|
|
Line 56: |
Line 56: |
| Mearsheimer & Walt make a clear distinction between the Israel Lobby and anti-Israel conspiracy theories, arguing: 'The Israel lobby is the antithesis of a cabal or conspiracy; it operates out in the open and proudly advertises its own clout. In its basic operations, the Israel lobby is no different from interest groups like the farm lobby, steel and textile workers, and a host of ethnic lobbies, although the groups and individuals who comprise the Israel lobby are in an unusually favourable position to influence U.S. foreign policy. What sets it apart, in short, is its extraordinary effectiveness' (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007:150). | | Mearsheimer & Walt make a clear distinction between the Israel Lobby and anti-Israel conspiracy theories, arguing: 'The Israel lobby is the antithesis of a cabal or conspiracy; it operates out in the open and proudly advertises its own clout. In its basic operations, the Israel lobby is no different from interest groups like the farm lobby, steel and textile workers, and a host of ethnic lobbies, although the groups and individuals who comprise the Israel lobby are in an unusually favourable position to influence U.S. foreign policy. What sets it apart, in short, is its extraordinary effectiveness' (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007:150). |
| | | |
− | Although the focus of Mearsheimer and Walt is the United States, the influence and activities of the lobby are by no means confined there. The lobby also has a presence in Canada, Europe, Latin America and more recently even China.
| + | Philo & Berry's study into the news coverage of the conflict between Israel and Palestine found that “The news framework and presentational structure, which was most frequently used in reporting events, tended to favour the Israeli perspective” (Philo & Berry 2004:160). They explain the effect the Israel Lobby have on the news coverage of the conflict: |
| + | |
| + | :“The pressures of organised public relations, lobbying and systematic criticism together with the privileging of Israeli perspectives by political and public figures, can affect the climate within which journalists operate. There is no total control and there are areas of the media where the debate is relatively open. But these factors go some way to explaining why journalists sometimes have difficulty in giving a clear account of the Palestinian perspective, while they can apparently more easily facilitate that of the Israelis” (Philo & Berry 2004:256). Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model describe this phenomenon of organised negative responses to media coverage as "flak"; they argue that powerful governments and corporations can use their influence to pressurise the media into being uncritical of their activities (Herman & Chomsky 1994:28). |
| + | |
| + | |
| + | |
| | | |
| | | |