Çerçeveleme Kuramı Bağlamında Kamu Yayın Kuruluşlarının İsrail-Filistin Çatışmasına Yaklaşımlarının İncelenmesi: G7 Ülkeleri, Rusya ve Türkiye Örneği

Abstract

Bu çalışma, İsrail-Filistin çatışması bağlamında Al-Ahli Hastane saldırısı ile ilgili haberleri ele alarak, G7 ülkeleri, Rusya ve Türkiye'nin politikalarını ve yaklaşımlarını çerçeveleme kuramı bağlamında incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Nitel araştırma yöntemi kullanılarak, G7 ülkeleri, Rusya ve Türkiye'nin kamu yayın kuruluşlarının saldırının etkilerinin sıcak olduğu, saldırı sonrasındaki iki hafta süresince yayınladıkları haberler incelenmiş ve içerik analizi tekniğiyle çerçeveleme stratejileri detaylı bir şekilde analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları, G7 Ülkeleri, Rusya ve Türkiye’nin kamu yayın kuruluşlarının çerçeveleme stratejilerinde belirli benzerlikleri ve farklılıkları ortaya koymaktadır. Anahtar kelimelerin seçiminde ve belirsizlik vurgusunun ön plana çıkarılmasında ABD’nin, Kanada’nın, Japonya’nın, Almanya’nın, Fransa’nın, İtalya’nın ve İngiltere’nin kamu yayın kuruluşlarının haberlerinde benzerlikler gözlemlenmiştir. Örneğin, haber dilinde "patlama" kelimesi kullanılarak, olayın failine net bir atıfta bulunulmamış ve belirsiz bir faile vurgu yapılmıştır. Rusya’nın ve Türkiye’nin kamu yayın kuruluşları ise, "saldırı" ifadesine ağırlık vererek olay için bir faile atıfta bulunma eğilimdedir. İlgili haberlerde ifade seçimi önemli bir rol oynamıştır; "roket" ve "füze" terimleri kullanılarak, saldırı araçlarına atfedilen çerçeve farklılıklar göstermiştir. Tüm bunların yanında Rusya ve Türkiye'nin kamu yayın kuruluşlarının G7 ülkelerine kıyasla daha fazla haber yayınlaması dikkat çekicidir. Bu durum, politik gündem, ulusal çıkarlar veya bölgesel yakınlıkla ilişkilendirilebilecek bir mesele olabilir. Bununla birlikte, haber sayılarındaki farklılıklar, çerçeveleme çabasıyla bağlantılı olabilir. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma, medya çerçeveleme stratejilerinin çatışma konusundaki algıyı etkileme girişimlerini anlamak adına alana katkı sağlamaktadır. Ayrıca çalışma, medyanın tarafsızlığı ve objektifliği konusundaki tartışmaları da beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu da gelecek araştırmalar için önemli bir odak noktası olabilir.

Keywords

• Çerçeveleme Kuramı
• İsrail-Filistin Çatışması
• G7
• Rusya
• Türkiye

Examining the Approaches of Public Broadcasting Organizations to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in the Context of Framing Theory: The Case of G7 Countries, Russia, and Turkey

Abstract

This study aims to examine the policies and approaches of the G7 countries, Russia, and Türkiye in the context of framing theory by analyzing the news about the Al-Ahli Hospital attack in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Using a qualitative research method, the news published by the public broadcasters of the G7 countries, Russia, and Türkiye during the two weeks after the attack, when the impact of the attack was at its height, were examined and the framing strategies were analyzed in detail with the content analysis technique. The findings of the study reveal certain similarities and differences in the framing strategies of the public broadcasters of G7 countries, Russia, and Türkiye. Similarities were observed in the selection of keywords and the emphasis on uncertainty in the news coverage of the public broadcasters of the USA, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, France, Italy and the UK. For example, the use of the word "explosion" in the news language did not make a clear reference to the perpetrator of the incident and emphasised an ambiguous perpetrator. Russia's and Türkiye's public broadcasters, on the other hand, tended to refer to a perpetrator of the incident by emphasizing the term "attack". The choice of wording played an important role in the related news reports; by using the terms "rocket" and "missile", the frame attributed to the means of attack differed. In addition, it is noteworthy that the public broadcasters of Russia and Türkiye published more news stories compared to the G7 countries. This could be a matter of political agenda, national interests, or regional proximity. However, the differences in the number of news stories may be linked to the framing effort. In conclusion, this study contributes to the field in understanding how media framing strategies attempt to influence perceptions of the conflict. The study also raises debates about media impartiality and objectivity. This may be an important focus for future research.

Keywords

• Framing Theory
• Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
• G7
• Russia
• Turkey

References

1. Acosta, J. (2014, Mart 24). U.S., other powers kick Russia out of G8. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/24/politics/obama-europe-trip/index.html.
2. Aharoni, T., & Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K. (2019). Unpacking journalists’ (dis)trust: expressions of suspicion in the narratives of journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 24(4), 426-443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219841902
3. AJC (2023, 12 Haziran). Moroccan Foreign Minister Bourita Says Abraham Accords Provide “Incredible Momentum” for Peace in Middle East. https://www.ajc.org/news/moroccan-foreign-minister-bourita-says-abraham-accords-provide-incredible-momentum-for-peace.
4. Almahallawi, W., & Zanuddin, H. (2018). 50 days of war on innocent civilian: ma’an news agency coverage of Israeli and Palestinian conflict. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.9), 145-150. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.9.20635
5. Anadolu Ajansı. (2023, Ekim 18). Gaza’s Health Ministry holds press conference in rubble of Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/gaza-s-health-ministry-holds-press-conference-in-rubble-of-al-ahli-baptist-hospital/3024183.
6. Ardèvol-Abreu, A. (2015). Framing theory in communication research. Origins, development and current situation in Spain. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 70, 423-450.
7. BBC (t.y.). Learn more about what we do. https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc.
8. Bhowmik, S., & Fisher, J. (2023). Framing the Israel-Palestine conflict 2021: investigation of cnn’s coverage from a peace journalism perspective. Media Culture & Society, 45(5), 1019-1035. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437231154766

9. CBC News (2012, 31 Aralık). About CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/about-cbc-news-1.1294364.
10. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
11. Deprez, A., & Raeymaeckers, K. (2010). Bias in the news? The representation of Palestinians and Israelis in the coverage of the first and second intifada. International Communication Gazette, 72(1), 91-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048509350341
12. Deustche Welle (t.y). What kind of company is Deutsche Welle?. https://corporate.dw.com/en/what-kind-of-company-is-deutsche-welle/a-3252998.
13. Djokic, A. (2020). The perspectives of Russia’s soft power in the western balkans region. Rudn Journal of Political Science, 22(2), 231-244. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1438-2020-22-2-231-244
14. Elmasry, M., Shamy, A., Manning, P., Mills, A., & Auter, P. (2013). Al-jazeera and al-arabiya framing of the Israel–Palestine conflict during war and calm periods. International Communication Gazette, 75(8), 750-768.
15. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58. France 24 (t.y.) Who are we?. https://www.france24.com/en/about-us.
16. Gelvin, J. L. (2005). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War. Cambridge University Press.
17. Glaser, M., & Thomann, P. (2021). The concept of “greater eurasia”: the Russian “turn to the east” and its consequences for the european union from the geopolitical angle of analysis. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 13(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/18793665211034183
18. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
19. Han, E., & Rane, H. (2011). Australian press and public opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Media International Australia, 141(1), 58-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x1114100108
20. Heider, F. (1959). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
21. Kirton, J., Kulik, J., & Bracht, C. (2014). The political process in global health and nutrition governance: the G8's 2010 muskoka initiative on maternal, child, and newborn health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1331(1), 186-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12494
22. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. SAGE Publications.
23. Labonté, R., & Schrecker, T. (2007). Foreign policy matters: a normative view of the G8 and population health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85(3), 185-191. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.06.037242
24. Larionova, M. a. (2019). The G20, G7 and BRICS in global economic governance. International Organisations Research Journal, 14(4), 48-71. https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2019-04-03
25. Marais, W., & Linström, M. (2012). Qualitative news frame analysis: a methodology. Communitas, 17, 21-38.
26. McBride, B., Hawkes, S., & Buse, K. (2019). Soft power and global health: the sustainable development goals (sdgs) era health agendas of the G7, G20 and BRICS. BMC Public Health, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7114-5
27. Morris, B. (2009). One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict. Yale University Press. Nhk World-Japan (t.y.). About Nhk World-Japan. https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/about/.
28. Noakes, J., & Wilkins, K. (2002). Shifting frames of the Palestinian movement in us news. Media Culture & Society, 24(5), 649-671. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344370202400506
29. NPR (t.y.) About NPR. https://www.npr.org/about.
30. Orenstein, M., & Kelemen, R. (2016). Trojan horses in EU foreign policy. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(1), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12441
31. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Sage Publications.
32. Payne, A. (2008). The G8 in a changing global economic order. International Affairs, 84(3), 519-533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00721.x
33. Rai (t.y.) About Us. https://www.rai.it/dl/portali/site/articolo/ContentItem-1d756e1e-f0b7-49b5-ae15-0e4d3e2a6f89.html.
34. Reese, S. D. (2001). Prologue—Framing Public Life: A Bridging Model for Media Research. İçinde S. Reese, O. Gandy, & A. Grant (Editörler), Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and our Understanding of the Social World (s. 7-31). Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Roy, S. (2012). Culturally unconscious. International Communication Gazette, 74(6), 556-570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048512454823
36. Shafir, G. (1996). Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882-1914. University of California Press.
37. Sherif, M. (1967). Social interaction: Processes and products. Aldine Publishing Company. Sputnik (t.y.) About Us. https://sputnikglobe.com/docs/index.html.
38. Svarin, D. (2016). The construction of ‘geopolitical spaces’ in Russian foreign policy discourse before and after the ukraine crisis. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 7(2), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2015.11.002
39. Tekir, O. (2023). Turkiye’s Africa-Sub-Saharan policies and its competition with france. Afro Eurasian Studies, 11(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.33722/afes.1147536
40. Tewksbury, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2020). News Framing Theory and Research. İçinde M. B. Oliver, A. A. Raney, & J. Bryant (Editörler), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (s. 51-69). Routledge.
41. TRT World (t.y.) About TRT World. https://www.trtworld.com/about.
42. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news. Free Press.
43. Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal, 13(1), 51-62.