Australian Media's Coverage of Operation Protective Edge

The Australian media’s problematic and inimical coverage of Operation Protective Edge has undermined the salience of conflict on public agenda – simultaneously legitimising pro-Israeli discourse and denying Palestinians permission to narrate (Said, 1948, as cited in Zahzah, 2021, para. 1). Regarded as one of the most complex and long-lasting warfare’s in modern history, Israeli-Palestinian tensions along the Gaza strip in 2014 destroyed 18,000 homes; rendering 100,000 civilians homeless and killed 2,202 Palestinians (BTSELEM, 2015, as cited in Whitewash Protocol: The So-Called Investigation of “Operation Protective Edge”, 2015, p. 2). The theoretical prominence of journalists as agenda-setters in representing and framing this social reality (Barthes, 1972 and Pan & Kosicki, 1993, as cited in Panayototva & Rizov, 2021, para. 1) is outlined through case studies of News Corp, Fairfax, ABC and Crikey mainstream media coverage (Mhanna & Rodan, 2018, para. 1). The exclusionary implications of media’s linguistic “terminology bias” (Tiripelli, 2016, p. 24), perpetuation of discriminatory Islamophobic sentiment and Westernised media partisanship distinctly opposes Australian ethical and legislative expectations. This realisation within industry and social spheres has guided emerging recognitions of Palestinian self-determination and journalists’ function as active participants in conflict.

Australia’s distorted linguistic patterns of pro-Israeli salience and silenced Palestinian representations have obscured public perceptions and “failed to meet [ethical and legal] obligations” (Mashni, 2022, as cited in Gillespie, 2022, para. 7). Considering the theoretical representation of media “constructs” rather than “reports” (Entman, 2004, p. 5, as cited in Panayototva & Rizov, 2021, p. 6) – language is divisively used to “produce meaning” (Hall, 1997, p. 61, as cited in Panayototva & Rizov, 2021, p. 23), normalise ideologies (Fürsich, 2010) and dictate social discourse. When language is devoid of historical context, including the Sydney Morning Herald’s (Dunn, 2014, as cited in Manning, 2018, p. 6) “omissions of key facts” (Australian Press Council Statement of General Principles, 2014), the 5,593 Palestinian casualties recorded between 2008 to 2020 (UNOCHA, 2021, as cited in Panayototva & Rizov, 2021, p. 8) cannot dominate public interest. Despite, the Department of Foreign Affairs acknowledging “the aspirations of Palestinian people” (n.d., para. 2), Australia’s “terminology bias” (Tiripelli, 2016, p. 24) “What kind of journalist are you, using the word Palestine?” (Khalik, 2014, as cited in Wingeri, 2021, para. 15) opposes the MEAA Code of Ethics “do not allow personal interest or belief” (2018, para. 13) to influence coverage. The ABC also promotes “diversity of perspective” (Australian Broadcasting Corporation Code of Practice, 2012, p. 6), yet 95.5% of Israeli sources represented (Mhanna & Rodan, 2018, p. 157) legitimised “Jerusalem neighbourhoods” (Zahzah, 2021, para. 19) and military attempts “to minimise casualties, [while] Hamas attempted to maximise them” (Dalidakis, 2014, para. 5-6, as cited in Mhanna & Rodan, 2018, p. 85). Undermining the APC’s Statement of General Principles ensuring “accuracy and clarity” (2014, p. 2), mainstream language dehumanises and construes warfare as serving a higher purpose, representing ‘violence’ as ‘conflict’, ‘occupied territories’ to ‘disputed territories’, ‘bombing’, a ’response’ and Palestinian murders as a statistic (Saber, 2021, para. 7-8). Similarly, Australian corpora associated ‘Palestinian’ with ‘angry’ and “Hamas – an equally perverted…bloodthirsty organisation” (How, 2014, p. 55, as cited in Mhanna & Rodan, 2018, p. 90) influencing the public to “mourn some lives but respond with coldness to…others” (p. 36). Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has ruled it “unlawful to insult, offend or intimidate…on the basis of…race” (2015, p. 13), further constituting as hate speech, “discrimination, hostility or violence” (United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976). While free speech and “fair and accurate reporting” are exempt through Section 18D (2015, p. 13), the emerging consideration of Palestine’s treatment as “the crime of apartheid” (Amnesty International, 2021 and Human Rights Watch, 2021) construes emerging international legal ramifications. The feasibility of Galtung’s Peace Journalism (1978, as cited in Ozhu-Suleiman, 2010, p. 47) as an equitable remedy and “alternative media system that will promote…international and intercultural understanding” is increasing, with 37.9% of recent coverage promoting conflict resolution, reconstruction and reconciliation (p. 53). The simultaneous intensification of the BDS Movement, enhanced by digital #UnitedAgainstRacism has provoked Australian cultural boycotts and increased plurality and inclusivity as “there’s no gatekeeping” of perspectives (Samah, 2021, as cited in UTS Palestine and the Media, 2021). Thus, qualitative disproportionate favourability towards Israelis through terminology has impacted public perception and ethical considerations.

Prejudicial and biased media framing of Operation Protective Edge has further perpetuated a “portrait of deep and sustained” (Manning, 2018, p. 10) Islamophobia and racial hatred in a contemporary Australia. Expanding beyond “social norms and values” (Scheufele, 2000, p. 109, as cited in Panayotova & Rizova, 2021, p. 21), the composition of a “perceived reality” (Fürsich, 2010) through dominant conflict and responsibility frames have negatively portrayed Palestinians as “not only…Arab, not only Muslim, but…the ultimate enemy to Australians” (Manning, 2018, p. 10). Studies reiterate that “terrorism” is generally accepted as defining Palestinian resistance, evident in The Herald Sun and The Age 2014 reports (Mhanna & Rodan, 2018, para. 1). Meanwhile, Israeli “military campaigns” (Manning, 2004, p. 21); “Israel could have bombed Gaza to rubble” (Dalidakis, 2014, para. 5–6, as cited in Mhanna & Rodan, 2018, p. 50) and the killing of Abu Khdeir (Lyons, 2014aa, p. 17) is represented with legitimacy. Notwithstanding debate whether Section 18C of the RDA (2015) and Anti-Discrimination Act (2004) applies to the ethnic Muslim community - free speech, if “capable of instilling or inciting hatred” (Gelber, 2012, para. 8) is prohibited in Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976). Similarly, ‘Palestin/e/inian’ is associated “in close proximity” (Manning, 2018, p. 11) with the word ‘violence’ and its derivatives ‘terror’, with News Corp Australia releasing approximately eight articles a day that framed Muslims alongside words like ‘violence’, ‘extremism’, ‘terrorism’ or ‘radical’ in 2017 (One Path Network). Particularly considering media’s “ingrained [Semitic] sympathy or guilt” (Loewenstein, 2021, as cited in UTS Palestine and the Media, 2021) and disproportionate anti-Muslim sentiments following the September 11 attacks, MEAA ethics emphasise ethical reporting “does not place unnecessary emphasise…on religious belief” (2018, para. 2). Australian framing, placing “Hamas in the same category as ISIS” (Regev, 2014, as cited in Mhanna & Rodan, 2018, p. 146) is portrayed as the “root cause of the conflict” (Freedman, 2014, p. 17, as cited in Mhanna & Rodan, 2018, p.122) when juxtaposed to “the only democracy in the Middle East” (Wakim, 2014, p. 31). Recognising “that journalistic ethics require ‘objectivity’” (PEW Research Journalism Project, 2013), 720 Australian journalists and media staffers have signed the Do Better on Palestine letter, criticising coverage of fighting between Israel and Hamas (Lacy, 2021). While journalists at the SBS and ABC were asked by management to remove their signatures, MEAA intervention upheld “it is a principle of freedom of speech” (Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance, as cited in Lacy, 2021, para. 6) and has emphasised the organisational change to “push back against the status quo” (Samah, 2021, as cited in UTS Palestine and the Media, 2021). Equitable remedies have also been suggested by HREOC and IsmaU (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2004) that the Commonwealth should consider laws to prohibit incitement of racial and religious hatred. Likewise, the Australian Human Rights Commission’s investigation into the complaint that the federal government is “Israel-centric” (Mashni, 2021, as cited in Gillepsie, 2021, para. 1) is legally significant as it is the first of its kind that advocates for balanced Islamic framing. While no legislative changes have been actualised, this political discourse recognises that mainstream media fails to frame the Palestinian and Muslim story with “accuracy and empathy” (Soussi, 2019, para. 1).

Journalists, as agenda setters and actors in the Arab-Israeli war can exacerbate conflict through unethical media partisanship and malinformation practices. The agenda-setting theory posits that mass media dictates “what…[citizens] think about” (Cohen, 1963, as cited in Panayotova & Rizova, 2021, p. 19), particularly when multiple events like the Russian-Ukraine and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts are contending for public attention. Australia has been almost unique globally in its consistent support for Israel in diplomatic forms including the United Nations, with News Corp, owned by Australian-born American mogul; Rupert Murdoch controlling “70% of Australia’s newspaper market” (McKnight, 2012, p. 7, as cited in Mhanna & Rodan, 2018). This reliance on U.S. perspectives and lack of correspondents in key areas is “an injustice to those killed…as well as to the viewers at home” (Nashashibi, 2011, as cited in McTigue, 2011, p. 44) and is not in accordance with ABC’s Code of Practice to provide all “relative perspectives” (2019, para. 4) in a story. As the Jewish Board of Deputies and the Australian/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council have sponsored Australian journalists on lavish trips to Israel for years (Lacy, 2021), journalists like SBS Director James Taylor disseminated pro-Israel propaganda; #IStandWithIsrael after Gaza attacks (para. 17). Journalists support and legitimisation of Israel’s “settlement policy” (Lyons, 2014, p. 3, as cited in Mhanna & Rodan, 2018, p. 51) starkly compromises MEAA’s accountability ethics “do not allow…commitment, payment or gift…to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence” (2018). Australia’s legitimisation of the Knock on the Roof strategy, destroying civilian targets in Gaza (Groll, 2015, para. 1, as cited in Mhanna & Rodan, 2018, p. 195) have been described as “alerting [Palestinian] families before attacks on their homes” (Pollard, 2014e, p. 24, as cited in Mhanna & Rodan, 2018, p. 196) and the Shujaiya and Khuza’s massacres as “aimed at [a] Hamas leader” (Cooper & Brown, 2014, para. 7, as cited in Mhanna & Rodan, 2018, p. 185). The Herald Sun even attributed responsibility to Hamas for the Israeli shelling of children on a beach and playground in Gaza as “emotional blackmail to stop Israel from retaliating”(2014c, p. 35, as cited in Mhanna & Rodan, 2018, p. 169). These distortions plainly contradict JERAA’s assertion that journalists “as human beings…are under general ethical principles…to tell the truth and to minimise harm” (White, 2021) and Section 80.2A.D of the Criminal Code Act which prohibits advocating terrorism or genocide (1995). Recently, pro-Palestinian advocacy in Australia has become more visible with groups including the Australian Palestine Advocacy Network organising Palestinian lobbying trips to help journalists develop a more critical view of the conflict. Similarly, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate and BDS National Committee have called for the “end [of] all institutional collaborations with Israeli media” and to “refuse paid junkets…organised by…government or lobby groups” (2021). As the largest coalition in Palestinian society, this increased visibility has swayed public opinion – with 61% of Australians now opposing Israeli settlements and 55% supporting the BDS movement (BDS Ethical Professional Principles Covering Israels War on Gaza, 2021). Hence, Australia’s biased news agenda has distorted public understandings of Israeli attacks and provoked the emergence of pro-Palestinian industry lobbying.

Ultimately, contemporary linguistic representations, religious framing and media geopolitical bias in international news can salience or silence the Palestinian “apartheid” (Amnesty International, 2021 and Human Rights Watch, 2021. This case study substantiates that Australia’s obscured mainstream coverage of Operation Protective Edge compromised journalistic and legislative ethical codes. It is with this understanding, that emerging industry and social remedies are promoting and facilitating the equitable future of peace journalism.

Reference List

2014. APC Statement of General Principles. [online] Available at: <https://www.presscouncil.org.au/document/statement-of-general-principles> [Accessed 10 April 2022].

About.abc.net.au. 2019. ABC Code of Practice. [online] Available at: <https://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CODE-final-15-01-2019.pdf> [Accessed 12 April 2022].

Amnesty International. 2021. Israel's apartheid against Palestinians. [online] Available at: <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/> [Accessed 13 April 2022].

BDS Movement. 2021. 7 Points on Ethical and Professional Journalistic Principles in Covering Israel’s War on Gaza. [online] Available at: <https://bdsmovement.net/7-Points-Ethical-Professional-Journalistic-Principles-Covering-Israels-War-on-Gaza> [Accessed 13 April 2022].

BTSELEM, 2015. Whitewash Protocol: The So-Called Investigation of Operation Protective Edge. [online] p.2. Available at: <https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/B%27Tselem%20report_%20_Whitewash%20Protocol_%20The%20So-Called%20Investigation%20of%20%27Operation%20Protective%20Edge%27”%2C%20Sept.pdf> [Accessed 10 April 2022].

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. n.d. Palestinian territories. [online] Available at: <https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/palestinian-territories> [Accessed 10 April 2022].

Gawerc, M., 2016. Constructing a Collective Identity Across Conflict Lines: Joint Israeli-Palestinian Peace Movement Organizations*. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 21(2), pp.193-212.

Gillespie, E., 2022. Palestinian-Australian files legal complaint over government’s ‘advocacy’ of Israel. [online] SBS News. Available at: <https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/palestinian-australian-files-legal-complaint-over-governments-advocacy-of-israel/8u6460ujn> [Accessed 10 April 2022].

Humanrights.gov.au. 2004. HREOC Website: Isma - Listen | Australian Human Rights Commission. [online] Available at: <https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/hreoc-website-isma-listen-2> [Accessed 10 April 2022].

Ilo.org. 1995. [online] Available at: <https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/68678/67144/F2055980292/AUS68678%202019%20V1.pdf> [Accessed 12 April 2022].

Lacy, A., 2021. Journalists in Australia Censured for Demanding Better Coverage of Israel and Palestine. [online] The Intercept. Available at: <https://theintercept.com/2021/05/27/israel-palestine-australia-journalists/> [Accessed 13 April 2022].

Legislation.gov.au. 2015. Racial Discrimination Act 1975. [online] Available at: <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00089> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Manning, P., 2018. Representing Palestine: Media and Journalism in Australia Since World War I. pp.1-50.

McTigue, G., 2011. Media Bias in Covering the Israeli-Palestinian Conflflict: With a Case Study of BBC Coverage and Its Foundation of Impartiality. Syracuse University, [online] pp.1-57. Available at: <https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1296&context=honors_capstone> [Accessed 12 April 2022].

MEAA. 2018. MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics. [online] Available at: <https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/> [Accessed 12 April 2022].

Mhanna, M., 2018. Caught in the frame: A critical analysis of Australian media representations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflflict 2014–2015. Edith Cowan University, [online] pp.1-303. Available at: <https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3067&context=theses> [Accessed 10 April 2022].

OnePath Network. 2018. Islam in the Media 2017 - OnePath Network. [online] Available at: <https://onepathnetwork.com/islam-in-the-media-2017/> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. 2022. Social Media Update 2013. [online] Available at: <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/12/30/social-media-update-2013/> [Accessed 13 April 2022].

Rizova, C. and Panayotova, M., 2021. Online news media framing of the 2021 Israeli-Palestinian conflict by Al Jazeera, BBC and CNN. Malmo University, [online] pp.1-244. Available at: <http://mau.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1597349/FULLTEXT02.pdf> [Accessed 10 April 2022].

Sabawi, S., Loewenstein, A. and Bebawi, P., 2021. UTS Palestine and the media: How does the media shape the conversation on human rights issues in Palestine and Israel?.

Saber, M., 2021. When it comes to media reporting on Israel-Palestine, there is nowhere to hide. [online] The Conversation. Available at: <https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-media-reporting-on-israel-palestine-there-is-nowhere-to-hide-160992> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Soussi, A., 2019. Why the media fails to cover Palestine with accuracy and empathy. [online] Aljazeera.com. Available at: <https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2019/3/17/why-the-media-fails-to-cover-palestine-with-accuracy-and-empathy> [Accessed 15 April 2022].

Tiripelli, D., 2016. Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict. [online] Available at: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict#CITEREFTiripelli2016> [Accessed 10 April 2022].

United Nations. 1996. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [online] Available at: <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights> [Accessed 13 April 2022].

UQ News. 2012. Protecting freedom of expression. [online] Available at: <https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2012/09/protecting-freedom-of-expression> [Accessed 13 April 2022].

White, J., 2021. The Handbook of Global Media and Communication Policy.

Wingerei, K., 2021. Crossword clues and bullying - the influence of Australia's pro-Israel lobby unveiled - Michael West Media. [online] Michael West Media. Available at: <https://www.michaelwest.com.au/crossword-clues-and-bullying-the-almighty-power-of-the-australian-pro-israel-lobby/> [Accessed 10 April 2022].

White, J., 2021. The Handbook of Global Media and Communication Policy.

Www8.austlii.edu.au. 2004. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977 - As at 12 November 2021 - Act 48 of 1977. [online] Available at: <http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aa1977204/> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Zahzah, O., 2021. Digital apartheid: Palestinians being silenced on social media. [online] Aljazeera.com. Available at: <https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/5/13/social-media-companies-are-trying-to-silence-palestinian-voices> [Accessed 10 April 2022].