Press Releases

The Disengagement and its News Coverage
July 2005
A majority of the public believe that the settlements should not have been established in Gaza and that they aggravate the security situation. 75% think that the disengagement will be implemented.
However, a majority also think that news coverage of the disengagement significantly intensifies the tension in Israeli society.
A majority of the public (57%) think that “upon retrospection” Israel should not have established any settlements in Gaza, while only 37% agree that it was necessary to do so. A majority (52%) also claim that settlements in the Gaza Strip did not ease, but rather aggravated the security situation. On the other hand, a decisive majority (65%) do believe that settlement in the Gaza Strip was undertaken by settlers who had Zionist motives.
These findings are part of a comprehensive study of the disengagement and its news coverage being undertaken at the present time by the Tel Aviv University Herzog Institute for Media, Society, and Politics, as part of the ongoing series of studies of the Index of Public Confidence in News Media.
The study found that the degree of support for the disengagement plan is significantly greater than opposition to it and even opponents think that there is a broad acceptance of the plan among the Israeli public. Interestingly, support for the plan would increase from 48% (versus 39% who oppose) to 52% if disengagement did not include settlements in northern Samaria; that is, had the plan included the Gaza Strip only. And, the rate of support for the plan would rise to 63% if the pull out would have take place as part of an agreement with the Palestinians, and not as a unilateral action.
Disengagement – for Lack of Other Options
What will happen after the disengagement? 57% surmise that there will be an improvement in Israel’s status in the world (compared with 12% who think Israel’s status would worsen), but 52% expect that tensions within Israeli society will intensify as a result of the plan’s implementation. 43% responded that terror will increase, as opposed to 25% who think that there will be a decline in terror. 47% of the respondents agreed that given the present situation in the region, Israel was had no choice but proposing the plan to pull out of Gaza.
The researchers who are engaged in this study, Dr. Yariv Tsfati and Dr. Yoram Peri of the Herzog Institute for Media, Society, and Politics, claim that the survey provides evidence that a majority of the public have a guarded view regarding the disengagement. On the one hand, the public thinks that it will not bring peace and may not even result in a decrease in terror. Yet, there is a tendency to support the plan since there is an absence of other options.
Though clearly there is support of the government’s policies for different aspects of the disengagement, a majority of the public (46%) is dissatisfied with news coverage of it, with only 32% of the respondents expressing satisfaction with it. There is a strong tendency among the public to perceive of the news coverage of the pull out as “unfair”, leaning in favor of the Prime Minister Sharon and supporters of the plan, and against opponents of the disengagement.
Three of every four respondents think that coverage of the disengagement plan in the media increases tensions within Israeli society, and only a minority (less than 30%) think that the information presented by the media about the pull out was sufficiently complete and in-depth to develop an informed view of the plan. In general, the greater the support for the disengagement, the greater the satisfaction with news coverage and feeling that it is in-depth, complete, and fair.
Details about the Survey
Low satisfaction with news coverage of the disengagement: Coverage assists Sharon The most wide spread view among the public is that “the settlements in the Gaza Strip exist at the expense of the well-being of the public that also lives within the Green Line” (such is the view of 47% of those interviewed). A majority of the public, 52%, also believe that “the settlements in the Gaza Strip intensify the security situation”. A significant majority of the public (62%) think that “the settlements in the Gaza Strip harms Israel’s image in the world”. But, the public distinguishes between the settlements in the Gaza region and the settlers there, as two thirds of those surveyed agree with the claim that “a majority of the settlers in Gaza came there for Zionist motives”. 49% responded that “there is no moral problem in settlement of the Gaza Strip”, and only 36% of those who participated in the survey think that the Gaza settlements exist at the expense of the Palestinians who live in the region.
Only 32% of the respondents expressed satisfaction with news coverage of the disengagement plan by Israeli media. 46% do not agree with the statement – “in general, I am satisfied with news coverage of the disengagement plan”. A majority of the respondents (56%) do not agree with the statement that “the settlement in the Gaza Strip is presented fairly in the media” (only 23% agree with this statement). And, a majority (55%) also feel that the media present the settlers in the Gaza Strip as being more extreme than they are in reality. Respondents also tended to agree that “the media present the security situation in the Gaza Strip in an exaggerated manner” and that “the media exaggerates when presenting the costs of settlement and security of the Gaza Strip” (43% agree with the first sentence in comparison with 37% who do not agree; and 42% who agree versus 34% who do not agree with the second sentence).
Consistent with the view of unfair coverage of the disengagement, slightly less than half of the respondents perceive that the manner in which the media cover the disengagement assists the Prime Minister and the plan’s supporters with its implementation (only about a quarter of the respondents did not agree with this sentence) in comparison with 37% who think that the manner in which the news media cover the disengagement assists those groups who are trying to prevent the evacuation.
In response to the question “to what degree is the disengagement plan presented fairly by the media?”, 42% of the interviewees replied that coverage is unfair and only 26% feel that the media coverage is fair. 43% think that the media coverage of the plan is fair towards PM Sharon and his supporters while only 28% think that the coverage of those who oppose the plan is fair.
An overwhelming majority of the public, more than three out of every four respondents, think that “media coverage of the disengagement plan intensifies the tension within Israeli society” (only 14% of the respondents did not agree with this sentence). A majority of the public (51%) also think that “media coverage of the debate about the plan leads to more extreme forms of protest against it” (only 22% did not disagree with this sentence). Only 30% of the respondents agreed that “the information presented by the media regarding the disengagement was sufficiently complete and in-depth for them to develop an informed view”. 43% did not agree with this sentence and an additional 16% rated themselves in a middle position.
Satisfaction with media coverage rises along with support for the disengagement and with the perception that the coverage of the plan in the media is fair. The greater the support for the plan, the greater the tendency to perceive of the coverage as being complete and in-depth. Supporters of the disengagement tended to perceive the coverage as assisting the settlers and opponents of the plan tended to perceive the coverage as assisting the Prime Minister and his supporters in implementation of the evacuation plan. Opponents of the plan also tended to perceive the coverage as leading to more extreme forms of protest and intensification of the tension in Israeli society.
The survey was undertaken at the beginning of the week by the Chaim Herzog Institute of Media, Society, and Politics. The field study was conducted by the B.I. and Lucille Cohen Institute for Public Opinion Research of the University of Tel Aviv. The 519 persons who participated in the survey are a representative sample of the Israeli adult population (Jewish and Arab). Therefore the interviews took place in Arabic and Russian as well as in Hebrew. Sampling error is estimated to be 2.2%.
Additional details about the research and the surveys of the Index of Public Confidence in the News Media can be obtained from the Chaim Herzog Institute for Media, Society, and Politics at Tel Aviv University, telephone 640-6519, or with the two researchers: Dr. Yariv Tsfati, telephone 0545 686 802; and Dr. Yoram Peri, telephone 052 4881000.
Index of Public Confidence in the News Media: Majority Satisfied with Media Coverage of War
April 2003
People who were most tense in the early days of the war were the heaviest news consumers, and tended to believe the media more. The proportion of the public who were tense eventually declined to a mere 20 percent.
The war in Iraq raised not only the level of news consumption, but also that of the confidence of the Israeli public in the media. This finding was made in a survey conducted by the Chaim Herzog Institute for Communication, Society and Politics for the Index of Public Confidence in the News Media, which monitors changes in public attitudes toward the media on an ongoing basis.
The survey, conducted on March 26-27, showed that the confidence of the adult Jewish population in the news media (on a scale of 1 [no confidence] to 5 [complete confidence]) had risen in the war to 3.12, from 2.95 in the previous survey, conducted in early January.
The great majority of the Israeli public was also reasonably satisfied with media coverage of the Iraqi war. While approximately half of media consumers responded that they were very satisfied or satisfied with the coverage, only 17 percent said they were little or not at all satisfied.
The study also indicated a correlation between the extent of people's tension and their news consumption. In the early days of the war, 31 percent of respondents said they felt tense, compared to 48 percent who said they were not at all tense. After ten days of war, only 20 percent said they were moderately or more tense, compared to 61 percent who said they were not at all tense.
The monitoring of patterns of media exposure during the Iraqi war indicated, as expected, a rise in news consumption. However, the Chaim Herzog Institute survey - conducted by Institute director Dr. Yoram Peri, of Tel-Aviv University and Institute associate Dr. Yariv Tsefati of the University of Haifa - brought to light another interesting phenomenon: That during the war, public confidence in the media rose, and that there was a correlation between the level of confidence and the level of tension. In other words, people who were more worried about the dangers of the war, including the possibility that Israel would be directly attacked by missiles or in other ways, tended to increase their information through increased media consumption. Such people were also more willing to believe the news than those who were not tense.
Despite the rather high level of confidence in the news disseminated by the Israeli media, there was a fair degree of skepticism about assessments and commentary about the war. Only about a third (36.9 percent) said they lent very much credence, or much credence, to assessments and commentary in the Israeli media on the war in Iraq; 13.8 percent of respondents said they lent them "little credence" and 7.6 percent lent them "none at all." The most prevalent category was "so-so" - a reply given by 37 percent. In other words, compared to the relatively high general level of satisfaction, confidence in assessments and commentary was low.
The Index of Public Confidence in the News Media was drawn up on the basis of a sample of approximately 500 adult Jews. The interviews, conducted by telephone, were in Hebrew and Russian. The range of statistical error was 4 percent.
Rise in Exposure to the Media during War
The war in Iraq led to a considerable rise in exposure to the media, compared to the previous survey, conducted in early January. In the January survey, 60 percent of respondents reported a low level of newspaper reading (under half an hour a day). In late March, the figure was only 33 percent. While in the January survey, 22.5 percent reported moderate levels of newspaper reading (from half an hour to an hour a day), in the March survey, the figure rose to 38.2 percent. The rate of heavy newspaper reading (over an hour a day) was 23 percent at the end of March, compared to 16 percent in January.
Concerning television, in the January survey, only 22 percent reported daily exposure of more than an hour to news and current events programs. The figure rose to 48 percent in late March, in the early period of the Iraqi war. In the January survey, a mere 27 percent reported listening for over an hour a day to the news and current events programs on the radio. In late March, the figure was 35 percent.
Professors of Communications Propose Reform in Election Propaganda Laws
March 2003
Among the proposals: Making changes in the format of election broadcasts, permitting explicitly partisan programs, and disallowing publication of opinion polls immediately prior to an election.
Changes in Israeli politics, especially in the media, necessitate far-reaching changes in the Elections Law, and in the format of election broadcasts. Such is the recommendation of a team at the Chaim Herzog Institute for Communication, Society and Politics, in which professors of communications and political science from six Israeli universities participated.
Among other things, they recommend doing away with election broadcasts as currently practiced, and inaugurating broadcasts in a different format; repealing clauses in the Elections Law that forbid programs that constitute election propaganda; and encouraging televised debates. The group recommends considering the possibility of forbidding the publication of opinion polls in the week preceding an election. The team plans to bring its proposals up for public and parliamentary discussion. In the election campaign for the Sixteenth Knesset, a fair number of flaws in the performance of the media came to light, the team concluded. Therefore, changes must be made in legislation, and agreement made with the news media concerning changed norms of campaign coverage. It is important to implement such changes now, not to defer them until the next election period.
Among the various proposals: changes in the Elections Law (Modes of Propaganda), establishing norms for publication of election polls, instituting new formats for election broadcasts on radio and television, encouragement of television debates, and encouraging news organs to endorse candidates, as is usual in Western countries, such as the United States. Two salient principles reflected in the team's work are: Expanding the news media's freedom of action and the scope permitted journalists' professional judgment; and enhancing the professional standards in all that relates to election polling. Concerning the last matter, the team recommends considering a prohibition on the publication of election forecasts in the final week of a campaign.
In stead of the expensive and ineffective election broadcasts as currently practiced, the team proposes several alternatives, among them allowing parties to purchase air time as they see fit, provided it is within the party election budgets authorized by the Knesset.
In the matter of surveys, the team proposes that the media refrain from what it terms "survey games" - for example, using possible ticket combinations or appointments as the basis for such hypothetical questions as, "For whom would you vote if Mr. Y headed ticket X?" The team recommends encouraging debates under the auspices of public voluntary organizations, and conducting them in flexible formats, to be determined in each case by journalistic considerations.
The members of the team were: Prof. Asher Arian (the Israeli Institute for Democracy, and the University of Haifa), Gadi Wolfsfeld (the Hebrew University), Prof. Gabby Weiman (the University of Haifa), Prof. Dan Caspi (Ben-Gurion University), Prof. Charles Liebman (Bar-Ilan University), and Dr. Yoram Peri (director of the Chaim Herzog Institute for Communication, Society and Politics, Tel-Aviv University).
"Hostile Press Syndrome" Weakens Media Impact On Voters
January 2003
New Institute study reveals: Only 16 percent of the public claim the media help them decide for whom to vote.
Only 16 percent of Israeli voters feel that the news media help them to decide for which party to vote, while the remaining 84 percent claim that the media do not influence their votes. There is a greater feeling of press influence among the young, new immigrants, and supporters of parties of the left. These findings were made in the course of a study of public attitudes toward media coverage of election campaigns conducted by the Chaim Herzog Institute for Communication, Society and Politics, at Tel-Aviv University.
According to the researchers, Institute director Dr. Yoram Peri, and Institute associate, Dr. Yariv Tsefati, of the University of Haifa, this state of affairs is the result of Israel's "hostile press syndrome." Most people tend to see the media as hostile to their parties, and supportive of competing parties.
The public also has another criticism of media election coverage. Whereas a large majority of voters, 59 percent, say they feel it is important for them to get information about the positions and programs of the parties and candidates, only 17 percent feel that the media actually furnish them with such information. At the same time, only 19 percent claimed that it is important for them to obtain poll results and assessments as to who will win the elections, while 60 percent of respondents feel that the media focus on such information.
The public is not convinced that election coverage adds to its political information. Only 27 percent claim that media coverage contributes very much or much to their knowledge, while 73 percent claim that the media contribute little or not at all. High levels of dissatisfaction with media coverage were found in all population groups, although particularly high levels were found among the ultra-Orthodox, supporters of the right, and Arabs. Women were somewhat more satisfied with coverage than men.
A correlation is found to exist between satisfaction with election coverage and the level of a person's political involvement. Those who are more politically involved, who discuss politics with friends and relatives, and who feel they influence politics, also tend to be more satisfied with media coverage. However, this group is smaller than that of those who are less politically involved. On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, the Chaim Herzog Institute for Communication, Society and Politics will hold a conference at Tel-Aviv University, at which further information about the study, the first of its kind and scope, will be given. The large sample group of 1,219 persons included Russian and Arabic speakers, and is subject to a statistical error of only 2.8 percent. Among the conference participants will be party leaders, including Amram Mitzna, students of the media, political strategists and journalists.