Promoting stories about terrorism to the international news media: A study of public diplomacy

Abstract

Antagonists’ images in the international news media can play a significant role in determining their level of political success in the international arena, which explains why so many political actors invest considerable resources in public diplomacy. The goal of the present study is to explain the level of success that various actors (countries and non-state actors) have in promoting their preferred frames about terror to the international news media. Four types of explanatory variables are proposed, divided into context and focal event factors. Context factors include the political values and policy proximity between the country attacked (the victimized country) and a country whose news media have been targeted for influence (the target country), as well as the target country’s experience in dealing with terror. Focal event factors refer to the nature of the trigger events that generate news coverage of terrorism. Apart from one exception (the policy proximity), all of the hypotheses were confirmed. The findings indicated that focal event factors have the most significant effect on the way foreign media covers conflicts and that, when it comes to coverage of terrorism, journalists are more interested in constructing a dramatic story than putting the events into a more general political context.

The view from above (and below): A comparison of American, British, and Arab news coverage of US drones

“…In an era of fractured and contentious global public opinion, skewed news coverage will only exacerbate the polarization of opinion in different countries and, inevitably, lead Americans to continue to wonder why anti-Americanism continues to persist around the world. between different religious cultures more generally, a perspective also consistent with Norris and Inglehart (2011) and Yarchi et al (2013). 2.…”

Discursive legitimation strategies: The evolving legitimation of war in Israeli public diplomacy

“…In order to obtain moral, political and financial capital, states engage in pragmatic speech acts through public diplomacy, using words, ideas and arguments to appeal to the moral principles of a target audience in the form of justifications (Boltanski and Thévenot, 2006). That, in turn, explains why many nations invest extensive resources in public diplomacy in order to justify their actions and beliefs (Yarchi et al, 2013). Whereas justifying actions assumes a set of universal common values, legitimation presupposes the relativism of norms and values, and accordingly, legitimation strategies implicitly or explicitly state that some course of action, decision or policy is acceptable within a given legal, political or cultural framework (Van Dijk, 1998).…”

“…Foreign ministries are powerful social actors in that they have the ability to influence the attitudes of foreign politicians, populations, media organizations and international NGOs. This ability to influence perceptions and attitudes, however, depends significantly on the proximity between states in terms of cultural and political values (Sheafer and Gabay, 2009; Wolfsfeld, 1997; Yarchi et al, 2013). Consequently, political leaders aim to establish cultural proximity and value-based solidarity with foreign audiences when attempting to justify policies (Friedman and Kampf, 2014).…”

“…Consequently, political leaders aim to establish cultural proximity and value-based solidarity with foreign audiences when attempting to justify policies (Friedman and Kampf, 2014). Particularly in the case of Israel, foreign countries’ experience with terrorism is an additional important factor determining the extent to which specific messages will be accepted (Yarchi et al, 2013).…”

The role of the media in violent conflicts in the digital age: Israeli and Palestinian leaders’ perceptions

“…The role of the news media in violent conflicts has received considerable scholarly attention, notably in exploring the role of the media in uprisings and revolutions (Cohen and Wolfsfeld, 1993; Wolfsfeld, 1997; Wolfsfeld, Frosh and Awabdy, 2008), terrorism (Hess and Kalb, 2003; Norris et al, 2003; Liebes and Kampf, 2007; Papacharissi and De Fatima Oliveira, 2008; Yarchi et al, 2013) and wars (Bennett et al, 2008; Wolfsfeld, 1997, 2004). Other studies have investigated the role of the media in conflict resolution, especially the role of the media in peace processes (Hackett, 2006; Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005; Saleem and Hanan, 2014; Sheafer and Dvir-Gvirsman, 2010; Spenser, 2005; Wolfsfeld, 2004; Wolfsfeld, Alimi and Kailani, 2008).…”