Lectures, Intros, Documentations

• Intros: Stereotypes
  • How media trespasses selectively boundaries of free speech and creates new stereotypes / Dr. Sabine Schiffer
  • The Anti-Semitic Cartoon Contest / Amitai Sandy
  • Fighting For identity – Boundless Communication in the Blogosphere / Don Alphonso
• Intros: Representation
  • Democracy, Free Speech, and Occupation: Coexistence and Contradictions / Prof. Dr. Dov Shinar
  • Online Mainstream Media and Weblogs: Competing or Complementary Publics / Dr. Jan Schmidt
  • Western Hegemony as a Boundary for Arab Media / Daoud Kuttab
• Intros: Objectivity/Relevance
  • A Private Mall: Public Space in the Internet / Mushon Zer Aviv
  • Israeli Self-Censorship: A Voluntary Boundary of Free Speech? / Meron Rapoport
  • Many Boundaries and One Big One / Christoph Schult
  • Reporting from the Front Lines – A Balancing Act / Inge Günther
  • Some Notes on the Historical Baggage of German-Israeli Relations: Exclusions in Mainstream Discourse / Yariv Lapid
  • The Role of the Editor in Israels Media world / Ari Rath

Stereotypes, Objectivity and Relevance in the Web and Mainstream Media

“Who am I to undermine stereotypes? You have to have a strong standing for that.” Gisela Dachs, who was moderating the panel of the first day works for the German newspaper “Die Zeit”. Having defined fear as the leading topic, she told how she wrote an article about a Palestinian school. Her photographer chose girls with head scarves out of the crowd of students and placed them in front of the camera. The picture was supposed to have an Arabic look so people wouldn’t confuse it with a German university. However, the fact that at Arabic universities women can walk uncovered got automatically omitted.

Stereotypes, Objectivity, Relevance – all of the aspects are difficult to grasp. As they turned up at the end of the first day in the final discussion between journalists and media experts, they give introductory examples. The discussing participants were: Dr. Sabine Schiffer from the Institute of Media Responsibility, Christoph Schult, the correspondent from the German Political Magazine “Der Spiegel” and Meron Rapoport from the Israeli newspaper “Ha’aretz”.

Rapoport, who belongs to the few journalists who report from the Occupied Territorries, argued that the media coverage of Islamic terrorists was huge. Yet, hardly any mainstream media talked about the occupation. Speaking from personal experience as former chief editor from the politics desk at the biggest Israeli newspaper “Yedioth Ahronoth”, he grabbed the mike to say: “Relevance in Western media? Excuse the word, but this is ‘bullshit’.” According to him, 30% of Israeli men are strongly involved in the occupation during their army service, whereas only 5% of the Palestinians are terrorists.

“The worst thing that journalists can do is to pretend to be objective.” Every attempt to defend media as trustworthy was refuted. Whether surrendering to the ever-growing possibilities of information manipulation through the internet or merely giving up old school journalism, Rapoport argued, “All journalists could try to do is to be fair.” But objectivity is not only a myth, it can be a boundary too. Already decisions about the placing of certain media items are due to subjective choices.

Does the Web World Provide Freedom of Speech?
Subjectivity ending in political bias was no longer a problem for the second panel about alternative media “Media means to mediate, meaning to interfere”. Dan Sieradski spoke as a web blogger. Through multiple voices, subjectivity in the internet works as a tool for objectivity. It is a forum which gives every one the possibility to raise their voice. Palestinians or political activists were able to document and publish on the net for instance contraventions of the law by the Israeli army. They thus managed to regain their rights.

Examples of the success by alternative initiatives are numerous. However, a critical view also has to be kept on those. As Mushon Zer Aviv shows, free space in the internet is limited. It is mostly private territory. Approaches in comparison to mainstream media have to be adjusted to the character of the internet. But maybe it is the interaction between both kinds of media, alternative and mainstream, which embody free speech, as Jan Schmidt shows? Don Alphonso adds, in order to be heard you have to be radical. So what are the compromises, once it comes down to getting the message out there?

The connection between the different kinds of boundaries, political, psychological or structural has yet to be explored. Whether alternative or mainstream, media are involved in the ongoing conflicts on the level of representation. As Dan Sieradski points out, there is definitely a “spinning of reality”. Sometimes media creates lies, sometimes it disabuses. But as the future bears growing capacities and time for people to consume different kinds of media, their impact matters. Hopefully, a constant and active reflection on the symbols that are shaping our reality in everyday life can offer a way out.