naomi garfinkel final thesis

Running head: FRAMING OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE PROCESS

Framing of the Israeli-Palestinian

Peace Process

A comparison between traditional news sources

and blogs

Naomi, R. A., Garfinkel

University of Amsterdam

Student number: 10198156

Thesis Political Communication

Date: 13th of January 2014

Teacher: Damian Trilling

Word count: 7.511

FRAMING OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE PROCESS 2

Abstract

This research sheds light on how the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations are framed online.

Due to the many methodological issues related to framing research, this study tests the new

framing research method as proposed by Mattes and Kohring (2008). To reflect the online

sphere, both blogs and traditional news sources were included in the sample. A content

analysis was done using articles from the American news site The New York Times and

American blog War in Context, The Israeli news site Ha’aretz and Israeli blog Diplomania,

and Arab news site Al Arabiya and Arab blog Intifada Palestine. A cluster analysis revealed a

positive, neutral and negative frame. This research found more negative framing than positive

framing, thus supporting the negativity bias. Furthermore, blogs use more negative framing

than positive or neutral framing. No difference was found for the country of origin and the

type of framing, except that the Israeli media has more positive framing than negative or

neutral framing.

Keywords: framing, blogs, cluster analysis, Israeli-Palestinian peace process


Introduction

“Framing is selecting some aspects of a perceived reality and make(ing) them more salient

in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal

interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation” (Entman, 1993, p. 52).

Framing is considered a powerful tool in persuading the public to believe certain aspects of

a story, which can ultimately impact public opinion (Mintz & Redd, 2003). For example,

when the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians failed in 2000, two very

different stories were told. The most salient story is that of Israel, in which Israel made a

generous offer which the Palestinians rejected as well as any diplomatic means to end the

ongoing conflict. But the Palestinian story is a different one, in which the offer could not be

accepted because it would not remove many of the remainders of the Israeli occupation

(Pressman, 2003).

The way the story is presented can be important for public and political support. Sheafer

and Dvir-Gvirsman (2010) showed that when the media reported negatively on the Israeli-

Palestinian peace process, the public’s response to the peace process also became more

negative. But it is not all bad news. Research has shown that positive and gain-oriented

reporting leads to more positive reactions from the public (Astorino-Courtois, 2000).

Knowing what the impact of the media reporting can have, it is important how the media

frames the Israeli-Palestinian peace process because it can impact true peace. Only when

international agreements are transformed into domestic realities that the public supports will

true peace come (Shinar, 2003).

Because of the importance of framing and its effect on the public’s opinion, it is a widely

researched topic. Within framing research, much attention is given to Israeli-Palestinian

conflict in times of war while little attention is given on how the peace negotiations are framed

(Maoz, Yaniv & Ivri, 2007; Noakes & Wilkins, 2002; Nossek, 2004; Papacharissi & Oliveira,

2008; Segev & Miesch, 2011; Slater, 2007; Viser, 2003). Also within framing research many

different methods of research are used (David, et al., 2011). Therefore this research will be

based on the new framing research method as proposed by Matthes and Kohring (2008). To

have a better understanding of how the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations are framed, the

following research question is proposed: How is the Israeli-Palestinian peace process framed

in the online media?

First, a brief historic background will be given as well as a theoretical background on


framing. This is followed by the method and analysis used for this research. Then, the results,

conclusion and discussion will be provided. By researching the framing of the peace process,

and using a new method, this study aims to contribute to current framing research.

Theoretical Background

Brief history of the peace talks

To understand the present, one must know the past. In order to understand the current peace

process, a brief historic background will be given on the relations between Israel and the

neighboring Arab countries. This shows how increasingly entrenched the conflict is.

The origin of the modern era Arab-Israeli conflict can traced to the following chain of events.

In 1917 the British Mandate for Palestine issued a document known as the “Balfour

Declaration” in which they accepted the notion of a Jewish homeland in (parts of) the biblical

historical land of Israel. By 1947 the Mandate was becoming untenable and the UN General

Assembly passed Resolution 181, known as the UN Partition Plan for Palestine. This proposed

a partitioning of the territory in order to separate the Jewish and Arab populations. However,

the Arab side did not accept this partition and attacked the Jewish population when they

declared independence and established the State of Israel. This ensuing war is known by the

Arab side as “The Catastrophe” and for Israelis as the “War of Independence”. In this war

the nascent Israeli army was able to defeat armies from the surrounding Arab countries and

also captured additional land that was originally meant to be an Arab state (Telhami, 1992).

In June 1967 war broke out between the State of Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria. This conflict

is known as the Six Day War because after six days a truce was declared. The Israel Defense

Forces captured from Jordan the so-called ‘West Bank’ of the river Jordan. Significant

Palestinian populations came under Israeli occupation (Telhami, 1992).

The Six Day War changed the atmosphere in the region and in November the United Nations

Security Council passed Resolution 242. This Resolution proposed a peaceful solution to the

conflict and ending the border problems between Israel and the Arab nations. However, real

agreement was never reached between the parties. In 1973 Egypt and Syria launched a surprise

attack on Israel known as the Yom Kippur War.

In 1978 the delegations from the United States, Israel and Egypt met in the seclusion of Camp

David, away from reporters and television cameras (Telhami, 1992).


In 2000 new peace negotiations took place again in Camp David between the Israelis and

Palestinians which continued till 2001. This is known as the Taba Summit. After this attempt

failed again, the Beirut Summit was held in 2002. However, Israel was not prepared to enter

negotiations as called for by the Arab League which entailed full withdrawal to the 1967

borders and recognizing the right of return for Palestinian refugees (Eran, 2002).

In 2007 and 2009 intensive peace talks were held again, but in the end the P alestinians rejected

Israel’s plan because the state envisioned in it would have lacked both territorial continuity and

Jerusalem as its capital (Quandt, 2010). On July 29 2013 direct negotiations have started again

with the involvement of United States Secretary of State John Kerry.

Framing research This research aims to shed light on the framing of the peace process between Israel and the

Palestinians by employing a cluster analysis, a new research method proposed by Matthes and

Kohring (2008), which aims to make framing research more reliable.

Framing has been a field of interest for many scientists (Maoz, et al, 2007; Noakes & Wilkins,

2002; Nossek, 2004; Papacharissi & Oliveira, 2008; Segev & Miesch, 2011; Slater, 2007; Viser,

2003). However, framing research has been carried out with ambiguous research methods and a

lack of conceptual clarity (De Vreese, 2012).

While there are many different definitions of framing, Entman’s general definition is considered

to be widely accepted and is also used by Matthes and Kohring (2008). Entman states:

“Framing is selecting some aspects of a perceived reality and make(ing) them more salient in a

communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal

interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation” (1993, p. 52).

Since Entman’s definition is widely accepted, it creates the illusion that there is a general

consensus of how framing should be researched. However, a frame is an abstract variable, and

an operational definition of framing and frames is still missing (De Vreese, 2012).

While “[framing] has proved to be an elusive concept to measure” (Maher, 2001, p.84),

scholars have used a range of research methods (David, Atun, Fille, & Monterola, 2011).

Matthes and Kohring (2008) outlined five different methods: a hermeneutic approach, a

linguistic approach, a manual holistic approach, a computer-assisted approach and a deductive

approach. The problem with these research methods is that they are often based on small

samples and it is unclear how the frames were extracted from the material (Matthes & Kohring,


2008). This makes it extremely difficult to neutralize the impact of the researcher in framing

research (Van Gorp, 2005, p. 503).

Several scholars have raised their concern about the reliability and validity of the different

research methods (Boni, 2002; Downs, 2002). In order to eliminate some of the problems,

Matthes and Kohring (2008) propose using a cluster analysis when conducting a content

analysis of media frames.

The cluster analysis procedure

Since a frame is an abstract variable, it is very difficult to code in a content analysis (Matthes

& Kohring, 2008). However, the procedure as proposed by Matthes and Kohring (2008)

divides the frame into different elements to make the coding procedure easier. This is based on

Entman’s definition, which states that several frame elements constitute a frame; a problem

definition, a causal interpretation, a moral evaluation, and a treatment recommendation. How

the frame elements are measured is described in the method section.

These elements are not specific words, but previously defined components of frames (e.g. a

topic is a component of a frame). A problem definition can consist of an issue and relevant

actors that discuss the problem. A causal interpretation is an attribution of failure or success

regarding a specific outcome. An evaluation can be positive, negative, or neutral and can refer

to different objects. Finally, a treatment recommendation can include a call for or against a

certain action.

An important part of a frame is how all different elements group together. To find this out, the

statistical test hierarchical cluster analysis is conducted. This test shows to what extent the

different elements group together systematically. This is called a pattern and when a pattern be

can identified across several texts in a sample, it is called a frame (Matthes & Kohring, 2008).

It is important to note, that not all elements need to be present to speak of a frame. For example,

not all frames contain moral evaluations or treatment recommendations, as later acknowledged

by Entman (Entman, Matthes & Pellicano, 2009). The most important feature of a frame is the

problem definition (the issue and actors) which can be captured in keywords or arguments (De

Vreese, 2012).

Since there is no other research on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or any peace negotiations

for that matter that uses this method, this is an exploratory research. The answer the research

question: How is the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiation framed in the online media? the


sub-question is asked: Which frame or frames can be identified?

Role of the media

The famous American musician Jim Morrison once said: “Whoever controls the media

controls the mind”. Regardless to what extent the media has actual power, it forces us to

think about what the role the media should and can have in society. An element of framing is

the moral evaluation, which tells us if the topic is described in a positive, negative or neutral

way. We find this important since research suggests that the way the media reports can influence

the public’s opinion (Sheafer & Dvir-Gvirsman, 2010).

If the media can influence the public opinion, then perhaps the media can mobilize the public

for peace. This is one of the five functions as described by the functional theory, a classic

communication theory which has paved the way for framing research (Gilboa, 2007). The

following functions of the media are described in functionalism; the surveillance of news

coverage, correlation of the parts of society, transmission of culture (Lasswell, 1948),

entertainment (Wright, 1960), and mobilization (McQuail, 1987). Mobilization entails the

“campaigning for societal objectives in the sphere of politics, war, economic development,

work, and sometimes religion.” (Gilboa, 2007, p. 234).

Throughout history, the media has been a powerful tool for mobilizing the public for war, such

as in Nazi-Germany. It is believed that if the media can help create a climate for war, the media

can also create an atmosphere conducive for peace. This can be achieved by humanizing the

enemy, providing legitimacy for leaders who are engaged in the process, and by emphasizing

the benefits that come from peace (Wolfsfeld, Khouri & Peri, 2002).

Looking at the media from a functionalist perspective, one would hope to see positive

reporting on the peace negotiations. However, it is widely contested that the media is solely to

blame for negative reporting, since it is also the politician who frames the political discourse

(Lengauer, Esser & Berganza, 2012). Therefore, both the political actors’ negativity will be

measured as well as the general negativity of the news article, independently. Furthermore,

the benefits and obstructions that are mentioned will also be analyzed.

Although the media might not be solely to blame for the negativity, there is a well-known

negativity bias of the media (Patterson, 1996). It is unclear whether this negativity bias is a

generalizable trend or solely American, since earlier research on negativity in the news,

focused primarily on the Unites States and research on the European situation is less uniform

in its findings (Lengauer, et al., 2012). But it is also difficult to draw general conclusions


since there is no agreed-upon set of empirical indicators to measure the concept of

negativity, which has led to widely varying conclusions about its significance and potential

effect (Ridout & Franz, 2008).

Although the negativity bias might not be generalizable, it can be explained by how the media

looks at conflicts; the high road and the low road. The dominant view in the media is the low

road, where conflict is seen as a battle, and the parties are fighting to impose their goals. The

reporting model is that of a winner and loser, and losses are counted in terms of numbers

killed, wounded, and material damage. The high road is the road to peace journalism and

focuses on the conflict transformation. Conflicts would be seen as a challenge to the world

with the danger of violence and opportunity for human progress (Galtung & Fisher, 2013).

So far, the low road is the road most traveled. Battles are considered newsworthy, but ideas

for preventing battles are not. This is because war, with its many images of action, can be

explained in a simple way and can be dramatized (Shinar, 2003). And thus, even though it

might be worth reporting for the greater good, typical peace coverage of press-conferences

and airport scenes is not seen as news worthy. And so, what makes ‘good’ news is often

‘bad’ news. It is therefore expected that there will be more negative than positive reporting on

the peace process.

H1: There is more negative framing on the peace process than positive framing.

New internet sphere

The online and digital news consumption has dramatically increased over the last decade

(Johnson & Kaye, 2008). With as many as 39 percent of the United States population getting

their news online it has surpassed traditional newspaper consumption in the United States

(PEW Research Center, 2012). Furthermore, slightly more than one-in-ten (12%) of all

Americans regularly read blogs about politics or current events and another 21% say they

read them sometimes. Just less than half (45%) never read blogs or do not use the internet

(PEW Research Center, 2012). This suggests that blogs are an important part of news

consumption.

Although the news consumption has shifted, this shift is not reflected in the scientific

literature. Research on the framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has focused

predominantly on newspapers or television (e.g. Atawneh, 2009; Papacharissi & Oliveira,

2008). Even if the research focuses on the internet, then researchers typically treat the

internet as a single entity (Kaye & Johnson, 2011). This contradicts research that has


discovered that various types of internet sites and blogs are evaluated using different

standards (Kaye & Johnson, 2011). Furthermore, most political bloggers do not subscribe to

journalistic norms of objectivity, unlike traditional news media, and political bloggers

writings tend to be grounded in strong ideological assumptions (Ekdale, et al., 2010). For

these reasons, this research includes both blogs as well as traditional news sources.

But the shift from offline to online media has also had some other implications. Because news

is widely available online for free, many traditional newspapers had to restructure their

organization, and lay-off reporters (Kirchoff, 2010). Some argue that in the struggle for public

attention, the news media have become more negative (Cohen, 2008). As news

organizations feel greater economic pressure, they turn to more negative news since it draws

more attention and thus maximizes the audience (Benson & Hallin, 2007).

The negative reporting can also be explained by a new model of media bias by Gentzkow and

Shapiro (2005). It is based on the simple assumption that a media firm wants to build a

reputation as a provider of accurate information. However, if the quality of the information is

difficult to observe directly or personally, then the reader will base the quality of the news on

observations or past reports. Media firms then have an incentive to shape the news in a way

that will be most likely to improve their reputation as a credible source. In the past of the

Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, no agreement was made. Since people cannot make their

own observations and the past had negative outcomes, the public has good reason to believe

that the current negotiations will also have a negative outcome. Therefore, media firms will

have an incentive to report on the peace negotiations in a way which will improve their

reputation.

This is also the case for the traditional news sources, since they need to maintain their

reputation. This means that they are more likely to report negatively on the peace negotiations

than positively. Therefore the following hypothesis is formulated:

H2a: Traditional news sites are more likely to have negative framing than positive framing.

However, most of the reporting on the progress will be factual, and therefore neutral. The

argument that news sites report negatively due to economic incentives is in this case no longer

applicable, since some traditional news sources such as The New York Times and Ha’aretz

placed a paywall for their content. This means that people without paying for a subscription,

can read only a limited amount of articles per day or only read certain articles. Because

readers are paying for all content read, such online media sources no longer rely (as heavily)


on the attention gained from negative news. Al Arabiya makes its money from television

broadcasting and therefore also does not depend on the amount of people that visit its website.

These traditional news sources have a reputation to maintain, which means that most news

will be neutral. Therefore the following hypothesis is formulated:

H2b: Traditional news sites will mostly report in a neutral way.

For blogs, this might not be the case since blogs get revenue from advertising, which depends

on the amount of people visiting the blog. This would mean that blogs will have a bigger

economic incentive to be negative, because of the increased attention and thus audience.

Besides economic benefits that might arise from negative reporting, also the issue of

credibility is of importance. Traditional news sources such as The New York Times are seen

as a newspaper of record (Zelizer, Park & Gudelunas, 2002). Therefor they do not have to

prove their credibility. Blogs however, are not as established as traditional news sources and

thus need to gain credibility (Kaye & Johnson, 2011). For this reason the following

hypothesis is formulated:

H2c: Blogs will report more negative than neutral or positive on the peace negotiations.

Criticizing politicians openly helps journalists to convey an image of independence and

professional autonomy in a world where there is growing skepticism towards the media. This

skepticism is due to the professionalization of political advocacy and spin, and has led to

countermeasures on the part of journalist in the form of negative, deconstructive and even

cynical news (Lengauer, et al., 2012). In the struggle for people’s attention, negative news

serves as a strategy of legitimization towards the public.

Therefore, blogs are more likely to report negatively on the peace negotiations than traditional

news sources that want to maintain their quality. As such, the following hypothesis is

formulated.

H2d: Blogs report more negative on the peace negotiations than traditional news sources

Patriotism versus professionalism

The rise of the internet has also brought a growing internationalism and readership. But still,

most media firms are rooted firmly in a national ethos, creating tension between patriotism

and professional practices (Ravi, 2005). Therefore, an explorative look is given if any

differences could be found between the United States, Israel and Arab media. Each country

will be individually discussed.


The Arab media have been significantly impacted by the internationalization of the news.

Historically, governments have set the media agenda. Using censorship, the media was to

report according to the governments’ political agenda (Amin, 2002). Nowadays, Arab

journalists are more independent, and they aspire to be objective (Pintak & Ginges, 2009). But

the situation is a bit more complex. In this sample, the Saudi-sponsored Al- Arabiya media

firm is chosen to represent the Arab media, which goal it is to promote Saudi national and

regional interest (Nisbet & Meyers, 2011). Saudi Arabia has a complicated relationship with

Israel. As an Arab country they have supported the Palestinians. But with both Israel and

Saudi Arabia threatened by Iran’s plan to build a nuclear reactor, they may have discovered

common interests (“Sunday Times: Israel, Saudi Arabia cooperating to plan possible Iran

attack”, 2013). Due to the complexity of the political situation, no assumptions are made on

this basis. Following the theory of Gentzkow and Shapiro (2005) on media bias, which states

that media firms will report in a way which seems most credible, it can be expected that Arab

media will report negatively because their readers will most likely have a negative stand towards

Israel and the peace negotiations. Therefore the following hypothesis is formulated:

H3a: Arab media will frame the peace negotiations more negatively than positively and

neutrally.

The United States has been actively involved in the peace making process, and reaching a peace

agreement would be a great victory and would show the world how influential the Unites States

is. To represent the US media, The New York Times has been selected, which is considered a

newspaper of record (Zelizer, Park & Gudelunas, 2002). Thus, it is expected that objectivity

would be more important than patriotism and thus we expect the United States media to report

neutrally on the subject. Therefore the following hypothesis is formulated:

H3b: The US media will frame the peace negotiations more neutral than negative or positive.

The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz is considered left-wing in Israel, because of their history of

criticism on Israeli politics (Millman, 2009). Research has also discovered that Ha’aretz,

which is chosen in the sample to represent the Israeli media, reported very negatively on the

Oslo peace process between 1995 and 2003 (Sheafer & Dvir- Gvirsman, 2010). Therefore the

following hypothesis has been formulated:

H3c: The Israeli media will frame the peace negotiations more negative than positive or

neutral.


Method

This study has two aims. One, to discover which framing is used in the online media on the

subject of the peace negotiations. Second, to test the new framing research method as

proposed by Matthes and Kohring (2008). Revealing the frames used in online media can

only be done by looking at the text itself. So, to analyze the content of the media, a

quantitative content analysis was chosen. To test the new framing research method, a

hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted.

Sample To reflect the online sphere and news gathering, both a traditional news source and a blog from

each represented party, America, Israel and the Palestinian camp, was chosen. The traditional

news sites were chosen on the basis of being an established media firm and the blogs had to be

active. Most important was that the there was enough content and that it was available in English.

To represent United States media, The New York Times (www.nytimes.com) was selected, as it

is seen as a newspaper of record on the Middle East (Zelizer, Park & Gudelunas, 2002), and

the blog War in Context (www.warincontext.org) was selected because it has enough content to

analyze. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz (www.haaretz.com) was selected since it is reputedly

the leading intellectual Hebrew daily and the oldest newspaper in Israel (Nossek, 2004; Slater,

2007; Viser, 2003).

The blog Diplomania (www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania) which is owned by Ha’aretz, was

chosen since it was the only blog found that matched all the criteria. Since there is no

Palestinian newspaper or media company in English, Al Arabiya (www.english.alarabiya.net)

was chosen to represent the Arab world, since they broadcast primarily to the Middle-East. The

blog, Intifada Palestine (www.intifada-palestine.com), states in their mission statement that they

represents the Palestinians, and was therefore selected.

Also, based on the amount of visitors each month, The New York Times, Ha’aretz and Al

Arabiya have similar rankings online. In their country of origin, they are ranked respectively

on the 32, 36 and 36 place (Alexa Internet Inc., 2013). This indicates that the three online

news media are of equal importance and can be therefore compared to one another.

Data collection

The online news reports of each media were then analyzed. The data was collected in two steps

since this study was in cooperation with three others researching the Israel-Palestinian conflict

in the media. Therefore, first all articles were found by searching for the words: “Israel* AND


Palestin*” and “Israel* Palestin* conflict” in the search function of the websites. From the

articles in this category, a random sample of 390 news articles and 153 blog post was taken,

and coded. Since this sample had also articles unrelated to the peace process, only the articles

about the peace process were used for this study. 89 news articles, 23 percent of the initial

sample of the news articles was about the peace process. 22 blog posts, 14 percent of the initial

sample of the blog post, were about the peace process. The articles were collected from the first

of March till the first of September 2013. This time period was chosen because it was in these

months that the peace negotiations were held.

The intercoder reliability is a critical component of content analysis (Neuendorf, 2002).

Therefore a pre-test was conducted over a random selection of the sample (n=54) coded by all

four coders. Krippendorff’s Alpha was chosen to measure the intercoder reliability, which was

sufficient (see Appendix B).

Analysis

For the purpose of the clustering analysis, all codes or categories were transformed into

dichotomous variables such that if the category is identified, the article is coded 1 for that

variable and when not, the article is coded 0.

This meant that there were a lot of variables, many of which were almost never present. It

was therefore decided that variables would have to be present in at least 10 percent of the

cases (n=11) to be included in the analysis.

A Pearson Chi-Square test was chosen to test the hypothesis, since this test is typically used in

categorical data analysis and can be used to test if two variables are independent from each

other (Greenwood & Nikulin, 1996).

Codebook

Following the research method of Matthes and Kohring (2008), their concepts were

transformed to match the situation of the peace negotiations. These concepts were translated

into a number of questions which were used to code the material, see Appendix A. The

following elements were included and will be described individually below; problem definition,

causal interpretation (or attribution), moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation. A

complete review of the elements’ definitions can be found in Table 1.

The frame element problem definition includes variables on topic, theme, actor, and proponent.


The topic is defined as the central issue under investigation or the primary argument around

which all the other arguments revolve. The following topics were included: the demands of the

Palestinians (n=42), the demands of the Israelis (n=30), the role of the US (n=76), opinion of

outside world (n=11), the release of Palestinian prisoners (n=34), the settlements (n=58) and the

economy (n=15).

The frame element moral evaluation contains variables identifying the benefits and

disadvantage of the peace talks, as suggested in the news article or blog. The benefits were

measured by asking whether the peace process was described as benefitting: the Israeli

economy, the Palestinian economy, the Israeli security and the Palestinian security.

Who was responsible for the benefits and disadvantages of the peace talks is part of the frame

element causal interpretation or attribution. In the case of the peace talks, this was rather

challenging. Saying that an Israeli or Palestinian actor is responsible for the benefit or

disadvantage of the peace talks would not make sense. Thus, the responsibility aspect was left

out and replaced by how the different actors feel about the peace talks, as portrayed in the

article. The political actor, citizen and expert of each party was measured, and because some

actors were hardly mentioned, it was decided that the average score of the actors of each

country would be analyzed.

The element treatment recommendation has also been adopted to fit with the subject of the

peace talks. The treatment is the judgment made in the article, whether the peace talks are

positive or negative. This can be the journalist’s view or the source’s view that is being cited in

the article. The treatment recommendation was coded as positive if the article spoke positively

about the peace negotiations and negatively if it spoke negative about the peace negotiations.

Articles with mixed messages were coded as neutral.


Table 1 Variables and Codes for Cluster Analysis

Frame Element Variables Description

Problem definition Topic: Role of the US

Topic: Demands of the Palestinians

Topic: Demands of the Israeli’s

Topic: Settlements

Topic: Releasing of prisoners

Topic: Economy

Topic: International opinion

Actor: Israel

Actor: Palestine

Actor: United States

The role of the United States as mediator in the negotiations.

The Palestinian demands for peace, e.g. returning to boarders of 1948.

The Israeli demands for peace, e.g. recognizing Israel as Jewish homeland.

Jewish settlements in the West-Bank – Both legal and illegal.

The releasing of Palestinian prisoners, as part of peace negotiations.

The economic benefits and downturns of the peace negotiations.

The opinion of the international community on peace process (US excluded).

Israeli political actors, institutions, experts and citizens.

Palestinian political actors, institutions, experts and citizens.

American political actors, institutions, experts and citizens.

Causal attribution Attribution: Israeli actors

Attribution: Palestinian actors

Attribution: American actors

How Israeli political actors, experts and citizens think of the peace process.

How Palestinian political actors, experts and citizens think of the peace

process.

How American political actors, experts and citizens think of the peace

process.

Moral Evaluation Benefits/Disadvantage: Israeli economy

Benefits/Disadvantage : Palestinian economy

Benefits/Disadvantage: Israeli security

Benefits/ Disadvantage: Palestinian security

How is the peace process seen as impacting the Israeli economy.

How is the peace process seen as impacting the Palestinian economy.

How is the peace process seen as impacting the Israeli security.

How is the peace process seen as impacting the Palestinian security.

Treatment Judgment: Negative

Judgment: Neutral

Judgment: Positive

The peace process is negative.

No opinion or both positive and negative opinion is mentioned.

The peace process is positive.


Results

To answer the research question: Which frame or frames can be identified? A cluster analysis was

performed which revealed three main frames. An overview of the outcome of the cluster analysis

can be found in Table 2. Each of the frames will be individually discussed.

Frame 1: Neutral Frame

This frame has a neutral tone towards peace (M=0.86, SD=0.35) and consists of 44 articles. The role

of the United States (M=0.84, SD=0.37) and the settlements (M=0.66, SD=0.46), are an important

part of the frame as well as the demands of the Palestinians (M=0.51, SD=0.51). Although the

settlements in this frame are an important aspect, and the frame is neutral, it does have a high degree

of referring to the settlements as impacting the peace negotiations negatively (M=0.41, SD=0.50).

Both neutral (M=0.17, SD=0.20) and negative (M=0.17, SD=0.25) opinions of Palestinian actors are

mentioned.

Frame 2: Negative Frame

This second frame is characterized by a negative judgment of the peace negotiations (M=0.63,

SD=0.49) and consists of 46 articles. The role of the United States (M=0.43, SD=0.50) is important

but much less important than in the neutral frame. The settlements are mentioned (M=0.35,

SD=0.48) and are seen as negative (M=0.24, SD=0.43) but both elements are not as prominent as in

the neutral or positive frame. Surprisingly these variables, as well as other negative tone variables,

were not within this frame.

Frame 3: Positive Frame

The first frame consists of 21 articles and is characterized by a positive judgment of the peace

negotiations (M=0.81, SD =0.40). The role the United States is often mentioned (M=0.90, SD=0.30)

as well as the positive opinion of US actors (M=0.39, SD=0.20). The demands of the Palestinians

(M=0.52, SD=0.51) and the demands of the Israelis (M=0.43, SD=0.51) are mentioned rather often,

although the latter is not mentioned as much as it is in the neutral frame. Also the releasing of the

Palestinian prisoners is seen as negative (M=0.43, SD=0.51). This positive attitude is also reflected by

the fact that the peace negotiations are seen as positive for the Israeli safety, (M=0.29, SD=0.46).

Strangely enough, in this positive frame, the peace negotiations are seen as negative for the Palestinian

economy, (M=0.38, SD=0.50).


Table 2 Mean Values and Standard Deviations for Three Identified Frames

Variables Neutral Frame

(n=44),

M(SD)

Negative Frame (n=46),

M(SD)

Positive Frame (n=21),

M(SD)

Judgment: Negative 0.09 (0.29) 0.63 (0.49) 0.00 (0.00) Judgment: Neutral 0.86 (0.35) 0.17 (0.38) 0.19 (0.40) Judgment: Positive 0.05 (0.21) 0.07 (0.25) 0.81 (0.40) Topic: Demands of the Palestinians 0.52 (0.51) 0.17 (0.38) 0.52 (0.51) Topic: Demands of the Israeli’s 0.32 (0.47) 0.15 (0.36) 0.43 (0.51) Topic: Role of the US 0.84 (0.37) 0.43 (0.50) 0.90 (0.30) Topic: International opinion 0.05 (0.21) 0.15 (0.36) 0.10 (0.30)

Topic: Releasing of prisoners 0.36 (0.48) 0.20 (0.40) 0.43 (0.51) Topic: Settlements 0.66 (0.46) 0.35 (0.48) 0.62 (0.50)

Topic: Economy 0.14 (0.35) 0.11 (0.32) 0.19 (0.40) Settlements are negative 0.41 (0.50) 0.24 (0.43) 0.33 (0.48) Settlements neutral 0.18 (0.39) 0.00 (0.00) 0.14 (0.36) Settlements are positive 0.02 (0.15) 0.09 (0.29) 0.05 (0.22) Releasing prisoners negative 0.11 (0.32) 0.02 (0.15) 0.43 (0.51)

Prisoners neutral 0.23 (0.42) 0.00 (0.00) 0.14 (0.36) Prisoners positive 0.02 (0.15) 0.09 (0.29) 0.00 (0.00) Israeli economy negative 0.05 (0.21) 0.04 (0.21) 0.19 (0.40) Israeli economy neutral 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) Israeli economy positive 0.02 (0.15) 0.02 (0.15) 0.00 (0.00) Palestinian economy negative 0.11 (0.32) 0.02 (0.15) 0.38 (0.50)

Palestinian economy neutral 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.21) 0.00 (0.00) Palestinian economy positive 0.02 (0.15) 0.02 (0.15) 0.00 (0.00)

Safety Israel negative 0.05 (0.21) 0.02 (0.15) 0.05 (0.22)

Safety Israel neutral 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.25) 0.00 (0.00) Safety Israel positive 0.05 (0.21) 0.04 (0.21) 0.29 (0.46)

Safety Palestinian negative 0.05 (0.21) 0.02 (0.15) 0.00 (0.00) Safety Palestinian neutral 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)

Safety Palestinian positive 0.05 (0.21) 0.00 (0.00) 0.33 (0.48) Positive opinion Israeli actors 0.01 (0.05) 0.03 (0.10) 0.22 (0.22)

Neutral opinion Israeli actors 0.21 (0.22) 0.04 (0.11) 0.02 (0.07)

Negative opinion Israeli actors 0.06 (0.15) 0.08 (0.16) 0.03 (0.10)

Positive opinion Palestinian actors 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (0.15) 0.22 (0.24) Neutral opinion Palestinian actors 0.17 (0.20) 0.04 (0.11) 0.03 (0.10)

Negative opinion Palestinian actors 0.17 (0.25) 0.04 (0.11) 0.02 (0.07) Positive opinion US actors 0.17 (0.21) 0.04 (0.11) 0.38 (0.20)

Neutral opinion US actors 0.07 (0.14) 0.04 (0.11) 0.00 (0.00) Negative opinion US actors 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.07) 0.00 (0.00)


It has become clear that there is more negative reporting than neutral or positive framing. While

there is only a small difference between the amount of negative framing and neutral framing,

there is a big difference between the amount of negative reporting and positive reporting. Less

than twenty percent of the articles are positively framed while more than forty percent is

negatively framed. This means that there is double the amount of negative framing than positive

framing and thus hypothesis 1 is supported: There is more negative framing on the peace

negotiations than positive framing.

Blogs versus traditional news sites

To determine whether blogs and traditional news sites differ in the type of framing, the

three blogs, Intifada-Palestine, Diplomania and War in Context were combined (n=22) and

the three traditional news sites, The New York Times, Ha’aretz and Al Arabiya were

combined (n=89). How the frames are distributed per source can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1 How the frames are divided over the source (traditional news source and blogs).

Traditional news sites and blogs differ in the frames they use, χ2 (2, N = 111) =15.67 p =

0.00. The positive frame is never used in blogs, and used more in traditional news sites than

expected. The negative frame is used less in traditional news sources than expected. The

neutral frame was used more in traditional news sources than expected and less in blogs than

expected.

Also within traditional news sites, framing differences were found. In 32.6 percent of the

articles a negative frame was used, while a positive frame was used in 23.6 percent of the

articles from the traditional news sources. This suggests that indeed there is more negative

reporting than positive framing among traditional news sources. Hypothesis 2a Traditional

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Positive Neutral Negative

Per

cen

tage

Frame

Traditional News Sources

Blogs


news sites are more likely to have negative framing than positive framing can therefore be

supported.

However, since in 43.8 percent of the articles a neutral frame was used, less than half of the

articles, there is no support for the hypothesis 2b: Traditional news sites will mostly report

in a neutral way.

To further examine the framing differences within blogs, the hypothesis 1c was formulated:

Blogs will report more negatively than neutrally or positively on the peace negotiations.

There were no positive frames found for the blog post, and 77.3 percent of the blog post had

a negative frame. This suggests that indeed blogs are far more negative than neutral or

positive.

The negative frame is used more often in blogs than expected while it is used less in

traditional news sources than expected, χ2 (1, N = 111) =8.19 p < 0.01. Hypothesis 2d:

Blogs report more negatively on the peace negotiations than traditional news sources is

therefore supported.

Comparing country of origin/affiliation

Since there is no agreement as to the negativity bias is solely a characteristic of the US

media, the framing was analyzed by country. To do so, the traditional news media and blog

of each represented country were combined; Also to compare positive framing and negative

framing to the country of origin, the traditional news media and blog of each represented

country were combined; The New York Times was combined with the blog War in Context

(n=47), Al Arabiya was combined with the blog Intifada Palestine (n=35), and Ha’aretz was

combined with the blog Diplomania (n=29).

There is no significant difference in the type of framing and the country of origin/affiliation.

And there was not more negative framing than positive and neutral framing for each of the

countries/affiliation. Hypothesis 3a, Arab media will frame the peace negotiations more

negatively than positively and neutrally, h3b: The US media will frame the peace

negotiations more neutrally than negatively or positively and h3c: The Israeli media will

frame the peace negotiations more negatively than positively or neutrally, are therefore not

supported.

However, there was a difference found for Israel and the positive framing used, χ2 (1, N =

111) =3.83 p = 0.05. In the Israeli press, 34.5 percent of the articles was positively framed

which was more than expected.


Conclusion & Discussion

The aim of this research was to investigate what frames are used to describe the Israeli-

Palestinian peace negotiations in the online media. The frames that have been identified are a

positive frame, a negative frame and a neutral frame. Overall, there was more than double the

amount of negative framing than positive framing, which supports the generally accepted

media bias and contributes to the research on negativity bias.

To reflect the internet sphere and news consumption, this research included both blogs and

traditional news sources and therefore does not treat the internet as a single entity. It was found

that blogs report far more negatively than traditional news sites. This is in line with earlier

studies stating that political bloggers do not subscribe to journalistic norms of objectivity.

Furthermore, the results from this study can be used to compare online news framing with

framing in newspapers and television, to see if there are any differences between offline and

online media.

Since researchers question whether the negativity bias is solely American, this study explored

if different framing was seen across the United States, Israel and Arab media. There was no

evidence that the framing differs across the three countries or that the media is more negative

in each country. This implies that the negativity bias is not a universal phenomenon. There is

reason to believe that national interest can get in the way of journalistic values since the Israeli

media reports significantly more positively than neutrally or negatively on the peace process.

However, the sample used in this research is only a small part of the actual media reporting

within each country and not a very large amount of articles could be included due to time

restrictions.

Given that there was no big difference found in the amount of negative framing and neutral

framing, it suggests that the media reporting is not necessarily creating a climate of war or

peace. Part of creating an atmosphere of peace, is emphasizing the benefits of peace. The

benefits of peace were hardly mentioned in the negative and neutral frame and will therefore

not contribute to a climate for peace. But in the positive frame, the safety benefits for the

Israelis and Palestinians was mentioned often which does contribute to a climate of peace. This

research is limited, since a climate of peace is also fostered by humanizing the enemy and

providing legitimacy for political leaders, and these aspects were not included in this study.

Since it is widely contested that the media is solely to blame for the negative reporting, the

opinion of the actor was included in the frame analysis. In the negative frame, there is no trace


of actors speaking negatively, suggesting that the media is responsible for the negative

reporting. Interestingly, the opposite is not true. The media is not solely responsible for

positive reporting since the positive opinion of the actors plays a big part of the positive frame.

These findings contribute to the current literature and should be further explored.

The other aim of this research was to test if a cluster analysis is a good method to research

framing. The frames were extracted from the material and consist of different elements which

were based on the widely used definition of Entman (1993). This means that the frames are not

subjectively determined but empirically suggested by an inductive clustering method. Even

though the cluster analysis offers criteria for the number of frames, there is still room for

subjectivity when selecting the amount of frames. And while this method also makes the

identification of new frames easier, the variables that measure the frame elements are still

chosen by the researcher. These choices are based on previous research, and might be subject

to the researcher’s own bias.

Furthermore, transforming the concepts and different frame elements to make sense, raised

some issues. For example, the frame element causal attribution was used by Matthes and

Kohring (2008) to measure which actor was to blame for the benefits and risks. This was

translated into the opinion of the different actors on the peace negotiations. These are two

separate phenomena. Not only was it difficult to adapt the elements to this particular subject, it

proved also quite challenging to interpret the frames that had been found and explain why the

frames have a certain element. For instance, it is unclear why the role of the United States is a

big part of the neutral and positive frame but not the negative frame. It is also unclear why, in

the positive frame, the peace negotiations are seen negatively in terms of benefitting the

Palestinian economy.

In sum, this research contributes to the current framing research and provides feedback on the

research method as proposed by Matthes and Kohring (2008). It also adds to the current

literature on blogs and how online media differ from the traditional media. Furthermore, the

results provide insights into the negativity bias of the media and how the actors’ opinions play

a role in the media reporting.


References

Alexa Internet Inc. Database for website statistics. Retrieved on November 1, 2013.

Amin, H. (2002). Freedom as a value in Arab media: Perceptions and attitudes among

journalists. Political Communication, 19(2), 125-135.

Astorino-Courtois, A. (2000). Can peace be marketed? A preliminary analysis of Israelis

and Palestinians. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 18(1), 97-122.

Atawneh, A. M. (2009). The discourse of war in the Middle East: Analysis of media

reporting. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 263-278.

Benson, R., & Hallin, D. C. (2007). How States, Markets and Globalization Shape the News

The French and US National Press, 1965-97. European Journal of Communication, 22(1),

27-48.

Boni, F. (2002). Framing Media Masculinities Men's Lifestyle Magazines and the

Biopolitics of the Male Body. European Journal of Communication, 17(4), 465-478.

Cohen, J. E. (2008). The Presidency in the Era of 24-hour News. Princeton University Press.

David, C. C., Atun, J. M., Fille, E., & Monterola, C. (2011). Finding frames: Comparing

two methods of frame analysis. Communication Methods and Measures, 5(4), 329- 351.

De Vreese, C. H. (2012). New avenues for framing research. American Behavioral

Scientist, 56(3), 365-375.

Downs, D. (2002). Representing Gun Owners Frame Identification as Social

Responsibility in News Media Discourse. Written Communication, 19(1), 44-75.

Ekdale, B., Namkoong, K., Fung, T. K., & Perlmutter, D. D. (2010). Why blog? (then and

now): exploring the motivations for blogging by popular American political bloggers.

New Media & Society, 12(2), 217-234.

Entman, R. M., Matthes, J., & Pellicano, L. (2009). Nature, sources and effects of news

framing. The handbook of journalism studies, 175-190.

Eran, O. (2002). Arab-Israel Peacemaking. The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of


the Middle East. New York: Continuum.

Galtung, J., & Fischer, D. (2013). High road, low road: Charting the course for peace

journalism. In Johan Galtung (pp. 95-102). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2005). Media bias and reputation (No. w11664).

National Bureau of Economic Research.

Gilboa, E. (2007). Media and International Conflict: A Multidisciplinary Approach. J. Disp.

Resol., 229.

Greenwood, P. E., & Nikulin, M. S. (1996). A guide to chi-squared testing (Vol. 280). Wiley-

Interscience.

Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2009). In blog we trust? Deciphering credibility of

components of the internet among politically interested internet users.Computers in Human

Behavior, 25(1), 175-182.

Kirchhoff, S. M. (2010). US Newspaper Industry in Transition. DIANE Publishing.

Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society.The

communication of ideas, 37.

Lengauer, G., Esser, F., & Berganza, R. (2012). Negativity in political news: A review of

concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism,13(2), 179-202.

Liebes, T. (1992). Our war/their war: Comparing the Intifadeh and the Gulf War on US and

Israeli television. Critical Studies in media Communication, 9(1), 44-55.z

Maher, T. M. (2001). Framing: An emerging paradigm or a phase of agenda setting.

Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, 83-

94.

Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving

reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 258-279.


McQuail, D. (1987). Mass communication theory: An introduction . Sage

Publications, Inc.

Millman, R. (2009). A History of Antisemitism in the World. Agenda Verlag.

Mintz, A., & Redd, S. B. (2003). Framing effects in international relations.

Synthese, 135(2), 193-213.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Sage.

Nisbet, E. C., & Myers, T. A. (2011). Anti-American Sentiment as a Media Effect? Arab

Media, Political Identity, and Public Opinion in the Middle East.

Communication Research, 38(5), 684-709.

Noakes, J. A., & Wilkins, K. G. (2002). Shifting frames of the Palestinian

movement in US news. Media, Culture & Society, 24(5), 649-671.

Nossek, H. (2004). Our News and their News The Role of National Identity in the Coverage

of Foreign News. Journalism, 5(3), 343-368.

Papacharissi, Z., & de Fatima Oliveira, M. (2008). News frames terrorism: A comparative

analysis of frames employed in terrorism coverage in US and UK newspapers. The

International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(1), 52-74.

Patterson, T. E. (1996). Bad news, bad governance. The annals of the American academy

of political and social science, 97-108.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2012, September 27). Trends in News

Consumption: 1991-2012. Retrieved December 30, 2013, from http://www.people-

press.org/2012/09/27/in-changing-news-landscape-even-television-is-vulnerable/

Pintak, L., & Ginges, J. (2009). Inside the Arab newsroom: Arab journalists evaluate

themselves and the competition. Journalism Studies, 10(2), 157-177.

Pressman, J. (2003). Visions in collision: What happened at Camp David and Taba?.

International Security, 28(2), 5-43.

Quandt, W. B. (2010). Peace process: American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict

since 1967. Brookings Institution Press.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/in-changing-news-landscape-even-

http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/in-changing-news-landscape-even-


Ravi, N. (2005). Looking beyond Flawed Journalism How National Interests, Patriotism,

and Cultural Values Shaped the Coverage of the Iraq War. The Harvard International

Journal of Press/Politics, 10(1), 45-62.

Ridout, T. N., & Franz, M. (2008). Evaluating measures of campaign tone. Political

Communication, 25(2), 158-179.

Segev, E., & Miesch, R. (2011). A systematic procedure for detecting news biases: The case

of Israel in European news sites. International Journal of Communication, 5, 20.

Shah, D. V., Watts, M. D., Domke, D., & Fan, D. P. (2002). News framing and cueing of

issue regimes: Explaining Clinton's public approval in spite of scandal. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 66(3), 339-370.

Sunday Times: Israel, Saudi Arabia cooperating to plan possible Iran attack. (2013,

November 17). Ha’aretz. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.com

Sheafer, T., & Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2010). The spoiler effect: Framing attitudes and

expectations toward peace. Journal of Peace research, 47(2), 205-215.

Shinar, D. (2003). The peace process in cultural conflict: the role of the media.

Conflict and Communication online, 2(1), 1-10. Slater, J. (2007). Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The New York

Times versus Haaretz, 2000–06. International Security, 32(2), 84-120.

Telhami, S. (1992). The Camp David Accords: a case of international bargaining. Institute

for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.

Van Gorp, B. (2005). Where is the frame? Victims and intruders in the Belgian press coverage

of the asylum issue. European Journal of Communication, 20(4), 484-507.

Viser, M. (2003). Attempted Objectivity An Analysis of The New York Times and

Ha’aretz and their Portrayals of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. The International Journal

of Press/Politics, 8(4), 114-120.

Wolfsfeld, G., Khouri, R., & Peri, Y. (2002). News About the Other in Jordan and

http://www.haaretz.com/


Israel: Does Peace Make a Difference?. Political Communication, 19(2), 189-210. Wright, C. R. (1960). Functional analysis and mass communication. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 24(4), 605-620.

Zelizer, B., Park, D., & Gudelunas, D. (2002). How bias shapes the news Challenging The

New York Times' status as a newspaper of record on the Middle East.

Journalism, 3(3), 283-307.


Appendix A: Codeboek

1. ID Number of the article

2. URL of the article

3. Title of the article

4. Date of the article

5. Name coder :

(1) Naomi Garfinkel (2) Nora van der Roest (3) Ricarda Berg (4) Suzanne Holleman

6. Source

(1) Al Arabiya (2) New York Times (3) Ha’aretz (4) Intifada-Palestine

(5) Warincontext.org (6) Diplomania

7. Is the article relevant

(1) Yes

(2) No

The article is only relevant if it mentions the Palestinian or Palestine and Israel or

Israeli’s. The article is not relevant if it is about the land ‘Palestine’ pre-1948 Letters

from reader, ‘poem of the week’ and ‘word of the day’ are not relevant.

8. What topic is the article about? Possible to choose more than one. Peace

negotiations

Settlements BDS (Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions) Obama

visiting

Releasing the prisoners Fights and clashes between Palestinians and Israeli’s.

Demonstrations

Role of the US in the peace talks Demands of the Palestinians in the peace negotiations

Demands of the Israelis in the peace negotiations Opinion of

international community on peace talks Economy

Living conditions of the civilians The United Nations (and the Resolutions)

Entertainment (music/sport/television)


9. The settlements are seen as an obstacle for the peace negotiations in the article

(-1) disagree

(1) neutral (2) agree (9) cannot be determined.

10. The releasing of the Palestinian prisoners is seen as benefitial for the peace

negotiations in the article

(-1) disagree (1) neutral (2) agree

(9) cannot be determined.

11. The peace negotiations are seen as good for the Israeli economy in the article

(-1) disagree (1) neutral (2) agree (9) cannot be determined.

12. How are peace negotiations seen for the safety for the Israelis?

(-1) negative (1) neutral (2) positive (9) cannot be determined.

13. How are peace negotiations seen for the safety for the Palestinians ?

(-1) negative

(1) neutral (2) positive (9) cannot be determined.

14. How are peace negotiations described in the article?

(-1) negative


15. How do the Israeli Actors describe the peace negotiations in the article?

(-1) negative (1) neutral (2) positive



16. How do the Palestinian Actors describe the peace negotiations in the article?

(-1) negative


17. How do the American Actors describe the peace negotiations in the article?

(-1) negative


18. How do the Israeli citizens describe the peace negotiations in the article?


19. How do the Palestinian citizens describe the peace negotiations in the article?

(-1) negative

(1) neutral

(2) positive (9) cannot be determined.

20. How do the American citizens describe the peace negotiations in the

article?


21. How do the Israeli experts describe the peace negotiations in the article?

(-1) negative


22. How do the Palestinian experts describe the peace

negotiations in the article?



23. How do the American experts describe the peace negotiations in the

article?

(-1) negative (1) neutral (2) positive


24. Which political actor is mentioned in the text?

(Multiple answers possible)

Barack Obama John

Kerry

Benjamin Netanyahu

Mahmoud Abbas

PA= Palestinian Authority

Israeli Government

American government

Celebrity/ artiest Europese

Union

Europese politici PLO= Palestinian Liberation Organization PFLP= Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Fatah

Hamas

IDF

Recep T. Erdogan

Tzipi Livni

Saeb Erekat

Shimon Peres

25. Comments? ………


Appendix B: Intercoder reliability Intercoder reliabilty- Krippendorff’s Alpha per variable

Variables Pre-test 1 Pre-test 2

Source the source of article 0.635 0.980 OW1 Topic: Peace negotiations 0.639 OW2 Topic: Demands of the Palestinians 0.633 OW3 Topic: Demands of the Israeli’s 0.629 OW4 Topic: Role of the US 0.626

OW5 Topic: International opinion 0.598 OW8 Topic: Releasing of prisoners 0.640 OW9 Topic: Settlements 0.626

OW10 Topic: Economy 0.627 Moral1 * Effects on the economy 0.690

Moral2 * Effects on the security 0.701

Moral1 Effects of Settlements 0.809

Moral2 Effects of Releasing prisoners 0.821

Moral3 Effects on Israeli economy 0.844

Moral4 Effects on Palestinian economy 0.835

Moral5 Effects on Israeli security 0.844 Moral6 Effects on Palestinian security 0.844 Judgment How the peace negotiations are discussed. 0.670 0.835

Attribute1 Opinion Israeli political actors 0.664

Attribute2 Opinion Palestinian political actors 0.679

Attribute3 Opinion American political actors 0.867 Attribute4 Opinion Israeli citizens 0.696

Attribute5 Opinion Palestinian citizens 0.677 Attribute6 Opinion American citizens 0.710 Attribute7 Opinion Israeli Experts 0.487 0.588 Attribute8 Opinion Palestinian Experts 0.329 0.611 Attribute9 Opinion American Experts 0.703

Actor1 Barack Obama - Actor2 Shimon Peres - Actor3 Mahmoud Abbas - Actor4 John Kerry - Actor5 Benjamin Netanyahu - Actor6 Saeb Erekat -

Actor7 Tzipi Livni - Actor8 Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) - Actor9 Fatah - Actor10 Israeli Defense Force (IDF) - Actor11 Popular Front for Liberation Palestine (PFLP) - Actor12 Israeli organizations (e.g. parliament) -

Actor13 Palestinian Authority (PA) - Actor14 American (government)organization -

*Note: after the pre-test, variables Moral 1 and Moral 2 were replaced with Moral3, Moral 4,

Moral 5 and Moral6, in order to have more specific results. When there were not enough results,

no Krippendorff’s Alpha was calculated (indicated with “-”).

naomi garfinkel final thesis

Documents

positive framing

negative framing

neutral framing

introduction framing

type of framing

israeli media

true peace

palestinian story