Breaking News From Gaza:

A Look at CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera Coverage of Operation Pillar of Defense

Benjamin Pollard

Introduction and Hypotheses

The media plays a very important role in what type and how much information makes its way to the public, strongly influencing public opinion. The November 2012 clash in the Gaza Strip between Israeli and Palestinian forces is no different. By reviewing the written reports by CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera English news services over the first week of the Operation Pillar of Defense conflict, I will attempt to ascertain the new service leanings and their place in our understanding of the events that unfolded.

It is my belief that given the lopsided nature of the Operation Pillar of Defense conflict and the political leanings of the organizations, CNN and BBC coverage will have a Pro-Israel leaning, while Al Jazeera will have a Pro-Palestine leaning. However, over the course of Operation Pillar of Defense, BBC and CNN coverage will shift to a neutral or even Pro-Palestinian position, while Al Jazeera coverage will remain consistently Pro-Palestinian.  These first hypothesis is expecting the news services to act in a consistent way with our current understanding of them.  The second hypothesis expects a change in the news services due to the nature of the conflict.

Literature Review

The Politics of News        

            The news is a political tool. Journalism is not simply the act of reporting the facts from an event.  It is a much more powerful thing that can guide public perception and understanding of events.  According to Thomas E. Patterson (1998), news is more than a picture of life, it is a construct into which the journalist picks and chooses his or her events to relay to the masses (often with their own narrative spin).  Even for those attempting to maintain objectivity, subjectivity has a way of interjecting itself into a reporter's narrative and is becoming a fact of  reporting.  In fact, some reporters reject the traditionally passive, objective role and have begun to realize their ability to become active and political writers.

Foreign News and Correspondence   

            Foreign news sources have become particularly important.  Since the United States has traditionally low levels of reporting on international affairs, United States citizens have begun to search for non-American news sources online.  The likes of BBC and Al Jazeera have become the top sites for Americans to find foreign affairs reporting (Graber 2006, 323).  The audience enjoys this chance to see international news from specific viewpoints.  This indicates that to understand what the American public is viewing one must not limit research to strictly American news websites.

Coverage of Israel and Palestine by the Big Three

            When it comes to comparisons of news services, CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera come up the most often, particularly in a Middle East context.  Many scholars have tried to compare and contrast the agencies and their reporting styles, and a theme of coverage styles comes to light, especially when discussing Israel and Palestine.

            A decent part of recent literature, when comparing the three news services, pits BBC and CNN against Al Jazeera (Barkho 2008) . For example, a study done in 2008 by Kenneth Loomis intentionally structured this comparison because Al Jazeera was the only non-Western news service. While comparing the news services, Loomis found that a difference in reporting exists, but that this is caused more by geographic location,  Al Jazeera being based, rather than a cultural or political reason. However, Al Jazeera has yet to take root in other Western markets because of a preconceived notion of Arabic bias, a bias which has been proven to less prominent than expected (Loomis 2009).

            The continual comparison of CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera has led to a richer understanding of how language is used to describe conflict in the region.  A main argument is that BBC and CNN (the Western news organizations) portray Palestinians in a poor light, regardless of peaceful or tense moments of Israeli-Palestinian relations (Barkho 2011). Another study looking only at Flemish newspapers (not immediately considered a heavily Western source) realized that a heavy bias in favor of Israel existed in the language used.  Military action by Palestinians were consistently labeled attacks while those of Israel were labeled acts (Deprez and Raeymaeckers 2010, 98-99).  It is clear that language is a key indicator when discussing differing coverage.

Knowing the Sources

            Al Jazeera (in English “The Peninsula”) is a news organization based in Qatar and funded by the Qatar government.  It was formed by a schism in the BBC Arabic staff following a run in with the Saudi government.  Journalists out of work relocated and began their own news service.  The news service holds offices around the world, but is mostly known for reporting in its own back yard, the Middle East.  It is often heard that Al Jazeera writers are always opinionated and there is rarely fully neutral reporting (Broderick and Miller 2007, 5-8).

            When it comes to Israeli-Palestinian disputes, one can expect to have a majority of articles carrying a Pro-Palestinian, Pro-Arab, and Pro-Palestinian viewpoint. When it comes to language used to describe the conflict, Hamas is usually described as a movement or government indicating a favorable stance towards it. Israel is portrayed as an aggressor in the majority of Al Jazeera stories. This is done by portraying Israel as invaders of Palestinian land and by focusing on casualties caused by Israeli military attacks (Seib 2005, 601-615).

            BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) News is considered the benchmark by which other online news services are measured and hosts one of the largest news websites. While state-sponsored by the United Kingdom, the BBC acts independently from state control.  However, BBC has been charged with being biased in their broadcasting. They have been criticized as being both anti-Western and Pro-Israel, a distinct paradox that can attributed to Britain’s former relations to Israel (Broderick and Miller 2007, 48-51).

            When BBC covers these Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, it is widely recognized that their tone and articles will convey a heavily favorable view of Israel. Many consider their use of historical background in their articles as a means to justify Israel’s current actions. Not only will the service be Pro-Israel, but it will also likely describe Hamas as radicals and militants, unfavorable words that delegitimize the Hamas government (Barkho 2007). 

            CNN (Cable News Network) is a corporate, American based news service.  Already a revolutionary trend setter in cable news, CNN is also a top tier web news service. Its articles are known to be planned with others so that one may cover events while another explains the background. When discussing CNN, it is important to remember its corporate, mainstream roots. Its stories and coverage react to public demand and ratings more so than the other news services discussed (Broderick and Miller 2007, 53-56).

CNN is likely to tow the Israeli line when it comes to conflict in the region. This is in part due to its need to appeal to the Pro-Israel leaning American public. It will often refer to Hamas as a militia or military wing, casting Palestine in an unfavorable light. Military strikes by Palestine are traditionally described as more violent than those of Israeli attacks. CNN will often sterilize Israel military action and humanize the Israeli victims of attack (Barkho 2010, 97-100).

Conflict Context

The disputed territory that makes up Palestine and Israel has been a contested region for most of mankind’s existence. The area sits between three continents: Europe, Asia, and Africa. The relatively fertile land, easily accessible water supply, and position along trade routes has made it a highly coveted expanse. When factoring in its religious value to three of the world’s largest religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), the likelihood of conflict is intensified.

The ongoing conflict between the state of Israel and the territory of Palestine is rooted in the relatively recent land dispute starting with the United Nations’ partition plan for Palestine of 1947 and subsequent war. While the mandate had originally made arrangements for two states, a Muslim Palestine and a Jewish Israel, the two governments were unwilling to concede such an option. What began as skirmishes between pockets of Muslim and Israeli citizens divided into a country against their wishes, eventually evolved into all-out war between Israel and the Arab League. Israel was able to repel the Arab League forces and eventually drive them back, past the original Israeli claims under the U.N. plan, eventually splitting Palestine into two occupied territories, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The conflict has continued through today with Palestine divided and no longer recognized as a state, and Israel claiming the Palestinian territories as their own (Lust 2011, 251-254).

The West Bank and Gaza Strip have distanced themselves from each other. The West Bank is led by Fatah, the Arab Nationalist party in Palestine. The Gaza Strip is instead led by Hamas, a Muslim fundamentalist party. While Fatah has been willing to negotiate with Israel, Hamas has been much less likely to cooperate, and the majority of attacks (often led by Hamas’ military branch) on Israel come from Gaza (Lust 2011, 618-622). It is in this situation of disputed land, desire for statehood, and religious tension, that the events of Operation Pillar of Defense unfolded.

Operation Pillar of Defense was the Israeli name for their military actions in the conflict that lasted from November 14 to November 21, 2012. While it is not uncommon for rocket fire and bombings to be directed at each other, this conflict was different in both scale and tactics. It began with the assassination of Hamas military leader, Ahmed Jabari. This example of political assassination by Israel sparked a retaliatory barrage of rocket fire at Tel Aviv (huffingtonpost.com 2012). What followed was an escalation of rocket fire between the two belligerents. At this point, the fighting would considered normal for conflict in the region.

However, the dispute escalated with Israel unveiling its new missile defense system known as “Iron Dome.”  The defense system is capable of shooting down Palestinian rockets fired at Israel. Given the relatively old technologies used in Palestinian rockets, “Iron Dome” is capable of intercepting nearly 90% of all rockets fired by Palestine (theatlanticwire.com 2012). Alongside this unveiling, Israel intensified its rocket strikes in both scale and targeting. Israel no longer aims specifically for Hamas rocket batteries and military installations. They expanded their targeting to include Gaza administrative buildings and residential neighborhoods where Israel believed Hamas soldiers to be.  The Israeli President vowed to send two or three rockets for each one fired by Hamas (cbsnews.com 2012).

The intensity of Israel’s strikes and the resulting Palestinian casualties were much greater than the strikes by Palestine and the Israeli casualties. Based on self-reported numbers, over the course of the week, Israel record over 1500 missile strikes in comparison to the approximately 560 rockets from Palestine that hit their target (around 1500 were fired, of which roughly a third reached their targets due to faulty rockets and Israel’s “Iron Dome”) (mfa.gov.il 2012). The number of casualties was just as disparate. According to Israel, there were six Israeli deaths (two military, four civilian) and 240 casualties (20 military, 220 civilian) (mfa.gov.il 2012). This is in stark contrast to the Palestinian deaths of 160 Gazans (55 military, 105 civilian) and casualties of approximately 1000 (at least 29 military, 971 civilians) (pchrgaza.org 2012). This led to many in the news to label the conflict as lopsided and an Israeli overreaction (tribune.com.pk 2012).

While the conflict was eventually ended by a ceasefire negotiated through United States Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, and Egyptian President, Mohamed Morsi, the  public perception of the conflict may have been affected. This is one of the issues this paper hopes to investigate by reviewing major media outlets and their portrayal of Operation Pillar of Defense.

Methodology

My hypotheses came in two parts: 1) CNN and BBC coverage of the Operation Pillar of Defense will have a Pro-Israel leaning, while Al Jazeera will have a Pro-Palestine leaning, and 2) Over the course of Operation Pillar of Defense, BBC and CNN coverage will shift to a neutral or Pro-Palestine position, while Al Jazeera will remain Pro-Palestine. In order to do this, I required a way to review the news service output and accurately decide its political leanings.

I turned to a study by Barkho (2010), an expert on the three broadcasters and their coverage of Israel-Palestine relations. Barkho’s study consisted of month-long stints with the broadcasters where he archived and scored all Middle-East coverage to ascertain these services’ tendencies and potential biases. He also made a point to study the language of headlines and their value as an indicator of political leanings in a news service. While my study did not chronicle and score the entirety of written material on the conflict, I did use Barkho’s research to score the headlines concerning the conflict.

            I first had to compile the sum of all articles published by the news agencies. I went through the respective archives of CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera and gathered the headlines from the conflict. I restricted the articles to those published between the dates of November 14, 2012 and November 22, 2012.  This covered the entirety of the conflict up to the ceasefire plus one day.  This would allow for the articles to demonstrate their reactions to events in real time rather than be clouded by a rehashing of events and purely speculative writings of “what does this mean?”

            My next step was to review the headlines published and score them into four categories: Pro-Israel, Neutral, Pro-Palestine, and Host State Centric.  The scoring was based on Barkho’s study of word use in articles and headlines (Barkho 2010).  Headlines that portrayed a certain group as victims would be considered pro in their favor.  In the same way, articles that portrayed the belligerents as aggressors were considered pro in their rival's favor.  Also, the way attacks were described could be considered in favor or opposition to a group.  Articles that sterilized attacks by calling them strikes would be considered favorable (pro) to that state attacking.  Those that humanized the victims in  the attacks by stating casualties or using phrases like “deadly bombing” were considered as opposition and in favor of the other side. An example of a Pro Israel headline would be the November 15 headline by CNN, “Israel ‘How would you feel if your children were constantly scared?” The headline portrays Israel as the victim of attacks and is therefore a Pro-Israel headline.  A Pro Palestine headline that portrays Palestinians as the victim would be the Al Jazeera headline from November 15, “Gaza: A People Under Siege.”

            The coding of neutral for a headline occurred whenever an article’s headline could not be considered for or against one side.  These headlines usually addressed the status of the conflict, how many days had passed, or discussion of a ceasefire. These headlines did not in any way show favorability to any one side of the conflict. The other scoring is that of Host State Centric headlines. This was created to accommodate the number of articles from CNN that did little to address the conflict at hand, but rather the implications for CNN’s host state, the United States. These are headlines that may be considered neutral in relationship to the belligerents, but did little to speak to the actual conflict. Al Jazeera and BBC did not produce headlines of this sort.

            The number of headlines compiled and scored totaled 163. CNN published 48, Al Jazeera published 27, and BBC published the most at 88. The reason significantly fewer articles by Al Jazeera is that they prefer to publish articles online with a few stories that are continually updated and changed, rather than publishing multiple articles.

            My next step was to find the percentages of each type of headline by news source. I computed this in total with all headlines from a news service over the course of the conflict. The percentages were also computed over time by separating headlines by halves. The headlines from between the dates November 14 and November 17, 2012 were considered the first half, while the headlines from November 18 through November 22, 2012 constituted the second half. I then compared the results from the halves. The decision to split it by these dates was simply to divide articles from the event into two halves by time.

            At this point, one may wonder why I chose to use just headlines. Part of my decision was based in the ease of scoring headlines as opposed to the entirety of each article, both for the sake of time and simplicity of a labeling system. Headlines are considered the “hook” of the article and are a fair gauge of article content and leanings (Barkho 2010, 94-96). Headlines are also important because they are usually crafted by the editor rather than the journalist. This is important to consider because the editor’s duty is to create a tone and position for the news service overall.

            The other question to my methodology would be why CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera as the news services. These three news services and their websites are considered the most viewed media outlets. I chose to exclude Xin Hua, the Chinese Communist Party news service, due to state influence in its reporting. CNN was also selected over its fellow American news services, MSNBC and FOX News, because it has the largest viewership and is, politically speaking, considered the moderate option.

Results

Total Headlines During Conflict

Results from the test of the first hypothesis (the headline leanings over the course of the event) found Al Jazeera to be Pro-Palestinian as expected. 51.8% of the headlines (14 headlines) were scored as Pro-Palestinian. Neutral articles made up 33.4% (9 headlines) of Al Jazeera’s coverage. Only 14.8% (4 articles) from Al Jazeera could be considered Pro-Israel. Al Jazeera’s results supported the first hypothesis.

            BBC’s results also supported the hypothesis. 26.1% of the articles (23 headlines) were considered Pro-Israel in comparison to the 18.1% (16 headlines) that were Pro-Palestine. 55.7% of all BBC reporting (49 articles) was labeled as neutral.

            The majority of CNN’s headlines were neutral at 50.0% (24 articles). There seemed to be balance between Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestine articles, with a slight leaning towards Palestine at 22.9% (11 articles), in comparison to the 18.6% (9 headlines) that were Pro-Israel. 8.3% (4 headlines) of the articles were considered Host State Centric. These results for CNN were not as the hypothesis had predicted and did not support it.  This runs counter to the expectations of the literature review findings.

Headlines by Halves of Conflict

            CNN  reporting of the first half of the conflict was relatively neutral, with a Pro-Israel leaning. 66.0% of the headlines (10 articles) were neutral, while 20.0% (3 articles) had Pro-Israel leanings. Both Pro-Palestine and Host State Centric were each 6.7% (1 headline a piece). From this relatively neutral reporting in the first half, there was a significant shift toward Pro-Palestine articles in the second half. There were fewer neutral articles at 42.4% (14 headlines), while a greater percentage, 30.3% (10 headlines), became Pro-Palestine. Pro-Israel headlines shifted from 20.0% of articles to 18.2%, a relatively small move. Host State Centric articles behaved in a similar way, moving from 6.7% in the first half to 9.1% (3 headlines) in the second half.  While the leanings shifted in the appropriate direction of the second hypothesis, the starting point of neutral was not as expected.  CNN began reporting of the conflict with neutral headlines and over the course of the conflict shifted into more Pro-Palestine headlines. This partially supports the hypothesis.

            BBC began with 44.2% (19 headlines) of articles being neutral in the first half. It leaned Pro-Israel with 32.6% (14 articles) Pro-Israel headlines in comparison to 23.3% (10 headlines) which were Pro-Palestine. Surprisingly, there were more articles that leaned in favor in either of the sides than there were neutral articles. Overall, 55.9% (24 headlines) of all articles had some form of favoritism. In the second half, headlines became significantly more neutral with 65.9% (29 headlines) of all articles being neutral compared to the combined 34.1% (15 headlines) Pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel headlines. Both Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestine headlines lost about 10% from the first to second half. This supported the hypothesis because BBC became more neutral in its reporting over time.

In the first half, Al Jazeera was Pro-Palestine as expected, at 58.3% (7 headlines) leaning Pro-Palestine. Only 25.0% (3 headlines) were neutral and 16.7% (2 headlines) were Pro-Israel. In the second half, Al Jazeera shifted slightly neutral in its reporting, with Pro-Palestine headlines dropping from 58.3% to 42.9% (6 articles) in the second half. Neutral headlines rose from 25.0% to 42.9% (6 articles). Pro-Israel headlines retained their small numbers at 14.3% (2 articles). While Al Jazeera did stay Pro-Palestine, it did not support the hypothesis in that it did not maintain as high a level of Pro-Palestine support, but instead became more neutral.

Analysis and Implications

            Neither hypothesis was entirely supported. CNN did not act as expected in total, as it produced more Pro-Palestine headlines than Pro-Israel ones. However, CNN supported the second hypothesis by becoming more neutral as events wore on. This may support the argument that the idea of Israeli overreaction altered how CNN wrote their headlines over time. BBC, however, supported both hypotheses by producing a majority of Pro-Israel headlines, but shifting over time to more neutral headlines. Al Jazeera supported the first hypothesis by publishing more Pro-Palestine headlines, and while it produced a significant amount of Pro-Palestine headlines in the second half of the conflict, the percentage of Pro-Palestine headlines was not as high. We also saw a rise in neutral articles published by Al Jazeera in the second half of the conflict.

            The two most interesting results include CNN’s total headline percentages and the move to neutral reporting by BBC and Al Jazeera. CNN was not to be expected to write more Pro-Palestine headlines than Pro-Israel headlines. This brings up two important points. One, CNN may no longer act as expected to when reporting Israel-Palestine conflict. The implication of this is that CNN may need to be reevaluated since the last studies done on its political leanings were not supported. Two, since CNN is a corporate news service that reports to the sensibilities of its viewership, one may want to continue research as to whether or not the American public has loosened its Pro-Israel stance and drove the CNN move towards Pro-Palestine writing.

            The move by BBC and Al Jazeera to more neutral reporting in the second half of the conflict may suggest that they abandoned their go-to narrative on Israel-Palestine conflict and reevaluated their reporting due to the different situation that Israel’s overreaction caused. Or they may have been less likely to report with political leaning as the conflict became more confused and information became less available. In either scenario, it would still suggest that BBC and Al Jazeera reporting styles and political leanings should be reviewed.

Limitations to the Study

This case study on a single conflict between Israel and Palestine cannot rewrite our understanding of the reporting by BBC, CNN, and Al Jazeera. Due to the limited resources and the nature of the conflict, the data available is restricted to only 163 headlines. This is not nearly enough to make quantitative assertions with significance. However, this study does question the general understanding of BBC, CNN, and Al Jazeera reporting of the Middle East. This study should be seen for what it is, a case study that puts current understandings to the test. While it cannot suppose to rewrite our understanding of these news agencies, it may suggest the need for a new investigation into their reporting and political leanings.

Conclusion

            Neither of the hypotheses were fully supported by the results of my test. CNN headlines proved to be more Pro-Palestine than was to be expected. BBC and Al Jazeera both published a majority of headlines as Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestine, respectively. However, over the time of the conflict, they both became more neutral in their reporting.

            By reviewing the general understanding of these three media sources, we are able to test, to a small extent, the validity of their claims. This is important because these news sources reach hundreds of millions of viewers and play a role in our perception of events in the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict.

Endnotes

2012. "Israel Under Fire - November 2012." Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, November 22. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/pages/israel_under_fire-november_2012.aspx

2012. "Strikes on Gaza." The Express Tribune, November 17. http://tribune.com.pk/story/466756/strikes-on-gaza/

2012. "Timeline of Recent Israel-Gaza Violence." CBS News, November 20. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57552203/timeline-of-recent-israel-gaza-violence/

2012. "The Total Number of Victims of the Israeli Offensive on the Gaza Strip." Palestinian Center for Human Rights, November 24. http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9052:1&catid=145:in-focus

Al-Mughrabi, Nidal. 2012. "Israel Strikes Gaza: Hamas Targeted In Operation 'Pillar Of Defense'." Huffington Post, November 14. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/israel-strikes-gaza_n_2132355.html

Haddad, Mohammed and Hasan Patetl. 2012. "Gaza: A People Under Siege." Al Jazeera, November 15. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2012/11/2012111517327712311.html

Grandoni, Dino. 2012. "Israel's 'Iron Dome' Anti-Missile System is Scary Efficient." The Atlantic Wire, March 12. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/03/israels-iron-dome-anti-missile-system-scary-efficient/49769/

Pleitgen, Frederik. 2012. "Israeli: How Would You Feel if Your Children Were Constantly Scared?" CNN, November 16. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/15/world/meast/ashkelon-scene/index.html?iref=allsearch

References

Barkho, Leon. 2007. "Unpacking the Discursive and Social Links in BBC, CNN, and Al-Jazeera's Middle East Reporting," Journal of Arab and Muslim Media Research 1: 11-29.

Barkho, Leon. 2008. "The Discursive and Social Power of News Discourse: The Case of Al-Jazeera in Comparison and Parallel with the BBC and CNN," Studies in Language and Capitalism 3/4: 111-159.

Barkho, Leon. 2010. News from the BBC, CNN, and Al-Jazeera: How the Three Broadcasters Cover the Middle East. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Barkho, Leon. 2011. "The Discursive and Social Paradigm of Al-Jazeera English in Comparison and Parallel with the BBC," Communication Studies 62: 23-40.

Broderick, James F. and Darren W. Miller. 2007. Consider the Source: A Critical Guide to 100 Prominent News and Information Sites on the Web. Medford, New Jersey: Information Today.

Deprez, Annelore and Karin Raeymaeckers. 2010. "Bias in the News? The Representation of Palestinians and Israelis in the Coverage of the First and Second Intifada," International Communication Gazette 72: 91-109.

Graber, Doris A. 2006. Mass Media and American Politics. 7th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Patterson, Thomas E. 1998. "Political Roles of Journalists." In The Politics of News, ed. Doris Graber, Denis McQuail, and Pippa Norris. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 17-32.

Loomis, Kenneth D. 2009. "A Comparison of World News Web Pages: Al Jazeera English, BBC, CBS, and CNN," Electronic News 3: 143-160.

Lust, Ellen, ed. 2011. The Middle East. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Seib, Philip. 2005. "Hegemonic No More: Western Media, the Rise of Al-Jazeera, and the Influence of Diverse Voices," International Studies Review 7: 601-615.

Graphs and Information

Headline Percentages in Total

Headline Percentages by Half

CNN

BBC

Al Jazeera