 |
 |
Hello Nael, all, In terms of framing / finding / pointing out biases, the podcast On The Media had a strong episode last week in which they highlighted the publication "Use With Care: A Reporter’s Glossary of Loaded Language in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". The interview starts from the observation that, specifically in this conflict, it's hard if not impossible to use vocabulary that does not propagate a specific side's view on the conflict. The attempt itself should be useful for media studies and further discussion about the possibility of neutrality when events such as these occur. You can find the glossary at: http://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/en/contents/use-with-care-a-reporter-s-glossary-of-loaded-language-in-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict and the podcast section in which it is discussed at: http://www.onthemedia.org/story/loaded-language/ Best regards, Erwin On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:44 PM, nael jebril <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Apologies for shifting the focus on media. Below I share two observations > from Palestinian colleagues about the coverage of the massacre in > international media. Similar observations can be very helpful for > teaching classes on media bias. Also with regard to frames used by > spin doctors and media strategists to justify targeting civilians (i.e. > protection frame, terrorism frame…etc). > > > *Quote (1)* > > > ‘The media coverage depicts the news story as Israel responding to Hamas > rockets; and Israel having the right to protect itself etc. What about > illegal occupation? settlements? water resources? airspace of Gaza? control > of maritime borders? freedom of movement of people and goods? humiliation > for Palestinians at borders and check points? electricity and water > unsuitability situation? What about the right of return?’ > > > *Quote (2)* > > > ‘One specific example from BBC showing bias is how every time they refer > to that fact that the occupation of West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is > considered illegal under International law, they add: “although Israel > disputes that”. This is clearly the insertion of some Israeli ‘lobbyist’. > This default annexation to the ‘fact’ simply does not belong. Any criminal > would dispute his crime. But once a verdict is made; it doesn’t matter > whether the criminal still disputes his crime or not; he’s found guilty and > the international community has confirmed that. BBC does not insert similar > annexations in the favour of Palestinians when they refer to things such as > borders of Israel etc’ > > > /Nael > > -------------------------------------------------------- MeCCSA mailing list -------------------------------------------------------- To manage your subscription or unsubscribe from the MECCSA list, please visit: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MECCSA&A=1 ------------------------------------------------------- MeCCSA is the subject association for the field of media, communication and cultural studies in UK Higher Education. This mailing list is a free service and is not restricted to members. It is an unmoderated list and content reflect the views of those who post to the list and not of MeCCSA as an organisation. MeCCSA recommends that the list be used only for posting of information (for example about events, publications, conferences, lectures) of interest to members or to promote discussion of current issues of wide general interest in the field. Posts to the MeCCSA mailing list are public, indexed by Google, and can be accessed from the JISCMail website (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/meccsa.html). Any messages posted to the list are subject to the JISCMail acceptable use policy, which states that users should avoid engaging in unreasonable behaviour, or disrupting the general flow of discussion on a list. For further information, please visit: http://www.meccsa.org.uk/ --------------------------------------------------------