Media essays

Comparing CNN and BBC coverage of the Palestinian Israeli conflict

by Laura Luvara (2003)
The Palestinian - Israeli conflict is one of major international importance. News networks across the globe are closely following and reporting the events of this conflict every day. This essay endeavors to discuss in brief the structure and function of two of those networks; the American Cable News Network (CNN) and the British Broadcasting Company (BBC).
Following this, an outline of the Palestinian conflict will be detailed to create some background for the focus of the essay. This focus will be a comparative analysis of the website coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on BBC and CNN websites.
It is important to firstly outline the three networks’ backgrounds to understand from what standpoint their coverage comes from.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
"Truth is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest…"
The British Broadcasting Company was formed in November 1922 although it’s radio licence was not received until the following January. At the time, Press Barons made sure that the newly formed company could not broadcast news in fear that the new medium (i.e. radio), would supercede them, therefore the BBC’s primary function was to "disseminate entertainment to the masses." However, in 1926 the BBC became a Corporation with a Royal Charter subsequently allowing it to broadcast news.
At first it was a means by which to broadcast to colonies that were far away from Britain (i.e. Australian and Canada) however, by 1936 the BBC had taken on a different function, one that is important to the focus of this essay. It was at this time that the BBC began propaganda broadcasts to the Arab world, "partly to counteract similar broadcasts from Italy, which also had colonial interests in the region." The BBC became a tool of propaganda, far removed from its current so-called position of neutrality. As a tool of war the BBC played a huge role in Britain becoming the world’s largest propaganda broadcaster, output ran to 850 programme-hours per week in 46 different languages by World War Two’s end.
The new BBC, as a corporation, was now under the control of a board of governors described as "persons of judgement and independence." The BBC governors, today, are said to differ from directors of public companies, whose primary responsibilities are to shareholders and not consumers. They, in contrast, represent the public interest. A charter also recognises the BBC’s editorial independence and sets out its public obligations.
This is the same structure that the BBC has today. There are twelve governors who "act as trustees of the public interest" while sixteen directors run the BBC’s day-to-day operations. The governors are appointed by the Queen on advice from ministers. The governors "safeguard its independence; set its objectives and monitor its performance." In other words, the BBC tries to maintain total objectivity and neutrality in all that it reports, or professes to anyway. According to the BBC website, "the BBC is run in the interests of the viewers and listeners."
To get an idea of exactly how far reaching the news provided by the BBC is, it is important to look at total audience numbers. These statistics come from a survey of the World Service’s global audience from the past decade.
In all languages the total audience breakdown
Europe 31 million
Africa 20 million
Arab world 10 million
South Asia 53 million
Far East 3 million
Latin America 2 million
Rest of the world 1 million
A total of 120 million
There are a total of 25 million who listen to the World Service in English. Here is a breakdown of the English listening audience.
Europe 3 million
Africa 10 million
Arab world 1 million
South Asia 9 million
Far East 1 million
North America, Canada and Australia 1million
(source: History of broadcasting p.236)
According to a survey conducted in 1991 there are 14.7 million regular BBC listeners in Britain alone. It has become part of the cultural fabric of the country it functions out of. Political crisis and major world events, like the recent Iraq war and the Palestinian conflict, naturally have a major impact on listening, viewing and internet audiences world wide.
It is clear that the BBC serves a wide and varied audience in great numbers via its World Service. Therefore its influence is also wide. The question is how exactly does this public broadcaster report on such contentious issues in the news like the Palestinian conflict? By analysing coverage of the events surrounding this conflict on the BBC website, and bearing this brief background of the company in mind, conclusions can be made as to whether or not the BBC is impartial in its reporting.
Cable News Network (CNN)
"Experience the world from a global perspective"
The Cable News Network is run out of Atlanta, Georgia in America’s South. It is the brainchild of philanthropist Ted Turner whose dream it was to create a 24-hour news network. CNN first went to air on June 1st 1980 and since then it has become one of the most watched networks for news worldwide. Ted Turner still owns CNN today, so unlike the public news provider BBC, CNN is privately owned. This has an inevitable affect on all areas of its operation, including the perspective from which the news is reported.
"With live news, the conquerors of mind and heart have weapon more powerful than either the sword or the pen…" Just as the BBC before it, CNN attempted to make use of a new broadcasting medium. Instead of radio, this time it was cable television and, furthermore, Turner wanted to revolutionise news broadcast by making it a 24 hour news channel. Coverage of the Palestine - Israel conflict is as frequent as BBC’s but is different in many ways. While the BBC tries to be neutral, the fact that the American government is pro-Israeli cannot be ignored. Instead it must be considered with a close reading of CNN’s coverage. Editorial control is in the hands of the networks editorial staff and the network is not controlled by the government but just running from America itself means that any coverage is inevitably biased that way. This is something that will be further explored later.
News reports on the Palestinian - Israeli conflict will be analysed from the CNN website, CNN.com. It is among the world's leaders in online news and information delivery. CNN.com is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week by staff in CNN's world headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and in bureaus worldwide. It relies heavily on CNN's global team of almost 4,000 news professionals. CNN.com features the latest multimedia technologies, from live video streaming to audio packages to searchable archives of news features and background information. The site is updated continuously throughout the day.
The Palestinian – Israeli conflict
Centuries of War with a new Road Map to Peace
The conflict and warring between the Palestinians and the Israelis stems back as long ago as 1000 BC. The contentious area of land that the two sides fight over is East Jerusalem, including the historic Old City center. Both Palestinians and Israelis lay claim to Jerusalem as their capital. They also battle over Gaza and the West Bank, where Jewish settlers have staked claims in the midst of territory designated for Palestinians.
Other hot spots include the border between Israel and Lebanon, where Hezbollah guerrillas have clashed with Israeli troops, and the Golan Heights which is a strategic plateau in southwest Syria that Israel captured in 1967.
In 1948 Israel gained control of western portions of Jerusalem, perhaps the most historically important region in contention for both sides. The Israelis following the 1949 armistice retained control over the New City. This was the case until 1967, when the country took control over the rest of the city during the Six-Day War.
Israel considers Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible" capital. It has religious importance for Israel and much of the ongoing conflict surrounds the ownership of this important city. Palestinians say eastern Jerusalem is the capital of their future state. Eastern Jerusalem includes the walled Old City, with its Armenian, Christian, Jewish and Muslim quarters; the Dome of the Rock; and Western Wall.
Following the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 war, the United Nations (U.N) Security Council passed Resolutions 242 and 338 calling for Israel to withdraw from territories it had seized in the fighting. These included the West Bank and Gaza. The resolutions called for the Arabs to subsequently recognize Israel's right to exist. The resolutions were eventually agreed to by Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
However, following these wars, thousands of Jewish settlers staked claims in Gaza and the West Bank. The settlers, guarded by the Israeli military, continued to establish homes in scattered areas of Gaza and the West Bank even after 1988.
Despite the fact that the Palestinians are demanding the closure of all the Jewish settlements or a transfer to Palestinian control, Israel seeks the absorption of major settlements near its borders, thus expanding its territory. Israel also seeks to maintain a permanent security buffer in the West Bank along the Jordan River.
Currently fighting continues between the Palestinians and the Israelis as outside and internal parties seek some kind of resolution for the region. A plan has been devised by the Mid East "quartet" (European Union, the U.N, Russia and the United States) coined "the roadmap to peace". Presented to the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government on April 30 2003. Recent reports on both BBC and CNN have surrounded this roadmap so they will form the basis of those analyse.
The Palestinian authority backed the plan "in total without reservation" and the Israeli cabinet also eventually voted to accept the proposal too. The three phases of the road map incorporate decades of peace recommendations, setting target dates for the following:
- An end to "violence and terrorism"
- A "final and comprehensive settlement" of the conflict by 2005
- An independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel
Key figures in implementing this road map will be Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abas, American President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Palestinian authority leader Yassar Arafat has been deliberately excluded because of his failure in the past to control militants in the region.
Comparing the BBC’s and CNN’s recent coverage of the Palestinian – Israeli conflict
Despite each of these networks claiming total impartiality in their reporting, the fact remains that news is never reported impartially. As Walter Lippman states "news and truth are not the same thing … and must be clearly distinguished." He says that the function of news is to signalise an event while the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts. Through an analysis of CNN and BBC coverage of the recent events surrounding Palestine and Israel (with reference to Al-Jazeera) it becomes obvious that different news providers signalise these same events in very different ways. For CNN, commercial reasons are most likely to blame. With the BBC, the fact that they are a public broadcaster cannot over ride the fact that they are a British (read Western) broadcaster and see the Middle East as the "other," leaning always to a western reading of what goes on in the Mideast. Unlike Al-Jazeera that works from the region, their compassion and understanding lies therein.
The most significant recent development in the conflict has been the presentation of the "roadmap to peace" that both Palestine and Israel has accepted to some degree. This section will compare the reports of this development and the violence that has followed in recent weeks.
In both the BBC and CNN coverage there is almost always some reference to George W. Bush. Often he is the headline of the article. His involvement, opinion or influence to the event is always included. Furthermore, CNN conveys the Israeli perspective more favourably than the Palestinian perspective. Despite no government control over CNN, from a commercial perspective, to push this view is more beneficial for CNN considering the massive Jewish population in America.
Articles 1 & 2
Palestinian Gaza bombings (10/06/03)
An example of both these points can be found in a recent CNN report on Israeli strikes on the Gaza strip. The article titled "Hamas, Israeli officials vow to keep fighting" begins with, "A Hamas official targeted by an Israeli helicopter gunship Tuesday vowed that his militant Palestinian group would continue to launch attacks on Israelis." Subsequently, despite the attacks being on the Palestinians, CNN has put a spin on this article that sheds the Palestinian groups in a bad light. They are the ones being attacked. This "militant" will attack in the future.
All throughout the article, the Israeli attacks are conveyed as retaliatory rather than aggressive. Israeli President Sharon is quoted "we will continue to fight against the heads of the extreme terror organisations, the ones that initiate fund and send out terrorists in order to murder Jews … We will continue to act against all the enemies of peace." He is professing peace and retaliation throughout the article while the Palestinian perspective is almost thuggishly portrayed. "We will not drop our weapons, even if all leaders are assassinated," Hamas spokesman Abdel Aziz Rantisi is quoted.
Furthermore, an entire sub-headed section is dedicated to the Israeli perspective. Sub-headed "Israel: Action necessary for defense" it refers to the Hamas organisation as "a terrorist one" by the US State Department, and discusses why such attacks continue to be necessary, with reference to the roadmap for peace. "The Hamas leadership has made a strategic decision to undermine the road map and ruin any chance of dialogue which may lead to a cease-fire and political negotiations," according to an Israeli Defense Force (IDF) statement quoted in the article. Not only is the roadmap mentioned, something that is fervently backed by the US but, the idea that Palestinian groups are attempting to undermine it is implied. In other words, the Palestinians are conveyed as not wanting peace while the Israelis, despite causing the violence in this case, are seen as trying to defend that peace.
George W. Bush has a separate sub-heading also. He states "all parties must behave responsibly." Both Palestinians and Israelis are criticised. Regardless of this, reference to the president helps American’s identify with the article. They always want to know how their president is involved. The president’s comments are also in reference to the roadmap for peace. "I am determined to keep the process on the road to peace. And I believe with responsible leadership by all parties, we can bring peace to the region." He is portrayed as a mediator, an ambivalent leader on the road to peace. The CNN does this deliberately because it’s users in America will like this and it’s global users all over the world will be influenced this way.
Alternatively, the BBC article on the same subject titled "Bush upbeat on Mid-East peace plan" leads with Bushes reaction to the attacks. He is "troubled" by he strike in Gaza City. Details of the attack are given, including the number of Palestinians who were killed. Nothing to compare to the entire sub-headed section in the CNN article in defense of the Israeli attack can be found. Instead a sub-heading "Vow for revenge" gives the perspective of Mr Rantissi, a Hamas founder injured during the attacks and therefore, if anything, puts more of a Palestinian spin on the event. This article, on the whole despite it’s focus on President Bush as mediator (again) is more impartial than the CNN one.
Articles 3 & 4
Launch of Road map to Peace (30/04/03)
Both BBC and CNN reported the launch of the roadmap to peace. By Britain not being directly involved (only as part of the UN) in the proposal, the British network’s coverage is quite impartial. The article "New Mid-East peace plan launched" outlines in brief what the plan involves. The fact that the appointment of the Palestinian Prime Minister was a key step towards its launch is mentioned. It is described as "a phase-by-phase route to ending conflict, and could lead to full Palestinian statehood as early as 2005." The fact that "officials on both sides have reacted guardedly to the plan" is reported, keeping it impartial. A brief opinion from each side is quoted.
A Palestinian suicide bombing in Tel Aviv is reported on in the article, suggesting a "complete failure" to get to grips with the security situation. This is leaning toward the Israeli side. Notably, since it is a British based article, the opinion of British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also mentioned in regard to the roadmap. This helps British users identify with what is said in the article portraying him as an impartial mediator in the process to any global users. The statement goes as follows. "UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said he did not underestimate the commitment that would be required to achieve peace, but he said the prize was enormous."
As expected, the mirroring article on the CNN website is written from a US standpoint. And, to a degree, from an Israeli one too. The article titled "Changes sought to Mideast road map" leads with the way the Israelis reacted to the road map. Firstly it states that the Israelis have called for at least 15 changes to the road map and have said it should not be implemented until terror attacks on Israelis end. It goes on to quote Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Sofer as saying "it is crucial that we do not… talk peace by day and have Israelis blown up by night." The Israeli viewpoint is again portrayed as one of defenselessness and peace loving.
The Palestinian reaction is mentioned. They accept the plan. President Bushes’ dealings with the new Palestinian leadership are referred to. Again, Bush is painted as an impartial mediator. The article states "the White House is looking forward to working with a new Palestinian leadership, untainted by terror…it is personally committed to achieving peace, whatever it takes."
Articles 5 & 6
Palestinian suicide bombing (24/04/03)
The reporting of another suicide bombing in Israel on April 24 offers a final basis for analysis.
The BBC headline was "Bomber targets Israeli town" while the CNN headline was "Suicide bombing rocks new Mideast peace hopes" . Already, two separate approaches can be derived. In this case, the BBC focuses on the terrorism and the Israelis are portrayed as victims. This complies with the CNN approach to a degree. It does not show the other side, the Palestinian side. The Israeli "guards were praised" for their heroic efforts following the attack. There is a little reference to the affect this has on the peace of the region, following the recent peace summit and road map initiatives. Militant Palestinian groups are blamed throughout for the attack.
Alternatively, in the CNN article the affect the bombing has on peace plans is central. This is the American’s main priority considering the involvement President Bush has as mediator behind the road map plans that were soon to be announced. The bombing is described as one of many around the same time that were challenging peace plans. These were all attacks from Palestinian militants, not Israeli authorities. The "crack down on militants" is also a focus, villainising Palestinian aggressors.
No news is impartial
As suggested earlier, neither network will be totally impartial. News events cannot be portrayed that way, one angle or another is always spun to please viewers/ readers/ users, governments and other influences on the survival of the network. The background of the networks gives some idea of just who they are obligated to and what exactly makes them tick.
Overall, the coverage from CNN always has reference to President Bush. He is always shed in an ambivalent light. This is what the viewers/ readers/ users of CNN want. Also, the Israeli perspective is always conveyed and rarely in a bad light. This is also a result of commercial concerns for the network.
On the other hand, the BBC as a public broadcaster is more impartial but still presents a western perspective. Britains role in the conflict is minor compared to America’s. Britain is part of the UN while America is part of the UN and an entire quarter of the "Quartet" involved in the proposal of the road map. The British government is not pro-Israeli as America’s seems to be either. Nevertheless, certain angles on some of the articles analysed prove that the BBC conveys a perspective that will please its viewers/ users/ readers and the government under which it functions.
As Gaye Tuchman states, "News is a window on the world" . That is all it is. What is seen through that window is different in every case. Angles and perspectives of conveyance and understanding are always different and as long as networks like CNN and the BBC rely on outside factors for survival, these factors will go some way in dictating exactly what is framed an how that window frames the news.
References
Internet
Articles, statistics and interactive information found on these websites
www.bbc.co.uk
www.cnn.com
www.guardian.co.uk
www.gulf-news.com
www.msnbc.com
www.pcbs.org
www.rferl.org
www.theage.com.au
www.usatoday.com
www.wsws.org
www.washingtonpost.com
Video
Foreign Correspondent story on Al-Jazeera from April 2003
Books
Brooks Johnston, C., Winning the Global TV News Game, Focal Press, Boston, U.S, 1995.
Cohen, E. D., (ed) Philosophical Issues in Journalism, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1992.
El-Nawawy, M and Ikandar, A., Al-Jazeera: How the Free Arab News Network Scooped the World ad Changed the Middle East, Westview Press, Cambridge, 2002.
Stevenson, W., All Our Futures, British Film Institute, London, 1993.
Tuchman, G., Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality, The Free Press, Glewcoe, New York, 1989.
Whittemore, H., CNN: The Inside Story, Little Brown and Company, Canada, 1990.
Wood, J., The History of International Broadcasting, Peter Peregrinus Ltd., London, UK, 1992.
Wood, J., The History of International Broadcasting, Volume 2, Peter Peregrinus Ltd., London, UK, 2000.

Author contact: lauraluvara@hotmail.com