The framing of the coverage of the Gaza withdrawal by Israeli forces in the Cape Times, Mail & Guardian and Sunday Times from July 1, 2005 to September 12, 2005

Silke, Bryan David (2007-03)

Thesis (MPhil)--University of Stellenbosch, 2007.

Thesis

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be classified as an isolated conflict. Today’s clashes were not triggered by a single event, but rather are as a result of thousands of years of violent and at times restrained disagreements about the rights of Jews, Muslims and other ethnic groups to the disputed land known collectively today as Israel and the Palestinian Territories. This study examines the media coverage of one event during the conflict, i.e. the withdrawal by Israeli settlers from the Gaza area. The study tracks coverage over ten weeks in the South African media context, specifically the Mail & Guardian, Cape Times and the Sunday Times – a media setting in itself highly diverse and compelling. Using a qualitative framing analysis as the central methodology, the study focused on six core frames in analysing all articles/reports relating to the Gaza withdrawal. In addition, the editors of the respective newspapers were interviewed to complement the textual analysis. The methodological approach addressed how each story was packaged and presented, and then questioned why certain frames dominated and others did not. The study found that conflict (a combination of violent and non-violent) was the dominant frame chosen. Consequences and Attribution of Responsibility were the next two most prominent frames. Both these frames were found to apportion blame to a particular side in presenting the news reports and when providing comment. Whilst all three newspapers argued that they practiced a balanced coverage, it was this perceived “balance” in using several different frames of presentation that neglected a key “historical” frame. This lack of historical context was one of the key results of the other frames being so dominant.

AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die konflik tussen Israel en Palestina kan nie gesien word as ’n geïsoleerde konflik nie. Die huidige konflik is nie veroorsaak deur ’n enkele gebeurtenis nie, maar spruit uit die voortslepende geweld tussen Jode, Moslems en ander etniese groepe wat reeds duisende jare lank duur, as gevolg van betwiste aansprake op die grondgebied gesamentlik bekend as Israel en die Palestynse grondgebied. Dié studie ondersoek die mediadekking van een gebeurtenis in die konflik, naamlik die onttrekking van Israeli setlaars in die Gaza-gebied. Die studie volg mediadekking oor tien weke deur drie Suid-Afrikaanse publikasies, Mail & Guardian, Cape Times en Sunday Times. Met behulp van kwalitatiewe raming-analise as die sentrale metodologie, konsentreer dié studie op ses rame in die analise van artikels, wat verband hou met die onttrekking uit die Gasastrook. Die navorsing word aangevul met onderhoude met die redakteurs van die koerante. Die metodologie is toegespits op die manier waarop die stories verpak en aangebied word, en bevraagteken waarom sekere raamwerke oorheers en ander van minder belang is. Die studie bevind dat Konflik (’n samestelling van geweldadige en nie-geweldadige konflik) die oorheersende raam was waarbinne artikels in dié tydperk aangebied is. Die Gevolge- en Toeskrywing van Verantwoordelikheid-rame kom ná konflik die meeste voor. By albei raamwerke word bevind dat skuld aan die een of ander kant toegeskryf word in die aanbiedeing van nuusverslae en wanneer kommentaar gelewer word. Hoewel al drie koerante volhou dat hulle gebalanseerde dekking aanbied, word ’n belangrike “historiese” raam in dié aanbieding verontagsaam as gevolg van die gebruik van verskeie rame om balans te bewerkstellig. Die gebrek aan ’n historiese konteks is een van die vernaamste gevolge van die oorheersing van die ander rame.

Please refer to this item in SUNScholar by using the following persistent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/19867
This item appears in the following collections: