There are several points along the way that deserve emphasis for their clarity and validity.
Communication theory
First is the communication theory, which defines mainstream media as
“outlets that are in harmony with the prevailing direction of influence
in culture at large.” In essence, “to a significant extent American
mainstream journalism on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict toes the line
of U.S. Mideast policy.” She discusses three theoretical constructs –
hegemony, indexing, and cascading – that emphasize these points
respectively: “the American mainstream media…operate in the same social
and economic framework as government;” “The range of discourse is
exceedingly narrow…because [it] emanates from an equally narrow range
of sources;” and “the mainstream media determines the level of
understanding that is possible for the public and the policy makers
alike.” If that does not give the mainstream media thoughts for
concern, then ironically, these definitions become all that more
powerful.
Refugees
The refugee problem is defined as “a root cause of the
Israeli-Palestine conflict” and to omit it from context “is to omit an
important part of the story.” Dunsky briefly outlines the nakba as
recently viewed by ‘revisionist’ historians who deny the official
Israeli narrative while using information in a large part garnered from
the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) archives themselves. While these ideas
“depart markedly from the familiar narrative” there are other gaps in
the narrative, one of the more important being “the body of
international law and consensus on refugee rights in general, and
Palestinian refugee rights in particular.”[1] Accompanying this is the
right of return which the Israelis claim for the Jewish people of the
world, but that is denied to the Palestinians in contravention of
international law.
Context as a theme is obviously a major issue for any discussion of the
refugee problem. American media “routinely denies its audience the
contextual tools with which to assess important historical and
political aspects of the issue,” and it “largely mirrors U.S. Mideast
policy,” remaining “explicitly tilted in favor of Israel in the pursuit
of what is officially defined as the U.S. national interest in the
region.” News reports “relate what can be seen and heard, to the
exclusion or relevant contextual background.” [italics in original] The
message that does come across is that of the “refugees’ own transigence
and the machinations of their leaders, the Arab states, and the United
Nations.” While it seems almost too obvious to state, Dunsky sums up
her arguments on the refugee reporting saying “if Americans had a
fuller contextual understanding of the key issues…via the mainstream
media, they would be better equipped to challenge U.S. Mideast policy.”
Obvious yes, but it also signifies that American culture, American
society perhaps does not want to disturb its own beliefs in its
exceptionalism and perfectionism that is their gift (even if by the
barrel of a gun) to the world. To admit these failings of context, to
examine the context in light of foreign policy would be greatly
disturbing to a society educated (or inculcated) about its own
greatness, exceptionalism, perfectionism, and love of democracy and
freedom. And so it should be.
Israeli settlements
Similar arguments are brought forth concerning the Israeli settlements.
A brief background set of information ties in the U.S. $3 billion in
aid each year that supports the ability to continue the settlements.
Dunsky argues, and supports, the idea that “reporting on the settlement
issue bears a striking similarity to reporting on the …refugee
question,” with “more weight usually given to Israeli claims and little
or no reference to international law and consensus.” Also, “dramatic
description is substituted for thoroughgoing analytical reporting.” And
more in the same category of context: “Contextually and
substantively…the stories made little or no reference to international
law and consensus or to U.S. aid to Israel.”
The media references to the Israeli side generally emphasize the
perspective “that Palestinian violence must be halted before
negotiations can resume,” without the context of history and the idea
that the very act of settlement and “its attendant military defense
have been a root cause of that violence.” Frequent comments run through
the text, emphasizing and referencing the lack of context and of
international law and consensus in the media reports that are studied.
The intifada
The height of the intifada violence coincided with American rhetoric
and anguish after 9/11 and provided a neat tie in for the Israeli
government and the IDF to try and capture the argument as one of
terrorism, leaving aside completely the historical context and using
the American perspective of “us against them,” of democracy versus
demagoguery, of “they hate us for what we are.” For the media
“political discourse focused entirely on themes that were emotional,
moral, and patriotic,” providing a “period of congruence for the United
States and Israel.” The IDF incursions into the West Bank relied on the
concept that “the campaign was to root out the terrorist infrastructure
in the West Bank.”
Palestine was no match for the well-organized Israeli “propaganda
battlefield” and as events continued, “Arafat and the PA were linked to
terror” as “repeatedly impressed on U.S. government officials and the
American public through the media.” Another feature of these reports is
what “amounted to transparent Israeli advocacy for a U.S. war in Iraq”
as well as connections through to Iran. In sum, Dunsky says
“American journalists were operating within the sphere of cultural
congruence – a comfort zone where journalistic scepticism and balance
were often overshadowed or displaced by the political discourse of the
Bush administration, in which a “war on terror” could be prosecuted by
the United States, and, by extension, its closest ally.”
Ego and Access
The chapter “In the Field” provides an intriguing perspective on the
reporters/journalists (I put those two descriptors together, not really
sure where the lines between a reporter and a journalist meet or
overlap or coincide) themselves. The section could be subtitled “Ego
and Access” as those are the two main themes in the first set of
self-reports.
Dunsky allows the reporters to speak for themselves and some of what
they say is self-incriminating as to why there is a bias and lack of
context. It would seem that the correspondents are well aware of media
competition in the sense that they need a daily story. They worry about
how the editors will deal with their report and they need a story with
a different view to gain publication and so that their peers will take
notice: “to attempt unfiltered reporting…not only is often discouraged
by newsroom culture but can also result in swift and unstinting
audience censure.” That is the ego part. The access part is the
consistent iteration that access to Israeli sources was very easy and
well organized and that communication with the Palestinians required
more effort. That could be – although denied by the correspondents –
because “most…choose to live among Israelis in West Jerusalem because
of its higher standard of living rather than among Palestinians.” It is
a hard denial to make, that their place of living has “had little or no
effect on their actual work product.” If they have no sense of context,
perhaps also their sense of place is…hmm…misplaced.
Before getting into these self-examinations, examinations that reveal
all too much about ego and access, Dunsky reiterates her own two “key
underlying contexts: the impact of U.S. policy on the trajectory of the
conflict; and the importance of international law and consensus
regarding the key issues of Israeli settlement and annexation policies
and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.” As a result the
journalistic product “frames media discourse on the conflict in a way
that reinforces and supports rather than scrutinizes and challenges
U.S. policy that in many ways undergirds it.”
Context and media failure.
The final two writers provide a much clearer analysis of the world they
lived in. Gillian Findlay, ABC correspondent from September 1997 to
June 2002 says “when we did try to provide context, it became such a
controversial thing, not only among viewers but also within the news
organization.” She was surprised by “how little our audience understood
about the roots of the conflict,” and says it is a “cop out in
reporting” to say there is nothing the U.S. administration can do.
Speaking more globally she hits upon another truth about American
media, that “the lack of context applies to so much reporting these
days. It’s not just this issue.”
Chris Hedges worked for the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News
off and on from January 1988 to 2003. He says “Arab culture is
incomprehensible to us because we’ve never taken the time to understand
it. It’s a great failing of the press that when something is
incomprehensible to us, we certify it as incomprehensible to everyone.”
He continues this idea when discussing the suicide bombers, “we don’t
understand the slow drip of oppression” that created them and further
“We’ve never taken the time to understand them….[a] fundamental failure
of the coverage of Palestinians.” As for the press as an institution he
says, “bureaucracies…are driven by ambition and have very little moral
sense. That’s true of every institution….It’s not conducive of their
own advancement.”
All of which leaves me wondering, as a critical reader, what exactly
are the credentials of the writers/reporters/journalists who are in the
field. Certainly being there provides them with first hand observation
of current events, but do they have the academic background to
understand the socio-political history of the region? Are they able and
willing to look at what for me is the prime contradiction in the vast
majority of American and Israeli foreign affairs and those who report
on it - that what you do speaks so loud I can’t hear what you are
saying? That democracy does not arrive at the barrel of gun, peace does
not come from pre-emptive invasions and occupations, the victim cannot
be blamed for the ongoing violence against the intruders, and
international law deems it all illegal? More simply put, people,
nations, do not like being occupied and suppressed, and no rhetoric of
any kind will make it acceptable except to an elite few cronies of the
occupiers. Are the reporters able and willing to step outside of the
Washington consensus, willing to take the time to provide more
background information for themselves as well as their readers, or will
the corporate agenda over-rule any attempts at providing context, a
context that more often than not goes against the grain of the
Washington consensus?
The final argument is on objectivity, seen in the introduction as an
“amorphous if not impossible standard,” another argument that comes
back to all media tasks being “superfluous as long as one remains
within the presuppositional framework of the doctrinal consensus,” with
writers well aware of “rewards that accrue to conformity and the costs
of honest dissidence.”
I would hope that all journalists/writers would take the time to read
Pens and Swords. The books arguments are well presented and well
referenced, and the work as a whole should be placed on every
journalists’/reporters’ shelf alongside similar works by other well
referenced and questioning media critics [2] For any journalist who is
actually wishing to pursue truth rather than ego and access,
consideration and action on the ideas presented in Dunsky’s work would
be a great place to start. Pens and Swords is also a great read for all
mass media audiences to better inform themselves and to be able to
criticize and analyze the writers/producers and their products more
intelligently as well as to analyze their own place and views within
the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
[1] for an easily read comprehensive understanding of international
law, see Michael Byers’ War Law, Understanding International Law and
Armed Conflict, Douglas & McIntyre, Toronto, 2005.
[2] Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent (2002), and Falk and Friel Israel-Palestine on Record (2007).
Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of
opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles’
work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and
news publications.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
