publications

This is a video with accompanying notes, including suggestions for classroom exercises, intended for teaching from A level upwards. The tape, the notes and the suggested classroom exercises are designed in such a way that different bits of the material can be used for students at different levels. The focus is on news reporting and concentrates on the way in which (arguably) news values distort reporting of long event sequences such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The overall thrust of the material is to argue in favour of going beyond current attempts at balance in favour of a form of news reporting which would actively promote a peaceful solution. It uses actual news footage and original material which imitates news formats to illustrate both how things are currently done and how they might reasonably be done differently.

The overall thrust of the analysis is this: news focus on violence does two equally undesirable things – inside Israel/Palestine it foments distrust between the two sides, thus making peace harder to achieve, and externally it leads to misinformation about the nature of the situation. For example, in analysis of UK audience response to such reporting it appeared that UK news did not enable viewers to understand what the term ‘occupied territories’ meant, some thinking it meant ‘occupied’ in a neutral sense, as a bathroom is ‘occupied’. ‘News From the Holy Land’ tries to rectify this by showing how reporting could both avoid fomenting distrust and lead to genuine information about the situation.

The structure of the video is to show a report of an incident – a suicide bombing – as it is ‘usually’ reported in UK TV news and to contrast it with another parallel report which approaches the same topic (using the same original footage) in a different way. It then gives a series of ‘reports’ which illustrate how the alternative manner of reporting conflict could be done. These ‘reports’ are interspersed with commentaries by peace activists, academics and others (but no official spokespersons). The different segments are clearly identified in the accompanying notes, as are the implications of their contents; some of these are also spelt out in ‘to-camera’ analyses by the authors (who double as TV reporters in the ‘reports’). On first viewing, I found it difficult to follow the logic of this structure, as it was not immediately clear what was meant to be a ‘report’, and what was meant to be commentary. This has implications to which I’ll return.

Much of the material focuses on how the reporting of violent incidents inevitably obscures the deeper processes which lead to the resort to violence; it stresses the ‘structural violence’ that results from the basis of the current political arrangements – army checkpoints, the security wall, etc. Even when individual Israeli soldiers are well-behaved and considerate at checkpoints, the existence of the checkpoint is still a violation of Palestinian rights. It also shows how alternative reporting might focus instead on peace activism, on both sides of the divide. The authors wish to avoid speaking in terms of blame and to outline a reporting strategy which would achieve two other things. Firstly, a focus on the processes which lead to violence, without seeking to excuse it; secondly, a concentration on processes which would lead participants away from blame and the associated cycle of violence, and into recognition of the appetite for peace that exists on both sides. They argue that such reporting would be a better fulfilment of public service obligations and programme codes.

Clearly, this video is not only about media reporting, it is also about what the authors understand to be the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rightly so, no doubt: all reporting takes place on the back of some understanding of the overall situation. Whether their understanding is even-handed (and whether it should be) is a matter best left to user discussions. Their overt purpose is to promote peace, and it can hardly be forgotten that the drive for a peaceful settlement is itself a political choice among others, especially in this part of the world. It is probably for this reason that the ‘reports’ and the ‘commentaries’ on the reports are difficult to distinguish, since both aim to show how peace can be promoted.

A final point: perhaps because of the overall orientation of the video, various matters are implied or touched upon that might repay further analysis. The use of agency-style footage of the aftermath of a suicide bombing and a statement by an Israeli Government spokesman in two alternative versions of a report shows clearly how reporter voice-over can fundamentally change the meaning of video, and even of public statements, through contextualisation; given the very frequent use of agency footage in conflict situations, this is an important matter in its own right. The insistence on the importance of background analysis in news reporting raises the question of the rotation of reporters and the use of parachute journalism: how far is it possible for journalists rotating assignments (let alone firemen) to acquire relevant background knowledge? It’s well known that most media have reduced their expenditure on overseas bureaux, and although the authors stress (no doubt rightly) that the Jerusalem bureaux are staffed by very skilled journalists, this does not necessarily avoid the structural problem. Thirdly, the question of journalist safety: for journalists, Israel/Palestine is still a relatively safe place to work; other places – Iraq, for example – are anything but safe for them; reporting peace initiatives in the way in which this video proposes is very dependent upon journalists enjoying protection, and then the question is always: who by? And what effect does this have upon the reporting?

Professor Jerry Palmer
London Metropolitan University.

to top