah, 25.7% by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), 5.4% by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and 2.7% by other organisations. The first suicide attack was carried out in 1989 and the attacks stopped in 2008, Benmelech&Berrebi (2007). Other tactics include rocket firing, hostage taking, stone throwing, car crashing, stabbing and shootings. For Israel‘s defense, options have included military action (including targeted killings and house demolitions of perceived ‗terrorist operatives‘ and Palestinian civilians), diplomacy, unilateral gestures towards peace, and increased security measures especially at checkpoints. The legality and the wisdom of all of the above tactics have been called into question by various commentators, Dershowitz (2005).
Lewis (2003:30) notes that jihad can be characterized both defensively as moral striving, and offensively as armed struggle. This, in his opinion, hinders conflict resolution efforts. According to Bishara (2002), Israel is to blame for failure to establish peace with the
Palestinian people. This he perceives as Israel ‗apartheid‘. He argues that, ―the Oslo peace process must, first and foremost, be understood in its historic and geo-strategic contexts. It resulted only after a series of fruitless Israeli attempts to defuse the Palestinian question without resolving it‖ Bishara (2002:3). Enderlin (2003) disagrees and blames lack of peace on leaders of both sides. He opines that both leaders would have reached peace at camp David II in September of 2000, or at the Taba conference in January of 2001 but did not for various political and personal reasons.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict of July 8 to August 26, 2014, was a 50-day armed conflict that took place between Palestinians, Hamas fighters in the Gaza strip and the State of Israel. The conflict began when Israel launched a military campaign called Operation Protective Edge in the Gaza strip on July 08 with the stated aim of stopping Hamas (an Islamic political party that won the 2006 Palestinian national election) from firing rockets into southern Israel and its alleged suspicion of arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip through tunnels. Hamas is widely condemned by Israel and the international community as corrupt, aggressive and anti-peace, Sela, (2002). Hamas on its part maintains that Israel has no right to occupy and control the Gaza strip.
According to Encarta 2009, the Gaza strip is a region bordered on the north and east by Israel and the south by Egypt. From 1967 until 1994 the Gaza strip was occupied and administered by the state of Israel. In May 1994, it became independent under the leadership of the Palestinian national authority and this made Israel to begin evacuating its settlers from the strip. The World Health Organization states that the Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth. It holds a population of 1,816, 379 million (July, 2014 est.) and an area of 360 square kilometres (CIA World Fact Book). However, Israel still controls Gaza‘s air space, territorial waters and most of its borders (so that it restricts movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea). It closed off all remaining access to Gaza when Hamas gained control of the Gaza strip after winning the elections. Israeli‘s reason for this was that Hamas uses tunnels in the Gaza strip to smuggle terrorist equipment and this has made life difficult for the Palestinians living in the strip. According to Hamas, it had no option but to continue firing rockets and mortar into Israel in protest. During the conflict, Israel‘s forces attacked and destroyed government buildings, police stations, military targets, mosques, schools, shelter homes, UN buildings, homes, hospitals. Hamas also intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against southern Israel.
The conflict came to an end on 26th August 2014 when a ceasefire was agreed upon by both parties. The death toll of the conflict, according to Gaza Health Ministry resulted in
2,310 Palestinians (including at least 1,483 civilians i.e 70%) and 71 Israelis (including 66 soldiers; 6 civilians) deaths including military fighters of both sides along with massive destruction of the Gaza strip. Women and children constituted most of the casualties in Gaza.
The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led to it being described as a massacre by several human right groups. Media coverage of the conflict has been dogged by allegations of bias on both sides. These perceptions of bias have generated more complaints of partisan reporting than any other news topic and have led to an increased number of media watchdog groups on both sides. Particularly, Accuracy in Media, which is pro-Israel and
Arab Media Watch, which is pro Palestinian.
1.2.2 Profile of Aljazeera English
Al Jazeera English, headquartered in Doha, claiming to give a ―voice to the voiceless‖ entered the competitive global news field in late 2006 as the world‘s first 24-hour English language news channel based in the Middle East and North Africa. The channel aims to gain viewers from both the non-Islamic world and Muslim countries where Arabic is not spoken. With nearly 83 news bureaus worldwide (planning to add further bureaus), including Africa,
Latin America, Asia, and as well as the Middle East, the channel reports ―the voice of the
South, ‖where impartial news coverage has been marginalized by the Western media.
Compared to Al Jazeera Arabic, the English network covers much more Western politics. AL Jazeera English nonetheless did not position itself as an Arab network merely broadcasting in
English – a natural assumption given the prominence of it‘s older, Arabic language sister channel. Rather, AL Jazeera English declared and maintains a ―global‖ identity, contending to its public materials that shows it covers regions under-reported by western media giants such as CNN International and the BBC (Painter, 2008).
Furthermore, in the march towards realizing its mission statement, the channel was willing to take great risks, including the unprecedented step of engaging Arabs‘ enemy; Israel, a taboo that no other Middle Eastern television station was willing to breach in the past. It is customary nowadays to see Israeli politicians and IDF army officers appear in AL
Jazeera English and present their point of view on political and military related debates. Hence, it is being hailed by supporters as the CNN of the Arab World for being one of the most important news organizations and a leading political actor in the world today (Seib,
2008).By its funding through loans or grants, rather than direct government subsidies, Al Jazeera claims to maintain independent editorial policy. In other words, the station is free of censorship and government control. Other major sources of its income include advertising, cable subscription fees, broadcasting deals with other companies, and sale of footage. AL Jazeera English is available to 130 million homes in over 100 countries via cable and satellite. It is one of the few global media outlets to maintain an agency in Gaza. It should be noted that Qatar is the number one supporter of Hamas and the Palestinians in the Middle
East.
1.2.3 Profile of CNN International
CNN International, founded by media proprietor Ted Turner appeared in the eighties of the twentieth century in the US. It is the first news channel to provide 24 hour television news coverage and also the first all news television channel in the United States. It is an advertising-supported cable television network headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, but also has other studios in Los Angeles, Washington DC and New York City. CNN International can be received in over 212 countries and territories around the globe. In essence, CNN International is a private and independent television station that relies heavily on advertising and individual or group sponsorship/donations for survival. CNN International conducts regular programming on international news, business and sport news, health issues, and entertainment news.
The importance of CNN International appears in the role it played through the news coverage of various events around the world and more importantly the impact it leaves on the American people. CNN International reflects the viewpoints of the U.S. government on all the issues such as the issues of ―war on terror‖, and the war on Afghanistan and Iraq, and particularly the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (Barkho, 2008). It is interesting to note that the United States is the number one supporter of Israel. Both stations gave extensive media coverage of the 8th July to 26th August 2014 Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
1.3 Statement of the Problem
The media have become the central means by which people around the world are informed, entertained, and made to construct an understanding of their local, national and global social, political and cultural surroundings. Equally significant, is the manner in which the news media have come to assume a central role in periods of war – in terms of war reporting on one hand, and the build-up and progression of war itself on the other (Webster, 2003: 57). In this sense, the ideal conception of media‘s role should stand as ―reporter-reflector-indicator of an objective reality‖ of the world ―out there‖ (Molotch and Lester, 1997: 198). Any departure from this ideal tends to be treated as ‗bias‘ manipulation or distortion of the actual events on ground. Few media people want to discuss or admit partiality and the resulting distortions. To do so would challenge the motives of the organization that broadcast their material in the name of objectivity and balance. Several controversies follow the international media in their news reportage. This is because international media channels, such as BBC, CNN International, Press Tv and Al Jazeera have global reach and as such, have an ‗agendasetting effect‘.
Bias has been found and analyzed in the IAK (2003), Falk & Howard (2007), Adamu
(2011), Caballero (2010), Aguiar (2009), Ross (2003), Dunsky (2008), Philo & Berry (2004), Ozohu (2013), Amer (2015), Arqub (2015) studies proving that distortions of the truth do exist over specific date ranges concerning the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Since the role of news media in the Palestine-Israeli conflict is a recurring topic of research in the field of communications studies, few thorough comparative studies of Arab and Western media bias have been done in Nigeria with regard to the recent conflict that occurred in 2014. Therefore, this study focused on the analysis of CNN International and Aljazeera English on their coverage of the crisis. It highlighted a specific case study: Operation Protective Edge, [08/07/2014 – 26/08/2014] . The investigation was designed to determine whether both stations‘ bias continued, diminished, or increased during that period. Most times, inadequate and inaccurate reporting by international media on conflicts hugely contributes to international indifference and inaction, thereby worsening conflict situations.
1.4 Research Objectives
The objectives of this study are:
RO 1. To compare the direction of coverage of CNN International and Al Jazeera English on the Palestinian–Israeli conflict of 2014.
RO 2.To find out the frames used to represent the victims and villains of the PalestinianIsraeli conflict in media outlets by CNN International and Al Jazeera English.
RO 3. To find out if both sides were given balanced representation in terms of quoting of sources by CNN International and Al Jazeera English.
1.5 Research Questions
The following research questions were raised for direction:
RQ 1.How did CNN International and Al Jazeera English differ in tone in their coverage of Palestinian-Israeli conflict of 8th July to 26th August 2014?
RQ 2.How were the victims and villains of the July-August 2014 Palestinian –Israeli conflict framed by Al Jazeera English and CNN International?
RQ 3.Which of Palestinian and Israeli sources of information on the 2014 conflict were mostly cited by the reports of CNN International and Al Jazeera English?
1.6 Justification
The United States is the number one supporter of Israel in the west and CNN International is headquartered in the west, i.e. United States while Qatar is the number supporter of the
Palestinians and Al Jazeera English is headquartered in the Middle East i.e, Qatar. CNN
International generally presents a western perspective on international events while Al Jazeera English generally presents an Arab view. Both networks have global outreach and both networks gave extensive coverage of the conflict even though Al Jazeera English gave more coverage than CNN International.
1.7 Significance of the Research
CNN International and AL Jazeera English bring distinct outlooks to viewers. This is because the dynamics between these two international news organisations and the values that they represent challenges everyone‘s views about politics and society. CNN International presents an American perspective on international events, while Al Jazeera English prides itself on being the voice of the Middle East, the southern hemisphere, and the most impoverished regions on earth. For news watchers, political stakeholders, and journalists, these two views create broader understanding of some events, especially if one has the luxury of considering both networks‘ coverage. This researcher had the privilege of watching how both networks‘ covered the 2014 Gaza conflict and also noticed differences on how each network covered the conflict. Again, during the same period, the researcher monitored online comments from people around the globe who kept on accusing both stations of being partisan in their coverage which further heightened the interest of the researcher to conduct a research on
CNN International and AL Jazeera English‘s coverage of 2014 Gaza war.
Studies reviewed: IAK (2003), Falk & Howard (2007), Adamu (2011), Caballero
(2010), Aguiar (2009), Ross (2003), Dunsky (2008), Philo & Berry (2004), Ozohu (2013),
Amer (2015), Arqoub (2015) have shown that there was inaccuracy and manipulation of news content by various media organisations on their coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict over a long period of time. This research aimed at identifying some of the strategies and frames frequently employed by news media to manipulate the representation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in ways that reflect their own attitudes and ideologies. Therefore, this study analysed the existence, and the extent of such bias in the coverage of the JulyAugust 2014 Palestinian–Israeli conflict by CNN International and Al Jazeera English.
This study will be relevant to the international public in that it seeks to provide a modest contribution to the array of literatures available on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It will also serve as a source of reference to other researchers who intend to do further research in this area. The study will be significant in promoting easy understanding of ideologies of the news articles published in AL Jazeera English and CNN International on PalestinianIsraeli conflict.
1.8 Scope
This study focused on the analysis of all online published broadcast transcripts on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict of 2014 by AL Jazeera English and CNN International. It was meant to contrast and compare how both stations presented the news on their Websites. It was anticipated that due to divergence in ideology and political position, inconsistencies and differences could be found in their coverage of Palestinian-Israeli conflict of 2014 with particular focus on the July 08 to August 26, 2014 conflict. Opinions and commentaries were excluded from the analysis because they did not represent the views of the media outlets; instead, they represented the point of views of the writers and commentators who were under no obligation to be fair or balanced.
This study was limited to analysing only online published broadcast transcripts sourced from CNN International.com and Aljazeera.com respectively. The study did not cover video analysis due to inadequate resources; and in addition to that, the researcher would have found it helpful to have visited the news outlets in order to interview their reporters and editors concerning coverage of the conflict.
1.9 Limitation to the Study
The limitation of this research is its methodology. This is because in qualitative research, interpretation is always contextualised and provisional, which gives room for a new interpretation as well as other meanings. As a result of this, validity becomes an issue as the researcher and research assistant‘s interpretation, are the only two versions of the many other meanings of the frames chosen for the study. In other words, the assessment of this study cannot be true or false and therefore, covers only one aspect of the researchers own assumptions and subjectivity, and cannot be repeated by other researchers or evaluated as valid or not.
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CNN AND ALJAZEERA’S COVERAGE OF THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI CONFLICT OF 2014
