Israel’s Mediated Public Diplomacy- Strengths & Weaknesses
-
Upload
kimberly-seifert -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Israel’s Mediated Public Diplomacy- Strengths & Weaknesses
-
8/2/2019 Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy- Strengths & Weaknesses
1/8
Media and Public Diplomacy
Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses
July 2, 2011
Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses 1
-
8/2/2019 Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy- Strengths & Weaknesses
2/8
In the modern era of globalization and ever-converging nations, it is of critical
importance that governments actively engage one another so that each nation may promote a
friendly environment for its unique interests. This engagement is known as public diplomacy
(PD). PD is characterized by the effective use of soft power (Nye, 2004), which can generally
be described as governmental efforts of one nation to influence public or elite opinion in a
second nation for the purpose of turning the foreign policy of the target nation to
advantage (Manheim, 1994; see also Davidson, 1974; Gilboa, 2000, 2006; Kunczik, 1997;
Leonard, 2002; Livingston, 1997).
With rapidly increasing access to the internet and the democratization of information
across the globe, media have become the primary medium for public diplomacy. Mediated PD is
defined as the intentional efforts of a government (especially its leader) to exert as much control
as possible over the framing of the countrys policies in foreign media (Entman, 2008). Entman
(2008) notes that mediated PD represents more targeted endeavors which typically involve
shorter time frames than that required for classic PD initiatives. Furthermore, Entman (2008)
emphasizes that all PD strategies are aimed at affecting elite action and opinion, as the effect of
mass opinion on the decision makers of various countries is arguable at best. Indeed, Entmans
(2008) cascading network of activation model asserts that a nations leader and his
administration have the greatest influence on the frame that will ultimately be adopted bydomestic media.
Mediated PD is often the first step in a larger PD strategy and involves a nations
domination of a target countrys media attention. Media attention is the most important limited
resource in the political communications arena (Sheafer & Gabay, 2009). Mueller (1973) defines
domination as the advantage of access to this limited resource. The competition for media
attention has two dimensions, agenda building (i.e., receiving media attention) and media
framing (i.e., control of the selected version of reality presented by the media) (Cook, 1998;Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988). Content provided by media is dependent on these two dimensions.
A nations ability to gain access to agenda building in a target nation is first determined
by the extent to which the acting nation is able to convince the target nation of shared or similar
political-cultural values. These values represent an ideological system that comprises the
Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses 1
-
8/2/2019 Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy- Strengths & Weaknesses
3/8
symbolic center of the nation: the consensus. The closer issues, events or political actors are
deemed to this consensus, the more important they are considered, and the better chance they
have of receiving media attention (Sheafer & Gabay, 2009; Ericson et al., 1989; Shoemaker &
Reese, 1996). Secondly, access to agenda building is determined by a nations ability to appeal to
the medias professional values and needs. Media tend to seek entertaining stories that will
please readers and lead to profits; hence, nations must present a skilled performance that appeals
to these values (Sheafer & Gabay, 2009).
Entman (2004) defines media framing, the second element of media attention, as
selecting and highlighting some facets of events or issues, and making connections among them
so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation and/or solution. The emphasis here is on
theprocess that leads journalists to apply a particular frame. Nations must strategically address
frame building and recognize that communication and political acts are nearly indistinguishable
in the process. Like agenda building, the success or failure of a nations impact on frame
building , and thus policy promotion, depends largely upon the perception of shared political-
cultural values and the medias professional values and needs (Sheafer 2001, Sheafer & Gabay
2009).
Strengths & Weaknesses of Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy EffortsAppealing to the Medias Professional Values and Needs
To determine the strengths and weaknesses of Israels mediated public diplomacy, we will
first examine Israels ability to appeal to the medias professional values and needs. Keeping in
mind that journalists seek to write about dramatic events that will sell, Israel has little difficulty
staying in the headlines as it is frequently involved in conflict. According to East-West
Communications, Israel ranked in the top-10 for the number of global press mentions in the years2008, 2009 and 2010.1 In fact, Yigal Palmer, a spokesman from the Foreign Ministry, notes that
approximately one thousand foreign correspondents are continually based out of Jerusalem
(compared to the approximately 1500 foreign journalists posted to Washington, D.C.),
illustrating the disproportionate coverage that Israel receives at any given time. Moreover, an
Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses 2
-
8/2/2019 Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy- Strengths & Weaknesses
4/8
additional 1000 foreign journalists flock to Jerusalem during times of conflict, bringing the
number to a whopping 2000 correspondents.
Furthermore, Sheafer and Gabay (2009) showed that, in times of conflict, an events
initiator (Israel, in this case) is much more able to lead other foreign players to favor its agenda.
This knowledge could be very useful to Israeli officials, though it is unclear if they are aware of
it. In spite of the initiators advantage occasionally enjoyed by Israel, Sheafer and Gabay
affirm the clear correlation between the agendas of a countrys government and its media, as
asserted by Bennetts (1990)Indexing Hypothesis.
Obviously, however, remaining in the news due to involvement in conflict is not a
desirable position. Nonetheless, Israel has only recently changed its position from the reactive
stance of Hasbara, or explanation and advocacy, to one of proactive public diplomacy (Gilboa,
2006). Until recently, Israel seemed to still be following Shimon Peress seriously flawed opinion
that good policies do not require good public relations (Gilboa, 2006). The updated, current
strategy involves taking the battle to the enemy, and increasing relations with the right
people (Schneeweiss) 2 . A highly relevant example from June 2011 is Prime Minister
Netanyahus rather theatrical speech to the United States Congress. Not only was the speech
attended by a packed house of lawmakers and met with approximately 29 standing ovations
within 45 minutes, but PM Netanyahu displayed the skill and finesse required to proactivelysolicit media attention. This is a clear illustration of Entmans cascading model of activation. The
head of the Israeli government made an explicit effort to establish a direct relationship with elites
and decision makers in a target nation, the United States. Netanyahu was also charismatic and
showed a clear understanding of the American medias professional needs.
Additionally, Donny Sonnshein, Head of Media and Public Affairs at the Foreign
Ministry, emphasizes the Ministrys increased effort to reach out to non-state actors, such as
journalists who have written on topics related to Israel other than conflict, tourists, universitiesand the like.
Unfortunately Israels very slow realization of the importance of mediated public
diplomacy has led to a consistent lack of resources for these efforts (Gilboa, 2006). The bottom
Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses 3
-
8/2/2019 Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy- Strengths & Weaknesses
5/8
line is that Israels attempts to appeal to the medias agenda and receive the necessary attention
remains a weakness, but is heading in the right direction.
Political-Cultural Proximity
The second aspect of successful mediated public diplomacy hinges on the extent of
perceived or real political and cultural similarity felt between an acting nation and its target
audience. While this does play a role in the domination of agenda building, political-cultural
proximity is more heavily influential in the contest over framing.
One significant obstacle Israel faces in this respect is a growing disconnect between
Israels self-perception and how the world perceives it. According to D.J. Schneeweiss from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, how Israel knows itself is no longer how the world knows it.
Surely it is very difficult for Israel to espouse shared values with a target nation if it is unaware
of the distance between its self-perception and how it is perceived by the target audience.
Although the US perceives strong cultural resonance with Israel (Page & Bouton, 2006), Israel
has not yet determined what exactly its values are, which of these it shares with other important
target nations and how best to assert them.
Another factor which illustrates Israels lack of a strategic approach to promoting sharedvalues is the extreme level of transparency present in Israeli society. Earlier this monthHaaretz
reportedthe former head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, blatantly criticizing the Prime Ministers
thoughts about an attack on Iran and warning of the imminent vacuum of strong voices willing
and able to speak out against Netanyahus potentially reckless decisions. 3 Though no longer in
office, Dagan is doing a significant disservice to his country by displaying for the world the acute
internal dissent that exists within Israel.
Dagan is not only undermining his governments power to present a unified narrative toforeign audiences, but more importantly, he is undermining Israels legitimacy on the global
stage. Although one can reasonably assume that Dagan is expressing sincere sentiments, it is
incorrect to assume that better or more factual information necessarily persuades or leads to
increased support for a nations policies (Entman, 2008). The political-cultural value of
Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses 4
-
8/2/2019 Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy- Strengths & Weaknesses
6/8
illegitimacy is surely not something that Israel can claim to share with any nation.
Additionally, Israel must cope with the fact that information today is transmitted instantaneously,
therefore any slip-up or crack in the facade is immediately dispersed, creating irreversible
damage.
Recalling that soft power is a necessary tool for successful PD implementation, it is
important to point out that soft power arises from the attractiveness of a nations values, culture
and policies and causes people to act out of cooperation (Gilboa, 2006). Thus, soft power
relies on a nations moral authority or legitimacy, not only for the sake of legitimacy itself but
also for the basis legitimacy provides for other espoused values. For example, Israels claim to be
democratic is incoherent and difficult to maintain if the state simultaneously appears to be
illegitimate. A foreign nation that may consider itself to be democratic may nonetheless fail to
claim that this is a shared value between itself and Israel.
Outside of the US, Israel significantly struggles to influence frame building. On one
hand, this relates to the aforementioned discrepancy between Israels self-image and its image to
foreign audiences. If Israel tends to view itself as the moral victim in a conflict (and the world
does not view it this way), it has very little chance of promoting its preferred definition of a
problem. Without a desired definition as a basis for the story, there is no way Israel can
successfully control a foreign medias identification of causes, moral judgement or proposedremedies. Moreover, no nation can disregard that at best it can hope to achieve command of
frame building equal to that of some other foreign nation (or nations) or to the frame promoted
by the target government itself.
To deal with this discrepancy of images, Sonnshein describes Israels focus on re-
branding itself in the national arena. Schneeweiss characterizes this as a re-telling of the Israeli
strategy. Zaharna (2009) defines nation-branding as the use of multiple modes of
communication to deliver a strategically designed, simple, coherent, and compelling message,with the goal of differentiating and positioning an entity within a target audiences mind.
Referring back to the East-Wests Nation Brand Perception Index, Israels brand has fluctuated
from a low of 192 to the current high of 173 (out of 200) since 2008. For a country consistently
in the top-10 for number of mentions in international media, this negative perception leaves
Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses 5
-
8/2/2019 Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy- Strengths & Weaknesses
7/8
much to be desired. Clearly whichever version of Israel is making it to the media, it is not one
which is received favorably or with which foreign nations claim political or cultural proximity.
Conclusion
Israels mediated public diplomacy efforts can best be described as a series of weaknesses
with a few examples to the contrary. The one potential strength is Israels unwavering ability to
enter the medias agenda and consistently gain coverage. However, this coverage is more
frequently driven by conflict involving Israel as opposed to pro-active efforts by the Israeli
government to gain media attention.
Israels success in promoting political and/or cultural proximity between itself and other
nations is pitiful, at best. Though Israel is able to claim continual success in American media,
much of this can be attributed to the pre-existing agendas of the US government and US media.
Otherwise, Israels critical lack of legitimacy renders it largely unable to promote political-
cultural values that it can present as being shared between itself and target audiences.
D.J. Schneeweiss promotes the 4-pronged strategy of taking the battle to the enemy,
increasing relations with the right actors (including non-state actors), and re-branding Israel
while not losing themselves in the fight. According to Sonnshein, Israel must streamline itsmessage, decrease the number of messengers and increase coordination. Gilboa (2006) suggests
more centralized leadership, better training for PD officials, focus on internet PD approaches,
increased funding and increased use of non-governmental soft power initiatives. Though it is
unfortunate to state that Israels mediated public diplomacy displays no certain strengths, it is the
persistent reality today.
NOTES1. All such data is from the East-West Global Index 200: Nation Branding Perception Index,
East-West Communications. http://eastwestcoms.com/global_volume.htm (accessed 16 June
2011).
2. Quotes from Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) representatives, D.J. Schneeweiss, Yigal
Palmer and Donny Sonnshein were gathered at a meeting to discuss Israels public diplomacy
efforts on May 3, 2011 at the offices of the MFA.
Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses 6
http://eastwestcoms.com/global_volume.htmhttp://eastwestcoms.com/global_volume.htm -
8/2/2019 Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy- Strengths & Weaknesses
8/8
3. Haaretz, June 3, 2011, Translated by Haaretz online English edition http://www.haaretz.com/
print-edition/news/dagan-warns-of-netanyahu-s-poor-judgment-1.365616 (accessed 16 June
2011).
REFERENCES
Bennett, W. L. (1990). Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States,Journal of
Communication, 40, 103-125.
Cooke, T. E. (1998). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Davison, W. P. (1974). News media and the international negotiation, Public Opinion
Quarterly, 38, 174-193.
Entman, R. M. (2008). Theorizing mediated public diplomacy: The U.S. Case,Press/Politics,
13, 87-102.
Gilboa, E. (2000). Mass communication and diplomacy: A theoretical framework,
Communication Theory, 10, 275-309.Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas
model,American Journal of Sociology, 94, 53-78.
Kunezik, M. (1997).Images of nations and international public relations. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Manheim, J. B. (1994). Strategic public diplomacy and American foreign policy: The evolution
of influence, New York: Oxford University Press.
Mueller, C. (1973). The Politics of Communication.New York: Oxford University Press.
Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The means to success in world politics.New York: Public Affairs.
Sheafer, T. (2001). Charismatic skill and media legitimacy: An actor-centered approach to
understading the political communication competition, Communication Research, 28,711-736.
Sheafer, T. & Gabay, I. (2009). Mediated public diplomacy: A strategic contest over
international agenda building and frame building,Political Communication, 26:4,
447-467.
Sheafer, T. & Shenhav, S. (2009). Mediated public diplomacy in a new era of warfare, The
Communication Review, 12:3, 272-283.
Shoemaker, P. J. & Reese, S. D. (1996).Mediating the message: Theories ofinfluences on
mass media content(2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Zaharna, R. S. (2009). Mapping out a spectrum of public diplomacy initiatives: Information and
relational communication frameworks. In Snow, N. and Taylor, P. M. (Eds.),Routledge
Handbook of Public Diplomacy (pp. 86-100). New York: Routledge.
Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses 7
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/dagan-warns-of-netanyahu-s-poor-judgment-1.365616http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/dagan-warns-of-netanyahu-s-poor-judgment-1.365616http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/dagan-warns-of-netanyahu-s-poor-judgment-1.365616http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/dagan-warns-of-netanyahu-s-poor-judgment-1.365616