Presentations

[elke]

Originally posted by Vic
And then? Follow them step by step? Why not devise your own rules?

I don't mean following what they have done verbatim, but rather trying to discern where - and why - they have succeeded.

We could do an analysis of our target audience and run focus groups, etc. to determine what works and what doesn't. However, that would be a time consuming and expensive undertaking. I think it would be easier - and cheaper - to analyze already successful tactics, and use that analysis as a starting point.

[Vic]

For a start let's try the kind of brainstorming they use in the advertising business. Your general associations when you hear "Israel":

- small

- sea

- sun

- diverse

- nice food (?)

Go on

Originally posted by elke
We could do an analysis of our target audience and run focus groups, etc. to determine what works and what doesn't. However, that would be a time consuming and expensive undertaking. I think it would be easier - and cheaper - to analyze already successful tactics, and use that analysis as a starting point.

Is "our" target group really the same than that of the Palestinians? In my part of the world they'd hardly overlap.

[elke]

Originally posted by Vic
For a start let's try the kind of brainstorming they use in the advertising business. Your general associations when you hear "Israel":

- small

- sea

- sun

- diverse

- nice food (?)

Go on

Is "our" target group really the same than that of the Palestinians? In my part of the world they'd hardly overlap.

- Democracy

- Holy Land

- Friendly

Well, I guess define the "target audience": what are we trying to accomplish, and why do we even need Hasbara? It seems that the target audience is very much the same: you are not going to convince the die-hard pro-Palestinians, - and neither are they going to convince the die-hard pro-Israelis. The concentration is - as it should be - on those in the middle: people who may not know - nor have ever cared - about this conflict. After the September 11th, there are few who truly don't care any longer; so the efforts to "convert" are stepped up. According to many polls (I know how you feel about the polls, but they are inevitable ) about 1/2 of Americans are "pro"- nothing, as of now. These are exactly our target, as it is the target of the Palestinian propaganda efforts.

[Vic]

I did want to continue this threa, but somehow it slipped away

In the meantime - a magnificiently simple observation, first discovered at http://imshin.blogspot.com:

"Narrative and Truth"

Journalism has often struck me as an exercise in selecting one of a small number of story templates, hanging some names, dates and places on the appropriate hooks, and calling it "news". You can see this most clearly in the reporting of scientific issues. There are precisely two scientific stories: "Lone genius makes world-shattering discovery" and "Heroic non-conformist battles oppressive scientific establishment". Even so far as they go, these stories are rarely true. Discoveries are generally incremental, rather than earth-shattering, and almost always invole a team of people working as part of a wider community. The heroic maverick is wrong, more often than not, and in many cases has chosen publication by press release because the work doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

The same thing happens in politics, local affairs and celebrity gossip. The whole art of writing a press release is to provide the story template so as to ensure the journalist uses the right narrative. There are a few journos who go beyond the template, but not enough to matter. I used to think this was simply because journalists are drunken lazy hacks, but I've recently revised that opinion. I now believe it goes much deeper.

There are archetypal story structures that we find innately satisfying. The downtrodden kid who makes it to the top, the plucky band of rebels who overthrow an oppressive regime, the love that was meant to be. Good writers know how to satisfy their readers by utilising a powerful narrative structure. Poor writers violate the essential rules of the story unthinkingly, disappointing the audience. And great writers know just how to turn narrative expectations back on themselves, as Shakespeare does in King Lear, transforming comfortable expectations into an emotional sucker- punch.

Journalists know their job: to tell stories that satisfy the readers. You don't do that with lengthy theses that try to accurately depict the true complexity of a situation, you do it by keying in to a strong narrative and making the facts serve the story.

There are two examples of narrativism in our thinking about the Arab-Israeli conflict. The first is the standard evil imperialists / plucky rebels tale. This invites us to cheer on the poor outgunned freedom fighters of radical Islam against the oppressive forces of secular democracy. Any idea that Israeli soldiers might be trying to avoid civilian casulaties while the Palestinian terrorists hide behind human shields, or that Israel might be fighting for its existence against a fanatically murderous enemy, is quietly ignored. It doesn't fit the story structure.

The second example of this thinking is the dramatic irony version. The Jews were oppressed by the Nazis, and now they're doing the same thing to the Palestinians! Dramatic irony is deliciously attractive, making this story particularly compelling. There's the marked absence of gas chambers and incinerators, of course, and the huge rise in the Palestinian population suggests a very cack-handed genocide indeed, but that doesn't matter. It's still a great story.

Our deep need for satisying stories allows us to be fooled, and to fool ourselves. If we're going to deal with the world as it is, we have to force ourselves to get beyond narrativism and into the messy, unsatisfying world of facts. If you want a good story, go and see Macbeth.

Source: http://www.iainjcoleman.net/mrhappy/...s/00000078.htm

[shiva]

fantastic. I'm sick and tired of the Jews being held to higher standards than the rest of the world. Arafat places his banditos in the middle of a dense civilian population, and then screams the Israeli's are wiping them out. As someone who has lived there, was present during a war, and survived a Jordanian attack, in 1981, you have told the real story

[Vic]

Thanks, Shiva, but the credit goes not to me but to an Iain J. Coleman, a British astrophysist, hobby(?) actor and blogger: http://www.iainjcoleman.net .

Shouldn't we start a "Where are the good Europeans?" thread?

[Mediocrates]

"Did you look under the refrigerator? That's where I look when I lose something."

(courtesy of the late great Michael O'Donohue, talking to his mother about his father's amputated toe)

[Vic]

What are you trying to achieve with indiscriminate Europe-bashing, Mediocrates? Just curious

[cerulean]

This article picks up on the narrative idea:
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...yeor080202.asp
August 2, 2002, 8:45 a.m.
Culture of Hate
A racism which denies the history and sufferings of its victims.

By Bat Yeor

Quote:

The imperialism of jihad consists of appropriating the whole history and identity of the peoples who were conquered and thrown into the nonexistence of dhimmitude. This is a total negation of the other, a refusal to acknowledge him as an equal. Israel's battle is not a battle of colonists, as some European political circles like to claim, because Europe itself had a colonial history on all continents, which it projects on to Israel. Similarly, Europe projects its own history of Nazism on to the Israelis, thereby revenging itself on the revelations of historians. Israel's battle is not a battle against the Muslim world, it is a battle against the unbridled hate of jihad. Israelis are struggling to maintain their liberation from the yoke of dhimmitude, which was imposed in order to eradicate the Jews in their indigenous homeland. That is why Christians who reject the new theologies of substitution are joining Israel in its fight, as are Muslims who refuse to allow the values of Islam to be perverted by the ideology of jihad. It is through this common effort that reconciliation between peoples can be achieved, replacing the culture of hate with a culture of friendship.

[Vic]

An excellent example of the Palestinians exploiting "templates":

The Winnie Mandela of the West Bank
To Palestinians, the trial of Marwan Barghouti is not a case of someone charged with the murder of civilians, but a show trial and his wife, Fadwa Barghouti, is being marketed as the loyal partner fighting for his release.
By Danny Rubinstein
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ID=0&listSrc=Y

To judge by the Arab and foreign media, a Palestinian effort is already under way to portray Fadwa Barghouti in the well-known posture of the wife of the imprisoned leader who us fighting for his release, in the tradition of Winnie Mandela, Yelena Sakharov, Avital Sharansky and others. She is giving numerous interviews, in which she describes her shared childhood with her future husband in the village of Kubar (Chubar in the rural dialect) in the Ramallah area.

Unfortunately, the article offers little more detail on this, retelling the Barghoutis' story instead.

Barghouti fans can enjoy a magnificient "Campaign to free Marwan Barghouti" site, btw. I have been admiring it for some time now, especially the "Photo Album". The guy has been amazingly photogenic in his younger years, one doesn't see much of it now: http://www.freebarghouti.org/images/...Jail-2_jpg.htm

The "Media Coverage" section is interesting too, by virtue of its omissions. There have been several articles on Barghouti in "Ha'aretz", mostly by Gideon Levy, brimming with empathy. They even ran a special "In-depth" page on him for several months. I wonder why these articles are not mentioned: have Barghouti supporters decided to abolish the concept of "good Jews" altogether?

All of this somehow relating to the subject of how to "sell" an issue...

[Vic]

A not exactly flattering comment on (pro-)Israel(i) blogs (cf. http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...=&threadid=980 ) from a sharp-witted British journalist:

Some webloggers have launched a group weblog called Israpundit, to defend Israel against Arab propaganda. The blog claims to be based on 'the realisation that the Arab propaganda machine has monopolised the discourse in terms of topics (you never hear about occupied Tibet, but the “occupied” Palestinians are ubiquitously front and centre), as well as in the terminology used (“occupied Arab lands”, but never “disputed lands”, as Israelis see it)'.

This might just be one little blog, but it captures what the once-mighty pro-Israel lobby has been reduced to. Remember when those who supported Israel had the ear of the US government and were confident that the media would argue their case while vilifying the Palestinians as criminals and animals? Now those people have been reduced to challenging what their paranoid mindsets tell them is all-pervasive Arab propaganda via a blog - the outlet of the ordinary man in the street who craves an audience for his rants.

[...]

The fact that some American-Israeli groups have been reduced to complaining about the words and images used in US newspapers captures their increasing isolation from foreign policy circles in Washington. The USA is no longer the all-out supporter of Israel and Israeli interests it once was. During the Cold War, the USA backed Israel financially, militarily and politically, seeing it as its policeman in the Middle East, protecting Western interests against the threat of Soviet-backed Arab nationalism.

But in recent years, US administrations have moved away from such stalwart support - as reflected in President Bush's 'historic statement' of 4 April 2002. 'Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognised boundaries', said Bush - while also stressing US support for 'the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a Palestinian state…living side by side in peace and security'.

These recent shifts in American policy on the Middle East have impacted on Israeli groups within America and other parts of the West. Where once such groups were confident they had the ear of Washington's foreign policy men, they're now more likely to organise protests and rallies to 'send a message' to Washington's foreign policy men. 'They aren't listening to us', complained one pro-Israeli demonstrator at a rally in Washington earlier this year, 'so we're going to have to shout pretty loud'.

Increasingly isolated from the corridors of powers, American-Israeli groups have focused on the US media's coverage of the Middle East instead - making ever-more pedantic and petty complaints about the tone of the reporting. On 28 April 2002, some pro-Israeli activists complained about the use of the word 'bold' to describe Palestinian attacks, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle: 'A headline on 28 April referred to the Palestinians "bold attack on Israelis", drawing ire from those who saw "bold" as a positive depiction.'

Some pro-Israeli activists have written to newspaper editors to complain that using words like 'bold', 'audacious' and 'daring' to describe Palestinian guerrilla attacks on Israel grants the attacks a legitimacy 'they do not deserve'.

[...]

'Even when we are out in our tens of thousands, it's all Palestine, Palestine, Palestine', complained one of the pro-Israel supporters who had attended the parade.

Part of me wants to point out that the pro-Israeli lobby is now facing a similar kind of isolation, vilification and frustration to that experienced by pro-Palestinian groups over the past 30 years - but that would be churlish. Besides, the isolation of the Israeli lobby is as much the product of self-interested US policy in the Middle East as the defence of Israel was in the past.

And the people who lose out when America puts its interests first in the Middle East are the people who live there - both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

A dramatic illustration of how setting the wrong tone can backfire in the minds of extremely power-sensitive Europeans. It is easy to deduce from this text what I have sort of felt for a long time that despite the sobbing, pitying language, it's actually the Palestinians who are percieved as the stronger, the winning side, the safer bet. Is the same valid for left-wing Americans?

[Mediocrates]

Or perhaps resentment fulfilled. I can say that I've spent most of this week on other boards and while I expected to be outnumbered I didn't expect the generally poor quality of the debate. It seems to break down to a few very simplistic messages over and over. The Israelis are oppressive illegal occupiers, the settlers deserve to be killed or kicked out, Ameican Jews are extemists, Fortress America.

The tenor of the debate is to simply not respond to direct questions or for clarifications. And I'm trying to be fair when I go to places that span the American political spectrum from neoleft to neocon. CSpan.org for example which has captured many of the neoleftists who bailed from Salon last year when they started charging. I would say that if one statement had to capture the flavor it would be "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." Fair enough I see some of that here but the shallowness of the debate was disappointing. Maybe the left thinks they have a winner. I don't know. I'm too cynical think anything but that they will drop the Palestinians like a hot rivet as soon as the noise over Iraq reaches that critical antiamerican threshold.

I think that's what this article is about. I would call it repeating unchallenged factoids.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Or perhaps resentment fulfilled. I can say that I've spent most of this week on other boards and while I expected to be outnumbered I didn't expect the generally poor quality of the debate. It seems to break down to a few very simplistic messages over and over. The Israelis are oppressive illegal occupiers, the settlers deserve to be killed or kicked out, Ameican Jews are extemists, Fortress America.

The tenor of the debate is to simply not respond to direct questions or for clarifications.

Correct. But the real issue is not the debate quality or the IQ levels of the participators. The messages may be primitive, but the sympathy and admiration are unbroken. Besides, I doubt that internet forums are in any way representative of the average citizens, let alone of the so-called opinionmakers, at least not in my part of the world.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Vic
And then? Follow them step by step? Why not devise your own rules?

Why are the PA winning the propaganda war in the west and elsewhere? It cannot be just because there are so many gullible and naive twits in the west. Or is it?
I was discussing it with someone on the forum and neither of us came up with an adequate answer!

[Isiah 2:4]

I reckon its mainly because we have a tendency in Europe and maybe America to side with the perceived underdog, anywhere, regardless of context.

Also, generally we trust in our medias, and when they sustain an image or a plotline, with characters who can more or less be written to a script, its so much easier to gain attention and sell papers when you merely expand upon existing ideas or impressions about the conflict. Its like the Arab-Israeli conflict is a play, and each participant has their roles. Maybe its worse than that. A soap opera more like.