This
study by Swiss Propaganda Research was first published in 2016, it is
presented by
off-guardian.org
in English for the first time. Translated by Terje Maloy.
It
is one of the most important aspects of our media system – and yet
hardly known to the public: most of the international news coverage
in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based
in New York, London and Paris.
The
key role played by these agencies means that Western media often
report on the same topics, even using the same wording. In addition,
governments, military and intelligence services use these global news
agencies as multipliers to spread their messages around the world.
A
study of the Syria war coverage by nine leading European newspapers
clearly illustrates these issues: 78% of all articles were based in
whole or in part on agency reports, yet
0% on investigative research.
Moreover, 82% of all opinion pieces and interviews were in favor of
the US and NATO intervention, while propaganda was attributed
exclusively to the opposite side.
Part
10 - Case study: Syria war coverage
As part
of a case study, the Syria war coverage of nine leading daily
newspapers from Germany, Austria and Switzerland were examined for
plurality of viewpoints and reliance on news agencies. The following
newspapers were selected:
For
Germany: Die Welt, Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), and Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ)
For
Switzerland: Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), Tagesanzeiger (TA), and
Basler Zeitung (BaZ)
For
Austria: Standard, Kurier, and Die Presse
The
investigation period was defined as October 1 to 15, 2015, i.e. the
first two weeks after Russia’s direct intervention in the Syrian
conflict. The entire print and online coverage of these newspapers
was taken into account. Any Sunday editions were not taken into
account, as not all of the newspapers examined have such. In total,
381 newspaper articles met the stated criteria.
In a
first step, the articles were classified according to their
properties into the following groups:
Agencies:
Reports from news agencies (with agency code)
Mixed:
Simple reports (with author names) that are based in whole or in part
on agency reports
Reports:
Editorial background reports and analyzes
Opinions/Comments:
Opinions and guest comments
Interviews:
interviews with experts, politicians etc.
Investigative:
Investigative research that reveals new information or context
The
following
Figure 1 shows the composition of the articles for the nine
newspapers analyzed in total. As can be seen, 55% of articles were
news agency reports; 23% editorial reports based on agency material;
9% background reports; 10% opinions and guest comments; 2%
interviews; and 0% based on investigative research.
The pure
agency texts – from short notices to the detailed reports – were
mostly on the Internet pages of the daily newspapers: on the one
hand, the pressure for breaking news is higher than in the printed
edition, on the other hand, there are no space restrictions. Most
other types of articles were found in both the online and printed
editions; some exclusive interviews and background reports were found
only in the printed editions. All items were collected only once for
the investigation.
The
following
Figure 2 shows the same classification on a per newspaper basis.
During the observation period (two weeks), most newspapers published
between 40 and 50 articles on the Syrian conflict (print and online).
In the German newspaper Die Welt there were more (58), in the Basler
Zeitung and the Austrian Kurier, however, significantly less (29 or
33).
Depending
on which newspaper, the share of agency reports is almost 50% (Welt,
Süddeutsche, NZZ, Basler Zeitung), just under 60% (FAZ,
Tagesanzeiger), and 60 to 70% (Presse, Standard, Kurier). Together
with the agency-based reports, the proportion in most newspapers is
between approx. 70% and 80%. These proportions are consistent with
previous media studies (e.g., Blum 1995, Johnston 2011, MacGregor
2013, Paterson 2007).
In the
background reports, the Swiss newspapers were leading (five to six
pieces), followed by Welt, Süddeutsche and Standard (four each) and
the other newspapers (one to three). The background reports and
analyzes were in particular devoted to the situation and development
in the Middle East, as well as to the motives and interests of
individual actors (for example Russia, Turkey, the Islamic State).
However,
most of the commentaries were to be found in the German newspapers
(seven comments each), followed by Standard (five), NZZ and
Tagesanzeiger (four each). Basler Zeitung did not publish any
commentaries during the observation period, but two interviews. Other
interviews were conducted by Standard (three) and Kurier and Presse
(one each). Investigative research, however, could not be found in
any of the newspapers.
In
particular, in the case of the three German newspapers, a
journalistically problematic blending of opinion pieces and reports
was noted. Reports contained strong expressions of opinion even
though they were not marked as commentary. The present study was
in any case based on the article labeling by the newspaper.
The
following
Figure 3 shows the breakdown of agency stories (by agency
abbreviation) for each news agency, in total and per country. The 211
agency reports carried a total of 277 agency codes (a story may
consist of material from more than one agency). In total, 24% of
agency reports came from the AFP; about 20% each by the DPA, APA and
Reuters; 9% of the SDA; 6% of the AP; and 11% were unknown (no
labeling or blanket term “agencies”).
In
Germany, the DPA, AFP and Reuters each have a share of about one
third of the news stories. In Switzerland, the SDA and the AFP are in
the lead, and in Austria, the APA and Reuters.
In fact,
the shares of the global agencies AFP, AP and Reuters are likely to
be even higher, as the Swiss SDA and the Austrian APA obtain their
international reports mainly from the global agencies and the German
DPA cooperates closely with the American AP.
It
should also be noted that, for historical reasons, the global
agencies are represented differently in different regions of the
world. For events in Asia, Ukraine or Africa, the share of each
agency will therefore be different than from events in the Middle
East.
In the
next step, central statements were used to rate the orientation of
editorial opinions (28), guest comments (10) and interview partners
(7) (a total of 45 articles). As Figure
4 shows, 82% of the
contributions were generally US/NATO friendly, 16% neutral
or balanced, and 2% predominantly US/NATO critical.
The only
predominantly US/NATO-critical contribution was an op-ed in the
Austrian Standard on October 2, 2015, titled: “The strategy of
regime change has failed. A distinction between ‚good‘ and ‚bad‘
terrorist groups in Syria makes the Western policy untrustworthy.”
The
following
Figure 5 shows the orientation of the contributions, guest comments
and interviewees, in turn broken down by individual newspapers. As
can be seen, Welt, Süddeutsche Zeitung, NZZ, Zürcher Tagesanzeiger
and the Austrian newspaper Kurier presented exclusively
US/NATO-friendly opinion and guest contributions; this goes for FAZ
too, with the exception of one neutral/balanced contribution. The
Standard brought four US/NATO friendly, three balanced/neutral, as
well as the already mentioned US/NATO critical opinion contributions.
Presse
was the only one of the examined newspapers to predominantly publish
neutral/balanced opinions and guest contributions. The Basler Zeitung
published one US/NATO-friendly and one balanced contribution. Shortly
after the observation period (October 16, 2015), Basler Zeitung also
published an interview with the President of the Russian Parliament.
This would of course have been counted as a contribution critical of
the US/NATO.
In a
further analysis, a full-text keyword search for “propaganda”
(and word combinations thereof) was used to investigate in which
cases the newspapers themselves identified propaganda in one of the
two geopolitical conflict sides, USA/NATO or Russia (the participant
“IS/ISIS” was not considered). In total, twenty such cases were
identified. Figure
6 shows the result: in 85% of the cases,
propaganda was identified on the Russian side of the conflict, in 15%
the identification was neutral or unstated, and in 0% of the cases
propaganda was identified on the USA/NATO side of the conflict.
It
should be noted that about half of the cases (nine) were in the Swiss
NZZ, which spoke of Russian propaganda quite frequently (“Kremlin
propaganda”, “Moscow propaganda machine”, “propaganda
stories”, “Russian propaganda apparatus” etc.), followed by
German FAZ (three), Welt and Süddeutsche Zeitung (two each) and the
Austrian newspaper Kurier (one). The other newspapers did not mention
propaganda, or only in a neutral context (or in the context of IS).
Further
info, references, sources:
Comments
Post a Comment