Loading summary
Transcript23 lines
- [00:01]
A
Welcome to the new books network. This is the nordic asia podcast.
- [00:14]
B
In this podcast, we are joined by Khaled Es Al Arabi, Director of Middle East Institute Program at American University in Cairo and a former journalist with extensive experience covering mayor regional events, including the Gaza war. We discuss how Western media coverage of Gaza has evolved over time. What dominant narratives shapes the presentation of Palestine and what is often felt out. We also explore how journalistic practices, editor decisions and audience expectations influence which stories are told and how, in addition, we examine the role of geopolitics, interest and power structures in shaping these narratives. This conversation is important because it helps us understand how media not only reflects reality, but actually shapes public perception of conflicts and human suffering. So, hello, Khaled, nice to have you here.
- [01:32]
A
Hi, it's very nice to meet you.
- [01:33]
B
Yes. And my first question to you will be, how has this coverage of CASA Investor major changed over the time? And do you see any clear turning points?
- [01:47]
A
It's an excellent question. My sense is, well, first of all, just to define what. What we're talking about. Media is a very big group, and even Western media is still quite big and it's not homogeneous. So I think I'll be focusing on things like the BBC, the New York Times, the cnn, the kind of media organizations that are generally seen as representing mainstream Western media, so to speak. So if the question is, have has the coverage of the war in Gaza evolved over the course of the two years? My sense is that yes, it has, but I haven't seen any research that has tried to answer this question. So it's a sense of change, but nothing that I can support necessarily with evidence.
- [02:46]
B
Okay, but if you look on the narratives, let's say, if you look into media and the narratives of how this, how Palestine is presentated, and then is my question, what is there but is also missing?
- [03:01]
A
Well, I mean, if we look historically, the dominant narrative has changed over time. So if we're talking about the early Zionist period and the foundation of the state of Israel, the dominant narrative back then was that this is a land without people for a people without land. And up to 1967, more or less, this narrative continued in viewing Israel as a small, democratic country surrounded by hostile Arab neighbors. Things changed perhaps in 1982 with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Palestinians started being part of the narrative for the first time, because before that it was more about Israelis versus Arabs in general. But as Palestinians started being at the forefront of their own struggle, and as Israel allowed massacres against the Palestinians to take place in Lebanon, 1982 we see a shift in this narrative that acknowledging Palestinian suffering from to an extent, and this continues with the second, with the first intifado and then with the second intifada. When you get this widespread violence committed by Israel and by Palestinians as well in the form of armed attacks, I think the narrative becomes more of one that is focused on basically this is a mutual round of another mutual round of violence and it is an unresolvable conflict which is I think still the main narrative of obviously sometimes there is a focus on Palestinians victims, sometimes there is more focus on Israeli victims depending on the event that's taking place as well. What is missing from this narrative, I think crucially is any serious and meaningful consideration of why this violence is taking place, this mutual violence is taking place place. And the reason basically is that Palestinians are living under occupation. And so you have this day to day reality of occupation, of not being able to control your home, your traveling on the road, your life, even all these things because it takes shape and place at an individual level and it's not a big event that captures the media attention. This narrative, this frame of reference is I think mostly absent from the media.
- [06:10]
B
Yeah, but let's say if you are also kind of going to the language, which kind of language, let's say this kind of narratives are using how this kind of public understands or reacts to these conflicts. You use the word, let's say that it were, let's say parted many, many times Palestines, they understand part of Arabs. But now it's really, let's say nobody anymore actually speaks about Palestinians as Arabs in this way. They really using this wor. But what you think let's say how important or how this kind of language kind of to say impacts these narratives?
- [06:58]
A
Well, it's crucial and I mean the one, one prime example of this is Western media's reluctance to use the word genocide, for example, despite the fact that this is the term that has been used by the UN Independent Commission to investigate what was happening. Or the most authoritative scholars on genocide, they have all concluded that Israeli actions in Gaza throughout the couple of years from 2023 to 2025 meet the legal definition of genocide. Yet BBCC and New York Times refrain from using this term. So obviously language matters. You also see, and there have been some studies on that emotional and loaded terms like massacre, like horrific, like slaughter, only being used in reference to attacks on Israelis, not on Palestinians. One interesting example was the fact that Palestinian children being killed was not mentioned except in two articles out of dozens of articles by the New York Times, Washington Post and the LA Times, despite the fact that by that time there were 6,000 Palestinian children who were killed. So words matter, obviously, and they matter in forming perceptions of the public. And this latest war is an excellent example of the effect of media on public opinion because we can compare what's the public opinion among older generations. So I mean, we have a very, this war gives a very telling case study about the effect of media on public opinion because we can really see the diversion in American public opinion across generations. And that's really because of the kind of media that the different generations use.
- [09:24]
B
Also wanted to ask you, so that we are coming to the, let's say the public, let's say if you're really covering these kind of issues from different wars, Gaza war, also the recent war in Iran, then it's always the question, let's say as a journalist you are also asking what your public wants to hear. What is possible to say?
- [09:50]
A
Well, yes, definitely, you take into account your audience's expectations and demands. And this is sometimes bit of a, a bit problematic for journalists because let's say, for example, the amount of coverage given to American presidential elections, weeks and months even of coverage in non American media about who will be running, what's the competition like, what are the issues, who's okay, how much coverage do we get exposed to about Chinese internal politics, for example? China is important in the world it has. We are affected by what's going to happen in China. Now, yes, obviously the audience is more interested in the horse race in American elections, but partially that is also a result of continuous media coverage of that. So people are more familiar with American politics than they are with other parts of the world that are not covered all that much. So It's a catch 22. The media covers a certain story extensively. The audience becomes familiar with it, they want more of that story and you end up ignoring other stories that might be quite important. But your audience, you didn't tell your audience enough about it in the first place.
- [11:26]
B
But let's say in the Casabor case, it's again, let's say you said also we must be, you are telling the story, you are telling, let's say this narrative, all this kind of language that you use. But that means also that you are, let's say you are telling the story, but also let's say to demand and let's say this influence of the, I mean, the public, is it so that if you want to, you want to actually cover more and really tell the story to the public and I will say even the public needs this story. Is it also that, you know, you must, let's say, be aware also how they respond and also what are the interests of, let's say, your editors and so on?
- [12:20]
A
Yeah. Well, I mean, certainly your perception of what the public wants doesn't only affect whether or not you will cover a story, but also how you will cover the story. And when you asked at the beginning about whether there's a shift in the coverage of media throughout these two years, and I said, I think that there was a shift. I think one of the reasons why this shift happened is because of a change or let's say pressure from certain groups within the Western audience. So, for example, the demonstrations on campuses, the pro Palestinian demonstration on university campuses, I would say that this has played a significant role in affecting how legacy media, how mainstream media approaches the war, but also affected a lot how independent media, so like podcasts and newsletters and, you know, the digital types of media that do not belong to legacy news organizations, which are usually more responsive to public sentiments. And by influencing this type of media and this type of media itself being quite influential now, legacy media had to catch up basically eventually. And I think that's what we've seen playing out.
- [13:55]
B
But how much, let's say, does geopolitics interest, let's say, of Western countries, also influence how Gaza conflict is covered?
- [14:05]
A
Generally speaking, media tends to follow the government's line when it comes to foreign affairs, generally speaking. And we've also seen this, I think, in this conflict with the tone of media changing as the tone from governments changed, particularly by the summer of 2025, I think we've seen European leaders taking positions that were more critical of Israel. And at the same time, we've seen media abutting the stone. Now, this could be a I mean, the cause and effect here is debatable, but there is some correlation certainly between the two.
- [15:03]
B
And my last question will be so that, let's say, if you're really looking this, let's say this topic, this heavy topic, difficult topic, but I will say topic that is not only about Kaza, but let's say very many say different issues, what is happening in Sudan or Iraq and so on, let's say about this role of Western media in global power structure. What role Western media in global power structure in these cases.
- [15:35]
A
So it is part of hegemonic discourse. I'm talking about mainstream media here. And we can see this play out in, like you said, in the neglect of a huge humanitarian and political crisis like Sudan and We can also see it in the tone of coverage of Gaza and Iran. It is coming under challenge, I think as well, because of social media. And we can talk about the pros and cons of social media, but I think the point I was making earlier about the difference in American public opinion from one generation to the next is very telling. So you have the latest Pew polls showed that 49% of Americans aged 50 and above have a favorable view of Israel. Sorry, 49% have an unfavorable view of Israel. And 70% of the younger generations thankfully consider the younger generation to be from 18 to 49, which includes you and me, I guess. But 70% of this age bracket has an unfavorable view of vision. Of course, if you use a more meaningful age bracket, let's say from 18 to 25 or to 30, the 70% will be even higher. And the main reason I think for that significant difference in public perceptions among generations is the kind of media that these generations use. So the 50 plus are relying mainly on legacy media. The younger generations are relying on other social media platforms. I think TikTok in particular was very significant. And this I think also explains why the American political class was very tense about TikTok. Not saying that's the only reason because of the Palestinian Israel conflict, but it was a trigger, I think, and eventually put enough pressure on the company to be sold to an American company.
- [18:09]
B
We see also in the Western media this kind of generation change coming among
- [18:16]
A
journalists, you mean probably, I mean journalists graduating now or five years ago or five years from now will belong, will have on average the same perceptions of the generation, I guess.
- [18:33]
B
So that we will see also that let's say this kind of, these kind of, let's say, dilemmas. But we may be now also kind of discussing here in the podcast through this kind of younger generation who is maybe, let's say their media understanding is different. They will also, let's say maybe use also other perceptions, having more broader narratives, using other languages. So there is hope.
- [19:02]
A
There's always hope, I hope. And I mean well, the journalists workforce nowadays is much more diverse than it was 40 years ago, for example. And so you would expect perceptions now to be to reflect this diversity more. Having said that, there are structural issues that are beyond individual perceptions. There are lobby groups and pressure groups, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And they collectively, they all contribute to the type of coverage you get from the meeting.
- [19:46]
B
Thank you Khaled for this interview. And I think we have now get a very good how to say insight, how we let's say, what are the critic points then in this Western narrative, especially covering these Palestine issue, Gaza issues. But I would say also broader. And thank you.
- [20:10]
A
You have been listening to the Nordic Asia podcast, Sam.