International Communication Gazette http://gaz.sagepub.

com/

Al-Jazeera vs Al-Jazeera: A comparison of the network's English and Arabic online coverage of the US/Al Qaeda conflict
Shahira S Fahmy and Mohammed Al Emad International Communication Gazette 2011 73: 216 DOI: 10.1177/1748048510393656 The online version of this article can be found at: http://gaz.sagepub.com/content/73/3/216

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for International Communication Gazette can be found at: Email Alerts: http://gaz.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://gaz.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://gaz.sagepub.com/content/73/3/216.refs.html

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

Article

Al-Jazeera vs Al-Jazeera: A comparison of the networks English and Arabic online coverage of the US/Al Qaeda conflict
Shahira S Fahmy
The University of Arizona, USA

the International Communication Gazette 73(3) 216232 The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1748048510393656 gaz.sagepub.com

Mohammed Al Emad
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, USA

Abstract In light of US criticism that Al-Jazeera network is biased in its coverage against the United States by aiding the terrorist cause and the fact that most of the accusations of bias continue to be based on the claim that Arab media such as Al-Jazeera Arabic include the language of terror organizations, while its English-language counterpart, Al-Jazeera English, is being cleansed by changes and omissions, this research sought to investigate whether these claims could be validated. Examining online coverage of the US/Al Qaeda conflict in the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera website, these claims were measured against online coverage of the conflict in the English-language Al-Jazeera website. By content analyzing prominence of news stories (frequency and placement), use of sources and tone of coverage, the research demonstrates a significant difference regarding the placement of news stories between the English- and Arabic-language Al-Jazeera websites, but no further differences were found. The overwhelming majority of attributed sources were from the United States and its allies. Furthermore, results revealed Al-Jazeera websites did not shy away from negative coverage regarding all those involved in the conflict. By

Corresponding author: Shahira Fahmy, School of Journalism, Department of Near Eastern Studies, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Arizona, 845 N. Park Avenue, Marshall Building 325, PO Box 210158B, Tucson, AZ 85721-0158, USA Email: sfahmy@email.arizona.edu

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

Fahmy and Emad

217

and large in a highly competitive media environment, our findings suggest that in reporting the US/Al Qaeda conflict Al-Jazeera websites did not provide different perspectives of the war to Arabic- and English-language online users. Keywords Arabic-language Al-Jazeera website, English-language Al-Jazeera website, US/Al Qaeda conflict, war reporting Since 9/11 the United States has engaged in a long-term conflict with Al Qaeda and all individuals, organizations and groups that may be connected to it. Less than one month after the terrorist attack, the United States struck against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda was headquartered. Many terrorist attacks by different cells and groups connected with Al Qaeda have since taken place against the United States and its allies in the conflict, such as attacks in Britain and Spain.1 One of the media organizations that has closely covered the US/Al Qaeda conflict is Al-Jazeera network. Specifically, the Qatar-based network was the only news outlet covering the Afghan War from the frontlines (Jasperson and El-Kikhia, 2003).2 Thus media coverage of that conflict has been a matter of extreme interest and sensitivity not just for those directly or indirectly involved, but also for international broadcasters, public officials, media critics and academics. Unsurprisingly, Al-Jazeera has also been subject to intense scrutiny in its coverage of the conflict, regularly receiving a large volume of complaints, mainly from the United States, accusing it of being less favorable to its war efforts in the Muslim world. The World Wide Web has grown rapidly since the technology was introduced on a broad scale in 1991. Some have compared the explosion of news sites to the growth of cable networks in the 1980s or television stations during the 1950s (Stempel and Stewart, 2000). Currently, the vast majority of traditional media, such as Al-Jazeera, have their own websites from which they dispense the news online (Severin and Tankard, 2001). A review of the literature revealed no prior studies that have used the framing approach to examine whether the English- and Arabic-language Al-Jazeera websites differ in their coverage of the US/Al Qaeda conflict. Using framing as the central concept in this study, a content analysis was designed to explore how online news is catered in different languages to different news consumers worldwide by a single news network. Specifically, it tested whether the Arabic Al-Jazeera news website used fewer US news sources and a more negative tone of coverage toward the United States than its English counterpart in covering the conflict. By examining the use of framing devices in these two news websites, this study examined the use of prominence of online stories covering the conflict (frequency and placement), the use of different sources in reporting these stories and the overall tone of coverage. According to Entman (1993), Iyengar (1991) and Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007), framing effects refer to how the presentation of an issue in news stories can influence the way audiences understand the issue. Thus this study is important for good reasons. First, Al-Jazeera has been repeatedly accused by the former Bush administration of being biased in its reporting toward the United States. For example, former Defense

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

218

the International Communication Gazette 73(3)

Secretary Donald Rumsfield noted that what Al-Jazeera was doing in airing footage of civilian deaths was vicious, inaccurate, and inexcusable. Shortly after, former Secretary of State Colin Powell demanded that the Qatari foreign minister rein in the network (Mekay, 2004). Officials from the United States further complained that Al-Jazeera was providing airtime to experts hostile to the United States policy in the region (Mekay, 2004).3 More recently, accusations against Al-Jazeera have been laden with claims that the satellite networks framing of Middle Eastern and world events has ignited Muslim and Arab anger against the United States, its military campaigns and its foreign policies (El-Nawawy and Iskandar, 2003; Salem, 2003; Zednik, 2002).4 Second, the network has been accused by numerous critics worldwide of providing a forum for Israelis, supporters of Saddam Hussein and supporters of Osama Bin Laden to express their views (Hanley, 2004). Some Arab regimes have even criticized the network for being an avenue for dissident voices and a conspirator in anti-government movements, while others have acknowledged it as the sole voice of journalistic objectivity in the Arab region (Negus, 2001; Zednik, 2002). In the light of these accusations and the fact that many Arab officials have been charged with expressing one set of views in Arabic, while sending entirely different messages to the media in English (i.e. Marcus and Crook, 2004), this research sought to investigate whether such claims could be sustained. Indeed, there have been claims that Arab news sites sanitize Arabic hate terminology in their English counterparts. As one critic noted, The Arabic version included the language of the terror organizations, while the English was cleansed with changes and omissions, including changes to the language of direct quotes (HaLevi, 2007).

Theoretical framework: News framing

Because we make the assumption that the media play a highly influential role in how individuals perceive news events, it is important to understand how US/Al Qaeda conflict events are portrayed in the media. Framing is one of the most relevant approaches to explaining how the media influence audiences attitudes toward wars and conflicts. Framing has been defined as the ability of the media to influence the audiences understanding of an issue based on the way the media presents that particular issue. Entman (1993), Iyengar (1991) and Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) suggest that media frames are often used to present issues to the public in ways that are easily understood. In fact Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007: 12) refer to framing as modes of presentations that journalists and communicators use in presenting relatively complex issues in a way that makes them accessible to lay audiences. In this way, framing is used to construct and define issues using salient aspects of a social reality that is already understood by particular audiences. A few other scholars have focused their definitions of framing on specific narratives or interpretations. Reese (2007: 150), for example, defined frames as organizing principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the social world. And according to Gamson (1992), a frame is a storyline or organizing idea. Entmans (1993: 52) definition of framing consists of select[ing] some aspects of a perceived reality and mak[ing] them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

Fahmy and Emad

219

as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation. Tankard et al. (1991: 277) describe a media frame as the central organizing idea for news content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration. According to Nelson et al. (1997), framing influences audiences as to which associations should receive greater weight in relation to others. In sum, media frames can play a vital role in stimulating opposition to, or support for an event or issue by representing specific ideologies. In other words, frames may guide how people understand the world and thus form their judgments about specific issues. Framing as a research program has been used in numerous mass communication studies to understand news content and its relation to media effects (e.g. Entman, 1993; Pfau et al., 2008). Many of these studies suggest the use of particular frames and/or framing devices, which include the selection of specific headlines, photographs, captions, leads, pull quotes, sources/affiliations and quotes (see Severin and Tankard, 2001). Griffin (2004), for example, analyzed the nature of US news magazine coverage of the Afghan and Iraq Wars. Results showed that the photographs primarily established narrative themes that fit within the official administration discourse. Jasperson and El-Kikhia (2003) compared the framing of the Afghan War in the CNN and Al-Jazeera networks. Results showed that CNN used frames of consensus and focused on the strategy of technological precision, giving a euphemistic description of events. On the other hand, most of the Al-Jazeera coverage framed the war in terms of the human toll and the personal suffering of the Afghan people. Some researchers using the framing approach looked for these and other related framing devices and mechanisms to identify frames organizing the content of news (e.g. Aday et al., 2005; Liebler and Bendix, 1996, Norris, 1995; Reese and Buckalew, 1995; Schwalbe et al., 2008). To assess the prominence of coverage of specific news events, for example, researchers looked at the frequency of stories, their placement and length in order to assess visibility, emphasis and importance. Norris (1995) assessed the prominence of international network news in the pre-and post-Cold War periods by content analyzing the number and the length of stories, as well as story order. Other framing studies examined the sources used in coverage of news events (e.g. Fahmy, 2005; Severin and Tankard, 2001; Tankard et al., 1991). Shoemaker and Reese (1996: 113) explain: Attributing statements is a key element of the objective ritual. It protects against accusations that they [journalists] have been manipulated. Source selection is, thus, one of many important framing devices used, particularly because relying on specific sources means framing the news from those sources perspectives. Some framing research has also examined the agency variable in order to determine the tone of coverage toward combatants in a conflict. The term agent referred to an actor in a specific event. That actor was perceived to have done something negative, positive, or neutral, and therefore becomes an agent of action (see Wall, 1997). Daradanova (2002), for example, used this agency concept to measure the construct of two newspapers framing of the 1999 Kosovo crisis. During the coverage of the conflict under study, a number of framing devices mentioned above could have been invoked to produce different biases in online coverage catered to different online users. Based on past literature, the researchers (who are

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

220

the International Communication Gazette 73(3)

proficient in the Arabic and English languages) specifically examined the use of three framing devices. They examined the use of prominence in online stories, the selection of sources and the use of agency as a variable to determine the tone of coverage.

Al-Jazeera online
Al-Jazeera TV network, the first 24-hour all-news network in the Arab world, was launched in 1996. It established the reputation of being the leading independent news source in the Arab world and has been considered the regions most viewed and most credible news network (El-Nawawy and Iskandar, 2003). A recent study found Al-Jazeera viewers rated the network as highly credible on all measures (Johnson and Fahmy, 2008). Respondents rated CNN and BBC high on expertise, but ranked them low on trustworthiness. The BBC and CNN were also rated low on other credibility measures, and local Arab media were judged lowest on all credibility measures examined. Further, the emergence of Al-Jazeera is said to have acted as a possible contributor toward press freedom in the Arab world, one that has encouraged a more independent role of the media by supporting the lifting of government controls on the press (Fahmy and Johnson, 2007b). Al-Jazeera has thus played a major role in ushering a period of increased press freedom in the Arab world (Cherribi, 2006; El-Nawawy and Iskandar, 2003; Hanley, 2004; Nisbet et al., 2004).5 In addition, the network is said to have provided a unique source of visual information. Al-Jazeera viewers contend it provides more realistic pictures of wars and military conflicts in the Middle East than do western media (see Fahmy and Johnson, 2007a). Al-Jazeera grew out of the termination of a contract between Saudi-owned Orbit Radio and TV service and the Arabic TV division of the BBC news service. The BBCs Arabic TV network collapsed in the mid-1990s, leaving 20 media professionals without a job. In the process of establishing Al-Jazeera news network, its founders decided to recruit the majority of the BBCs Arabic TV service editorial staff. By 2001, Al-Jazeera housed a staff of about 350 journalists and 50 foreign correspondents working in 31 countries, including the United States. These Al-Jazeera editors, reporters and producers were from various Arab countries. They were trained in the western journalistic tradition,6 wielding the expert knowledge and understanding of Arab politics and audiences (El-Nawawy and Iskandar, 2003). And when Al-Jazeera launched its websites, many of these news professionals simultaneously covered events in the English- and Arabic-language websites. Al-Jazeera launched its Arabic news site on 1 January 2001 (Salem, 2003). In an attempt to globalize the network and reach English-language online users worldwide, Al-Jazeera officially launched its English-language news site on 1 September 2003. As the Arabic-language site experienced incredible development, the English-language version also rapidly improved, attracting more users over the years (About Al-Jazeera, 2003). Studies that compared the users of the two websites indicate that users of the two sites differ. The majority (81.4 percent) of the users of the English-language website indicate they come from the United States and other western countries. Survey results showed that almost half of the respondents (47 percent) listed the United States as their country of origin, 20 percent listed Canada, Australia and the UK and only 14.4 percent of the

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

Fahmy and Emad

221

respondents indicated backgrounds from 20 Arab countries and five Muslim countries (Johnson and Fahmy, 2009). Users of the Arabic-language website, on the other hand, tend to be primarily from the Arab world. Survey results showed that 98 percent of the respondents indicated backgrounds from 20 Arab countries and two Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Pakistan) (Fahmy and Johnson, 2007a). From their inception, the Al-Jazeera websites have been important news sources about conflicts involving the United States and the Arab world. During the month of March 2003 (the beginning of the Iraq War) a wide range of online news sources, including Al-Jazeera website, experienced surges in traffic. For example, Al-Jazeera attracted over a million unique online visitors during that month. According to Nielson/Net Ratings, it was the fastest growing online news source. By the end of March 2003, the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera website ranked 45th among the list of most visited websites worldwide. The average number of pages visited by each visitor increased to 4.2 pages, which was higher than the most famous news websites, including CNN, which only reached 3.3 pages per visitor (Salem, 2003).

War in cyberspace
As more people were coming to rely on the internet as a main source of information, several researchers examined how the internet is used as a medium to cover war and military conflicts. Some studies explored the dynamics, structures and effects of war coverage on cyberspace. Al-Saggaf (2006), for example, examined the website for Al-Arabiya TV to explore the potential of online media to foster civic engagement in the Arab world. Results showed the users not only challenged the views of the Al-Arabiya site regarding the coverage of the Iraq War, but they also offered their own versions of the truth. While online newspapers have moved beyond the so-called shovelware stage of online journalism and have begun to incorporate hyperlinks and pictures regularly in their news reporting (see Dimitrova and Neznanski, 2006), one of the paradoxes of online war coverage is that whereas one would expect that cyber-technologies would democratize the politics of war by liberating access to information about the conflict, various governments have tried to co-opt information and communication technologies to facilitate new forms of mass mobilization to gain support for war (Walsh and Barbara, 2006). Current literature indicates that online news reports, similar to their traditional counterparts, correspond with the accepted norms of every government and every culture. For example, a study that examined how CNN and Al-Jazeera news sites covered stories regarding the Iraqi civilian casualties during the Iraq War revealed that both news outlets disseminated propagandist messages (Youssef, 2004). Further, in examining the visual coverage of that war in 26 US mainstream news sites, Schwalbe (2006) found five frames emerged to reinforce the US patriotic war narrative: conflict, conquest, rescue, victory and control.

Hypotheses and research question

Based on past literature and the theoretical framework of news framing, the following hypotheses and research question are examined:

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

222

the International Communication Gazette 73(3)

H1: In reporting the US/Al Qaeda conflict the online stories on the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera website are likely to differ from its English-language counterpart in terms of prominence (frequency and placement). H2: In reporting the conflict, fewer US sources will be used in the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera website than in its English-language counterpart. H3: In reporting the conflict, the tone of coverage will be more negative toward the United States in the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera website than in its English-language counterpart. RQ: In reporting the conflict did the tone of coverage toward the United States, the coalition and Al Qaeda significantly differ in the two websites combined?

Method
The authors collected two data sets during the entire month of March 2004. The first data set was from the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera website. The second data set was from the English-language Al-Jazeera website. March 2004 was selected for a couple of reasons: first, it represented the first anniversary of the United States invasion of Iraq as part of the United States-led global war on terrorism. Second, the US/Al Qaeda conflict had worsened by then. More attacks by groups related to Al Qaeda started taking place against the United States and its allies. All US/Al Qaeda conflict news stories including linked headlines that led to stories appearing on the homepages of both the English- and Arabic-language Al-Jazeera websites were downloaded. Since the online content continuously changes this study followed the suggestions of Massey and Levy (1999) that online news sites need to be visited twice in 24 hours. The researchers also took into consideration the time-zone difference between the United States and the Middle East. Thus the first visit to download online news stories was between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. in New York (which was between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. in the Middle East). The second visit was 12 hours later, between 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. in New York (which was between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. in the Middle East). Because sometimes the same news stories were updated, a news story was considered a different story and was analyzed only if the headline and the lead had changed. For the purpose of this study, the researchers downloaded 1760 online news stories. Out of these news stories, only the ones that covered the US/Al Qaeda conflict (238 news stories) were content analyzed based on the following three variables:

Prominence
To assess the relative emphasis of the US/Al Qaeda conflict on the two websites, the frequency and placement of the online stories on the homepage of the two websites were coded. Frequency was identified as the number of stories covering the US/Al Qaeda conflict in each of the two Al-Jazeera news websites. Placement was coded based on three categories: (1) lead story (the most important news item on each website); (2) top story (the next most important news item on each website); and (3) other homepage story (the least important news item on each website).

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

Fahmy and Emad

223

Attributed sources
To measure the types of sources used in the coverage of the US/Al Qaeda conflict, quotes and paraphrased statements attributed to news sources were coded. If a source was quoted or paraphrased more than once, it was coded as one source. The sources were coded based on five categories: 1. US sources. (These included the United States government or a military official, for example former President Bush; a senator, a general; a US official; a US officer; a US military person/spokesperson; the Pentagon. It also included a US source without a political or military rank, for example a US witness; a US expert/analyst. In addition it included a US medium or network.) Coalition sources. (These included a government or military official from one of the allied countries. It also included a source from one of the coalition countries without a political or military rank, for example a witness; a person in the street; an expert/ analyst. In addition it included a medium or a representative of a medium from one of the coalition countries, for example a British journalist/correspondent; an Italian news network.) Al Qaeda sources. (These included a representative of Al Qaeda or a representative of a person or a group presented as related to Al Qaeda organization, for example Bin Laden; Al-Zawahiri; Al Qaeda spokesperson; a statement by Al Qaeda; a website of a group related to Al-Qaeda.) International sources. (These included a representative of an international institution or a government official, military officer, or an ordinary person from a country other than the US, its allies and Al Qaeda. It also included international media or representatives of international media. For example, these sources included: the UN; NATO; any human rights group.) Al-Jazeera sources. (These sources included representative of Al-Jazeera network, for example Al-Jazeera journalist/correspondent.)

2.

3.

4.

5.

Tone of coverage
To assess how the combatants of the US/Al Qaeda conflict were portrayed online, the tone of reporting the conflict was analyzed using the concept of agency (see e.g. Wall, 1997). The term agent was defined as a particular reference to an actor who was perceived to have done something negative, positive, or neutral and therefore considered to be an agent of action. Agents coded in this study included all the combatants involved in the conflict (the United States, its allies and Al Qaeda), in addition to people, groups, organizations, or actions that represented them or were reported to represent them. Each news story was assigned only one agent based on the qualities and attributes that were assigned to it. Based on an analysis of a pilot sample of news stories, the headline and at least the first three paragraphs of the story were examined to identify the agent. When the agent was not clear in the headline, the lead or the first three paragraphs of the news story, the agent was coded as no agent.7

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

224

the International Communication Gazette 73(3)

Each identified agent was coded as : 1. Positive agent (i.e. the agent afflicts positive change regarding the conflict, for example acts to alleviate a problem, shows interest/concern for a problem and/or tries to find a resolution. This positive action/attitude was expressed through words that accredited positive attributes to the agent. Examples of these words or phrases were: help, relief, negotiations, humanitarian efforts, reconstruction, peace efforts and cooperation.) Negative agent (i.e. the agent afflicts negative change regarding the conflict by creating or deteriorating a situation or a problem. This negative action/attitude was expressed through words that accredited negative attributes to the agent. Examples of these words or phrases were: destroy, bomb, kill, torture, unwillingness to cooperate, acting irrationally and resisting positive influence.) Neutral agent (i.e. the agent afflicts neither a negative nor a positive change regarding the conflict. In other words, in a news story no negative or positive attributes were accredited to that agent.)

2.

3.

The authors coded the content based on guidelines used to provide a systematic way in which all content was dealt with. Both coders are proficient in the Arabic and English languages. Each coder has spent more than a decade in the United States and more than a decade in an Arab country. Intercoder reliability was checked for 30 US/Al Qaeda conflict stories (10.2 percent of total). The data reflected an overall intercoder reliability of 96 percent, based on Holstis formula. Reliability estimates for each category were also calculated by Scotts pi as follows: prominence (frequency and placement) 100 percent; attributed sources 92 percent; and tone of coverage 91 percent.

Results
A total of 238 online stories covered the US/Al Qaeda conflict and 1522 online stories covered other topics. Out of the 238 online stories that focused on the conflict, 139 were downloaded from the Arabic-language website and 99 stories were downloaded from its English-language counterpart. The majority of the news stories examined did not appear in the lead story or the top story categories (63.9 percent). In terms of attributed sources, each online story listed approximately two sources. Overall 430 sources were identified: 231 sources were coded in Arabic news stories, and 199 sources were coded in English news stories. Regarding the agents identified in reporting the conflict, there were 173 agents coded: 41 agents were from the United States, 85 agents were from coalition countries and 47 agents represented Al Qaeda. The first hypothesis, which tested whether in terms of prominence the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera website was likely to differ from its English-language counterpart in reporting the conflict, was partially supported. Table 1 shows frequencies and percentages of online news stories in the two websites. As shown, a chi-square test suggested no significant difference in terms of frequency (1.65, p > .05). The vast majority of the news stories in the two websites covered other topics. In the English-language website, almost 15 percent of the news stories focused on

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

Fahmy and Emad

225

Table 1. Frequency and percentages of online news stories in the English- and Arabic-language Al-Jazeera websites (N 1760) English website US/Al Qaeda conflict Other topics Total
Chi-square 1.65, p > .05.

Arabic website 139 (12.7%) 955 (87.3%) 1094 (100%)

Total 238 (13.5%) 1522 (86.5%) 1760 (100%)

99 (14.9%) 567 (85.1%) 666 (100%)

Table 2. Placement of online news stories covering the US/Al Qaeda conflict in the English- and Arabic-language Al-Jazeera websites (N 238) English website Lead news story Top news story Other homepage stories Total
Chi-square 17.34, p < .001.

Arabic website 8 (5.8%) 27 (19.4%) 104 (74.8%) 139 (100%)

Total 19 67 152 238 (8.0%) (28.2%) (63.9%) (100%)

11 40 48 99

(11.1%) (40.4%) (48.5%) (100%)

the US/Al Qaeda conflict and 85.1 percent focused on other issues. In the Arabic-language website, 12.7 percent of the news stories were about the conflict and 87.3 percent focused on other topics. Regarding the placement of news stories, however, a chi-square test suggested significant differences. As shown in Table 2, the English-language website placed more US/Al Qaeda stories as lead stories (11.1 percent) and top stories (40.4 percent) than its Arabic-language counterpart (5.8 and 19.4 percent respectively). Results indicated the majority of online stories covering the conflict in the Arabic-language website were not prominently placed. Hypothesis 2, which tested whether fewer US sources will be used in the Arabiclanguage Al-Jazeera website than its English-language counterpart, was not supported. As shown in Table 3, a chi-square test revealed no significant differences between the two websites (8.82, p > .05). Results suggested the two websites relied largely on coalition sources (40.0 percent), followed by US sources (24.7 percent). Both relied less on Al Qaeda sources (16.7 percent) and least on international (11.2 percent) and Al-Jazeera sources (7.4 percent). The third hypothesis, which tested whether the tone of coverage will be more negative toward the United States in the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera website than its Englishlanguage counterpart, was also not supported. As Table 4 indicates, chi-square tests revealed no significant differences. Findings showed an overall trend of negative coverage in the two websites regarding all agents involved in the conflict. Specifically, Al Qaeda agents were portrayed more negatively than any other group involved in this war. As indicated in Table 4, the Al-Jazeera websites did not shy away from providing a trend of negative coverage regarding all of those involved in the conflict. The tone was

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

226

the International Communication Gazette 73(3)

Table 3. Attributed sources used in reporting the US/Al Qaeda conflict in the English- and Arabiclanguage Al-Jazeera websites (N 430) English website US sources Coalition sources Al Qaeda sources International sources Al-Jazeera sources Total
Chi-square 8.82, p > .05.

Arabic website 65 89 32 23 22 231 (28.1%) (38.5%) (13.9%) (10%) (9.5%) (100%)

Total 106 172 72 48 32 430 (24.7%) (40%) (16.7%) (11.2%) (7.4%) (100%)

41 83 40 25 10 199

(20.6%) (41.7%) (20.1%) (12.6%) (14.8%) (100%)

Table 4. Tone of coverage in online news stories covering the US/Al Qaeda conflict in the English- and Arabic-language Al-Jazeera websites (N 173) English website US agent: Positive Negative Total Coalition agent: Positive Negative Total Al Qaeda agent: Positive Negative Total 2 (14.3%) 12 (85.7%) 14 (100%) 8 (19.5%) 33 (80.5%) 41 (100%) 3 (11.5%) 23 (88.5%) 26 (100%) Arabic website 5 (18.5%) 22 (81.5%) 27 (100%) 9 (20.5%) 35 (79.5%) 44 (100%) 2 (9.5%) 19 (90.5%) 21 (100%) Total 7 (17.1%) 34 (82.9%) 41 (100%) 17 (20.0%) 68 (80.0%) 85 (100%) 5 (10.6%) 42 (89.4%) 47 (100%)

Chi-square for tone US 1.92, p > .05. Chi-square for tone US allies 4.29, p > .05. Chi-square for tone Al Qaeda 1.25, p > .05 Note: For these analyses due to the limited number of neutral agents, the neutral category was coded as missing.

rarely positive for any of the agents involved. In approximately eight in 10 stories in which the United States was the agent, there were negative attributions identified in the English-language website (85.7 percent) and in its Arabic-language counterpart (81.5 percent). Likewise, the majority of the United States allies were accredited negative attributes in the two websites (80.5 percent and 79.5 percent respectively). In terms of Al Qaeda, in almost nine out of 10 online stories, there were negative attributions identified in the two websites. To address the research question that examined whether the tone of coverage regarding the United States, the coalition countries and Al Qaeda significantly differed in both websites, when the data from Al-Jazeera English- and Arabic-language websites were combined, a chi-square test revealed significant differences (6.63, p < . 05). As shown in Table 5, when the agent in the online story was the United States or one of its allies,

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

Fahmy and Emad

227

Table 5. Tone of coverage in online news stories covering the US/Al Qaeda conflict in the English- and Arabic-language Al-Jazeera websites combined (N 173) US agent Positive Negative Total 7 (17.1%) 34 (82.9%) 41 (100%) Coalition agent 17 (20%) 68 (80%) 85 (100%) Al Qaeda agent 5 (10.6%) 42 (89.4%) 47 (100%) Total 29 (16.8%) 144 (83.2%) 173 (100%)

Chi-square 6.63, p < .05. Note: For this analysis due to the limited number of neutral agents, the neutral category was coded as missing.

the agent had negative attributes in eight out of 10 of these stories, whereas, when the agent was Al Qaeda, it had negative attributes in almost nine out of 10 stories.

Discussion
There is a trend to globalize and conglomerate the news industry, expanding the reach of news consumers and making news available in different languages to various people around the world. While several studies have explored Al-Jazeeras TV coverage (e.g. Andy et al., 2005; Media Tenor, 2004; Wicks and Wicks, 2004), this is one of the first studies to explore the networks online coverage in both its English- and Arabic-language websites. Past studies have indicated that users of the two websites differ (see e.g. Fahmy and Johnson, 2007a; Johnson and Fahmy, 2009). This research, then, is one of the first studies that looks at how news is catered to different news consumers around the world through a single news outlet in times of war and terrorism. It thus explores a new dimension to the existing scholarship on news framing by examining how the English- and Arabic-language Al-Jazeera news websites catered the US/Al Qaeda conflict to different online users in different languages. Specifically, the article also tested whether the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera news website used fewer US news sources and reported the war more negatively toward the United States than its English-language counterpart. Overall, our results provide evidence for the lack of differences in using framing devices between the Al-Jazeera websites. Moreover, this study offers a fresh perspective on framing research regarding these websites and their potential effects in framing the US/Al Qaeda conflict to different online users. Findings indicate only a limited percentage of the news stories analyzed in the English- and Arabic-language Al-Jazeera websites focused on the US/Al Qaeda conflict (Table 1). It appears that Al-Jazeera websites did not put much emphasis on covering the conflict. However, it is worth noting that more than one-third of these stories appeared as lead stories or as top stories on the two websites (Table 2). This suggests that while the two websites did not focus much on the conflict in terms of frequency, which is generally believed to be of less interest to domestic audiences, they still gave the topic moderate weight and importance by placing many of these stories in a notable format. Our results also indicated that the majority of online stories covering the conflict in the Arabic-language website were not prominently placed overall. One plausible explanation is that Al-Jazeera executives, because of the United States involvement in the war, could have perceived this conflict to be more important to its English-speaking users

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

228

the International Communication Gazette 73(3)

than its Arabic-speaking ones and accordingly decided to place their English-language war-related stories in a more prominent format. Regarding the sources used in reporting the conflict, results showed the two websites relied mostly on sources from coalition countries and the United States, followed by sources from Al Qaeda and a few international and Al-Jazeera sources. As shown, Al Qaeda sources, although present, were significantly underrepresented in both websites. The literature suggests that framing of news stories is indicated by the use of particular framing devices, such as the selection of sources (Severin and Tankard, 2001). These findings, thus, do not support the accusations that Al-Jazeera has acted as a mouthpiece for Al Qaeda by using more sources from the terrorist organization in its reporting. On the contrary, our findings showed the coverage was mostly inclusive of sources from the United States and its allies. In fact, the conflict was reported primarily from the perspective of these countries. This could be because in practical terms, while Al Qaeda sources were available to Al-Jazeera in the form of websites, videotapes, cassettes, or fax documents, it would have been difficult to confirm the authenticity of these sources. Thus, Al-Jazeera having limited access to verify these alternative sources might have chosen to depend mostly on sources from the West (the United States and its allies). Furthermore, a comparative analysis examining the use of sources in the two websites revealed no significant differences (Table 3). This suggests that Al-Jazeera websites did not use different sources to report the conflict. For example, it did not try to present a one-sided perspective of the United States and its allies to its English-speaking audience, neither did it present a predominantly Al Qaeda perspective to its Arabic-speaking audience. Regarding the tone of coverage, the vast majority of those involved in the conflict were framed negatively, with Al Qaeda agents portrayed more negatively than any other agent involved in the conflict. These findings are consistent with past studies that discovered most reports on Al-Jazeera network are not positive, in terms of explicit or implicit statements (see Media Tenor, 2004). These results could be an indication that the Al-Jazeera websites presented all combatants as negatively contributing to this conflict. For instance, when these combatants were the agents of action, they were rarely framed positively, suggesting that they were rarely portrayed as trying to contribute in negotiations, humanitarian efforts, reconstruction and peace efforts. Furthermore, as stated earlier, Al Qaeda agents were significantly framed more negatively (89.4 percent) and less positively (10.6 percent) than any other agents involved in the two websites combined (Table 5). Again, this does not support the US administrations claims that Al-Jazeera has acted as the mouthpiece of terrorist organizations. Moreover, in comparing the tone of coverage in the two websites (Table 4), there was no indication that Al-Jazeera expressed one tone of coverage in its Arabic-language website, while sending an entirely different tone of coverage in its English-language website (see e.g. HaLevi, 2007). As shown, the trend of negative coverage was consistent in the two websites. These findings contradict the accusation of some critics that Arab media, at least in the case of Al-Jazeera, send entirely different messages to their Englishspeaking audience from those messages they send to their Arab-speaking audience. To conclude, this study offers important empirical evidence regarding the coverage of the US/Al Qaeda conflict in the Al-Jazeera websites. Results provide little evidence that the news outlet is actively or openly seeking to produce different versions of online news

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

Fahmy and Emad

229

that support or appeal to one cultural/ethnic or religious ideology; rather, the data reported here indicate that Al-Jazeera online is an Arabic news organization that does not produce different news coverage to Arabic- and English-speaking consumers online. Research in this area is important because the public relies heavily on the media for their information about international crises and for the most part, in many countries (such as the United States) the public lacks direct contact with Al-Jazeera. This lack of access leads to a lack of exposure to the networks media content and the material it produces in different languages regarding issues related to wars, conflicts and terrorism.

Limitations and future research

Finally, it is important to note that the observations presented in this study are not intended for generalization beyond the English- and Arabic-language Al-Jazeera websites. Patterns of coverage may differ in other Arab media outlets under different circumstances. Despite this shortcoming, Al-Jazeera news outlet, considered to be the leading and most influential network in the Arab region (El-Nawawy and Iskandar, 2003), was worth exploring particularly because of the heavy criticism it has received from the former US administration regarding its coverage of the US/Al Qaeda conflict in particular and the Middle East in general. The results, thus, offer important cues of how these websites and maybe Al-Jazeera Arabic- and English-satellite TV channels use framing devices to frame the news. Future research should examine other international networks to provide a more generalizable explanation of how foreign online media frame issues of war and terrorism. Future pursuits should also investigate whether the patterns observed here persist beyond the time period analyzed in this study using other framing devices, such as definitional frames or certain key words that represent specific themes. With the increasing globalization and conglomeration of the news industry, further investigation of how a single news outlet caters news events of war and terrorism in different languages to different news consumers worldwide appears to be a fruitful area of scientific inquiry. Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes
1. Most recently the United States war against Al Qaeda has escalated with the current US president, Barack Obama, shifting the focus of the war from Iraq to Afghanistan. 2. As part of his move to introduce democratization, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani decided to fund Al-Jazeera network in 1996. He planned for Al-Jazeera to be an independent satellite TV network free from government control and manipulation (El-Nawawy and Iskandar, 2003). 3. In August 2007 the main author met with Abderrahim Foukara, the Washington Bureau Chief of Al-Jazeera at the annual Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) in Washington DC. Mr Foukara said that US cable networks refuse to broadcast the English version of Al-Jazeera TV, explaining they were implementing a form of self censorship (Foukara, personal communication, 2007).

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

230

the International Communication Gazette 73(3)

4. One of the main reasons Al-Jazeera was deemed so controversial was airing an interview with Osama Bin Laden post 9/11 and the overall hospitality it has extended to leaders of Al Qaeda. Al-Jazeera, for example, aired several interviews and warnings by Al Qaeda leaders (Macleod, 2004). As a result, Al-Jazeera offices have been attacked verbally and sometimes by bomb attacks; its Arabic website has also been hacked several times. For example, three days after the Iraq War started, the website was hacked. And two days later, the website was hacked again for two days by a US programmer (About Al-Jazeera, 2003). Previously, on 6 September 2001 the FBI had closed the office of the hosting company, causing Al-Jazeera website to shut down for half a day. Furthermore, the biggest network systems programming company refused to have a contract with Al-Jazeera because of the so-called official pressure it faced. 5. The founders of Al-Jazeera news network were rated among the worlds 100 most influential people in Time Magazine (Elliott, 2004). 6. For example Andy et al. (2005) found that the majority of stories covering the Iraq War on Fox News Channel was strongly biased in support of the American-led war effort, and indicated that war coverage on ABC, CBS, CNN and Al-Jazeera were more balanced and objective. 7. There were only two cases coded as no agent.

References
About Al-Jazeera (2003) Al-Jazeera. Available at: www.aljazeera.net Aday S, Cluverius J and Livingston S (2005) As goes the statue, so goes the war: The emergence of the victory frame in television coverage of the Iraq War. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 49(4): 314331. Al-Saggaf Y (2006) The online public sphere in the Arab world: The war in Iraq on the Al Arabia website. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(1). Available at: jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol12/issue1/al-saggaf.html Andy S, Livingston S and Herbert M (2005) Embedding the truth: A cross-cultural analysis of objectivity and television coverage of the Iraq war. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 10(1): 321. Cherribi S (2006) From Baghdad to Paris: Al-Jazeera and the veil. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11(2): 121138. Daradanova M (2002) The New York Times and 24 hours coverage of the 1999 Kosovo crisis: A comparative content analysis, Unpublished master thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman. Dimitrova DV and Neznanski M (2006) Online journalism and the war in cyberspace: A comparison between US and international newspapers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(1). Available at: jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue1/dimitrova.html Elliott M (2004) The people who shape our world. Time, 26 April. Available at: timeinc8-sd11. websys.aol.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993955,00.html El-Nawawy M and Iskandar A (2003) Al-Jazeera: The Story of the Network that is Rattling Governments and Redefining Modern Journalism. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press. Entman RM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 5266. Fahmy S (2005) Emerging alternatives or traditional news gates: Which news sources were used to picture the 9/11 attack and the Afghan War? Gazette 67(5): 383400.

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

Fahmy and Emad

231

Fahmy S and Johnson T (2007a) Show the truth and let the audience decide: A web-based survey showing support for use of graphic imagery among viewers of Al-Jazeera. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 51(2): 245264. Fahmy S and Johnson T (2007b) The caged bird sings: How reliance on Al Jazeera affects views regarding press freedom in the Arab World. In: Seib P (ed.) New Media and the New Middle East. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 81100. Gamson WA (1992) Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Griffin M (2004) Picturing Americas war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq: Photographic motifs as news frames. Journalism 5(4): 381402. HaLevi E (2007) Arabic News Service Sanitizes English Translations. Available at: www. israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121712 Hanley DC (2004) Al-Jazeera world forum takes a hard look at freedom of the press. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 23 (October): 1415. Iyengar S (1991) Is Anyone Responsible? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Jasperson AE and El-Kikhia MO (2003) CNN and al Jazeeras media coverage of Americas war in Afghanistan. In: Norris PN, Kern M and Just M (eds) Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government, and the Public. New York: Routledge, 113132. Johnson T and Fahmy S (2008) The CNN of the Arab World or a shill for terrorists? How support for press freedom and political ideology predict credibility of Al-Jazeera among its audience. International Communication Gazette 70(5): 339362. Johnson T and Fahmy S (2009) See no evil, hear no evil, judge as evil? Examining whether Al-Jazeera English-language website users transfer credibility to its satellite network. In: Golan G, Johnson TJ and Wanta W (eds) International Media in a Global Age. Philadelphia: Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum, 241260. Liebler CM and Bendix J (1996) Old-growth forests on network news: News sources and the framing of an environmental controversy. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 73(1): 5365. Macleod S (2004) Al-Jazeera TV as a powerful wind of change. Time Canada 163(17). Marcus I and Crook B (2004) PA minister Saeb Erekats duplicity: Glorify suicide terrorism in Arabic, condemn it in English. Palestinian Media Watch. Available at: www.pmw.org.il/ leaders.htm Massey BL and Levy MR (1999) Interactivity, online journalism, and English-language web newspapers in Asia. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 76(1): 138151. Media Tenor Quarterly (2004) The CNN of the Arab world? Analysis of Al-Jazeeras coverage from March 12thMay 5th, 2004. Available at: www.mediatenor.com/ Mekay E (2004) Washington Urges Media Freedom But Not for Al-Jazeera. Inter Press Service, 26 May Available at: www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0526-06.htm Negus S (2001) Letter from Cairo Egypts political agenda is increasingly set by the viewpoints aired on Al-Jazeera. The Nation 273(16): 1718. Nelson TE, Clawson RA and Oxley ZM (1997) Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review 91: 567583. Nisbet E, Nisbet M, Scheufele D and Shanahan J (2004) Public diplomacy, television news, and Muslim opinion. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 9(2): 1137. Norris P (1995) The restless searchlight: Network news framing the post-Cold War World. Political Communication 12(4): 357370.

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011

232

the International Communication Gazette 73(3)

Pfau M, Haigh MM, Shannon T, Tones T, Mercurio D, Williams R et al. (2008) The influence of television news depictions of the images of war on viewers. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 52(2): 303322. Reese SD (2007) The framing project: A bridging model for media research revisited. Journal of Communication 57(1): 148154. Reese SD and Buckalew B (1995) The militarism of local television: The routine framing of the Persian Gulf War. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 12(1): 4059. Salem S (2003) Al-Jazeera Network. Available at: www.aljazeera.net/news/archive/ archive?ArchiveId51361 Scheufele DA and Tewksbury D (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication 57(1): 920. Schwalbe CB (2006) Remembering our shared past: Visually framing the Iraq war on US news websites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(1). Available at: jcmc.indiana. edu/vol12/issue1/schwalbe.html Schwalbe CB, Silcock BW and Keith S (2008) Visual framing of the early weeks of the US-led invasion of Iraq: Applying the master war narrative to electronic and print images. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 52(3): 448465. Severin WJ and Tankard JW (2001) Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. New York: Addison-Wesley. Shoemaker PJ and Reese SD (1996) Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. New York: Longman. Stempl GH and Stewart RK (2000) The Internet provides both opportunities and challenges for mass communication research. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77(3): 549560. Tankard JW, Hendrickson L, Silberman J, Bliss K and Ghanem S (1991) Media frames: Approaches to conceptualization and measurement. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, MA, August. Wall MA (1997) A pernicious new strain of the old Nazi virus and an orgy of tribal slaughter: A comparison of US news magazine coverage of the crisis in Bosnia and Rwanda. Gazette 59(6): 411428. Walsh L and Barbara J (2006) Speed, international security, and New War coverage in cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(1). Available at: jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol12/issue1/walsh.html Wicks R and Wicks JL (2004) Televised coverage of the war in Iraq on Al Jazeera, CNN and Fox News. Paper presented at the conference for International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, May. Youssef M (2004) Their word against ours: News discourse of the 2003 Gulf War civilian casualties in CNN and Al-Jazeera. Paper presented at the Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication, Toronto, Canada, August. Zednik R (2002) Perspectives on war inside Al-Jazeera. Columbia Journalism Review 40(6): 4447.

Downloaded from gaz.sagepub.com at MT. KENYA UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2011