|
The study used five categories to evaluate the news outlets:
|
Authority: Was the coverage first-hand & from the battlefield?
|
Depth: How comprehensive, complex & diverse was the coverage?
|
Source Balance: How balanced was the use of sources?
|
Frame Balance: Was one side given more focus than the other?
|
| Empathy: How personal & compassionate was the coverage of victims? |
|
|
Excellent |
|
Very Good |
|
Average |
|
Poor |
|
Not Acceptable |
|
|
| COVERAGE OVER TIME |
| |
| Key Dates |
| Analysis of time sequences revealed that the press coverage of the war started generally in favor of Israel and highly negative towards Hezbollah, but ended with almost the reverse. Five key events seemed to have impacted the news reporting--with varied intensity--and represented turning points in the coverage of the war. |
| |
 |
Chart 4.1 Changes in meta-frames over time (% of articles per day). |
| |
The five events are labeled Qana, Kfar Giladi, Resolution 1701, Bunker Busters, and UN Peace Keepers, for the sake of simplicity. Those events are summarized as follows, in order of importance:
Qana (A): The most pivotal point in the war was July 30, 2006. That was the day an Israeli air strike killed 27 civilians, among them 16 children, in the village of Qana. Immediately following the event, various media reported the number of killed as far higher–between 56 and 60. It was only on August 2 that Human Rights Watch confirmed a lower number and the press consistently reported the number of deaths as 28.
The Qana "massacre," as media on the Lebanese side dubbed it, was the most important event in bringing press attention to the victims of the war. Inside Lebanon, outrage over the attack silenced any internal opposition against Hezbollah and unified the country behind the party. For those living in the region, the name of the village resonated powerfully. Qana had witnessed an even more horrifying event in 1996 when an Israeli air strike on the UN compound in the village where people took refuge killed 106 civilians and wounded 116. Pictures of killed and maimed women, children and babies were widely published and broadcast generating storms of fury against Israel. The same happened in 2006. Israel, which had hoped to turn Lebanese public opinion against Hezbollah, achieved the opposite with its second bombing of Qana.
Kfar Giladi (B): The second date that registered on the timeline was August 6. There were several events that took place during that day (and the day before), the most important among them was the killing of 12 Israeli soldiers in a Hezbollah rocket attack on Kfar Giladi, an Israeli town near the Lebanese border. The same day, three Israeli civilians were killed and dozens wounded in and near the Israeli city of Haifa. It was the "bloodiest day" Israel had witnessed since the beginning of the war, according to some sources.
In addition, just a day earlier, on August 5, Hezbollah fired the largest number of rockets at Israel (220 rockets) and reached the deepest region since the beginning of the war (Hadera, 25 miles north of Tel Aviv). The press reported that Hezbollah's continued ability to fire hundreds of rockets and its successful attack on Kfar Giladi undermined Israeli claims that Hezbollah's military arsenal had been largely destroyed.
Israel too was active militarily on those dates. In Lebanon, Israel's air strikes on August 5 were described as the "heaviest bombardment yet," by the Daily Star. At least a dozen civilians and a handful of Lebanese soldiers (not engaged in combat) were killed, and the southern suburb of Beirut was decimated after continuous bombing for three nights. All in all, August 5-6 witnessed some of the most violent attacks and highest death tolls of the war for both sides.
Resolution 1701 (C): The third critical date on the timeline was August 12, the day the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1701, which called for an immediate cease fire. Although both Israel and Hezbollah hinted that they would abide by the cease fire, actual military operations went on for another two days. On August 13, Israeli forces actually expanded their ground offensive and made their deepest push into Lebanon, reaching the Litani River at some points. Hezbollah too continued firing rockets into Israel and engaged in ground clashes with Israeli soldiers. Israel lost some two dozen soldiers on August 13–the heaviest single-day loss throughout the war.
Bunker Busters (D): July 20 also showed a slight spike on the timeline. The significant event that day was the large exodus of Lebanese civilians from the south, which was preceded by a heavy Israeli bombardment campaign that killed 58 Lebanese civilians on July 19. That day, according to CBC, "Israeli warplanes drop[ped] 23 one-tonne bombs," commonly known as "bunker busters." Hezbollah continued its rocket firing into Israel, but its rocket count for the day (40 rockets) was the lowest since the beginning of the war, a week previously. The media started predicting the outcome of the war around that time, speculating that Hezbollah was about to lose its fire-power and Lebanese public support.
UN Peace Keepers (E): July 26 also showed a minor spike in media attention. That was the day following the Israeli air strike on a UN compound that killed four peacekeepers. Israel was widely criticized for that attack, which forced Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to issue a public apology.
How did these five events impact the coverage?
Although every aspect of the news coverage showed some change on those five dates, only six aspects were analyzed below. Those were the ones that showed the most significant change and/or presented an overall change in trend.
|
| |
| Meta-Frames Over Time: |
| Chart 4.1 above shows how the meta-frame focus changed over the war period. To be sure, Israel-centered meta-frames were higher than Lebanon-centered meta-frames throughout most of the war, with the exceptions of some occasional spikes consistent with the dates mentioned above. The red circles highlight those dates. The first week of the war started with Israeli-centered meta-frames dominating. Then, the first change occurred around July 20-21 (D) with a spike in Lebanon-centered frames. A similar but smaller spike followed on July 26 (E), and then two larger spikes around July 20 (A) and August 6 (B). August 12 (C), on the other hand, witnessed a large spike in Israeli centered meta-frames. Since meta-frames designate stories that are told from the point-of-view or perspective of certain countries or sides, the researchers concluded that most events mentioned above helped to shift coverage in Lebanon's (including Hezbollah's) favor. The Qana bombing (A), the Kfar Giladi attack (B) and the Bunker Buster day (D) had the most impact on the coverage that shifted in Lebanon's and Hezbollah's favor. The passing of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (C) saw a counter-shift, a rise in Israel's favor. This also can be seen in chart 4.2 below. |
| |
 |
Chart 4.2 Changes in focus of the headline/lead over time (% of articles per day). |
| |
| Focus of the Headline/Lead Over Time: |
Chart 4.2 (above) reveals how the focus of the headlines and leads of the articles shifted between July 12 and August 15. Headlines and leads focusing on Israel dominated most of the war period with exceptions parallel to the ones in chart 4.1. More pronounced here, however, was the dip for Israel on July 30 (A). The Qana event shifted the majority of focus to Lebanon for almost four days, ending around August 2nd. A slighter dip for Israel occurred on August 6 (B), but more interestingly, Lebanon had the largest spike that day, the day of the Kfar Giladi attack. The same spike for Israel also occurred on the day resolution 1701 was passed (C). This chart clarifies the findings above–that four of the five main events shifted the coverage in Lebanon's and Hezbollah's favor, with the UN resolution event reverting it back in Israel's favor.
But both charts 4.1 and 4.2 reveal the focus of the coverage only. The change in tone was captured in chart 4.3 below. |
| |
 |
Chart 4.3 Changes in tone of coverage over time (% of articles per day). |
| Tone of Coverage Over Time: |
| |
| As mentioned in the Overall Coverage section, Hezbollah rarely received any sympathetic coverage, while Israel's sympathetic coverage fluctuated throughout the war–but never dipped below Hezbollah's. Chart 4.3 above, however, shows that the critical coverage of both sides varied widely. While the chart demonstrates that Hezbollah received the bulk of the critical coverage at the beginning of the war, there were points in the middle when Israel's critical coverage peaked briefly above Hezbollah's, only to end the war with both almost at the same level. The four events that shifted the coverage in favor of Lebanon and Hezbollah, worked against Israel. Only the UN resolution event (C) brought the critical coverage of Israel significantly down, but it also did that for Hezbollah. Another interesting revelation made clear in this graph is that the critical tone of coverage was negatively correlated between Israel and Hezbollah–with the exception of event (C). In other words, when critical coverage for Israel increased, it decreased for Hezbollah and vice versa. This negative correlation is also apparent in chart 4.4 below which tracks who was portrayed as the victim. |
| |
 |
Chart 4.4 Changes in portrayal as victim over time (% of articles per day). |
| |
| Israel Portrayed as Victim—Over Time: |
Chart 4.4 confirms what was stated in the Overall Coverage section–that Israel was frequently portrayed as the victim of the war, while Hezbollah was portrayed as the aggressor. In only one occasion was that portrayal reversed briefly: the Qana attack (A).
In the coverage of two other events Israel's 'victim' status dipped, but Hezbollah's didn't increase to a point high enough to exceed Israel. One of those events was the Kfar Giladi attack (B). Interestingly, Israel's image as a victim dipped to its lowest point there, although it was one of the bloodiest days of the war for Israel. Coverage of the civilian losses on the Lebanese side and the heavy Israeli bombardment of Lebanon must have overshadowed the effect of the coverage of Hezbollah's attack on Kfar Giladi. More negative media coverage of Israel might also reflect the fact that military casualties don't always provoke as much sympathy in coverage as do civilian casualties. The second event, the Bunker Busters day (D) showed the largest spike for Hezbollah, but Israel's dip wasn't far enough to go under Hezbollah's.
The most important finding of chart 4.4 is that the Qana attack was the only event to bring Hezbollah's victim status in the media high enough, and Israel's low enough, to reverse the dominant trend. The significance of the Qana attack is further confirmed in charts 4.5 and 4.6 below. |
| |
 |
Chart 4.5 Changes in characterization of leaders over time (% of articles per day). |
| |
| Negative Characterization of Leaders–Over Time: |
| Chart 4.5 shows how articles characterizing Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah in a negative manner were higher throughout the war, except during the period between the Qana attack (A) and the Kfar Giladi attack (B). Press coverage of the Qana event balanced out the negative coverage of the top leaders on each side, while the Kfar Giladi attack drastically flipped the trend on its head, albeit very briefly. This may be due to the increase in internal voices criticizing the handling of the war by the Israeli leadership, especially by the Israeli media and public. The final chart below shows that "flip" in trend. |
| |
 |
Chart 4.6 Who won the war? (% of articles per day) |
| |
| Winning/Losing the War Over Time: |
| Although only a small number of articles discussed who was winning or losing the war–and those articles only started appearing after July 17–chart 4.6 shows how Israel was more often portrayed as the winner before July 30. The Qana attack was a devastating change in fortune for Israel–as far as the media coverage goes. The period around the Kfar Giladi attack stabilized the reverse in trend, and Israel had no chance of winning the media war after that. |
| |
| The timelines above reveal strong evidence that five events during the war drastically impacted the coverage of the fighting sides. Qana was the one event that briefly turned the media against Israel and in favor of Hezbollah. Hezbollah and Lebanon didn't hesitate to take full advantage of the event in the media–in some cases intentionally, in others perhaps not. Even Israel's main supporter, the United States, was harmed by the event when public outrage prompted some Lebanese leaders, considered pro-American, to stand behind Hezbollah and cancel a visit planned by Condoleezza Rice to Beirut. Despite Hezbollah's killing of 12 Israeli reservists following Israel's attack on Qana, coverage of Hezbollah remained favorable. Israel's continued bombing of Lebanon and the coverage of those attacks played a role in the relatively positive coverage of Hezbollah. |
|
|
| |
|
Hezbollah won. 
