Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya: Understanding Media Bias

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 87-108
Author(s):  
Dominika Kosárová
Keyword(s):  
2013 ◽  
Vol 75 (8) ◽  
pp. 750-768 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamad Hamas Elmasry ◽  
Alaa El Shamy ◽  
Peter Manning ◽  
Andrew Mills ◽  
Philip J Auter
Keyword(s):  

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Olesen

This article analyzes the so-called Muhammad cartoons conflict that started on September 30, 2005, when a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published twelve satirical cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. I examine how the conflict moved from the national level of Denmark to become a full-blown instance of transnational contention. The guiding argument of the article is that institutional elites and media were the prime movers in the transnational escalation of the conflict. Institutional actors, mainly the Egyptian government and the Organization of Islamic Conferences, were active from the beginning as brokers. These actors spent months preparing the ground before the conflict escalated in late January and early February 2005. Their efforts were partly supported by certification from key international institutions. The evidence also suggests that transnational news channels in the Arab and Muslim world, Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, and to a lesser degree, national media, played a significant part as diffusers and brokers in the escalation.


Universitas ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 135-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabina Civila de Dios ◽  
Luis M. Romero-Rodríguez

Las realidades sociales son constructos discursivos, por lo que las actitudes y representaciones son el reflejo de un enfoque informativo. En este sentido, las brechas culturales y lingüísticas entre distintas civilizaciones, aunado a una construcción discursiva de naturaleza bélica, pudieren estar creando el caldo de cultivo para un enfrentamiento continuo entre Oriente y Occidente. La presente investigación analiza los diferentes encuadres retóricos de las agencias internacionales de noticias Reuters, Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera y Associated Press sobre el atentado terrorista al aeropuerto de Estambul (Turquía) el 28 de julio de 2016. Se realiza un estudio cualitativo de las figuras retóricas y los tópicos más repetidos en una muestra de 144 titulares relacionados con el atentado. El poder de los medios de comunicación en la opinión pública y construcción de la realidad generan un debate sobre cómo se redactan estas noticias y sus efectos. El objetivo es comparar los encuadres entre las agencias de ambas civilizaciones e identificar los estereotipos proyectados y si se contribuye a la espectacularización del conflicto. Se obtiene como resultado principal que no hay diferencias discursivas significativas, lo que lleva a concluir que tanto en los medios y agencias internacionales de Oriente medio como de Occidente se utilizan figuras retóricas para producir cierto efecto en la población, entre las que resaltan los eufemismos, disfemismos, la demonización y la polarización discursiva, recursos que sirven para enfatizar el miedo y crear aún mayores brechas de significación social.


2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Nasser ◽  
Yasmine Dabbous

AbstractAs part of their 'War on Terror', Washington policy makers launched a massive public diplomacy campaign hoping to 'gain Muslim hearts and minds.' Their efforts, including the production of advertisements and documentaries, culminated with the inauguration of Al-Hurra, a commercial-free satellite station broadcasting in Arabic. Despite the substantial amount of money poured into it, Al-Hurra's success was strongly questioned among media scholars and US policy experts. And yet, Al-Hurra has generated very little academic research testing its effectiveness as an instrument of public diplomacy. This article reports the results of a survey administered in seven Lebanese universities to assess the performance of Al-Hurra among the country's college students. More specifically, it examines Al-Hurra's viewership, credibility, and trustworthiness in comparison to Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya. The paper also tests the relation between Al-Hurra's viewership and audience attitude toward the United States. Findings show that Al-Hurra's viewership is considerably lower than Al-Jazeera's and Al-Arabiya's. Its credibility is also lower than that of its two Arab counterparts. Finally, Al-Hurra viewership did not predict a positive attitude toward the USA. The study raises questions about public diplomacy tools in general and Al-Hurra in particular.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-242
Author(s):  
Soukaina Ajaoud ◽  
Mohamad Hamas Elmasry

The 2017 Gulf crisis raises important questions about what happens when news networks become part and parcel of a political conflict. This research employs content analysis to analyse how two flagship evening news programmes –  Al-Hasad ( The Harvest) on Al Jazeera and  Panorama on Al Arabiya – framed the early phase of the 2017 Gulf crisis. The study provides an elucidation of how, specifically, editorial positions were made manifest and, importantly, what framing mechanisms were employed. Results suggest that Al Jazeera’s  Al-Hasad took the position of a victim being attacked by an external oppressor, while Al Arabiya’s  Panorama framed Qatar as a sponsor of terrorism.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 98-122
Author(s):  
Alamira Samah Saleh

For many decades, Egypt has been considered a distinctive society in which individuals from different nations with different backgrounds and ideologies can live. However, it seems that the Egyptian political, social, and media landscape has witnessed considerable shifts in the dimensions of such diversity. This study examines the contemporary Egyptian perspective on the presence of foreign correspondents and the radical change in Egypt’s regulations toward their work, and moreover, the repercussions of such policies that might be affecting the safety, level of freedom, and sometimes the whole identity of foreign correspondents in Egypt. Moreover, it examines the tactics with which the government seeks to accentuate the discourses of “Othering” in Egyptian public perceptions via whipping up hype in the media. Undoubtedly, the events experienced by Egypt between 25 January 2011 and the present have changed the idea the state and society have of foreigners, in general, and foreign correspondents, in particular. Some indicators confirmed that a state of “xenophobia” has been escalating over the past nine years. Foreign correspondents and journalists have been among the groups harmed by this sentiment, to the detriment of their working conditions. Results show that the transitional period that followed Hosni Mubarak’s toppling in 2011 until today has witnessed many transformations in the handling of foreign correspondents’ work in Egypt. There have been attacks on and expulsions of journalists from Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, The Associated Press, the BBC, CBS, CNN, Danish television, and others.


2022 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-116
Author(s):  
Safa Attia

The Arab revolution euphoria of 2011 was covered around the clock by different media sites, engaging millions of followers around the world, and eventually turning into discontent in some affected countries. This study examines the outcomes of the Libyan uprising (2011–2015), specifically the topics of civil-war and terrorism, through the lenses of the Arab written media in Arabic (Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya), the Arab written media in English (Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya), and the Western written media in English (BBC and CNN). Through Corpus-Assisted Discourse Analysis (CADS), integrating discursive news values analysis (DNVA), this study highlights the ideological representations of these media, and examines their similarities and differences in terms of frequency distribution and story content. The findings indicate that the media coverage of the outcomes of the Libyan Revolution, when reporting on the topics of war and terrorism, follow similar directions in the story content and the frequency distribution, with some differences in the latter between the analysed media sites. Also, the collocations, concordances, and DNVA results, especially NEGATIVITY, IMPACT and ELITENESS, prove the emphasis of the media on violent language, making terrorism appear the norm, and thus manipulating the audience and affecting their understanding of the news.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 447-465
Author(s):  
Mohamed Kharbach

This article investigates the ideologisation of Arab media discourse and takes as a case in point the ideological construction of the Gulf crisis in the headlines of Al Arabiya English and Al Jazeera English. A corpus of 515 headlines produced between May and June 2017 is examined using an interdisciplinary critical discourse analytic framework. Analysis is conducted at two levels: a textual level concerned with the analysis of the semantic and syntactic aspects of headlines and a socio-cognitive level informed by insights from Van Dijk’s ideological square concept and his mental model theory and Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory. Findings indicate that both platforms are ideologically biased toward the political perspectives of their host states, although in a lesser degree in Al Jazeera English, and also reveal the various discursive strategies used to construct subjective mental models and reference frames to guide readers understanding of the crisis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document