Awards

• Winner of Choice Outstanding Academic Title (2005).

Overview

In this nuanced and detailed study of newspaper reports during the escalation of the second Intifada in the fall of 2000, Daniel Dor shows how reality is subject to distortion and manipulation by the media. In an analysis of the heart of Israel's media establishment - the newspapers Yediot Ahronot, Ma'ariv, and Ha'aretz - he finds a wide gap between the reality reported by field reporters and the eventual newspaper accounts framed by editors. Led by beliefs, opinions, and emotional responses rather than the facts provided by their reporters, these editors created a platform on which a new and fearful narrative for Israeli-Palestinian relations was built. As a result of these distortions, newspapers effectively suppressed certain elements of reality and systematically emphasized others to construct a new set of ""facts"" that have had fateful effects on Israel's responses to the Palestinians. By integrating a wide variety of critical approaches from linguistics and communication studies, Dor convincingly shows how the news is constructed. The distance between distortion and reality is often simply pages or even lines away.Dor demonstrates how the positioning, graphic saliency, front-page reference, headline selection and framing, and the visual semiotics of news stories change the facts reported in the articles themselves. Headlines and photos may tell one story and a news analysis may tell another, but, as headline consumers, readers may receive only the most visible one. Dor's careful day-by-day investigation of reporting on the Intifada reveals how quickly newspapers were able to produce and participate in a new consensual narrative that effectively ended the peace process. But while Dor does demonstrate that the media construct the news rather than simply report it, his sophisticated analysis also shows that no one entity or person is responsible. Rather than a supreme authority, it is the influence of fear, anger, ignorance, and a desire to please and sell newspapers, Dor argues, that threaten the freedom of the press in a liberal democracy.

Full Product Details

9780253216373

Table of Contents

Reviews

<p> If more studies like Dor's were published, audiences worldwide mightrecognize how poorly news is reported and written and take measures to resist. Dor(communication, Tel Aviv Univ.) scrutinized the news coverage of the first month(October 2000) of the Intifada in Israel's three largest dailies, Yediot Ahrenot, Ma'ariv, and Ha'aretz. Using ten parameters (positioning, graphic saliency, headlinewording, etc.), he analyzed all material; he then interviewed 18 senior editors, reporters, and senior commentators to discover their rationale for what he called aone-sided, partial, censored, and biased picture of reality. His conclusions areshocking yet not surprising, in the context of subsequent coverage of terrorism andthe Iraq War. The contrast between what reporters sent in and what was printed wasstark. The editors had their own agendas (obtained from television reports), andthough they knew far less about the intricacies of the general picture than seniorreporters, they adopted the p

<p> If more studies like Dor's were published, audiences worldwide might recognize how poorly news is reported and written and take measures to resist. Dor (communication, Tel Aviv Univ.) scrutinized the news coverage of the first month (October 2000) of the Intifada in Israel's three largest dailies, Yediot Ahrenot, Ma'ariv, and Ha'aretz. Using ten parameters (positioning, graphic saliency, headline wording, etc.), he analyzed all material; he then interviewed 18 senior editors, reporters, and senior commentators to discover their rationale for what he called a one-sided, partial, censored, and biased picture of reality. His conclusions are shocking yet not surprising, in the context of subsequent coverage of terrorism and the Iraq War. The contrast between what reporters sent in and what was printed was stark. The editors had their own agendas (obtained from television reports), and though they knew far less about the intricacies of the general picture than senior reporters, they adopted the political and military establishment's judgments to prevent friction with the powers-that-be. The result was public-be-damned journalism that presented the conflict in administratively engineered language, loaded-with-blame (placed on Arafat) commentaries, under apocalyptic and hysterical headlines. Similar studies of television news coverage would likely reveal a situation many times worse. Summing Up: Essential. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals; general readers. --J. A./P>--J. A. Lent, Temple University Choice (01/01/2004)

Author Information

Daniel Dor teaches in the Department of Communication, Tel Aviv University. A graduate of Stanford University, he has worked as a senior news editor at two of Israel's leading newspapers. He lives in Tel Aviv.

Tab Content 6

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

Countries Available