Content-Type: text/html British vs. U.S. Newspaper Framing of Arabs in Coverage of the Middle-Eastern conflict Pre and Post Sept. 11: A Case Study British vs. U.S. Newspaper Framing of Arabs in Coverage of the Middle-Eastern Conflict Pre and Post Sept. 11: A Case Study By Mia Moody-Hall University of Texas, Austin Doctoral Student Baylor University, Waco part-time lecturer Contact Information: 205 Hidden Meadow, Hewitt, TX 76643 254.666.7358 [log in to unmask] Advisers: Professors, Stephen D. Reese and Rosental Alves, University of Texas Aug. 8, 2002 ABSTRACT: This study looked at how British and U.S. newspapers framed Arabs in the coverage of the Middle-Eastern conflict pre- and post-Sept. 11. Both countries used negative adjectives more frequently to describe Arabs than Israelis; however the adjectives used to describe killings by the groups were similar. Further, Sept. 11 did not appear to influence either country's coverage of the group. Since the beginning of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict around the turn of the 20th century, governments in the Middle East and elsewhere have undertaken a series of diplomatic efforts in the search for a solution to the question of how to handle Palestine. However, a comprehensive and lasting political solution to the problem has yet to be achieved. Studies of the media coverage of the event have been extensive (Belkaoui, 1978; Barranco and Shyles, 1988; Whitehead, 1987; Liebes, 1992). Previous studies and commentaries have concluded that Arabs are associated with violence and terrorism and are often seen as the aggressors in the conflict with Israel (Barsamian, 2001; Lind and Danwoski, 1998). In fact, most media coverage of the group focuses on attacks, crises, invasions, murders, peace treaties, and battles. Further, the literature focusing on the framing of Arabs, have shown that articles frame the group to emphasize group differences. For example, Liebes (1992) describes several ways that media favor Israelis over Arabs. She claims that several negative terms serve to bias viewers against Arabs. Similarly, Lind and Danwoski (1998) found that coverage of Arabs reflects a subordination of Arabs and Arab cultures, and reinforces the already-evident marginalization of Arabs and Arab cultures. These associations are so prevalent that the media are quick to blame Arabs for terrorist acts such as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, even without any evidence (Bazzi, 1995 & Alter, 1995). Shaheen (1984) maintains that while the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s helped create more realistic television portrayals of African Americans and other ethnic minorities, the treatment of Arabs remained full of inaccurate myths and stereotypes. While previous studies have analyzed media coverage of the Mid-East conflict in terms of Arabs vs. Israelis, there has been virtually no research that compares American and British coverage of Arabs with regard to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks[1]. This study examined the two countries' framing of Arabs in coverage of the Middle-Eastern conflict pre- and post-Sept. 11 to assess if the terrorist attacks on this date fostered any actual changes. Because the terrorist attacks were allegedly by people of Arab descent, and polls showed an increased support of Israelis following the attack (Pope, 2001), an increase in negative frames of Arabs following the event would support the argument that the media's framing of world events often coincide with the images and interpretations of both countries' national interests and political or cultural perspective (Rachlin, 1988). The study's sample included articles from elite publications published four months before and after the attacks. These periods were selected to provide two samples that could be compared to assess the differences Sept. 11 made on the coverage of the conflict. In a quantitative analysis, the study looked at following questions: Was one country's media more likely to use negative frames to describe Arabs than the other? Was one country's media more likely to include victim names of Israelis than Arabs? Was one country more likely to use harsh adjectives to describe killings by Arabs and soft adjectives to describe killings by Israelis? Finally, were there any significant differences in how the two countries framed Arabs and Israelis pre- and post- Sept. 11? These topics are important because the media help citizens make sense of the world around them, especially for depictions of people of different backgrounds. Additionally, the framing of issues has been shown to shape public perceptions of political issues or institutions (Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000). Several studies have shown links between Arab portrayal in the media and public opinion about relevant issues (see Adams & Heyl, 1981 & Belkaoui). Further, newspaper articles provide historical content that may be used to analyze mistakes made by the media in covering various issues. Such an analysis may be used to help reporters improve their reporting strategies and to head off the repetition of mistakes. Theoretical Framework The theoretical frameworks for this study are "hegemony/propaganda model" and "framing." Gramsci used the term "hegemony" to denote the predominance of one social class over others. The theory focuses on the ability of the dominant class to project its own way of seeing the world so that those who are subordinated by it accept it as natural. According to Hall et al. (1980), the mass media often reproduce interpretations that serve the interests of the ruling class. The news performs a crucial role in defining events, although this is seen as secondary to the primary definers: accredited sources in government and other institutions. The media also reinforce a consensual viewpoint by using local idioms and by claiming to voice public opinion (Woollacott, 1982). Historically, these factors have led to negative media portraits of various nations and movements defined as enemies by the U.S. government. Additionally, the propaganda model by Chomsky and Herman (1979) is pertinent. With concentrated ownership and profit-orientated mass media where advertising is the mass media's primary source of income, the media rely on information provided by government officials and by "experts." The model suggests that the mainstream media, commonly frame news and allow debate only within the parameters of elite interests. Analysts have argued convincingly that media frames are shaped by economic interests, dominant ideologies, government influences, and journalistic norms (Parenti, 1986 & Chomsky and Herman, 1979). The concepts of hegemony and the propaganda model are useful for this analysis because Arabs are an ethnic group that is marginalized in the United States and Britain. In fact, polls show that Americans favor Israelis to Arabs. Shortly after Sept. 11, polls showed a surge of support for Israel, as Americans felt an immediate bond with a country that had endured similar terrorist strikes (Pope, 2001). When asked to name the causes of the terrorist attack in a recent University of Michigan poll, 82 percent cited Osama bin Laden, but 64 percent also cited U.S. support for Israel, while 51 percent named United States' failure to support Palestinians. Further, in a 2002 Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll, Americans were twice as likely to say U.S. policy should become more pro-Israel, 20 percent, than pro-Palestinian, 10 percent. Further, about 42 percent said the current U.S. policy, which has included strong support of Israel, should be maintained (Sappenfield, 2002). Additionally, soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks the media reported a perceived increase in discrimination against Muslims and Arabs (Fisk, 2002). An April 25, 2002, New York Times article reported that state and federal civil rights agencies were flooded with complaints from Muslims (Fisk, 2002). While a March 4, 2002, Washington Post article reported that the backlash against Arabs, Muslims and Sikhs following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is not over (Fisk, 2002). Framing The hegemony concept meshes well with the concept of framing, which is useful for content analyses because print media do not communicate raw data-the reports themselves are representations of reality that are linked to the reporter's perceptions (Kern, 1981; Mowlana, 1984; Said, 1981). Further, stories contain contextual cues, or frames, which have been shown by researchers to induce patterns of judgments and opinions surrounding the issue in their audience. Gamson (1988) defines the function of a frame as answering the question, "What is the basic source of controversy or concern in this issue?" (p. 165). Another applicable definition is one by Entman (1993), who describes framing as a process by which certain aspects of a message are presented in such a way that they will be more prominent in the minds of the audience. According to researchers, several factors may potentially influence how journalists frame an issue: social norms and values, organizational pressures and constraints, pressures of interest groups, journalistic routines and ideological or political orientations of journalists (e.g., Shoemaker and Reese, 1996; Tuchman, 1978). Further, news frames are conceptual tools that the media rely on to convey, interpret and evaluate information. They can be observed by looking at factors that influence reporters, the outcome or newspaper. Concerning Arabs, the media's knowledge of public polls, which showed support for Israelis, coupled with long-term stereotypes of Arabs might foster negative frames of the group in media coverage. Within the context of media coverage of ethnic groups, analyses demonstrate the manner in which dominant framing of other cultural and political groups within national boundaries has been negative and stereotypical. Since it appears that Americans are more supportive of Israelis than Arabs, the media should frame them more negatively. This would support assertions by such researchers as Chomsky and Herman (1979) and Hall (1980) who assert that the mass media follow elite views that reflect the beliefs of society and the status quo. Arabs and Frames According to Christison (1997) the frame of reference within which Westerners perceive Arabs today began to form in the mid-nineteenth century when Western historians and Western Christian missionaries began visiting Palestine and conveying their impressions of the land and its peoples to readers and congregations in Europe and America. Said speculates that the negative perception of the group persisted because it is based deeply in religious roots, where Islam is seen as a kind of competitor of Christianity (Barsamian, 2000). Studies have found key differences in how British and American media frame Arabs. For example, in a study of British and American coverage of Arabs, Whitehead (1987) found a more diversified portrayal of Arabs in the U.S.'s Time magazine than in Britain's The Economist. According to the researcher the British historical role as a colonizer, as well as American and British dependency on Arab oil appeared to have influenced portrayals of Arabs. For the study, sample articles from the American weekly Time magazine and the British weekly The Economist were examined for coverage of the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the June 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Similarly, Sappenfield (2002) found that public sympathies for Arabs/Israelis are remarkably different in America and Europe. He found that Americans tend to feel close bonds with Israel, while Europeans feel a greater empathy for the Palestinians. He concluded that the trend has evolved over the years. Factors such as America's larger Jewish population and Europe's greater reliance on Arab oil shape beliefs. Illustrating a pro-Israeli bias, media activist Ali Abunimah outlined several ways in which the mainstream American cover Arabs (Adas, 2001). According to Adas, American media present the conflict as though it were between equally matched opponents, with the Israeli army defending itself from Palestinian "gunmen." Armed Israeli settlers, on the other hand, are not called "gunmen," Abunimah pointed out that news reports keep statistical track of Palestinian deaths, but hide how the deaths occur or who the dead are. Furthermore, in media language, he contended, Arabs kill Israelis, but Arabs die as a result of "clashes." In addition, more often than not, names and autobiographies are included in news stories of Israeli "victims" of Palestinian violence. Pictures of family and friends often accompany the emotionally charged stories. The European press has also been chastised for its coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict as well. In an Aug. 8, 2001 Independent column, Robert Fisk (2001) questioned what has happened to Britain's reporting of the Middle East, referring to a Reuter's dispatch from Hebron that stated, "Undercover Israeli soldiers shot dead a member of Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction yesterday in what Arabs called an assassination." Fisk questioned the use of the phrase, "what Arabs called an assassination." "Any sane reader would conclude immediately that Imad Abu Sneiheh, who was shot in the head, chest, stomach and legs by 10 bullets fired by Israeli agents had been murdered, let alone assassinated." After Sept. 11 According to Said (2001), since Sept. 11, there has been an organized media campaign in the United States that imposes the Israeli vision of the world on Americans, with practically nothing to counter it. The main themes of this school of thought, according to Said, are Islam and the Arabs are the true causes of terrorism; Israel has been facing such terrorism all its life; Arafat and Bin Laden are basically the same thing; and most U.S. Arab allies, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have played a clear negative role in sponsoring anti-Americanism, supporting terrorism, and maintaining corrupt, undemocratic societies. Since history repeats itself, the media may become more biased during wartime efforts. Previously, the use of partiality toward ones country has become more prevalent in the context of conflict coverage (e.g. Nohrstedt et al., 2000; and Reese and Buckalew, 1995; and Adas, 2000). For example, Norhrstedt et al. (2000) found that the context for war correspondents and media coverage of military operations in international conflicts was flooded with propaganda. "Almost every news source, PR officer or politician have, in one way or the other, vested interests in relation to the conflict and will only inform about things that presumably support their strategic and tactical objectives" (p. 384). Vincent (2000) found evidence that the media's portrayal of the 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo was composed mostly of official viewpoints that portrayed a pro-western point of view. Similarly, in their analysis of the Persian Gulf War, Reese and Buckalew (1995) found that the practices of newsrooms add up to frames of reference that support "administration policy." These usually "aligned with public values, government/military and corporate interests" (p. 41). Several scholars have suggested how and why media frames parallel U.S. policy. For instance, the reliance of news organizations on official government agencies and their press liaisons for information has been well documented (Sigal, 1973). Such dependence on agency press releases and briefings, essentially public relations operations, serves to blur the lines between the notions of an independent, public interest press and a press that facilitates the dispersion of official propaganda. Hypotheses And Research Questions Based on a review of the literature, the following hypotheses and research questions were formulated: H1: U.S. and European media are more likely to frame Arabs in a negative light than Israelis. H2: U.S. newspapers will frame Arabs more negatively than their British counterparts. H3: U.S. and European media are more likely to include the names of Israeli victims than Arab victims. H4: U.S. and British media coverage of the Middle-Eastern conflict would use harsh adjectives to describe killings by Arabs and soft adjectives to describe killings by Israelis. RQ1: Were there any significant changes in the frames used to describe killings by Arabs pre- and post- Sept. 11? Rationale Media activists and scholars have outlined several ways in which the mainstream American media make use of a pro-Israeli bias, i.e., by omitting names and biographies of Arab victims (Adas, 2001); by describing Arabs who are killed or wounded as "bystander' "terrorist," or "stone-thrower (Fraitekh, 2001); and by referring to dead Arabs by numbers only. Because the terrorist attacks were allegedly by people of Arab descent, an increase in negative coverage of Arabs following the event would support the argument that the media's framing of world events often coincide with the images and interpretations of both countries' national interests and political or cultural perspective (Rachlin, 1988). METHODOLOGY Variables To assess how journalists framed Arabs, the study looked at the occurrence of Arabs or Israelis with the following terms: "terrorism," "guerrilla," "horrendous" and "militant." A high degree of negative terms to describe Arabs or Israelis will imply a negative frame. It also looked at the words used to describe killings in the Middle-Eastern conflict, comparing the terms used for one group with those used for the other groups. The terms: "targeted killing," "selective killing," were used for the soft connotation measure and "murdered" and "assassinated" were used for the harsher connotation measure (Fraitekh, 2001). Once again, a high degree of negative terms to describe Arab or Israeli killings will imply a negative frame. The victim identification measure looked at how the press identified victims killed in the Middle-Eastern conflict and assessed whether they were identified by name or left anonymous. A high level of anonymous victims might imply a negative frame since nameles s victims do not take on a human quality to readers (Adas, 2001). The study looked at four American and four British newspapers for purposive sampling. American newspapers were: the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. These newspapers were chosen because they target large and diverse audiences. Furthermore, the New York Times is seen as America's leading news organization. Its content influences other newspapers, wire services, news magazines and television and radio news. The four British newspapers are: The Independent, The Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian. The newspapers are comparable in terms of readership, form and content with the U.S. newspapers used in this study. The stories published by these newspapers were accessed using Lexis Nexis. The key words included: "Middle-Eastern conflict," Arab-Israeli conflict and "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." These are the key terms used to describe the Middle-Eastern conflict in the mainstream media. The time frame for the case study was June 11, 2001 to Jan. 11, 2002. Only those articles with these key words in the first three paragraphs were used. Fifty-three articles were selected; and the content was coded and analyzed with descriptive statistics.[2] Coding Scheme The coding scheme for the first study included four sections. The first section dealt with such details as date, newspaper, and type of story, feature, straight news or editorial. The second section looked at the occurrence of Arabs or Israelis with the following terms: "terrorism," "guerrilla," "horrendous" and "militant." And other. The third section looked at words used to describe killings: "targeted killing," "selective killings," "murdered" and "assassinated" (Fraitekh, 2001). The fourth section assessed how the victim was identified: anonymous versus named. FINDINGS Sample After sorting through articles and eliminating opinion pieces and other stories that were irrelevant to this study, 53 articles were used. Of the 53 articles, 18.9 percent were from Financial Times, 15.1 percent were from the Wall Street Journal, and 13.2 percent were from the Independent, 11.3 percent were from the Guardian, New York Times, the LA Times and the Washington Post. Finally, 7.5 percent were from the London Times. Table 1. Frequencies of Newspapers Newspapers Frequency Percent New York Times 6 11.3 L.A. Times 6 11.3 Washington Post 6 11.3 Wall Street Journal 8 15.1 London Times 4 7.5 Independent 7 13.2 Financial Times 10 18.2 Guardian 6 11.3 Total 53 100% Table 2. Occurrence of Arab- Israeli Articles Pre- and Post- Sept. 11 Date Frequency Percent Pre- Sept. 11 29 54.7 Post- Sept. 11 24 45.3 53 100% P=.562 Apparently Sept. 11 did not make a significant difference in the number of articles published about the Middle-Eastern conflict (p=.562). Twenty-nine of the articles were written before Sept. 11 and 24 were written after the event. This difference may be explained by an increase in newspaper coverage of the War on Terrorism, which followed Sept. 11. In addition, there was a decrease in the number of Arab-Israeli attacks during this period. In a comparison of coverage in each country, 16 articles were published in the United States before Sept. 11, while 10 articles were published after the event. On the other hand, 12 articles were published in British newspapers before Sept. 11 and 15 were published after the event. In addition, to the topics tested in the hypothesis and research questions, the recurring frames include: U.S. and British allies in the Middle-Eastern conflict and foreign policy gone wrong. Hypotheses The first hypothesis, which stated U.S. and European media are more likely to frame Arabs in a negative light than Israelis was supported. The adjectives used by U.S. and British media to describe Arabs were more negative than those used to describe Israeli sources (p=.001). The words: "terrorism," "guerrilla," "horrendous" and "militant." were used to describe Arabs much more frequently than Israelis (table 3). Out of negative adjectives found in the articles, 45 were used in reference to Arabs and 6 were used in reference to Israelis. These results were not surprising since many of the stories described events in which Arabs attacked Israeli rather than vice versa. For example, an Oct. 2 Independent article by Table 3. U.S. vs. British newspaper use of negative adjectives to describe Arabs Group Frequency of negative terms % P US 28 62 .0001 Britain 17 38 .0001 45 100% U.S. vs. British newspaper use of negative adjectives to describe Israelis U.S. 2 33 * Britain 4 67 6 100% *sample too small for a p-value Phil Reeves discussed how Palestinian "militants" in Gaza have penetrated settlements, and carried out killings during the past 12 months of bloodshed. In a Sept. 27 Los Angeles Times article, Tracy Wilkinson discusses how "radical" Islamic groups that have been responsible for most of the devastating suicide bombing attacks in Israel immediately rejected the cease-fire plan. Other articles did not use such adjectives to describe the group. Hypothesis 2, which stated U.S. media will frame Arabs more negatively than British counterparts was not supported. There were no significant differences in the use of terms by both countries to describe Arabs. In the United States, 21 of 53 articles contained a negative terms to describe Arabs (p=.71), while 24 of 53 British articles contained negative terms (p=.75). Table 4. U.S. and. British newspaper ID of Israeli victims ID Frequency % P Not named 25 76 .378 Named 8 24 33 100% U.S. and. British newspaper ID of Arab victims Not named 25 79 .378 Named 7 21 32 100% Hypothesis 3, which stated U.S. and European media are more likely to include names for Israeli victims than for Arab victims, was not supported, p=.378. Descriptive statistics, showed 33 of the 53 articles in this sample, focused included at least one reference to a killing, of those 33, 13 originated in the United States. Of those articles that referred to Israeli victims (n=13), five included names, while eight did not. Of those articles that referred to Arab victims (n=13), four included names, while nine did not. Of those articles that referred to Arab victims (n=12), three included names and nine did not (table 4). These findings show there was not a significant difference in the occurrence of ID's for Arabs or Israelis. It appears that names were omitted for both groups. Names may have been omitted because they were not considered relevant to U.S. and British audiences. In articles that discussed deaths of American victims, names were often included. For example, in an Aug. 10 Los Angeles Times article by Mary Curtius, one person identified by name is Judith Greenbaum, a New Jersey student who was pregnant with her first child when she was killed by a suicide bomber. Other articles included summaries of long lists of victims. This may also be due to the massive numbers of killings the articles discussed. For example, Phil Reeves wrote in the Oct. 3 Independent article that a gunman blasted his way into a beachside Jewish settlement in north-west, killing two teenagers-a girl and a boy-and that at least 10 people, including three Israeli soldiers, had been injured. Names were not used throughout the article to identify the victims. In a July 29 New York Times article, Clyde Haberman reported that "about 15 Israeli officers and more than 30 Arabs were reportedly injured, none critically when police officers fired stun grenades and tear gas in skirmishes with scores of young Arabs" (p. A3). In an Oct. 26 Washington Post article, Daniel Williams leaves anonymous the names of five Palestinian police. He writes, "Among those killed in the raid were five Palestinian policemen, town officials said" (p. A30). Some of the articles used a delayed-identification format in which the victims were introduced later in the article. For example, in a July 21 New York Times article, Clyde Haberman wrote, "on both sides, victims have been ample, including a 3-month old Palestinian boy, who may be the youngest victim in a 10-month siege of despair in which other infants have been killed." Near the bottom of the story Haberman includes the boy's name, "For now, Israelis are braced less for observers than for reprisals after a drive-by shooting near Hebron on Thursday night that killed three Arabs. Among the victims was the 3-month-old boy, Diya Tmeizi" (p. 1). Hypothesis 4, which stated U.S. and British media coverage of the Middle-Eastern conflict would use harsh adjectives such as assassination and suicide bombing to describe killings by Arabs and soft adjectives such as "targeted" and "selective killing" to describe killings by Israelis, was not supported for either group (tables 5). Several themes emerged. The most Table 5. U.S. and British newspaper wording of killings by Israelis country targeted killing selective killing killing Totals Britain 4 2 6 12 U.S. 3 1 13 17 7 3 7 29 interesting of which is the debate over the use of the term, "targeted killing." For example in an Aug. 5 Independent article by Robert Fisk, debate ensued over the BBC's decision to use the term. The article said, "Its World Service television presenters were obeying a scandalous new edict from their London editors that they must refer to Israeli assassinations as 'targeted killings' - the inoffensive phrase Israel wishes journalists to use. The phrase is in any case a lie: last week's 'killings' cost the live of a Palestinian journalist and two children as well as Hamas men" (p. 19). Fisk (2001) questioned the use of this phrase used in an article, "what Arabs called an assassination." He states "Any sane reader would conclude immediately that Imad Abu Sneiheh, who was shot in the head, chest, stomach and legs by 10 bullets fired by Israeli agents had been murdered, let alone assassinated." (p. 1). In another article, Reeves (2001b) wrote that the Israeli Embassy's press secretary, David Schneeweis, publicly boasted that Israel has influenced the editorial policy of the BBC in its coverage of the Middle-Eastern conflict influencing them to soften their language toward Israel-notably by describing the assassinations of Arabs by Israelis as "targeted killings." Table 6. U.S. and British newspaper wording of killings by Arabs country targeted killing assassination Suicide bombing Totals Britain 0 1 5 6 U.S. 0 1 13 14 0 2 6 8 However, some newspapers gave in to the request. Examples of "targeted killing" were included an August 10, 2001 Los Angeles Times article in which writer Mary Curtius spoke of an attack that was carried out in retaliation for Israel's so-called "targeted killings" of Palestinian militants. It was also used in the same article within the following quote, "It just shows you how morally right we are in taking those preventive measures [targeted killings] to stop the terrorists," said Sharon spokesman Raanan Gissin" (p. 1). An Oct. 4 Times article by Christopher Walker included this paragraph, "The decision, which ministers said would involve a return to the controversial policy of targeted killings, which are described by Arabs as legalized assassinations, could not have come at a worse time for Washington" (p. 1). In a July 21 New York Times article, Clyde Haberman included this use of the term, "Each day has brought some form of violence, with a crescendo this week of a Palestinia n suicide bomb, target killings by the Israeli Army and a drive-by shooting by Israeli vigilantes" (p. 1). Research Question 1, which asked were there any significant changes in the adjectives used to describe Arabs and Israelis and killings by them following Sept. 11, was not supported. The finding was significant (p=.001). Twenty-eight negative terms were used to describe Arabs before the event, while 17 were used to describe them after. Although it might be assumed that more negative terms would have been used to describe Arabs after Sept. 11, there were actually more prior to the attacks. This finding might be explained by the push for media sensitivity following the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks. The Society of Professional Journalists released guidelines on how to prevent the racial profiling of Arabs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This case study was exploratory in nature and was designed to explore frames in U.S. and British coverage of the Middle-Eastern conflict. The statistical analysis provided answers to the following questions: are the adjectives used by U.S. and British media to describe Arabs more negative than those used to describe Israelis? Are U.S. and British media more likely to include Israeli victim names than for Arab victim names? Does U.S. and British media coverage of the Middle-Eastern conflict use harsh adjectives to describe killings by Arabs and soft adjectives to describe killings by Israelis. It appears that both the U.S. and Britain used negative terms more frequently to describe Arabs than Israelis. This was interesting in that many articles asserted that the United States is an ally to Israelis, while Britain is an ally to Arabs. In fact, many articles depicted the United States as an ally to Israelis and Europe as an ally to Arabs. For example in an Aug. 5 Independent article, Robert Fisk states, "But the Americans - who call the West Bank "disputed" rather than "occupied" - are Israel's allies" (p. 19). In a Wall Street Journal Dec. 11 article, Bret alludes to European government being biased toward Israelis. The article states, "But the real answer is that European governments today, are by and large, tacit enemies of the state of Israel, much as they might protest that they merely take a more "evenhanded" approach to the Middle Eastern conflict" (p. A18). Geoff Winestock offers this comparison of Europe and U.S. policy in a Dec. 31 Wall Street Journal article, "Traditionally more sympathetic to Arab countries than is the U.S., the EU is less concerned about Iran's support for Palestinian radicals_" (p. A17). He offers a similar description in a Dec. 31 article, "The differences between the EU and the U.S. are most marked in policy on the Middle Eastern conflict, where the EU traditionally is less pro-Israeli than the U.S_" (p. A6). This finding might be explained by the nature of the articles sampled. Many focused on suicide bombings and killings Arabs. Many took place in religious settings or places where civilians congregated such as restaurants. In addition, the adjectives used in this article may not have been a true measure of negativity. Future articles might explore the use of other adjectives that might better measure it. The study did not show that U.S. and British media are more likely to include names for Israeli victims than for Arab victims. It appears that most victims were not named. Perhaps this is a newspaper routine in which only those names of victims from the home country are included. Future studies might look at this issue more closely to assess whether foreign stories contain names of victims. Additionally, the study found that U.S. and British media did not use harsh adjectives to describe killings by Arabs and soft adjectives to describe killings by Israelis. However, percentages showed that "targeted killing" was used more frequently for Israeli perpetrators. Many articles that included the term focused on the conflict surrounding its use and if it was fair to use the term for killings by Israelis, which were just as brutal as killings by Arabs. The Society of Professional Journalists passed a resolution in October 2001, urging members and fellow journalists to take steps against racial profiling in their coverage of the conflict. The organization also asked journalists and to redouble their commitment to use language that is informative and not inflammatory; to portray Muslims, Arabs and Middle-Eastern and South Asian Americans in the richness of their diverse experiences; and to seek truth through a variety of voices and perspectives that help audiences understand the complexities of the terrorist attacks in Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington, D.C. There were no significant changes in the adjectives used to describe Arabs and Israelis following Sept. 11. Although it might be assumed that more negative terms would have been used to describe Arabs after Sept. 11, there were actually more prior to the attacks. This finding might be explained by the push for media sensitivity following the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks. Conclusion This case study looked at U.S. vs. British coverage of the Middle-Eastern conflict. Findings showed that Arabs were framed more negatively than Israelis. The adjectives used to describe members of this group were often more negative than those used to describe Israelis. Sept. 11 and country the article appeared in did not make a significance difference in how members of the groups were framed. In fact, there were more negative adjectives used to describe Arabs prior to Sept. 11 than after. This may be explained by a shift in the media's attention to the War in Afghanistan after Oct. 7, 2001. Future Research The articles used for this study were from a purposive sample that does not allow for generalizations to be made to Middle-Eastern conflict coverage in general. Future research might include a larger body of newspapers. However, this research may provide a springboard for additional research into Arab-Israeli coverage by U.S. and British newspapers. It addresses some interesting issues and uncovers some key frames. Because Arabs were framed more negatively in this case study, it would be of interest to assess whether the finding applies to a larger sample and to different types of newspapers. The newspapers used for this study were elite U.S. and British publications. They may be more careful in their coverage of all groups due to a higher level of professionalism. In assessing the framing of Arabs, it might be of interest to look at the coverage of this group in other types of media such as newspapers in Israel and Palestine. On a more local level, it might be of interest to look at how other minority groups frame Arabs/Israeli. For example, a study on black press vs. general press coverage might offer some insight into differences in how minority group vs. majority groups frame conflicts. To assess the differences in U.S. and British newspapers, it would be of interest to look at how the two groups cover other conflicts. The War in Afghanistan provides the perfect backdrop for such a study. It would be of interest to look at how the two groups frame the conflict and what types of themes emerge. References Adams, W. C., &: Heyl, P. (1981). From Cairo to Kabul with the networks, 1972-1980. In W. C. Adams (Ed.), Television coverage of the Middle East (pp. 1-39). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Adas, J. (2001). At Princeton, Activist Ali Abunimah Critiques U.S. Media Coverage of al-Aqsa Intifada. Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, 20, 1. Alter, J. (1995). Jumping to conclusions: Many in the press and public were quick to assume the crime had Mideast origins. But "John Doe" is one of us. Newsweek, 125, 55. Analysis. U.S. Wisconsin. Arno, A. (1984). The news media as third parties in national and international conflict. The News Media in National and International Conflict. Boulder, Co., Westview, 229-38. Baker, G. P., & Hacker, P.M. S. (1980). Wittgenstein, understanding and meaning: An analytical commentary on the philosophical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Barranco, D. A., & Shyles, L. (1988). Arab vs. Israeli news coverage in the New York Times, 1976 and 1984. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 1, 178-181, 255. Barsamian, D. (2001). Suicidal ignorance The Progressive, 65, 11. Bazzi, M. (1995). The Arab menace. The Progressive, 59, 40. Beinin, J. & Hajjar, L. (2001). Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Middle Eastern Research and Information Project. Belkaoui, J. (1978). Images of Arabs and Israelis in the Prestige Press, 1966-74. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 4, 732-38,799. Belkaoui, J. M. (1978). Images of Arabs and Israelis in the prestige press, 1966-1974. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 4, 732-738, 799. Chomsky, N. & Herman, E. (1979). The Washington Connection anD Third World Fascism Boston: South End Press. Christison, K. (1997). U.S. policy and the Arabs: bound by a frame of reference. Journal of Palestine Studies, 26, 4 & 46. Curtice, J. (1998). Is the Sun shining on Tony Blair? The electoral influence of European newspapers. Communication Abstracts 21, 6. Curtius, M. (2001). Bomb Kills 16 in Jerusalem Pizzeria; Mideast: Israel seizes Palestinian offices, destroys police building in response. Sides brace for escalation. Los Angeles Times. August 10, A1. Dearing, J. W. & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda-setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dempsey, J. (2001). Financial Times, Oct. 15. Dunn, R. (2001). City ignites passions of religious strife. The Times (London). Aug. 13. Edelman, M. (1993). Contestable categories and public opinion. Political Communication, 10, 231-242. Eilders, C. & Luter, A. (2000). Germany at War: Competing Framing Strategies in German Public Discourse. European Journal of Communication 15, 3, 415-428 Entman, Robert M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43 (4), 51-58. Fisk, A. (2002). Statistics Don't Bear Out Feared Increase In Bias Cases Against. The Legal Intelligencer, 226, 116. Fisk, R. (2001a). When journalists forget that murder is murder. The Independent. August 18, p. 3. Fisk, R. (2001b). In Jerusalem, words can be just as deadly as bullets; the way we use language betrays our true sympathies. The Independent. Aug. 5, P. 19. Fraitekh, E. (2001). American Media Vocabulary, Use of Passive Voice Exacerbate Israeli-Palestinian Imbalance. http://www.wrmea.com/archives/july01/0107022.html (accessed 6-31-02) Gamson, W. (1988). The 1987 distinguished lecture: A constructionist approach to mass media and public opinion. Symbolic Interaction 11 (2), 61-174. Ghareeb, E. (1983). A Renewed look at American coverage of the Arabs: Toward a better understanding? In E. Ghareeb (Ed.), Split vision: The portrayal of Arabs in the American media (pp. 157-194). Washington, DC: American-Arab Affairs Council. Gorham, B. (1995, August). Stereotypes in the media: So what? Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC. Haberman, C. (2001). An Israeli hints at permitting U.S. Observer. The New York Times, July 31, p. A1. Haberman, C. (2001). Melee at Jerusalem's Most Sacred, and Explosive, Site. The New York Times, July 30, p. A3. Hall, Stuart (1980): 'Encoding/decoding'. In Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (Ed.): Culture, Media, Language. Kennedy, G. (2002). The British See Things Differently. CJR (March/April), p. 48-51. Kern, M. (1981). The invasion of Afghanistan: Domestic vs. foreign stories. In W. C. Adams (Ed.), Television coverage of the Middle East (pp. 106-127). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Khalaf, R. (2001). Saudis warned U.S. over policy on Israel. The Financial Times, Oct. 10, p. A1. Khoo, L. (2001). CBC News Online December 2001. Middle East FAQs http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/mideast_faqs.html Liebes, T. (1992). Decoding Television News: The Political Discourse of Israeli Hawks and Doves. Theory and Society, 21, 357-381. Lind, R. and Danowski, J. (1998). The Representation of Arabs in U.S. Electronic Media. Cultural Diversity And The U.S. Media Albany : State University of New York Press. MacAskill, E. & Taylor, N. (2001) Splits open in UK-US alliance. The Guardian. Nov. 9, p. 1 MacAskill, E. (2001). The Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Secret plan for observers to Israel: Secret plan for monitors to Israel. The Guardian. p. 1 Machlis, A. (2001). Sharon calls off Peres-Arafat talks. Financial Times (London). Sept. 24, p 3. Mowlana, H. (1984). The role of the media in the US-Iranian conflict. In A. Arno & W. Dissanayake (Eds.), The news media in national and international conflict (pp. 71-99). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Nohrstedt, S., Kaitatzi-Whitlock, K., Ottosen, R. & Riegert, K. From the Persian Gulf to Kosovo-War Journalism and Propaganda. European Journal of Communications, 15, 3. Page, B. & Shapiro (1992). The Rational Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pan, Zhongdang & Gerald M. Kosicki. (1993). Framing Analysis: An Approach to News Discourse. Political Communication, 10 (1), 55-75 Parenti, M. (1986). Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media. New York: St. Martin's Press. Perlez, J. (2001). Warning on Mideast Inaction. The New York Times. Aug. 19, p. D. 4. Pipes, D. (2002). Arabs Still Want to Destroy Israel. Wall Street Journal, Jan. 18, p. A10. Pope, H. (2001) Israel Is Shaken by Another, Less Lethal Blast --- Bomber Alone Dies, But Grisly Reprise Eats At Remaining Stability. Wall Street Journal 08/13/2001. Pope, H. (2001). Israel Is Shaken by Another, Less Lethal Blast --- Bomber Alone Dies, But Grisly Reprise Eats At Remaining Stability. Wall Street Journal. Aug. 13, 2001. Rachlin, A. (1988). News As Hegemonic Reality: American Political Culture And The Framing Of News Accounts. New York: Praeger. Reese & Buckalew (1995). The militarism of local television: the routine framing of the Persian Gulf War. Critical Studies in Mass Communication. 12, 40-59. Reeves, P. (2001). War on terrorism: Middle Eastern; two Israelis are killed in raid on Gaza settlement. The Independent (London), p. 4 Reeves, P. (2001a). Palestinian villagers grieve for their Israeli friend, shot down as he waited for breakfast. The Independent (London), p. 20. Reeves, P. (2001b). Terror in America: media - BBC denies Israel influenced reports. The Independent (London), p. 10. Said, E (2001) Time for a change of policy. Al-Ahram Weekly Online 15 (21) 560. Sappenfield (2002). Americans, Europeans split on Mideast Christian Science Monitor Service 27, 383-390. Semetko, H. & Valkenburg, P. (2000). Framing European Politics: a content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50, 2, 93-109. Shaheen, J. (1984). The TV Arab. Bowling Green, OH: The Popular Press, 122. Shaw, David. (1993). Trust in Media is on Decline. Los Angeles Times, March 31, p. Al. Shoemaker & Reese (1996). Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. White Plains, NY: Longman. Sigal, L. (1973). Reporters and Officials. Lexington, MA: Heath. Sipress, A. (2001). Egypt warns of rage over U.S. Mideast policy. Washington Post, Aug. 18. p. A17. Sipress, A. (2001). Presidential pressure point: Middle-Eastern conflict could undercut policy on Mideast Iraq. Washington Post, Aug. 1. p. A01. Stephens, B. (2001). Why Europe Hates Israel. Wall Street Journal. Nov. 29, p. A 18. Strupp, J. (1973). Press mobilizes to cover Kosovo. Editor & Publisher, the Fourth Estate, 132, 13. Tuchman G (1978) Making News New York: The Free Press. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. United Nations Treaty Series, 75. Vincent, R. (2000). A Narrative Analysis of US Press Coverage of Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs in Kosovo European Journal of Communication 15, 3 p. 24. Walker, C. (2001) Israel abandons truce and kills six Arabs. The Times (London), Oct. 4, p. 1. Whitehead, S. (1987). Arab Portrayals in U.S. and British News Magazines: A Comparative Wilkinson, T. (2001). Arafat-Peres Talks Bear Fruit. Los Angeles Times. Sept. 27. A1. Wilkinson, T. (2001). Israel Yielding on Deployment of Monitors; Mideast: Government casts doubt on U.N. impartiality but suggests that it would accept a CIA-led observer force. Los Angeles Times. July 23, p. A1. Williams, D. (2001). Israel says troops will leave if Arabs meet demands; U.S. rebuffed on call for immediate pullout from territories. Washington Post; Oct. 26, p. A30. Williams, D. (2001). Sharon abruptly cancels talks; move undermines U.S. coalition. Washington Post, Oct. 6, p. A30. Winestock, G. (2001). EU, Iran to Open Trade Negotiations, A Sore Point for U.S. Wall Street Journal. Sept. 6. p. A17 Winter, J. and Eyal, C. (1981). Agenda-setting for the Civil rights issue. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 376-83. Woollacott, Janet (1982): Messages and Meanings. In Gurevitch et al. (Eds.). [1] On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four passenger jets and crashed two of them into the Twin Towers in New York and one into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Thousands of civilians died. [2] Op-ed pieces, editorials and feature stories were excluded.