WWS309

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is often painted in black and white, comprising the suicide bombers, innocent bystanders, and the terrorists hijacking the process and ruining any chances for a peaceful solution. TV broadcasts and newspaper articles describe in detail the destruction wrought by these bombers, the number of people killed or maimed, the women and children caught in the crossfire. The broadcast blames the terrorists but often does not adequately explain their relationship to official groups or their place in society. The portrayal of the conflict leads the viewer or reader to adopt a good-and-evil stance (depending upon the source, the Israelis are either defending their country against terrorists or are an expansionist people occupying Palestinian land, and on the other hand, the Palestinians are either a victimized people that has been left to squat in camps for 40 years since they lost their homes in the 1967 war, or are riddled with terrorists who are committed to destroying the Jewish people who inhabit their religious homeland). It is often the case in media issues as contentious as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that the frame profoundly affects the perspective of the viewer. This framing causes the viewer to categorize the people neatly into packages, to filter out important information, and to affect the way they view the issue.

This framing leaves important elements out, which is what, according to the WHO article on Basic Principles of Advocacy, in part defines a frame – what is included, what is excluded. This framework of good guys and bad guys ignores many nuances to the story – the influence of other countries in the area on policies and activities in Palestine and Israel (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc). The frame also simplifies the relationship between the conflicting nation and democracies such as Britain and the United States. This framing can separate the bombings and violence from the systemic conditions under which these extreme actions arose – underdevelopment, extreme poverty, and very significantly (but under reported), the scarcity and unequal distribution of resources among the two peoples (particularly water). In times of heightened violence, the continuous reports of bombings and mounting casualty figures removes the human dimension and makes the injured seem like numbers. This is the use of episodic framing in lieu of thematic framing, terms introduced in the WHO article. In other words, news items rarely emphasize the “root causes” of an issue, or the thematic frame, and opt instead for “eschewing passion,” as Daniel Okrent wrote in a NYT article (elaborated upon in the following paragraphs).

I stumbled across a NYT editorial written by Daniel Okrent, a “Public Editor,” called “The Hottest Button: How the Times Covers Israel and Palestine” (April 24, 2005). It was great to see the issue of framing discussed up front when framing decisions are usually made before an article goes to print. Okrent discusses what the Times puts in, and what it leaves out, of its coverage, which illustrates how an authors frame of reference of framing of the narrative can impact the reader: “have met with representatives of If Americans Knew, an organization that says The Times conscientiously reports on the deaths of Israeli children but ignores the deaths of Palestinian children -- children, they say, usually ''shot in the head or chest'' by the Israeli soldiers.”

Okrent argues that the NYT uses mostly episodic and emotional frame in their structure of articles on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: “It's this simple: An article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot appear in The Times without eliciting instant and intense response. A photograph of a grieving mother is considered a provocation, an interview with a radical on either side is deemed willful propaganda.” He does admit, however, that the Times is criticized equally from both “sides” of the issue, which “suggest that the paper's doing something right.”

Okrent hits the nail on the head when he argues that the Times “does not provide history lessons,” meaning that it does not take on a contextual/historical look at the issue (i.e. a thematic frame):

“A report on an assassination attempt on a Hamas leader in Gaza that kills nearby innocents will most likely mention the immediate provocation -- perhaps a Palestinian attack on an Israeli settlement. But, says the angered reader, what about the murderous assault that provoked the settlement attack? And, says his aggrieved counterpart on the other side, what about the ambush that preceded the assault? And so on back to the first intifada, and then to 1973 and 1967 and 1956 and 1948 -- an endless chain of regression and recrimination and pain that cannot be represented in a year, much less in a single dispatch in a single day.” Instead, these articles “eschew passion.”

Okrent also highlights how the journalist’s frame is affected by their surroundings, in particular the journalists who report from abroad: “The Times, like virtually every American news organization, maintains its bureau in West Jerusalem. Its reporters and their families shop in the same markets, walk the same streets and sit in the same cafes that have long been at risk of terrorist attack. Some advocates of the Palestinian cause call this ''structural geographic bias.” This must, indeed, affect the journalist’s framing of the issue.

The AIDS problem in Africa is also very dependent upon the frame used. Is it framed as a political issue? If so, the journalist would highlight Mbeki’s refusal to link HIV with AIDS and thus his refusal to acknowledge that intravenous drugs could help the population of South Africa; this emphasis would show the disproportionate influence of political leaders in the AIDS problem itself. Similarly, the political frame could emphasize that totalitarian regimes on the continent are less likely to enact social reforms needed to curb the spread of the disease. Is AIDS instead framed as a cultural issue? In this case, practices of genital mutilation are highlighted since they increase HIV incidence rates. Or, one could emphasize that African populations are reluctant to use contraceptive methods because it goes against their religious or cultural beliefs. Is it framed as a socioeconomic issue? In this case, one would emphasize the profound poverty of African countries and the countries’ inability to fund awareness campaigns, and distribute contraception and intravenous drugs. One could also emphasize the fact that many in sub-Saharan Africa are undereducated and have been known, for example, to re-use condoms without knowing that they cannot be safely reused.

Depending upon the framing used in a news item relating to the problem of AIDS in Africa, the viewer or reader could end up with an entirely different perspective on what should be done, if anything. As the WHO article explained, “framing affects the way an issue is defined and its identity as a public or private issue, with built-in signals about the role of government, if any, in fixing the problem.” If the cultural/religious perspective is used, the viewer might sit back and sigh, saying that there’s nothing that can be done because the United States has no right to push its cultural agenda on another people, and even if it tried, the populations would be reluctant to change their religious and moral value system to allow for the protections needed to stem the spread of AIDS. If the political frame is used, the U.S. might ramp up efforts to encourage democratization in the region. If the economic frame is used, the viewer might call on the United States to increase international aid to help fight the AIDS pandemic. If the social frame is used, the viewer might decide that the U.S. should allocate its funding to a widespread educational campaign in sub-Saharan African countries.

As one can see in both of these examples, the framing of an issue affects how the reader’s understanding of and perspective regarding an issue. As a result, it also affects how the reader responds or feels the government should react and design policies to address the problem.