Nine. Critical reading of media coverage of the war on Gaza…

Neutralising the impact of war?: a closer look at language used in media reporting about the war in Gaza. Who does what, how, when and where?

Assoc Prof. Jennifer Alford, Griffith Institute of Education Research.

There are growing calls for the media to take greater responsibility for the way it reports on global events constructing versions of reality, especially about matters of great significance affecting widespread diaspora, such as the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza1. In this article, I analyse the language used in a media article about the war in Gaza. The article in question comes from The Saturday Paper Dec 9-15, p. 12. World section. Headline: Israel pushes into southern Gaza after ceasefire collapses. Journalist: Jonathan Pearlman (World section editor).

While I do NOT, in any way, support the ideology and actions of Hamas, and recognise the role Hamas has played in the death of tens of thousands of Palestinians by using them as human shields in this particular war, the language of media reporting on the conflict largely fails to represent the colossal damage being inflicted on Palestinian people by Israel. 

A functional view of language gives us relatively easy tools to examine how language in the media represents people, things, ideas. It reminds us to question how our principal means of communication - words and pictures - conjure up a world for us to digest and respond to. These tools include:

i. the use of grammatical voice - active or passive. Active voice is where the subject or doer/agent of the action is clear - e.g., Jennifer wrote an article for The Fin Review. Passive voice can obscure the subject or the doer of the action - An article was written for The Fin Review (the doer is not clear).

ii. the use of softeners or ‘diluted’ adjectives that minimise the full impact of an action being reported on and thus how it is experienced by the reader;

iii. the placement of certain information within an overall text or piece of writing.

iv. invoking authorial voices to defend this or that position.

In the media article in question, there are three main actors or participants: Israel, Hamas and Palestinian civilians. Each one is described using different language, as follows:

First, Israel:

·      pushes into southern Gaza;

·      expanded its ground invasion this week;

·      began pressing into the densely populated southern section of Gaza;

·      ordered evacuations from the north;

·      believes Hamas leadership are hiding in tunnels;

·      said Hamas had failed to deliver a list naming women to be released;

·      launched its offensive in southern Gaza this week;

·      was committed to dismantling Hamas but would consider constructive feedback on how to minimise casualties;

·      says a ceasefire would enable Hamas to remain in power;

·      declared war on October 7 after Hamas launched attacks on southern Israel that killed 1200 people, mostly civilians;

·      had killed 16,248 people in Gaza, including 11,000 children and women;

·      says 5000 of those were Hamas militants;

·      launched a strike last week near Damascus in Syria;

·      came across a 40-page Hamas battle plan that outlined a blueprint for overwhelming Israeli defences along the border and then allowing gunmen to pour into southern Israel in paragliders, on motorcycles and on foot;

·      dismissed the plan as imaginative;

·      believed Hamas lacked the capability to achieve it.

·      said it seized phones, laptops, notebooks from Hamas militants.

The majority of the article is about Israel and its actions, portrayed in neutral, even positive terms to position Israel’s actions, e.g., dismantling Hamas, pushes into, expanded, pressing into…even launched its offensive belies the catastrophic damage inflicted on civilians, esp. the 11,000 + women and children.

Let’s take one statement to analyse in depth. “Israel declared war on October 7 after Hamas launched attacks on southern Israel that killed 1200 people, mostly civilians” - This language is more definitive about Israel’s role in the conflict but it appears in paragraph 14,

obscured in the middle of the article, as a brief explainer of how the war began.

The sentence gives the actor (Israel) followed by the action (declared war) then a time frame (on Oct 7) and more information that instigated the declaration of war by Israel (after Hamas launched attacks on southern Israel that killed 1200 people, mostly (Israeli) civilians). The relative clause ending the sentence (that killed 1200 people, mostly civilians) wields considerable clout justifying the declaration of war.

Regarding the statement “Israel’s offensive had killed 16, 248 people in Gaza”, the article does not say “Israel’s Government” but an offensive that sits at a distance from those in charge and takes on a life of its own. Also, the use of the passive voice past tense “had killed” masks the immediate and ongoing death toll, although the statement does go on to give actual civilian numbers that are truly chilling. But again, they are hidden in a short paragraph in the middle of the article that can be easily missed by readers.

Second, Hamas:

·      said it had released all the women it held;

·      has released 110 hostages but about 130 are still being held by Hamas;

·      said “There will be no prisoner exchange until the aggression ends”;

·      (is) deeply embedded in urban areas;

·      had guides to hostage taking and Arabic-Hebrew phrasebooks and (had) detailed maps of central Israel.

Little is written here about Hamas, other than some fairly well-established facts and some conjecture about its plans to launch the attack on Israel before Oct 7. Again, it is fairly neutral language. This could be an attempt to paint each side in the same impartial way; and possibly indicates a coordinated decision by the media in reporting about Hamas to minimises the airtime given to this militant organisation.

Third, Palestinians:

displaced;

flee the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict;

had fled to the south of the enclave;

had no safe place to go;

have crammed into Gaza’s south after Israel ordered evacuations from the north.

 This group is referred to as residents and refugees not Gazans or Palestinians, their preferred identity. The term displaced is mild as opposed to evacuated, forcibly moved, etc.  Here, passive voice obscures the agent that is causing them to flee, although the ‘cramming’ in the south is attributed to Israel’s directive to evacuate the north.

Other voices are invoked throughout the article, and each can be linked to whom they defend. Bold equals defending Gaza’s civilians; Not bold equals defending Israel’s interests.

·      Lyn Hastings UN coordinator for Palestinian territories warning of public health disaster.

·      US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin warning of failure to protect civilians in Gaza would boost support for Hamas by Palestinians.

·      UN Sec-General Antonia Guterres invoking article 99 to push Security Council to declare ceasefire to end the “humanitarian catastrophe”.

·      The White House suggesting handing control to a revitalised Palestinian Authority (PA) for Gaza.

·      Safwan Jamal, 28 yr old Palestininan in Gaza, on having the right to choose who governs them. Criticises both Hamas and PA as unfit to govern.

·      Israeli Gov’t spokesperson Eylon Levy on commitment to dismantling Hamas while minimising casualties.

·      Israel’s UN ambassador Gilad Erdan says ceasefire would enable Hamas to remain in power.

·      Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu opposing White House idea accusing PA of terrorism.

·      The New York Times and The Washington Post are cited as authorial voices which is common practice in media reporting.

Even The Saturday Paper, which claims to be high quality, independent, investigative journalism, falls prey to the usual suspects in language use in media reportage. Language matters, and it is in everyone’s interest to understand how language works to position people and events in certain ways.