Medielogik

Medielogiken är välkänd sedan tidigare; Israel är den passiva parten och dess fiender aktiva och fientliga; andra agerar medan Israel reagerar.

Situationen är inte unik för svensk media. En rapport från Glasgow University Media Group berättar om hur medierapporteringen är vriden i Israels favör. Mätningar som utfördes under 2001 visade att nyhetsförmedlarna utmålade Israel som den passiva parten, att de endast reagerar på palestiniernas handlingar:

On the news, Israeli actions tended to be explained and contextualised - they were often shown as merely "responding" to what had been done to them by Palestinians (in the 2001 samples they were six times as likely to be presented as "retaliating" or in some way responding than were the Palestinians). This apparently influenced many viewers to blame Palestinians for the conflict..

Även språket som används för att beskriva de båda parternas handlingar skiljer sig åt. Våldsdåd som begås av palestinier förklaras med ord med uppenbara känslomässiga konnotationer, medan våldsdåd som begås av israeler bortförklaras:

There were also differences in the language used by journalists for Israelis and Palestinians - words such as ‘atrocity’, ‘brutal murder’, ‘mass murder’, ‘savage cold blooded killing’, ‘lynching’ and ‘slaughter’ were used about Israeli deaths but not Palestinian. The word ‘terrorist’ was used to describe Palestinians by journalists but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as ‘extremists’ or ‘vigilantes’.

Sedan rapporten skrevs har inte mycket förändrats:




Bad News From Israel (Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Applied Social Sciences, University of Glasgow)
.