4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Representation of the events and the participants in the texts
Each newspaper has its own characteristics in writing and presenting its stories which are influenced by several factors, including social and cultural contexts. For the production of news, van Dijk (1985) says that some studies (Tuchman, 1978; Fishman, 1980) have begun to investigate on the innovation and perception of the practice of the journalists’ everyday activities. The interaction among journalists, or between journalist with other newsperson, like the sources, witnesses of the events, representative of organizations,
have to be studied by regarding their acts, rational categories, or other principle of understanding on a matter (Bell, 1991). Therefore every journalist brings different codes to a certain message because of their social and educational background, political ideologies and world view.
The web news texts from the three news websites are provided as references for this paper. As this study only analyzed the news text itself, therefore advertisements and web designs unrelated to the news content were disregarded.
4.1.1. Text 1: The Jerusalem Post
Text 1 was the web news story titled ’Tank shells killed doctor’s daughters’
taken from The Jerusalem Post’s website dated February 4, 2009.
Event - Structure
P1 The IDF concluded Wednesday that Israeli tank shells caused the deaths of four Palestinian girls, including three daughters of Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish, when his house was accidentally attacked on January 16, during Operation Cast Lead.
P2 Following the investigation, the army confirmed that two shells had hit the building. The findings were presented to and approved by OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant and Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi.
P3 The IDF said that a Golani Brigade force was operating near Beit Lahiya when it came under sniper and mortar fire in an area laden with explosives. After determining that the source of the fire was in a building adjacent to Abuelaish’s home, the force returned fire.
P4 While the IDF was shooting, suspicious figures were identified in the top floors of the doctor’s house, and the troops believed the figures were directing the Hamas sniper and mortar fire, the army said.
P5 Upon assessing the situation in the field while under heavy fire, the commander of the force gave the order to open fire to the suspicious figures, and it was from this fire that his three daughters were killed, said the IDF.
P6 Once the soldiers realized that civilians, and not Hamas gunmen, were in the house they ceased fire immediately, continued the army. Three of the doctor’s daughters – aged 20, 15 and 13 – and a niece were killed on the second floor.
P7 Another of his daughters and a son were wounded, along with his brother. Abuelaish was on the ground floor with his small son at the
time of the attack. The physician’s wife died of cancer three months ago.
P8 The IDF Spokesman’s Unit stressed that in the days prior to the accident, Abuelaish – who had worked before at Beersheba’s Soroka University Medical Centre and had very good connections with Israelis – was contacted personally several times by officers in the Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration to urge him to evacuate his home because of Hamas operations and the intense fighting that was already taking place in that area for several days.
P9 In addition to the personal contact made directly with the doctor, the IDF issued warnings to the residents of Sajaiya by dropping thousands of leaflets and by issuing warnings via Palestinian media outlets. The IDF said it regretted the incident and the loss of life, and that the doctor had been updated with details of the investigation as well.
P10 Considering the constraints of the battle scene, the amount of threats that endangered the force, and the intensity of fighting in the area, the investigators concluded that the forces’ action and the decision to fire towards the building were reasonable.
P11 Abuelaish, speaking on Channel 2 Wednesday, thanked all those who worked to find the truth about the incident and accepted the findings, saying that mistakes can happen.
Events in Text 1
Based on the definitions of event, it was concluded that P1 was the main event in the story. As mentioned earlier, an event should include time, place, participants, and actions. In P1, all of those factors were involved. For the next paragraph, P2 was classified as the background story for the central event in P1, whereas the story itself became more detailed afterwards with more participants being introduced.
P3 to P7 were the chronologies of the incident. It described how the incident or the action happened from the beginning to end; and also its consequences where 4 people had died.
P8 was identified as the second event in the story. Even though there was a correlation between P8 to P1, the event was certainly different. P8 to P10 explained how the IDF had warned the Doctor and other residents about the insecure possibilities in the war zone before the attack. And the last paragraph, P11, was recognized as the reaction part from the participant or victim.
News Participants in Text 1
The news participants identified in the text were:
x The IDF service (P1)
x Four Palestinian girls (dead) (P1) x Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish (P1)
x OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant (P2) x Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi (P2) x Golani Brigade force (P3)
x Another of Doctor’s daughter and son (wounded) (P7) x Doctor’s brother (wounded) (P7)
x The Doctor’s wife (died of cancer 3 months ago) (P7) x The IDF Spokesman Unit (P8)
The explanation of the participants in the text was inclusive; no imprecision was found in the story line. All participants were described in their own positions; such as in P7, where the author mentioned Dr. Abuelaish’s wife even though she was not in the scene at the time.
4.1.2. Text 2: The Guardian
Text 2 was the web news story titled Israeli army says shelling of house where girls died was ‘reasonable’ taken from The Guardian’s website dated February 5, 2009.
Event – Structure
P1 Israel’s military last night admitted that one of its tanks killed three girls at their home in Gaza during last month’s war in a case that shocked the Israeli public, but said the shelling was “reasonable.”
P2 The Israeli military said that two shells had hit the house of a Palestinian doctor, Izz el-Deen Abu el-Eish, on 16 January, killing his daughters. Moments after their death the Hebrew speaking gynaecologist was interviewed by mobile phone live on an Israeli television channel, screaming with grief in an extraordinary scene.
P3 For most Israelis it was the first time they had seen such a striking case of civilian deaths in the war, even though hundreds of the 1,300 Palestinian dead were believed to be civilians. The Channel 10 television correspondent who interviewed el-Eish arranged for the military to rush other injured members of the family to hospital in Israel for treatment, where they remain today.
P4 The Israel Defence Force said soldiers from its Golani infantry brigade
were under sniper and mortar fire in the area near the man’s house in Shujaiya, east of Gaza city. It said soldiers identified “suspicious figures”
in the house who they thought were “spotters” for Hamas fighters and opened fire, killing the girls.
P5 “The IDF is saddened by the harm caused to the Abu el-Eish family, but at the same time states that considering the constraints of the battle scene, the amount of threats that endangered the force, and the intensity of fighting in the area, the forces’ action and the decision to fire towards the building were reasonable,” the military said.
P6 Last night, el-Eish, who was still in hospital in Israel with his surviving relatives, said he was grateful his account of the incident had been recognised. “Thank God the truth has been revealed,” he said. “I was always sure that my case was just.”
Events in Text 2
From The Guardian’s text above, the central event was found in P2. In the paragraph, the incident was described in detail. There were participants, setting, time and action involved. The news story chronologies were in different order from The Jerusalem Post. P1 was the lead of the news, which clarified the vagueness of the headline (Bell, 1998), and followed by reaction in P3, and background to reaction in P4.
P5 was interpreted as the text for reaction and commentary, along with the statement given by the Israel’s military or the IDF. The last paragraph, P6, was also classified as reaction from the victim, el-Eish.
News Participants in Text 2
The news participants identified in the text were:
x Israel’s military (P1) x Three girls in Gaza (P1) x Israeli public (P1)
x Izz el-Deen Abu el-Eish (P2)
x Members of the family (el-Eish’s family) (P3) x Soldiers from Golani infantry brigade (P4)
The description of the participants in the story line was not as inclusive as of The Jerusalem Post’s news text. At P3, the text did mention about other injured members of the family, but it did not inform the readers who the family members were. The text in P6 only mentioned “his surviving relatives,”
so there was something slightly unclear about it. However, web news stories
generally cannot be interpreted after the first reading as they are updated frequently. At this point they are apt to be unclear, full of ambiguity, discrepancy and cavity (Bell, 1998).
4.1.3. Text 3: Aljazeera
Text 3 was the web news story titled Israel: Girls’ killing ‘reasonable’ taken from Aljazeera’s website dated February 5, 2009.
Event - Structure
P1 The Israeli military has admitted shelling the home of a Palestinian doctor during its Gaza offensive and killing three of his daughters, but said its soldiers’ actions were “reasonable” considering the circumstances.
P2 Dr Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish, a 55-year-old gynaecologist trained in Israeli hospitals, was giving Israel’s Channel 10 his daily phone account from inside the war zone in Gaza when three of his daughters were killed in the attack.
P3 The military said on Wednesday that an inquiry into the January 16 incident found that troops fired two shells at the doctor’s home after fighters fired from the area.
P4 The report said soldiers came under fire from a building close to Abu al-Aish’s, and then “suspicious figures were identified in the upper level of Dr Abu al-Aish’s house and were thought to be spotters who directed the Hamas sniper and mortar fire”.
P5 Abu al-Aish, who has worked for years in Israeli hospitals, has denied there were any fighters at his house.
P6 The report said soldiers stopped firing after hearing screams from the shelled building.
P7 The military expressed sadness at the deaths but did not admit to a mistake in identification.
P8 Instead, it said in the report, “considering the constraints of the battle scene, the amount of threats that endangered the force, and the intensity of fighting in the area, the forces’ action and the decision to fire toward the building were reasonable”.
Events in Text 3
After examining Aljazeera’s news text, the event of the story was in P3 (participants, place, and time included). P1 acted as the lead of the story as it explained the headline. P2 was marked as the background to reaction in the event.
P4 was found to be the background of the event, which told the chronologies of the event. Moving to P5, the reaction from Dr Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish toward the attack was explained. P6 continued to the background to reaction. While at P7, reaction and evaluation was explained, where the Israeli military expressed their sadness but did not classified the act as a mistake towards the incident. The last paragraph, P8, was considered as consequences.
News Participants in Text 3
The news participants recognized in the text were:
x The Israel military (P1)
x Palestinian doctor (Dr Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish) (P1)
x Three of his daughters (Dr Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish’s daughters who got killed in the attack/the victims) (P1)
The participants in Aljazeera’s news text focused only on the main actors in the central event, which were the attackers (The Israeli military), and the victims (Dr Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish and his three daughters).
Accordingly, the news texts from The Jerusalem Post, The Guardian and Aljazeera were organized differently. The most significant differences could be seen on the details of the news story where The Jerusalem Post provided more details compared to the others. Thus, we must take into consideration the state of web news texts where stories are updated on a regular basis.
The general descriptions of actual events were completed with the statements of people involved. The Jerusalem Post had the criteria mentioned.
Its journalist had refined the news story with more names of participants, using indirect quotations from the sources, especially from the IDF side, described the incident from the very beginning, explaining the condition and the positions of the victims when the event occurred, and gave a compelling view toward the incident. This media implied that the Israeli did not intend these killings to happen. The phrase “accidentally attacked” was used in P1 in the opening of the story to support their report.
Meanwhile, The Guardian had another angle in forming the same topic of the news story. In general, the chronologies of the story were similar to The Jerusalem Post and Aljazeera, but it also inscribed the opinion of the Israeli with “this is the first time they had seen such a striking case of civilian deaths, even though hundreds of the 1,300 Palestinian dead were believed to be civilian.” At this point, the author was inserting another reality in Gaza.
Aljazeera’s news text was found to be essentially more forthright than the others. The authors or agencies wrote the story in a more unwavering style by using short sentences and included only the main participants in the
events who are the Israeli military, the doctor and his daughters. The text presented condemnation towards the Israeli army, as seen in the statement in P7 that says “The military expressed sadness at the deaths but did not admit to a mistake in identification.”