How the American Mainstream Media Report the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
As world attention is renewed and refocused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the sixtieth anniversary of its seminal year of 1948, Marda Dunsky takes a close look at how more than two dozen major American print and broadcast outlets have reported the conflict in recent years. Beginning with the failed Camp David summit of July 2000 through the waning of the second Palestinian uprising in the summer of 2004, she finds that the media omit two key contextual elements: the significant impact that U.S. policy has had and continues to have on the trajectory of the conflict, and the way international law and consensus have addressed the key issues of Israeli settlement and annexation policies and Palestinian refugees. Dunsky explores how reports of the conflict routinely take on the contours of American policy and rarely challenge the premises of this "Washington consensus." She also examines the media's responses to allegations of biased coverage and gauges the effect that mainstream news reporting has on public opinion and U.S. foreign policy.
This detailed work should be on the shopping list of all American correspondents moving to Jerusalem.
[Dunsky's] writing is perceptive and her arguments insightful
A comprehensive account of just how difficult it is to offer a 'fair and balanced' narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the United States-Israel relationship.
Pens and Swords offers valuable insights into several fields and is a good read for a wide readership.
Marda Dunsky comprehensively documents the shortcomings of the mainstream U.S. news media in their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
AcknowledgmentsIntroduction1. The Policy Mirror2. Reporting the Palestinian Refugee Story3. Reporting on Israeli Settlements4. Apex of the Spiral: Reporting the Violent Spring of 20025. The War at Home6. In the Field7. Toward a New Way of Reporting the Israeli-Palestinian ConflictNotesIndex