THE POSITIONING OF WEB-BASED MEDIA WATCHDOGS IN THE COVERAGE OF THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI CONFLICT: A BOURDIEUSIAN ANALYSIS

Abstract

A consistent focus of attention in a media-saturated world, thirsty for instant analyses of even the most complex of issues and avid of quick ready-made answers, the PalestinianIsraeli conflict is being extensively documented world-wide on a daily basis and has been the subject of many research projects. The constant claims from both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups of unbalance and unfairness in the coverage of the conflict reflect the extent to which the agents involved in the conflict are emotionally invested in the relevant issues. As the emergence of new media has helped the rise of advocacy journalism, little or no sustained research has been undertaken so far to examine the practices and positioning of web-based media groups engaged in reporting on the Middle East conflict, from either or both perspectives. This comparative study will take as its data four webbased media watchdogs (or groups that describe themselves as such) whose main focus is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, two explicitly pro-Palestinian and two explicitly proIsraeli. Bourdieu's field theory and his concept of symbolic violence will be used as the main theoretical framework in order to study the positioning of these groups in the 'journalistic field': these alternative media outlets present themselves as challengers to the dominating agents in the journalistic field (the mainstream media) yet they depend on capital acquisition (be it political, economic or symbolic) for their survival. It is a delicate balancing act for the dominated agents to appear as credible, influential agents of change without jeopardizing their position as outsiders to the dominating field; this constant dilemma will be at the heart of the present thesis.

Date of Award	31 Dec 2017
Original language	English
Awarding Institution	The University of Manchester
Supervisor	Matthew Philpotts (Supervisor) & Mona Baker (Supervisor)