artifact one | artifact two | artifact three The second artifact demonstrates my ability to read a research article and write a critical yet constructive review. This review incorporates my ability to read and understand the material, offer critical feedback to the author, and offer some of my own insights into the authors' arguments. I feel this artifact is exemplary of my critical research, comprehension and writing skills. ------------------------------ Professional Review Maiola, Giovanna and David Ward. 2007. Democracy and the Media in Palestine: A Comparison of Election Coverage by Local and Pan-Arab Media. Chapter in Arab Media and Political Renewal: Community, Legitimacy and Public Life, edited by Naomi Sakr. In the article, Democracy and the Media in Palestine: A Comparison of Election Coverage by Local and Pan-Arab Media, Giovanna Maiola and David Ward1 conduct an empirical research study of pan-Arab satellite television stations and local Palestinian televisions stations to determine if pan-Arab channels offer an alternative to national state broadcasters. This research was promoted by Marc Lynch, a scholar and author of several books on satellite television and political and public spheres in the Middle East. Lynch argues in his essay entitled Shattering the silence of politics that pan-Arab channels are “encouraging a plural political culture” around the Middle East. If this is true, Maiola and Ward argue that this sentiment would be reflected in local televisions coverage of important events. They conduct a study to test this hypothesis. This article, published in a book of compiled articles and edited by Naomi Sakr, describes a quantitative content analysis method, employed in this case to analyze three levels of programming during the Palestinian presidential election in 2005. These levels include the amount of electoral coverage - broken into several subsets of data - the tone used to broadcast, and linking topics with candidates. These three levels offer a useful insight into popular media and the public discourse generally in the Middle East but more specifically in Occupied Palestine. This article builds on a growing body of literature on the subject of democracy and political pluralism being ushered into the Middle East through new technologies and digital media. Ahmed El Gody discusses new media and new types of censorship in the Middle East3, while Chanan Naveh follows the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as it plays out on the Internet4. El Gody discusses how Arabs utilize new media to add to their voice to the political cacophony, and how governments are responding with attempts to limit or block the usage of new media tools. While authors such as Lynch, El Gody, and Naveh theorize and postulate on new media and its impact on the Middle East, Maiola and Ward take a different approach – they test these claims with an empirical research study. Miaola and Ward conduct content analysis of several televisions stations, which are divided into two categories: pan-Arab, and national state broadcasters. Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya are the two main pan-Arab actors investigated by the authors, even as Al-Arabiya’s viewership in Occupied Palestine is the fourth behind Al-Jazeera (51.7% of viewers), Abu Dhabi (14.2%) and Al-Manar (7.8%), standing at 5.3% of viewers. The national state broadcasters include Palestine Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) TV, which is nationally run, and Watan TV, a private channel. Particular attention was given to Al-Jazeera and PBC TV as both play salient roles in defining and contributing to voter perception. PBC TV allocated 1811 minutes (52.32%) to political actors, 72.4% of free airtime dedicated to the election while 15.2% as current affairs, 75.9% of coverage on specific candidates, and 87% of coverage on Fatah, the ruling political party. Al-Jazeera on the other hand, spent on 197 minutes (2.60%) of airtime on the Palestinian elections – this reflects the pan-Arab audience Al-Jazeera is catering to – 59.7% of the coverage as current affairs and 40.3% as news, 58.9% of coverage on non-candidates, and a near equal split between coverage of Fatah (35.2%) and Hamas (37.3%). The second level of analysis concluded that Al-Jazeera and PBC TV both kept a more neutral tone, while Al-Arabiya and Watan TV positive tones were more prevalent. This, the authors argue, is an attempt to adhere to models of public broadcasting that does not include commentary by journalists. The authors bring media logic and political logic into the discussion. Media logic is described as the entire contents of the news organization as it best serves the public. Political logic closely follows the interests of the political party, and is largely now serving the interests of the public. The authors argue that Palestinian national television is somewhere in the middle of these two logics, arguing, “Broadcasters follow a logic of proximity, if not symbiosis, with the political sphere.” The third level of analysis is the author’s attempt to link news worthy issues to the reputation of the candidates, and whether the news organization adheres to either media logic or political logic. Maiola and Ward describe that PBC TV reflected the political reality in which the news organization operates by presenting a reality heavily influenced by the political structure. Al-Jazeera on the other, seem to more closely align with a media logic that prefers (a veil of) objectivity and independence that is nearly impossible with the complications of occupation and a colonial government ruling the occupied territories. The authors lend the article and the research conclusions credibility through their thorough research; however many weaknesses exists that seriously detract credibility. There is very little in the way of methods, examples, or peer-review. Much of what the authors say about the content analysis we simply have to take their word, as the data and methods are not given nor explicitly stated. To remedy this, examples or samples of the data could be given to show how the analysis was completed. The article is also published in a book of essays on similar topics, but we are not informed if the articles were peer-reviewed. This detracts from the credibility of the article. One key weakness is the issue of language and translations. The methods used to translate are a glaring omission from the article. Nowhere is the audience informed if the authors are fluent in Arabic, or more likely, how the translations were carried. Especially with Arabic, translations and knowledge of the culture are critical aspects to understanding and correctly translating the many literary devices employed in Arabic. With this omission, it is difficult to correctly evaluate and critical consume the article. One method used by the authors to offer some trustworthiness is to depend on their biographical information. The authors offer evidence from their positions as researchers and officials involved in media and elections around the world. Despite not having an academic grounding, their credibility as researchers is shown by their accomplishments. See the biographical data at the end for specific information regarding their accomplishments. The unique situation of media in Occupied Palestine does little to help the transferability of the research. The media face severe restrictions of freedom from the Palestinian Authority and also from the Israeli Occupation Administration. These two political and military bodies impact the coverage and the ability of the media to provide critical coverage of events. Due to these situational limitations, the researchers restrict their results to descriptive conclusions. Despite the apparent soundness of the article, there are several claims of external validity issues that complicate the evidence provided by the authors. First of all, methods of content analysis are not clearly defined, while a reference to The Practice of Social Research is noted. Second, the article does not specifically say which content was analyzed. The authors state that a two-week time period was used, but no details of the broadcast of those two weeks were included. It would behoove the authors to state exactly what was being looked at. This article offers evidence that contradicts Lynch’s claim that new technology and media, which offer new spheres for the Arabic public to converse in, are having an impact on local and traditional media. This research refutes this claim. Despite weaknesses in the description of the method, this article does much to prove that much of the speculation of the coming impact of new media on the geopolitical space of the Middle East is unfounded. However, the opportunity to explicitly state this was missed in the article. While directly seeking to address Lynch’s claim, the conclusion does not revisit these claims with the evidence the researchers collected and analyzed. Despite the many structural weaknesses in this empirical research, the authors’ reputations and coherent conclusions lend credibility to their argument. Many of the holes in the research could easily be remedied by providing more information about the methods, translations, and the analysis of the content. Despite these weaknesses, this research offers an informative and timely window into the complex web of Palestinian media. Authors: David Ward combines work in international development with an academic interest in media policy and law, both in transitional democracies and Western Europe. He has worked as a media consultant for several governmental and non-governmental organizations including the European Commission and UN. The latest of his three books is an edited collection, Television and Public Policy: Change and Continuity in an Era of Liberalization (2006). |