Global Arab Network | Monitoring Study - British Media Coverage of East Jerusalem & Israeli Settlements

Translate this article to your language:

GANPublications

e-Publications

Add Site to Favorites

Add Page to Favorites

Make Homepage

Share This Page

RSS Feed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |

Monitoring Study - British Media Coverage of East Jerusalem & Israeli Settlements

Arab Media Watch

Friday, 14 May 2010 13:16

The issue of settlements has long been a touchstone for the health of the Middle East peace process. The seriousness of settlements is not to be underestimated: their proliferation in the occupied territories leaves Palestinians with a reduced, non-viable, non-contiguous homeland.

From 9 - 16 March 2010, Israel announced that more homes would be built in Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land, which included 112 new homes in Beitar Illit just south of Jerusalem, and a further 1,600 homes in Ramat Shlomo in Arab East Jerusalem. These announcements coincided with the visit to Israel of US Vice-President Joe Biden.

Methodology
Eighteen articles were published during the monitoring period, of which five each appeared in the Times and Guardian, and four each appeared in the Independent and Daily Telegraph. No other British newspaper reported the announcements.#

Arab Media Watch analysed reporting of the announcements, judging it by whether the following were mentioned:
- the annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal under international law
- the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognised by the international community
- settlements are built on Palestinian / Arab land
- settlements are built on occupied territory

Other important criteria common to settlements all over Palestine include:

- being illegal under international law
- being built in contravention of the peace process
- being placed in context (e.g. number of settlements, settlers, their effect on Palestinians etc)

Taking into account that a more 'complete' picture of a story or an issue is built up over a series of articles or period of reporting, and not necessarily any individual article, AMW looked at the composite picture that emerged from the period of reporting that covered the announcements.

Results
Given that there are seven criteria and 18 articles, there is potential for mentioning the criteria up to 126 times. In the event, they were mentioned 22 times, around one-sixth of that figure.

- The Times performed the worst, with only two mentions of the criteria (9%).

- The Guardian (specifically its Middle East correspondent Rory McCarthy) performed the best, with 10 mentions of the criteria (45%).

- Five articles (28%) contained none of the criteria, of which three were in the Times.

- The Independent was the only paper to include at least one of the criteria in every article (all by Middle East correspondent Donald Macintyre).

- 75% of Times correspondent Sheera Frenkel's articles contained none of the criteria.

- That the land is occupied is the most commonly mentioned criteria (nine, or 41% of total criteria mentioned). This is mentioned in half the articles.

- Contextualisation of settlements (e.g. the number of settlements, settlers, their effect on Palestinians etc) was not mentioned in any of the 18 articles.
AMW-1

Note: For the Times, James Hider wrote one article; for the Telegraph, 'Foreign Staff' wrote one article (from AFP copy). Both articles accounted for one mention of 'occupied territory' each. For the Guardian, Daniel Nasaw wrote one article which contained none of the criteria.
AMW-2

Comparisons
AMW produced a study on British media coverage of settlements during the period 1 April - 1 July 2008. While the 2010 study reveals areas of concern, in some ways the situation has improved in relation to the previous findings. The most salient comparisons are:

* In 2008, 47% of articles contained none of the criteria, compared to 28% in this study.
* In both studies, the most frequently mentioned criteria is 'occupation,' though it was only brought up in 30% of articles in the 2008 study, compared to 50% in this study.
* In this study, the Guardian's coverage contained almost exactly the same percentage (45%) of criteria mentioned as in 2008 (44%).

* In 2010, the Independent was the only paper to include at least one of the criteria in every article, while in 2008, it mentioned any of the criteria in only 25% of its articles.

Individual Newspapers' Performance

The Times
The Times fared worst of all the newspapers monitored. Over the course of four articles, correspondent Sheera Frenkel mentioned occupied territory only once, and referred to "contested" land, a misleading description which is dealt with in-depth here. The reporting failed to mention any of the other criteria.

Although Frenkel once refers to a "seemingly fatal blow" (12 March) to Biden's efforts at rekindling peace talks dealt by Israel's pledge to build a new settlement in East Jerusalem, over the course of her reporting there is a lack of information on the gravity of the matter.

Frenkel suggests that "Palestinians say they will not re-enter negotiations" (16 March), and a headline for one of her articles reads: "Arab League puts peace talks on the brink" (11 March). Thus in the absence of fuller information on the subject, the impression is created that the Palestinians / Arabs are resisting peace overtures without cause. It is not rejectionist to require the opposing side to adhere to the Roadmap and international law.

Daily Telegraph
Matthew Kalman, over three articles, referred to the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. However, the other criteria are missing. Stating that Palestinians "consider settlements a major hurdle in attempts to reach a peace accord" (10 March) weakens the significance of settlements on the peace process, and obscures the balance of opinion on the matter.

The Guardian
In terms of reporting the criteria, the Guardian fared the best.

Over four articles, Middle East correspondent Rory McCarthy refers to the occupation of the West Bank and Palestinian land, while also noting that Israel's annexation is a "move not recognised by the international community" (10 March), that "all settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law" (11 March), and that a halt to settlement expansion is "in line with the demands of the US administration and the roadmap" (11 March).

Thus, when McCarthy reports that the Palestinians pulled out of talks in protest at Israel's announcement to build more settlements in East Jerusalem, the reader can better appreciate this position, something that was missing in the Times' and Telegraph's reporting.

The Independent
Middle East correspondent Donald Macintyre, over a series of four articles, referred to occupied territory and Arab East Jerusalem, and noted that "the international community has never accepted Israel's unilateral annexation of Arab East Jerusalem" (15 March). Information such as settlements being built in contravention of the peace process is missing, though more is conveyed than in the Times and Telegraph.

Global Arab Network

Guy Gabriel - AMW adviser - Outlets monitored: Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, Daily Star, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Independent on Sunday, Observer, Sun, News of the World, Times and Sunday Times.

For more articles and studies by Arab Media Watch click here

Add comment

The opinions of the authors in articles published are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Arab Network
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published comments are the opinions of private individuals and do not reflect the views of Global Arab Network