“Do not mix truth with falsehood, or hide the truth knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:42)
In 1977, the UN officially declared that the 29th of November would be a day where the world remembers, and expresses its solidarity for the Palestinian people, eminently reflecting the date the UN adopted the 1947 Partition Plan. In what can only be considered a gruelling forty-eight years of impeded advocacy, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres still has to “repeat” his call for the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory to end.
But for the illegal occupation to end, or for meaningful solidarity at all, we must translate it into tangible action. Otherwise why speak? Whether that be strong advocacy within the political landscape, or ardently marching through the streets until your voice is heard, or liking a post on social media, there is always something we can do.
A glaringly obvious sphere of influence, and obstacle in securing self-determination for the Palestinian people, is the media. Sociologists and Political Scientists since the 20s have dedicated their life work to demonstrating the power of media, and its propensity to be used as a tool. Lippman (1922) argued media was not a neutral transmitter of fact, but a construction of perceived reality, often filtered by the interests of those in positions to gain. Lasswell (1927) famously defined the media as the management of collective attitudes through the manipulation of simple symbols. Think to yourself, why do images of bearded men in foreign clothing conjure emotions of fear and suspicion, while a clean-shaven man sporting a sleek suit does not. Even in curriculums mandated across Australia, students are asked by their English teachers to study classic texts like George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ as a means of understanding that deception can be unfortunately normalised in some of society’s institutions, and that ambiguity is often harnessed to procure support for particular opinions.
Interestingly, within the field of Islamic jurisprudence, a principle known as tahqiq al-manat demands that scholars accurately identify, define, and rigorously outline the ‘reality’ of a matter before being commissioned to judge the legal ruling relating to that matter, lest they apply the incorrect ratio to a particular issue. Imam Ghazali discusses in his Ihya the moral significance of speech, that ambiguity be shunned especially when used to mislead and evade truth. We hope that the words of the journalists we read, and presenters we watch, align with such stringent ethical considerations.
It would be hard to name a subject with as much power and funding behind it as the protection of Israel’s reputation in the media. Accusations continue to be projected against media companies for perceived bias regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza. Since leading genocide scholars have named Israel’s actions and policies in Gaza a genocide, what better case study could we use other than Palestine and Israel to examine Lippman and Laswells’ theories in action? Is it possible to justify the most heinous crime against humanity in the minds of keen consumers of media?
In 2004, the Glasgow University Media Group published a study led by sociologist Greg Philo which examined the extent of media bias present in coverage relating to Israel and Palestine. The study found that media coverage of the conflict confuses viewers, and that the overwhelming majority of coverage featured Israeli government views and talking points. Fascinatingly, the majority of viewers depended upon TV for their information, and their ‘gaps’ in knowledge closely reflected the ‘gaps’ in the news. For example, most were unaware that Palestinians were forced from their homes in 1948, or that Israel occupied territories since 1967, or that Israel had major control over Palestinian resources such as water. In fact, the study found that Television coverage rarely mentioned any historical context to the issue, causing viewers to believe that conflict always ‘started’ with Palestinian action. Quantitative data also showed that Israelis were quoted, and spoke in interviews twice as much as Palestinians, and the language employed when describing both sides was consistently different. It is no wonder then, that the media was a key point of focus in the Islamophobia Envoy’s report.
Another study published in the Australian Journalism Review analaysed Australian articles, and found that civilian Palestinian deaths, were framed as regrettable, but necessary deaths for Israel’s security and ‘right to defence’. At times, civilians were even framed to have to bear responsibility for the violence used against them. Unsurprisingly, the study found the most common sources of news in these articles were Israeli government ministers and pro-Israel commentators. It is no wonder then, that the media was a key point of focus in the Islamophobia Envoy’s report in combating Islamophobia. The report referenced findings by the Australian Human Rights Commission which found a link between increased attacks on mosques, and negative media coverage.
Despite these worrying findings, there is still hope. In the last two years, something has changed. Through the emergence of social media, viewers are now able to witness the experience of a Palestinian without the filters, justifications, and subversion of modern media. Despite meta’s systemic censorship of Palestinian content, it took only a few swipes and a few clicks for people to immerse themselves into the lived experiences of the Palestinian people, sharing in the pain of indiscriminate and relentless bombing campaigns unleashed upon innocent women and children seeking refuge in camps and hospitals. People all over the world have posted videos of themselves to social media, tearfully sharing their admiration for the resilience and strength displayed by the Palestinian people which has been refined by decades of occupation and struggle. Social media has forever changed how people will view Palestine and Israel. It is no longer as easy as it once was to dehumanise a Palestinian child, or villainise Palestinian men as angry violent security issues, or frame Palestinian suffering as meaningless, or simply a necessary symptom of war. If anything, the biases in media representation we have described above are longer hidden, they are common knowledge. A video recently surfaced of Benjamin Netanyahu outlining his strategy to sanitise the actions of Israel on social media, offering seven thousand dollars per-post to TikTok influencers. This incident has since transformed into a popular meme, symbolising people’s frustration and obvious awareness of the media’s role in justifying the horrors we have witnessed.
If we want solidarity to be meaningful, and make a change in how the media presents these issues and create a fairer media environment, we need to make our voices heard. The Australian National Imams Council has been monitoring the media for the types of biases discussed in this article, and we need you, the Muslim community, to be a part of it. If, as part of your everyday engagement with the media, you happen to stumble across any articles or pieces of media that report information inaccurately, or in a manner that you think is unbalanced, or is unnecessarily inflammatory, use the media complaints tool on our website or email us.
We will never stop advocating for the Palestinian people and highlighting their struggle with dispossession and occupation. It has been 77 years, and we will go for 77 more.
