http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/comparison-of-british-and-french-broadsheets
Between June 14 and 21, media coverage of Israel focused mainly on the plans to loosen the blockade on Gaza. Key differences emerged between French and British publications Not only were there differences between how the different British outlets reported on the story, but there were also clear differences between how the British media and the French media covered it. Below are three comparisons of British and French broadsheet newspapers, with the British paper in each case being compared to its nearest equivalent on the political spectrum. Le Monde v. The Times
The Times and Le Monde, centre-right and centre-left respectively, clearly emphasised different aspects in their initial coverage of the plans to ease the blockade. The Times, in ‘Gaza crossing points to be opened as Israel bows to international pressure’, (15 June, James Hider and David Charter) concentrated on the fact that the decision was ‘prompted by criticism of its bloody interception of an aid flotilla two weeks ago and condemnation of the Gaza blockade by the Red Cross.’ In contrast, Le Monde’s article from the 14 June paid less attention to criticisms of the blockade in light of Free Gaza incident, or to Israel’s plans to hold an independent inquiry into it, and more to discussing the actual details of the blockade, such as noting that it only currently let in ‘97 items...as opposed to 4,000 items before the reinforcing of the blockade’ or that the crossing points ‘in Karni and Kerem Shalom’ would soon be reopened.
The French outlet also cited the fatal attack on three Israeli policemen near Hebron by Palestinian militants on Monday 14 June, which underlined that Israel’s security policies do not exist within a vacuum. By contrast, The Times did not mention the Hebron attack at any point in the week.
On Thursday 17 June, both papers covered the decision by the Israeli Cabinet to officially ease the Gaza blockade. The articles presented this development differently, with The Times again concentrating on how Israel was unwillingly forced by strong global opinion, and Le Monde framing the blockade in terms of a willing Israeli concession. The Times’ article, ‘Israel eases Gaza blockade in response to world pressure’, by James Hider, cited ‘intense international pressure’ which led to the easing of the blockade. ‘Israel eases the Gaza blockade but does not lift it,’ published in Le Monde, on the other hand, mutedly described the decision as the result of ‘repeated requests from the international community.’
Le Monde’s editorial on June 21 took a similar line to the newspaper’s news reporting, choosing not to focus on the international condemnation but rather on Israel’s dramatic policy shift as the first step for progress in the Middle East. Resolving intra-Palestinian political rivalries, the paper argued, was the next step. In ‘Israel and Gaza, beyond the lifting of the blockade’, Le Monde opined that ‘[t]he tidying-up of the Palestinian side, the reconciliation of its two factions, and of its two territories that are to one day become Palestine, must precede the quest for peace. This evidence will eventually become obvious to the Palestinians and to the others, just as the absurdity of the Gaza blockade became obvious.’
Liberation v. The Guardian
On June 17, both the left-wing French daily Liberation and The Guardian published an article on Israel’s decision to ease the Gaza blockade. In ‘Israel’s partial easing of Gaza blockade dismissed as inadequate’, The Guardian’s Ian Black suggested that the current measures undertaken by the Jewish state were insufficient for improving the lives of average Gazans. Liberation, in its article ‘Israel decides to loosen the Gaza blockade’ by Amir Cohen, was on the whole more neutral in its analysis.
The Guardian insisted that more construction material was desperately needed for rebuilding Gaza’s infrastructure: ‘there was no relief for urgently needed construction materials for private building or for cross-border trade and movement.’ Nowhere was Israel’s self-proclaimed rationale for proscribing such material - that it would be used by Hamas for fashioning weapons - acknowledged. Liberation did acknowledge this fact, saying that such materials would ‘likely...be used for military means’. Another point of contrast was The Guardian’s citation of international NGOs such as Amnesty International claiming that Israel was ‘not intending to end its collective punishment of Gaza's civilian population, but only ease it.’
Liberation, meanwhile, was more positive in its assessment, citing Mideast Quartet envoy Tony Blair and French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner’s praise for Israel. Kouchner told the newspaper that although Israel had to do more, these current measures represented the ‘first major progress’ in terms of the three year-old blockade policy.
Also noteworthy is how differently the two papers addressed the subject of Hamas. Liberation described how four years ago the terrorist group captured Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier, whom it still holds in captivity. The French outlet also explained that the blockade was only implemented after Hamas took complete control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, as the result of its violent ousting of the rival Fatah party from the territory. Ever since, Hamas or Islamist proxy groups have been firing rockets into Israel and targeting civilians. The Guardian neglected this context, claiming only that ‘the US, Britain and EU all insist that they want to end an “unacceptable and unsustainable” blockade but share Israel’s goal of seeking to weaken Hamas’. No link between the rulers of Gaza and the blockade policy was hazarded by the British broadsheet except to state that Hamas have ‘more or less maintained a de facto ceasefire since last year’s war.’
In articles published on June 20, Liberation and The Guardian even more starkly contradicted each other in terms of coverage. The British broadsheet’s article, ‘Israel agrees to ease Gaza blockade’, by Harriet Sherwood, claimed that there was no timetable fixed for Israel’s new list of banned goods to be published, only that this update would be implemented as soon as possible. Liberation, on the other hand, in ‘Gaza: Israel lifts its embargo on all goods for civilian purposes’ suggested that the new rules had already taken effect, citing an Israeli government official who told the newspaper that, ‘From today, there is a green light for all the goods to enter Gaza apart from military equipment.’
Sherwood also seemed more inclined to focus on the negative impact of the naval blockade remaining in place, particularly in the aftermath of the flotilla episode, and quoted Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak who said that a ‘violent and dangerous confrontation’ would ensure if more aid convoys bound for Gaza refused to abide by Israel’s re-routing to the port city of Ashdod. Liberation was more sanguine about the land blockade’s liberalisation. While it noted that the naval blockade would remain in place, it cited Tony Blair’s comment that the reformed policy would ‘allow a radical change and the flow of goods and materials in the Gaza strip.’
Le Figaro v. The Daily Telegraph
The coverage in right-wing newspapers Le Figaro and The Daily Telegraph were generally more closely aligned, with no noticeable differences between the two outlets in terms of focus or tone. Both papers gave prominent weight to the argument that the easing of the blockade would strengthen Hamas, and an article in Le Figaro even cited The Daily Telegraph’s editorial on the subject.
The Daily Telegraph alleged in its editorial on June 14, ‘Israel's decision to consider easing the Gaza blockade is welcome’, that Hamas - acting in association with Iran - still posed an ongoing threat to Israeli civilians. It also depicted the political leadership in Gaza as ‘a group that has no interest in achieving a peace that would benefit the people it claims to represent’, and advised Israel to open negotiations with the more moderate, Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
The editorial was then referenced on 18 June by Marie Herbert in ‘Israel agrees to loosen the Gaza blockade’, and on June 21, Le Figaro published a news article focusing on the threat that Hamas represents to Israel. ‘Gaza: blockade loosened, Hamas reinforced?’ suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s concerns for maintaining the blockade were not groundless. For example, while noting that the blockade had not weakened Hamas, the article also included the following quote from Israeli minister Matan Vilanai: ‘We cannot look the other way, everything that enters Gaza goes under the control of Hamas, who then decide how to distribute it’, suggesting that simply increasing the flow of aid, as proposed by Israel’s critics, would not solve the underlying conflict.
The main trend that emerges is that, with the exception of the Daily Telegraph, the UK papers were far more likely than their French equivalents to express scepticism over the positive impact of Israel’s policy shift, irrespective of where they lie on the political spectrum. Indeed, The Daily Telegraph, and its French equivalent, Le Figaro, were strikingly similar in their outlook, with both newspapers devoting far more coverage to the issue of Hamas than any of the other outlets.
No comments:
Post a Comment