Historiography and the Media, Research Paper Example

Historiography: How the Media Shapes Perceptions of Important Events

The expression “History is written by the victors” is often attributed to former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.  The phrase is intended to demonstrate that how history is remembered is largely determined by the individual or group telling the story, and how those with the most power or the strongest platform can shape how events are perceived and remembered. In an interesting and somewhat ironic twist, historians can find little evidence that Churchill ever made such a pronouncement, despite the many secondhand accounts that attribute this well-known quote to him. The discrepancy between the perception that Churchill uttered this phrase and the lack of historical evidence to support this perception demonstrates quite clearly that “history” is not simply a set of indisputable facts available to all, but is instead a collection of stories that are filtered through the perspectives of those who tell them and the perceptions of those who hear them.  With this understanding in mind, it is helpful to examine how contemporary media present the facts and information related to notable events, and how the perspectives, biases, and motives of newspaper editors and other media figures shape how stories are told and how they are remembered.

While virtually any newsworthy event can be examined with a critical eye in order to look for biases and agendas on the part of the media outlets covering the story, it is a particularly interesting and enlightening exercise to do so with a story that has political overtones. To demonstrate this, it is only necessary to examine the way media outlets in the United States and around the world presented stories about the attack on a Jerusalem synagogue that took place on November 18, 2014. The basic facts are not in dispute: two men entered the KehilatBriel Torah synagogue wielding weapons that included knives, axes, and a gun. The attackers killed four congregants in the synagogue and wounded a police officer who responded to the scene; the officer later died at the hospital. Seven other congregants were injured, and the attackers were shot dead by police, bringing the attack to an end. An examination of media reports about this massacre all contain the same basic information about the attack, yet each media outlet puts its own spin on the story, often emphasizing different details in ways that reveal the biases and editorial points of view of reporters and editors.

Even before reading the text of each story it is possible to glean insight into how the story will be shaped. On its website the Times of Israel ran the headline “Four Jews at Prayer, Druze Policeman, killed in synagogue terror attack.” Included in the sub-headline is the assertion that “PM says Israel to ‘settle score’ with killers.” In the opening paragraph of the story it is explained that “five people were killed early Tuesday morning when two Palestinian assailants entered a synagogue…armed with guns and knives. The two terrorists, from East Jerusalem, were killed.” The story goes on to mention that the attack was denounced by world leaders, among the Palestinian Authority President, who has been “blamed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for inciting terrorism against Israel.” As can be seen by the information presented in the headline and the opening paragraph, the story is first framed in the context of religion, and immediately thereafter contextualized in terms of the ongoing strife between Israelis and Palestinians.

In contrast to the Israeli newspaper’s report, the Washington Times in the United States emphasized the political angle ahead of the undercurrent of religious conflict. In fact the headline for the news story dated November 19, the day after the attack, reads “Israeli-Palestinian tension at highest point since summer war.” This was, of course, not the paper’s first story on the attack; like other news outlets around the world the Washington Times covered the story beginning almost immediately after it happened. It is interesting to note, however, that in its follow-up story the day after the attack, in which it basically recounted the same details that were already known, the newspaper used those details as a framing device for a larger discussion about “Israeli-Palestinian tension.” In this story the Israeli PM was quoted as saying that Israel would respond with a “heavy hand” to the attack, and he was described as “bristling with rage” over what had transpired. Netanyahu had, according to the report, ordered “security operatives to fan out across Jerusalem and demolish the homes of the two Palestinian cousins who were shot dead.” This report by the Times clearly contextualizes the attack in the broader issue of the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and highlights the fact that Israel intends to reciprocate the violence perpetrated in the synagogue with retaliatory violence. Interestingly, the Washington Times reports that “the Palestinian terror group Hamas…praised the incident” while the Times of Israel described Hamas as “the Islamist Hamas movement.” This may demonstrate how media outlets in different cultures and regions ascribe terminology that emphasizes different aspects of the same organization.

The international Russian news outlet RT took yet another angle on the story, one which emphasized the international implications of the attack. Its headline on the RT website dated November 18 declared “3 US & 1 UK rabbis killed, 7 injured in attack at Jerusalem mosque.”  The story below the headline explains that three of the four worshippers killed in the attack were dual-nationality citizens of the U.S. and Israel. This fact was mentioned in most other stories about the incident, but as compared to the emphasis given this detail ion the RT story, it was practically an afterthought in the stories in the Washington Times and the Times of Israel. Much greater emphasis was given to the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in both the U.S. and Israeli papers, while the RT news service did not mention that conflict until many paragraphs into the story. After informing readers that three of the dead were U.S./Israeli citizens, the RT story described how Netanyahu passed an emergency order easing gun restrictions for Israelis, and practically encouraged Israelis to arm themselves. The RT story concluded with a passage about the “frustration” of “international leaders” over the ongoing conflict in the region and the lack of progress in easing tensions between Israel and Palestinians.

When contrasting and comparing the ways that this attack was reported by different media outlets, a number of subtle, yet distinct differences can be seen. Aljazeera, the Middle East-based international news outlet, reported that “an attack by two Palestinian men on a synagogue in West Jerusalem has claimed the lives of five Israelis and injured eight others.” It may be a minor distinction, but the Times of Israel begins with a mention of the “five people (who) were killed” while the Aljazeera report begins not with a mention of the victims but with a mention of the “two Palestinian men;” also, the Aljazeera story announces that the attack “claimed the lives of five Israelis,” which frames the attack in much more passive language than the U.S. version, which describes the “grisly attack that left five people dead” or the Israeli version that explains that the victims “were killed” by “two Palestinian assailants.” In the Aljazeera story it was the attack, and not the actual perpetrators, that “claimed the lives” of the victims. The facts are the same in each story, but the Aljazeera version very subtly redirects the blame with its passive language.

Where the Russian news outlet emphasizes the international scope of the attack, and the direct impact on and connection to the United States, many Canadian news outlets focused on the way the story hit home for them. One of the worshippers injured in the attack is a dual Canadian-Israeli citizen, a detail which is not mentioned in the initial reports from U.S., Israeli, or Russian news sources. In a story posted to the CBC website, which aggregates reports from several Canadian newspapers, the headline reads “Canadian-Israeli Citizen Howie Rothman Seriously Hurt in Deadly Attack on Jerusalem Synagogue.” As is the case in the other stories, the CBC report offers the same basic facts about what happened in the attack, but begins with coverage of the Canadian who was injured. The story also includes quotes about Rothman culled from friends and family members, who described him as a friendly and peaceful man. It is somewhat of an odd juxtaposition to read the Canadian version of the story immediately after reading the story presented by the Russian news agency. In the Russian version, the story emphasizes the international scope of the attack, and how it directly affected other nations. The Canadian version, by contrast, largely ignores the international scope of the story in favor of emphasizing the connection to Canada. The Russian report focuses on placing other countries in the story, while the Canadian version focuses on placing Canada in the story.

The British newspaper The Guardian took to its website to cover the story with live updates. This coverage began within hours of the attack, and has continued with a series of updates posted by Guardian reporters stationed in London and New York. By bringing these two reporters together, who are located in different parts of the world and in different time zones, the Guardian has been able to offer virtually non-stop updates of events as they have unfolded in the region. The Guardian synopsis begins with a series of bullet points that emphasize several of the same points covered by the Israeli and U.S. newspapers: “Four worshippers killed in terrorist attack on Jerusalem;” “Two suspects from PLFP shot dead by police;” “Netanyahu pledges ‘heavy handed’ response;” and “Hamas hailed the attack while Abbas condemned it.” In both the tone of its coverage and the actual text of its stories, the Guardian continued to mirror the coverage presented by the Times of Israel, as it describes that “two men armed with knives and a gun killed four rabbis during morning prayers.” Like the Times of Israel, the Guardian focuses first on the religious angle, and how the men attacked the rabbis during a religious service in a place of worship. By framing the story in this manner, both news outlets emphasize the deep divide between Israelis and Palestinians, and further highlight the atrocity of attacking innocent worshippers while they were engaged in prayer.

China’s online newspaper “China Daily” reported the story of the attack in straightforward terms. In its first story on the incident, posted shortly after the attack took place, the China Daily headline read “4 reported dead in terror attack at Jerusalem synagogue.” As can be seen by the reported death tool, China Daily posted this story before the fifth person, the wounded policeman, died from his injuries at the hospital. Perhaps because the China Daily report was published so quickly, the report uses somewhat non-committal language; it begins with the statement that “four people were reported killed in an apparent terrorist attack at a synagogue in the Har Nof neighborhood of Jerusalem Tuesday morning, Israeli media reported.” The China Daily story does not cite the specific media sources it relied on for its story, though it does quote an Israeli police spokesman as saying “we are viewing this as a terrorist attack.” It is difficult to say with any certainty whether or not this noncommittal language about an “apparent” terrorist attack and the number of people who were “reported” killed is an indication of the newspaper’s typical reporting style (as opposed to writing that “four people were killed in a terrorist attack,” which would have been more accurate). It may be that China Daily is not inclined to take a particular position on stories of this nature, but what is clear is that this attack was covered quickly and prominently by Chinese media.

It is not just newspapers and traditional media outlets that have written about this event. The United Nations News Service issued a story on its home website about the attack, a story which included several quotes from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. According to the report on the UN website, the Secretary-General “strongly condemned today’s attack on a synagogue in West Jerusalem that claimed four lives and injured several persons.”  While later news reports indicated that a fifth person died of his injuries in the hours after the attack, the mention of four dead in the UN story demonstrates that Ban Ki-moon issued his statement almost immediately after the attack. While it is perhaps not unusual for the UN to weigh in on terrorist attacks regardless of where they take place, it seems that an attack of this nature, which highlights Israeli-Palestinian tensions, is one that would virtually guarantee a swift and clear response from the UN.  The story goes on to note that Ban Ki-moon welcomed “the condemnation of today’s attack by Palestinian President Mamoud Abbas” while the Secretary-General “stressed that all sides must avoid using provocative rhetoric which only encourages extremist elements.”

The way that the story published by the UN frames the issue of the attack serves as evidence of just how differently the same event can be shaped and presented to readers depending on the source of the story. The UN report on the attack emphasizes that this event must be viewed in the larger context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and contains quotes from UN leadership that cautions people on both sides to avoid using language that could incite extremists. While the story does not directly address Netanyahu’s comments about a “heavy-handed” response to the attacks, it seems clear that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was referencing those comments with his own warning about the need for leaders to be careful about how they respond. This quote from Ban Ki-moon is notably absent from virtually every major news story posted in newspapers and on websites in traditional media outlets, even those such as Aljazeera’s report, which would presumably be the one platform most likely to place the Palestinian attackers and the attack itself in the best way possible considering the circumstances.

With that in mind, however, it does bear repeating that Aljazeera took a notably different approach to reporting the story than the approach taken by U.S. and Israeli media outlets. While the Israeli paper, for example, focused on the dead and injured victims in its very first words on the subject, Aljazeera focused on the attackers first and the victims second. Moreover, Aljazeera wrote that the “attack…has claimed the lives of five Israelis.” This subtle distinction in the choice of language has the effect of distancing, however slightly, the attackers from the victims. This is not the only example of how different outlets report the story differently, from the Russian news service that brings up the issue of dead Americans in its headline to the Canadian news outlet that focuses on the injured Canadian at least as much as it does the dead Israelis, each newspaper and media outlet brings its own perspective and point of view to the story. There is something to be learned from this, in that those who read these stories in their own regions will come away with the same basic facts, but with diverging information about the details of the attack and the meaning and interpretation ascribed to these details. The overarching lesson of this exercise is that each of these news outlets is writing the story of the attack in its own way, and it will be remembered differently as it passes into history.

Works Cited

Berman, Lazar, and AdivSterman. ‘Four Jews At Prayer, Druze Policeman, Killed In Jerusalem Synagogue Terror Attack’. The Times of Israel. N.p., 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Cbc.ca,. ‘Canadian-Israeli Howie Chaim Rothman Seriously Hurt In Deadly Attack On Jerusalem Synagogue’. N.p., 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Rt.com,. ‘3 US & 1 UK Rabbis Killed, 7 Injured In Attack At Jerusalem Synagogue’. N.p., 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Taylor, Guy, and Dave Boyer. ‘Israeli-Palestinian Tension At Highest Point Since Summer War’. The Washingtion Times. N.p., 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

UN News Service Section,. ‘UN News – UN Strongly Condemns Attack On Jerusalem Synagogue’. N.p., 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Usa.chinadaily.com.cn,. ‘4 Reported Dead In Terror Attack At Jerusalem Synagogue[1]|Chinadaily.Com.Cn’. N.p., 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Weaver, Matthew, and Alan Yuhas. ‘Jerusalem Synagogue Attack: Protests And Clashes Flare After Day Of Mourning – As It Happened’. the Guardian. N.p., 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Website Links:

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2014-11/18/content_18935959.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/18/4-israelis-killed-jerusalem-synagogue-attack/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem-terror-attack-leaves-four-dead/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/live/2014/nov/18/jerusalem-synagogue-attack-live-updates

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49366#.VG8UzDTF9r1

http://rt.com/news/206423-attack-synagogue-jerusalem-terrorist/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canadian-israeli-howie-chaim-rothman-seriously-hurt-in-deadly-attack-on-jerusalem-synagogue-1.2839646

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/11/jerusalem-synagogue-attacked-gunmen-201411185401123578.html