Voluntary silence: Israeli media self-censorship during the second Lebanon war.

Full text

conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
www.cco.regener-online.de
ISSN 1618-0747
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
Published under creative commons licence BY-NC-ND.
Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal
Voluntary silence: Israeli media self-censorship during the Second Lebanon War
Kurzfassung:
Dieser Artikel beschreibt die Charakteristika der Selbstzensur im Allgemeinen, und insbesondere in den
Massenmedien, im Hinblick auf Erzählungen von politischer Gewalt, einschließlich Motivation und Auswirkungen von
Selbstzensur. Es präsentiert zunächst eine breite theoretische Konzeptualisierung der Selbstzensur und konzentriert sich dann
auf seine mediale Praxis. Als Fallstudie wurde die Darstellung des Zweiten Libanonkrieges in den israelischen Medien
untersucht. Um Selbstzensur als einen der Gründe für die Dominanz hegemonialer Erzählungen in den Medien zu untersuchen,
führten die Autoren Inhaltsanalysen und Tiefeninterviews mit ehemaligen und aktuellen Journalisten durch. Die Ergebnisse der
Analysen zeigen, dass israelische Journalisten die Selbstzensur weitverbreitet einsetzen, ihre Motivation, sie zu praktizieren, und
die Auswirkungen ihrer Anwendung auf die Gesellschaft.
Abstract:
This article describes the characteristics of self-censorship in general, specifically in mass media, with regard to
narratives of political violence, including motivations for and effects of practicing self-censorship. It first presents a broad
theoretical conceptualization of self-censorship, and then focuses on its practice in media. The case study examined the
representation of The Second Lebanon War in the Israeli national media. The authors carried out content analysis and in-depth
interviews with former and current journalists in order to investigate one of the reasons for the dominance of the hegemonic
narrative in the media – namely, self-censorship. Indeed, the analysis revealed widespread use of self-censorship by Israeli
journalists, their motivations for practicing it, and the effects of its use on the society.
1. Introduction
Through the years, scholars have described formal censorship of the mass media by a state (Liebes, 1997;
Tehranian, 2002) as well as censorship carried out by private owners of media outlets (Herman & Chomsky,
1988; McChesney, 1999). However, relatively little conceptual work has been developed on self-censorship
practices, in spite of the fact that this phenomenon has been observed and noted as being prevalent in mass
media and other societal-cultural institutions (Antilla, 2010; Bar-Tal, Nets-Zehngut & Sharvit, 2017; Kenny &
Gross, 2008; Lee & Chan, 2009). In view of this state of affairs, the major objective of the present study is to
develop a more comprehensive framework for understanding the general phenomenon of self-censorship with its
wide ramifications, especially in the media, and to illustrate it with one study. Specifically, the case study focuses
on the use of self-censorship by the Israeli mass media in The Second Lebanon War, in 2006. This line of
research enables analysis of damaging media practices in general, and specifically of media representations of
violent conflicts in Israel and other states.
This premise is based on research literature suggesting that under conditions of violent conflict, the news media
often take an active part in mobilization of the public with ethnocentric-national content (Allan & Zelizer, 2004;
Carruthers, 2000; Gans, 1979; Hameiri, Bar-Tal & Halperin, 2017), by encouraging patriotic behavior (Wolfsfeld,
1997), and by presenting the in-group as the victim of the violence (Wolfsfeld, Frosh & Awabdy, 2008).
It is well known that the mass media play a central role in the construction of social reality and thus in shaping
the societal beliefs of a community (Carey, 1989; Johnson-Cartee, 2005). Moreover, in recent years it has
become a common belief that the media are gradually going through a process of “mediatization”; they are no
longer passive channels for blind political agreement, but rather organizations with goals and rules of their own,
which do not necessarily match those of the politicians, and occasionally even collide with them (Mazzoleni &
Schultz, 1999). According to other approaches, the media are no longer satisfied with reporting on politics from
the outside, and have now become active participants that influence political processes from the inside (Blumler &
Gurevitch, 1995). However, Bennett and Iyengar (2008) claimed that the political information environment led to
a new era of minimal media effects. They based their assumption mainly on channel proliferation, audience
fragmentation, and partisan selective exposure. The rise of social media also led to concern that people in the US
and other states incur greater isolation from diverse perspectives through filter bubbles (Beam, 2018).
Early seminal studies on the social roles of the media have focused on three major functions (Lasswell, 1975):
covering reality
by providing newsworthy information (news) to the public about reality as seen by journalists
(Fishman, 1997);
expressing opinions
(views) by placing a covered issue in a broader context and taking a
position in relation to it; and
transfer of heritage
by consciously or inadvertently serving as agents of socialization,
imparting cultural content to the new generation. Charles Wright (1960) added a fourth function,
entertainment
,
and Denis McQuail (2000) suggested a fifth one
, mobilization to
promote national interests
, especially in times of
security, economic, or ecological crisis.

Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
Voluntary Silence
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
2
However, at least some of these functions may be poorly performed. For example, media coverage may be
vague, selective, and incomplete; interpretation by media may be selective, biased, and even distortive (Laplante
& Phenicie, 2009); and sometimes even significant points and alternative information may be omitted. There are
many explanations for these failings. Some are the result of external pressures - from the political and economic
elite - toward the media (Bagdikian, 1997; McChesney, 2004; Mosco, 2009), and some are related to internal
journalistic culture (Schudson, 2002; Zelizer, 1993).
We would like to suggest that one of the most important explanations for malfunctions of the mass media in
many cases is the practice of self-censorship. Self-censorship is defined as
the act of intentionally and voluntarily
withholding information (news or editorial) from others in the absence of formal obstacles
(Bar-Tal, 2017). It
prevents free access to information, and obstructs the free flow of information and free expression. In essence, it
is one of the obstacles to the proper functioning of democracy, of which freedom of expression and pluralism are
its major pillars (Dahl, 2000).
Self-censorship can be differentiated according to its scope, which can include moderating criticism, embellishing
or changing the frame of an issue, outright avoiding and silencing disagreement, or providing misinformation and
even lies (Elbaz, Magal, Nets-Zehngut, & Abutbul, 2017). Nevertheless, it seems to us that when the military and
the political leadership consensually decide to go to war, and the public need to be mobilized to support it, then
the media often practice self-censorship in its full scope to back the step, in order not to disrupt the public
mobilization. By the same token, the media may avoid presenting information and opinions that negate the
decision to begin a war. This premise is based on the following assumption: There is a direct relationship
between political consensus on the necessity of a particular war and the media's tendency to practice self-
censorship; that is, when the political elite is united in launching a war, the mass media tend to support it and to
practice self-censorship. This general tendency is based on the strong relationship between political elites and the
media, on the one hand (for an example see Lewis, 2001), and on the influence of the public’s views on
information and opinions presented by the media, on the other hand (for example, McCombs, 2004). However,
when a disagreement develops among the political elite over continued fighting, the tendency of journalists to
practice self-censorship decreases because they feel liberated from the consensual view of the elite. This
particular observation will be examined in the present study too.
The first part of this paper presents a brief overview of journalistic procedures and the culture of journalism.
Later we will focus on self-censorship and introduce a new theoretical framework for its study. Then we will
examine its nature, motivations for practicing it, and its effects with regard to the Israeli Second Lebanon War.
The next part describes the methodology of the study, which consists of content analysis of the news that
appeared in the press (
Yedioth Ahronoth
and
Haaretz
) and on television (Channels 1 and 2), as well as in-depth
analysis of interviews with Israeli senior journalists and the members of the political elite who were formerly
journalists. The final parts present the findings and the conclusions of this study.
2. Journalistic practices and the culture of journalism
The question of how journalists work and make professional decisions, including when they decide to use self-
censorship, is situated within broader research literature addressing factors that influence publication of
information in the mass media. As demonstrated in previous studies on journalism, during violent conflict,
journalists usually support conflict narratives, especially if the confrontation is backed by leaders and is
consensual in a society.
1
In times of crisis, especially during wars and even routine conflicts, the independent
power of journalism is limited, because support for the official narrative as presented by the military and political
establishment is widely accepted during such periods (Hallin, 1986; Macarthur, 2004; Tumber & Palmer, 2004).
In fact, many journalists tend to favor their national identity over their professional loyalty during violent conflicts,
when they perceive threats to national security and interests (Zandberg & Neiger, 2005).
It is thus not surprising that some Israeli media outlets also tend to construct news stories wherein journalists
express and reinforce official narratives about the conflict (Wolfsfeld, Frosh & Awabdy, 2008; Wolfsfeld, 2011). To
this end, they tend to frame their own society positively in glorifying terms and as a perpetual victim of violence.
In contrast, they usually negatively label and even delegitimize the enemy by denying its humanity and depicting
it as deserving violent treatment (Dor, 2004; Elbaz, 2017). These themes correspond to the master conflict
supporting narrative propagated by societies engaged in violent conflicts (Bar-Tal, 2013). In this way, the news
content tends to be one-sided in depicting the conflict reality (Auerbach, 2010; Dor, 2004), often as a result of
reliance on official sources (Liebes, 2000; Wolfsfeld, 2001).
1
Conflict-supportive collective narratives fulfill a number of functions: They justify goals of the conflict; stress the importance of
personal safety and national
survival and outline the conditions for their achievement; present and maintain a positive collective
self-image and collective sense of being the victim in the conflict; delegitimize the rival; and propagate patriotism and unity
(Bar-Tal, 2013).

Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
Voluntary Silence
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
3
Studies show that elites are the most cited sources and major suppliers of news, leading to particular and biased
presentations of the information (Bennett, 1990, 2003; Davis, 2003; Reich, 2008; Sigal, 1986). Reciprocal
relations between the political elite and media organizations have far-reaching consequences on the substance of
the presented text: if the media focus on fewer (elite) news sources and fewer subjects, then the diversity of
ideas decreases (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). In sum, inasmuch as elite sources dominate news production
(Davis, 2003), determine the facts and their interpretation in news coverage (Bennett, 2003), there is little room
for alternative information that could potentially undermine the establishment’s views. This state of affairs serves
as fertile ground for practicing self-censorship.
3. Self-censorship in the media
Censorship
occurs when an individual or group or an authority formally prevents individuals or groups from
expressing thoughts, feelings or beliefs that the former do not want exposed (De Baets, 2002; Peleg, 1993). The
focus of the present paper is on
self-censorship.
Indeed it has been observed that individuals, including
journalists, withhold verified information voluntarily without being specifically and formally told or ordered to do
so officially by an external censor (Simons & Strovsky, 2006: 191). They do this in order to avoid harming,
annoying or offending a person, group or nation, or even contradicting an idea − and thus avoid possible
negative social sanctions, punishments, or even personal guilt.
It has been argued that the media in Israel are themselves hesitant to take on the responsibility that comes with
eliminating censorship (Nossek & Limor, 2001). Newspaper editors and television & radio news editors have
internalized the burden of military censorship, even when such censorship has not been called for (Liebes, 1997),
because they did not want to be held responsible for publishing something that might damage Israel's security
interests (Caspi & Rubinstein, 2013; Segal, 1996). In very simple terms, as noted, self-censoring of news
information indicates that individuals informally control and regulate the flow of information (Bar-Tal, 2017). Self-
censorship in the media is of special interest because it involves gatekeepers − journalists − whose role requires
by definition transmitting and disseminating valid information to the public. In fulfilling this role, they determine
what will be known to the public and what information will be withheld (Fishman, 1997).
Most of the literature on self-censorship describes the phenomenon, but does not provide a comprehensive
conceptual basis for it. We find only a few examples in the literature that include a conceptual development that
distinguishes between public self-censorship and private self-censorship (Cook & Heilmann, 2013), or that
explores how the self-censor is largely viewed as an originator, on the one hand, and as an instrument, on the
other, of the censorship (Horton, 2011). In contrast, our study provides a broad conceptualization which
illuminates important additional aspects of self-censorship.
4. Conceptual framework to self-censorship
Deconstruction of the above presented definition of self-censorship suggests that it has a number of components
(Bar-Tal, 2017). First is the
nature of the practice:
For an act to be seen as self-censorship, a journalist must
have the information, be aware that he/she has the information, and believe that the information has implications
for the society as a whole and/or for various society members; thus a reporter or editor consciously decides to
withhold this information. Second, the
intentional and voluntary aspects of the act:
Intentionally and voluntarily
withholding information means that it is not accidental, but carried out as a result of free will and self-motivation.
Third, the
nature of withheld information:
Withheld information often touches on subjects that shed light on
undesirable behaviors as seen by the authorities, such as immoral acts − including corruption and atrocities, and
suppressing such information might even be a good deed. As an example of the latter, in Israel the media do not
expose the precise location of hostile missile hits within Jewish settlements for security reasons. Fourth, the act of
self-censorship is carried out
in the absence of formal obstacles.
The present definition of self-censorship
excludes cases in which there is a formal institutionally established external obstacle that prevents sharing
information, such as official censorship, orders, or laws (e.g., De Baets, 2002; Jansen, 1988; Tribe, 1973). In
these cases, self-censorship is in line with the formal directives. The scope of self-censorship excludes cases in
which an individual thinks that there are formal obstacles to sharing information, while in reality there are none.
Individuals may imagine the existence of various types of formal censorship, but to include these cases in the
definition would broaden its scope extensively without clear boundaries. However, the proposed definition
includes cases in which there may be social sanctions against sharing information, without the existence of formal
obstacles.
At least two primary motives underlie self-censorship as practiced by journalists: loyalty to the state and/or to the
leadership, and attempting to avoid personal sanctions. With regard to rewards, not revealing information may
lead to receiving positive reinforcement such as social approval, awards or concrete rewards (such as exclusive
information), and even self-satisfaction. The occurrence of self-censorship depends on several factors, such as
characteristics of the journalists, the type of information involved, circumstantial factors, characteristics of the

Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
Voluntary Silence
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
4
culture in which the phenomenon of self-censorship takes place, and the context (Bar-Tal, 2017). We are
interested in the context of protracted and violent intractable conflict that is very powerful
2
and conducive to the
development of wide-scope self-censorship, even in democratic societies. In this context, self-censorship is often
viewed by authorities and segments of a society as a necessary socio-psychological mechanism that protects the
in-group by blocking the dissemination of information that is perceived as detrimental to the society’s goals and
interests (Bar-Tal, 2013, 2017). Its practice enables the maintenance of the society’s collective conflict-supporting
narratives and prevents the disclosure and dissemination of alternative information that may present the society
in a negative light. Many believe that if such information is exposed, it might jeopardize the mobilization of
society members to participate in the conflict, and reduce support from the international community (Hameiri,
Bar-Tal & Halperin, 2017).
By blocking alternative information and allowing the maintenance of conflict-supporting narratives, self-
censorship contributes directly to the continuation of intractable conflicts. In this context, self-censorship takes
place typically when journalists intentionally and voluntarily withhold conflict-related information that may present
the in-group and/or its political and military elites negatively and/or challenge their dominant official narratives.
Frequently, this practice results in hiding information that refers to misdeeds carried out by the armed forces,
narratives that contradict the goals of the conflict, and sometimes in even withholding information that indicates
a possibility of resolving the conflict peacefully (see also Bar-Tal, Oren & Nets-Zehngut, 2014; Nets-Zehngut,
Pliskin & Bar-Tal, 2015).
5. The Second Lebanon War as a case study
The present study investigates self-censorship in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict, which is a prototypical
case of intractable conflict. This conflict is not only territorial and political, but also concerns economic aspects of
control over resources; it relates to basic needs such as security and identity, as well as to deep contradictions in
religious and cultural goals (Morris, 2001).
As the case study for examining the phenomenon of self-censorship during military encounters, we selected The
Second Lebanon War, which is typical of recent violent encounters that took place within the framework of the
Israeli-Arab conflict. This war erupted on July 12
th
, 2006 when the Lebanese Shiite organization Hezbollah opened
artillery fire along the Israel’s northern border, aimed at IDF troops near the border security fence. In addition,
Hezbollah prepared an ambush, and its fighters killed three IDF soldiers and abducted two more. This action led
to Israeli retaliation, and eventually to a war that lasted 34 days. Similar to The First Lebanon War, Israel
engaged in this war without proper military preparations (Harel & Issacharoff, 2008; Shelah & Limor, 2007
The Government convened about 11 hours after the ambush and decided to initiate military operations. At first,
the IDF delivered a massive air strike against many targets in Lebanon. In response, Hezbollah fired rockets and
missiles at many Northern Israeli cities and settlements. The IDF recruited reservists and gradually engaged its
infantry in armed force battles with members of Hezbollah. In the final stages of the war − from August 9
th
until
its official end on August 14
th
− the ground offensive was extended, claiming the lives of dozens of Israeli soldiers
(33 were killed in the last two days of fighting).
In the first days of the war, the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert enjoyed broad public
support, but as the fighting continued and the number of victims increased, the support declined. The results of
the war were: 163 Israelis killed – 119 soldiers and 44 citizens, thousands injured, and close to 4,000 enemy
rockets landing in Israel, causing significant property damage. According to the Amnesty report, the human toll
on the Lebanese side was an estimated 1,183 dead, about one-third of whom were children, 4,054 people
injured, and 970,000 Lebanese people displaced. In addition, the civilian infrastructure was severely damaged
due to a massive ground and aerial bombardment of Lebanon by the Israeli armed forces.
3
The losses and the heavy cost of the war signaled a wave of protest in Israel and calls for the resignation of
political and military leaders, and for the establishment of an inquiry committee to investigate military failures in
Lebanon. In the end, the government decided to establish a Governmental Inquiry Committee led by Judge
Eliyahu Winograd. In his testimony on February 1
st
, 2007 in front of a panel of judges, Olmert told the Winograd
Commission that he asked to see military plans as early as in March, four months before the war started, claiming
he wanted to be prepared in advance for war if Hezbollah were to initiate a kidnapping of IDF soldiers.
4
It is
2
Intractable conflicts are fought over goals viewed as existential, are violent, are perceived as being of a zero sum nature and
unsolvable, occupy a central position in the lives of the involved societies, require immense investments of material and
psychological resources, and last for at least 25 years (Bar-Tal, 2007, 2013; Kriesberg, 1993).
3
The Amnesty Website: https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/76000/mde180072006en.pdf
4
For Olmert’s testimony, see here (p. 3, in Hebrew):
http://www.vaadatwino.gov.il/pdf/%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9C%20%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9E
%D7%A8%D7%98.pdf

Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
Voluntary Silence
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
5
assumed that the event of the ambush allowed the two civilian leaders (the prime minister and the defense
minister) to show that they could manage a war in spite of their limited military experience.
However, the Committee strongly criticized the conduct of the government and the IDF during the war, and
attributed responsibility for its results to the Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and Chief
of Staff Dan Halutz; but it refrained from making personal recommendations about these three officials.
5
There are two main reasons for choosing The Second Lebanon War as a case study. First, this war is formally
regarded in Israel as its most recent war, as of now (three military events that took place in Gaza after the
Second Lebanon War are defined by Israel as military operations, not wars). Therefore, Israeli journalists were
still able to reconstruct their practices during the war a few years after its end. Second, the last war in Lebanon
reflected the political polarization in Israel between doves and hawks, as the war was viewed by the former group
as an "unnecessary war” − that is, Israel could have avoided it, since its national security and existence were not
in danger (Shelah & Limor, 2007).
Indeed, The Second Lebanon War has already been used as a case study by Israeli researchers (see, for
example, Neiger, Zandberg & Meyers, 2010). However, they focused on the concept of journalistic criticism,
omitting the analysis of the phenomenon of self-censorship. In contrast, this study focuses on the scope of self-
censorship practiced by journalists, the motivations for withholding information, and the effects of using it within
the presented conceptual framework. We assume that journalists practiced self-censorship because we have
observed that the Israeli media during The Second Lebanese War presented mainly the official narrative of the
government and the army (Elbaz & Bar-Tal, 2016). In this study we analyze the contents of the two leading types
of national media: newspapers (
Yedioth Ahronoth
and
Haaretz
), and public/commercial television (Channels 1
and 2).
The reason why the new social media are outside of the scope of this study is that during the period under
review (July-August 2006), these media had no significant impact on the Israeli mainstream media agenda. The
power of the leading social networks such as Facebook and Twitter emerged a few years after The Second
Lebanon War was over. Also, bloggers were not aiming at a wider target audience. The most popular Israeli
online outlets at the time, such as
Ynet
,
Walla News
, and
Mako
, reflected the patriotic mood of newspapers and
broadcast outlets, and they did not undermine the authority of mainstream media in keeping information out of
the public eye during a war (Elbaz, 2017).
6. Research methods
6.1 Content analysis
In total, 1,149 items from newspapers and 585 items from TV Channels − 1,734 items altogether − about The
Second Lebanon War were content analyzed. A coding system was developed to assess a few variables that
provide information about the effects of self-censorship. Coders had to assign news reports and articles to the
following categories: scope of the debate (for example, support for or resistance to the ceasefire); omission of
knowledge (for example, background regarding IDF's lack of preparedness for war); reproduction of dogmas
(adherence to or undermining of military elite thinking by journalists); gaps in knowledge between rivals in the
conflict (a comparison between representations of "us" [IDF] and "them" [Lebanese civilians] during the tragic
event in Qana village); and warning against immoral behaviors (criticism of causing innocent civilian casualties).
The analysis included categorization of the self-censorship's consequences that were found in the units of
analysis, according to the described coding framework of the five consequences. Five dichotomous variables of
consequences were developed and their occurrences were calculated: 1 = positive consequence (for example,
support for the ceasefire and warnings against immoral behaviors), 2 = negative consequence (for example,
omission of knowledge, reproduction of dogma, gaps in knowledge). It is noteworthy that the inter-coder
reliability was 90 percent.
6
The dichotomous categorization was possible because the journalists tended to fall
unequivocally into one of the two categories.
6.2 In-depth interviews
In addition, 30 in-depth interviews with current and former prominent Israeli journalists were conducted. The
journalists’ role as news providers allowed us to illuminate the manner in which self-censorship occurred among
editors and reporters. All the interviewees were directly involved in covering the military and political domains of
Israel during the wars in Lebanon (the majority of them in The Second Lebanon War), filling primary roles in this
5
For further details, see: “The Final Report: The commission of inquiry into the events of military engagement in Lebanon
2006,” Jerusalem, 2008 (in Hebrew).
6
Two judges, graduates of a master's degree program in communication, were selected for this task. They determined the rate
of agreement.

Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
Voluntary Silence
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
6
mission. One of the main purposes of the interviews was to learn to what extent, if indeed at all, the journalists
practiced self-censorship during The Second Lebanon War and if so, why.
7
The selection of interviewees was based on a representative approach (see Tenenboim-Weinblatt, 2014), that is,
on accurately representing the major news organizations and various types of journalists who covered the war.
The interviewees worked for eight leading Israeli news organizations, representing the most influential and/or
popular news outlets among different types of media. The eight news organizations were: three leading print-
digital news outlets (
Yedioth Ahronoth
,
Haaretz
and
Maariv
); three broadcast outlets in Israel (two commercial
ones, Channels 2 and 10, and one public outlet, Channel 1); and the two most popular Israeli news radio stations
(Kol Israel and IDF radio). The interviewed journalists represented various journalistic positions: senior editors,
mid-level editors, senior reporters, commentators, and hybrid positions. Some of the interviewees had already
retired from their media positions and therefore were not afraid to be exposed and to speak openly. Other
interviewees talked mostly about the media in general, and thus made a valuable contribution in discussing the
self-censorship phenomenon in a balanced manner. The majority of the interviewees did not ask to remain
anonymous and provided their full names and positions. The locations of the interviews − mostly the
interviewees’ workplaces and occasionally their homes or cafés − were selected by the interviewees. Each
interview lasted between 45 minutes and 90 minutes. All interviews were conducted face-to-face by the first
author.
Semi-structured questionnaires were employed for the interviews, allowing the interviewees to raise additional
issues for discussion. The journalists were asked to answer the following questions: Have you decided not to
publish information for security reasons? What are the factors that you face as a journalist when you decide to
withhold information from the public? How are your journalistic practices affected by the climate of violent
conflict? As a reporter, what types of information are you expected to produce? Does the ideological position of
the media organization for which you work have an impact on the information you disclose? Are the media outlets
more critical than ever in times of conflict? To what extent are the media ideologically biased during military
confrontations?
The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Inductive qualitative analysis of the interviews was carried out.
Analysis of the findings proceeded in two stages: The first stage consisted of identifying the main practices by the
media that the interviewees reported as influencing their coverage of the war, as well as motivations for such
practices. The second stage focused on the self-censorship practices during the war as interpreted by the
journalists. This analysis of the interviews, therefore, aimed to explain the customs, motivations and practices of
journalists (Wimmer & Dominick, 2000), particularly when covering violent confrontations.
We used a line-by-line analysis of the interviews, developing each concept in terms of its properties and
dimensions, based on the Strauss and Corbin (1998) approach to the analysis of qualitative data. In the present
study, our focal concept is self-censorship; its five main manifestations (i.e., properties) are silence, avoiding
criticism, justifying/minimizing wrongdoings, denying responsibility, and euphemism (the latter term addresses
the usage of vague and softer words in relation to sensitive topics). The dimensions are the range of properties,
meaning that we needed to determine the most prominent manifestation of self-censorship.
It is clear that the qualitative analysis can explain practices used by the media when covering violent conflicts and
wars. The interviews conducted for this study added more information that showed mainly qualitatively, but also
quantitatively, how journalists covered issues related to the war, the scope of the practice of self-censorship, as
well as motivations for using it and the consequences of its use.
7. Results
The content analysis of the mass media revealed the existence of an all-inclusive framework for media support of
the political and military elites. From the very beginning, even before the IDF entered Lebanon, journalists urged
the government to initiate a military operation that would restore quietness to the regions of the northern border
(Elbaz, 2015). The media ignored essential and important questions such as: Do all aspects of the attack by
Hezbollah require a war? Might it be desirable first to analyze the situation in depth before giving way to the
emotional reaction of initiating a war? Is a war desirable and necessary for Israel at this particular time? Is the
army prepared for combat with Lebanese armed militia? Is the home front sufficiently protected from missile
attacks? What could be the outcomes of such a war? These questions were absent from press and television
reports during the early stages of the fighting. Harsh criticism of the government, which failed to stimulate public
debate, was found only at the margins of media coverage (Elbaz & Bar-Tal, 2016). We will return to the content
analysis findings later, but first will report on the major findings based on the interviews, in order to describe the
journalists practicing self-censorship − especially their motivations for doing so.
7
The interviews were part of a larger scope study carried out by the first author. For the present study only the parts of the
interviews that referred to the self-censorship phenomenon were selected.

Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
Voluntary Silence
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
7
The interviewed military correspondents and other journalists referred explicitly to the complete "mobilization" of
the journalists on behalf of the military campaign, and talked about widespread self-censorship and
unquestioning acceptance of the official narrative from governmental and military sources of information. For
example, they downplayed military failures (as in the case of the ground operation in Maroun al-Ras), internalized
the IDF's narrative despite conflicting evidence (as in the case of the killing of civilians in Qana village), and
decided to withhold information (as in the case of reservists’ antiquated equipment).
Quantitatively, of the 30 interviewees, 18 talked explicitly about practicing self-censorship. Twelve other
interviewees referred to this practice indirectly, not calling it by name but describing journalistic practices such as
providing misinformation or publication of misleading information as a result of personal relationships between
journalists and politicians. Thus we can say that throughout the war, Israeli editors and reporters internalized the
formal military censorship, even when there was no formal instruction to do so. The media outlets practiced self-
censorship intentionally and voluntarily, and by doing so journalists distorted the reality of the war. In this way,
according to the interviewees, media organizations were mobilized to support the cause being fought for. In fact,
this is an interesting finding which indicates that journalists assumed it was the norm to use self-censorship, and
therefore easily admitted to its use. Now we will go into the details. First, there is a need to describe the
motivations that underlined the practice of self-censorship by journalists, as detected by the content analysis of
the interviews.
7.1 Motivations for self-censorship by Israeli journalists
Five dominant motives were identified: (1) maintaining national consensus; (2) mobilizing the citizens to support
the war; (3) fear of undermining the motivation of the soldiers; (4) fear of personal sanctions; and (5) fear of
harming relationship with the information sources. The first three motives are socio-political, as they refer to
considerations that concern the collective, while the last two motives concern self-interest.
The first motive,
maintaining national consensus
, relates to actively sustaining the Israeli government's official
position regarding the purposes of the war in Lebanon. At first, as long as political support during the war was
almost unanimous, the media refrained from presenting a narrative that opposed the purpose of the war. The
former Labor Party leader, Shelly Yachimovich, who had previously been a prominent journalist, explained how
the media avoid criticizing the government and the military during wars in general and The Second Lebanon War
in particular:
"The media are more patriotic today and play one tune because of the collective wish to be part of the
consensus, especially in time of war when everyone is very militant. Under these circumstances, anti-war
expressions are almost seen as betrayals of the nation." (See Appendix, Interviewee 30).
This position is consistent with the argument that in times of tension and crisis, let alone war, the independence
of the media is undermined, and it tends to support the military and political establishment to form a public
consensus (Nir & Roeh, 1992), ceasing to be the "watchdog of democracy." The common assumption, supported
by political and military elites, is that presenting a broad spectrum of public opinion would severely harm national
morale (Barzilai, 1992: 225).
Alon Ben David, military commentator for Channel 10, and the late Yossi Sarid, a former news commentator for
Haaretz
, emphasized the complete support of the media for the government's decision to go to war in Lebanon.
According to Ben David:
"On Wednesday, July 12 at noon, the IDF spokeswoman told me that the Chief of Staff wants to set
Lebanon back by 20 years. I replied that there would be a cabinet meeting at 19:00 pm and asked
whether he would wait for the government decision. ‘No’ was the answer, ‘This is what he said.’ Then in
the evening, reports started coming out of the cabinet meeting, which clarified how the decision was
made. Minister Peres was the only one who asked questions, and the Chief of Staff replied arrogantly.
Other communication channels applauded him
(i.e., the Chief of Staff)
at this point
." (Interviewee 4).
In this context, Sarid said:
"There was an eclipse in Haaretz newspaper during The Second Lebanon War. When I opened the
newspaper, I could hardly believe my eyes − there was a call on the first page by a prominent columnist
(Ari Shavit) to open a ground operation." (Interviewee 25).
The second motive,
mobilizing the citizens
, concerns attempts by political and military elites to harness the media
to mobilize the Israeli public for war in Lebanon, and even to silence criticism. An illustration of this intention was
found two weeks after the fighting began, in the attitude of Yossi Peled, a military commentator for Channel 1
during the war and former Major General of the Northern Command in the Israel Defense Forces:

Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
Voluntary Silence
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
8
"I would like to say: When I was asked to join Channel 1 for as long as the war continued, I went to
strengthen hands and not to let go of hands. So my current thoughts and impressions are not relevant."
8
Although Peled was not a professional journalist, his military analyses were seen by television viewers as
comprehensive and persuasive. The fact that the anchor did not ask him to analyze the military failures critically
and openly is quite problematic.
Eitan Haber, a former military correspondent and a prominent columnist in
Yedioth Ahronoth
, clarified why
silence, as a blatant manifestation of self-censorship by journalists, is more pronounced in times of war:
"Once the war begins, all feel an obligation to be united. Suddenly all party barriers fall away, and people
want to be together. A manifestation of this is the well-known expression: ‘be quiet, now shooting’."
(Interviewee 15).
The third motive is more specific,
fear of undermining the motivation of the soldiers
, and is part of the more
general approach of securitism, which means that an Israeli-Jewish journalist does not provide information that
may harm the Israeli security organs and/or Israeli security (Bar-Tal & Jacobson, 1998). For example, many of
the journalists knew about the lack of proper equipment for the reservists, but delayed revealing this information
until Nahum Barnea, one of the most respected journalists in Israel, released this story towards the end of the
war. Nir Dvori, the military correspondent for Channel 2, explains his act of intentionally withholding information
from the audience:
"I had information about neglect of the equipment that belonged to the reserve soldiers before Nahum
Barnea did, but we debated whether to broadcast it during the war due to the potentially negative
consequences on the soldiers themselves following exposure of the story. While we were debating, Nahum
Barnea published everything in
Yedioth Ahronoth
two days later; once the story was published, it broke
the dam, and from then on all the journalists competed to publish this information." (Interviewee 9).
The fourth motive,
fear of personal sanctions
, reflected concern that providing information that presented either
the state, the government, or the security forces in a negative light would result in sanctions such as being
reprimanded, negatively labeled or even punished.
Yael Gvirtz, one of the editorial writers in
Yedioth Ahronoth
during the war, was the only journalist who sharply
criticized Prime Minister Olmert and Defense Minister Peretz as the war began. However, she paid a personal
price for her persistent writing. The chief editor, Rafi Ginat, dismissed her from her editorial position following a
dissenting article that she wrote on August 9, 2006, entitled "Hostages at the Turret."
Whether right or wrong, Gvirtz’s observations were not essential in this case. The very fact that she was
dismissed just because she dared to tell a story which was not in line with the government narrative is the core
point here. Silencing Gvirtz also silenced the debate over the war, at least in its early days. In other words,
publications on wrongdoings in the war were minimized and even eliminated. Gvirtz said:
"It was clear that Yedioth Ahronoth wholeheartedly supported this war. Whoever wrote otherwise was
'exiled’ to less prominent pages than the first pages." (Interviewee 14).
The fifth motive,
fear of harming relations with information sources within the government and military elite
, is
particularly significant. The military authorities regularly provide information to the media that is "bread and
butter" for the journalists. Decisions regarding what to expose or withhold is in the hands of the journalists, as
news manufacturers. But a journalist who decides to inform the public about an issue that the army wants to
silence or at least to conceal may lose his/her primary source of information, as one of the interviewees admits:
"Most of the media information sources come from the government and the army. Once the media are not
attentive to the establishment, it will block the oxygen of its information. Of course, the media cannot
afford this situation." (Interview with Yaron Dekel, a former IDF Radio Commander).
Therefore, journalists take into account all professional considerations, including maintaining working
relationships with the military leadership. Journalists who were interviewed described the IDF spokesperson’s
ability to dictate the military discourse without practicing official censorship, thus preventing any critical coverage,
as a voluntary act:
"It is absolutely clear that a military affairs correspondent who confronts the military leadership will not
receive official news updates." (Interview with Shelly Yachimovich, a former prominent journalist).
"In order to get the most interesting materials, the military correspondent must maintain good relations with
the IDF spokesperson. The reporter could not criticize the army and assume that the IDF spokesperson would
continue to cooperate with him as if nothing had happened." (Interview with Aviram Elad, Former head of
Haaretz
news department).
8
Peled, Y. (2006, July 26).
Mabat
news broadcast, Channel 1.

Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
Voluntary Silence
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
9
Reporters avoided publication of information that could harm the image of the army, due to their dependence on
the official sources. The view presented by Alon Ben David, military commentator for Channel 10 who
disregarded this motive, is interesting. He claimed that a more varied selection of information sources reduces
dependence on official sources, and as a result, decreases self-censoring among journalists:
"The information sources are not monolithic. The military is a huge body. You have to understand that
official military information is disseminated to many external entities, such as organizations that maintain a
working relationship with the military, civilian sources who have connections with the army, families of
soldiers and officers who come home and tell stories, and the 'other' who fights you and always has
something to say. A large part of our professionalization, as journalists, is to reduce dependence on official
sources and IDF spokespersons." (Interviewee 4).
7.2 How the war was covered by the Israeli media as a result of self-censorship
Through qualitative content analysis of news items, we were able to detect five main effects of practicing self-
censorship. Each of them will be discussed now: Before elaborating on its influences, we must clarify that self-
censorship is only one factor among many others (such as propaganda, manipulation, disinformation, deception
and lies) that lead to these consequences.
(1)
Narrowed scope of societal debate
. We observed that self-censorship prevented public discussion of various
sensitive topics in the media, thereby narrowing the scope of the debate in society; the media mostly or only
presented consensual positions and information during the war. This consequence reminds us of Bennett's
indexing approach (1990): The news content was indexed according to the pronounced political and military
framing offered by the government and the military general staff. Thus, through news reports and newspaper
articles, the military elite was able to incorporate into the public mind its resistance to a ceasefire, and to form a
consensus on its operational plan without having to explain the rationale behind it. Evidence of this tendency was
revealed in the analyses of all the headlines in the sample: Only less than 10 percent of the headlines in both
press and electronic media during the war referred to diplomatic solutions or proposals for a ceasefire, while the
rest of them emphasized military action, as a preferred type of action.
(2)
Omission of knowledge regarding IDF's military failures.
Self-censorship prevented the public from knowing
about failures. Israeli journalists who were aware of operational failures of the IDF in real time during The Second
Lebanon War decided not to report on these failures in order to continue to mobilize the public to support Israel’s
military activities at the time. For example, Yoav Limor, military commentator for Channel 1, admitted this
omission four weeks after the beginning of the hostilities:
"We were careful not to criticize the military over the last month. […] This (criticism) sends a message to
the public that something is not going well. The political system, the international system − all these
institutions allow the army to win, but the military cannot achieve a decisive victory."
9
Of interest is the finding that during the operation the great majority of the journalists avoided critical reporting;
towards the end of the war, when critical views became more normalized, such reporting did appear. Roni Daniel,
who preached passionately for decisive military action, asked a little too late (on August 14
th
, the day the
ceasefire went into effect): “Were IDF’s ground troops neglected and lacking in equipment or training?”
10
It is
possible that a critical investigative report before the beginning of the campaign could have changed the timing
and the nature of the war in Lebanon, thereby saving human lives. Amos Harel, who, as Daniel, supported the
ground operation, kept his criticism to himself until the battles faded:
"All those things, such as the neglectful lack of training and inadequate reserves troops' equipment, are
supposed to create a monumental public uproar […]. And the reservists who fought in Lebanon clearly
have full bellies. The stories are starting to get out: in brief talks, in text messages sent to families, in first
meetings with battalion and brigade commanders."
11
(3)
Reproduction of dogmas.
Self-censorship promoted adherence to the dominant narrative even when it had
been proven faulty. Journalists not only repeated the main manufactured dogma that the war was necessary, but
also repeated the view that it was necessary to use infantry in this war. For example, the majority of the
journalists supported the entry of the armed forces into Lebanon to battle Hezbollah, although the ground action
showed that it was a very problematic move that would result in unnecessary losses. The uncritical reproduction
of dogma may increase the proliferation of political and military mistakes. In an article published on page 2 of
Haaretz
, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff wrote that it was wrong to expect failure based on past mistakes, due to
9
Limor, Y. (2006, August 9).
Mabat
news broadcast, Channel 1.
10
Daniel, R. (2006, August 14). Channel 2 newscast.
11
Harel, A. (2006, August 14). Far from the Litani - and from the targets.
Haaretz
, p. 2.

Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
Voluntary Silence
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
10
the General Staff’s new decision to be more involved in the planning and approval of ground operations
from then on:
"The General Staff will now have tighter control in relation to the events and activities that take place
within a few kilometers inside Lebanon. [...] Hezbollah can manage small battles against the IDF, cause
losses and a delay, but cannot halt its progress."
12
Most military commentators decided to criticize military elite thinking only toward the end of the war when its
high costs emerged, and only following criticism within the political system regarding the way the war was being
conducted.
(4)
Reinforcement and amplification of gaps in knowledge between the rivals in conflict.
Since self-censorship
promotes a more positive and self-serving image of the in-group among its members, it creates or increases the
differentiation between the two rival groups, the in-group (Israel) and the out-group (Hezbollah). This practice
inhibits a potential ceasefire. The fourth consequence of self-censorship is best reflected in the reporting of the
disaster in Qana village. In this tragic event, the Israeli Air Force attacked Hezbollah forces in the village of Qana
on July 30, 2006. As a result, aircraft bombs destroyed a residential building in the village, and caused the deaths
of dozens of Lebanese civilians, including 16 children. This attack was an application of Israel’s Dahiya doctrine
(named after the devastation of a suburb of Beirut where Hezbollah was headquartered) that involves
considerable deliberate destruction of a civilian infrastructure of hostile forces and also a risk of civilian casualties
(Byman, 2011).
A critical examination of the news reveals close cooperation of the television channels with the IDF leadership.
The military narrative, which dominated the news coverage, downplayed the image of Lebanese civilians as
victims, and more importantly relieved the soldiers of responsibility for the disaster. At first, the Air Force
displayed blurred photographs with the objective of showing how Hezbollah forces had placed missile launchers
close to residents' homes. Later, the Chief of Staff explained: "a terrorist organization is an organization that finds
shelter within and between citizens,” and then the correspondent Nir Dvori made it clear and euphemistic:
"before bombing, aircraft scattered leaflets calling on residents to leave the village in order not to be hurt."
13
(5)
Negligible warning against immoral behaviors
. The previous consequences led to a relative absence of dealing
with the moral misdeeds of the IDF and their implications. Throughout the war, the Israeli army was presented
by the media as acting morally. Returning back to the tragic event in Qana village, military analysts on television
rejected the idea of cessation of military operations following this incident in the Lebanese village. About 10
minutes after a Channel 2 news broadcast began, Roni Daniel dismissed the following question from news
anchorwoman Yonit Levy: "After such a massive strike at innocent civilians, should the army not stop to rethink
the continued fighting?"
14
Contrarily, Roni Daniel expressed the military assessment, based on mere speculation
that the explosion was caused by the presence of war materials in the residential building rather than by Air
Force bombing − thus denying any Israeli responsibility for this strike. Similarly, Alex Fishman wrote in
Yedioth
Ahronoth
on page 3: "Do not stop the campaign; we should not consider the events in Qana village as a factor
which can affect it."
15
This content analysis highlights the widespread use of self-censorship by Israeli journalists during The Second
Lebanon War. Thus this study reveals in what ways content is influenced by this phenomenon, and in particular
what the consequences are of journalists withholding information in their coverage.
8. Discussion
This study showed that self-censorship was prevalent among newspersons in Israel during The Second Lebanon
War in 2006. The majority of the military correspondents who were interviewed admitted explicitly to the
unquestioning acceptance of the official narrative presented by the government and military echelon and to the
use of
self-censorship
during The Second Lebanon War. Thus, the present study shows how self-censorship
affected key principles, routines, and journalistic practices of Israeli media during the coverage of this war.
Nevertheless, some differences were found among the correspondents: Journalists and commentators whose
authority or background was grounded in the military, like Roni Daniel and Yossi Peled, used practices such as
self-censorship and euphemism, rationalizing them, while politicians who had been prominent journalists, like
Yossi Sarid and Shelly Yachimovich, were more critical of these practices, but acknowledged it was prevalent in
various ways during The Second Lebanon War.
12
Harel, A. & Issacharoff, A. (2006, July 23). The General Staff take control.
Haaretz
, p. 2.
13
Dvori, N. (2006, July 30). Channel 2 newscast.
14
Levy, Y. (2006, July 30). Channel 2 newscast.
15
Fishman, A. (2006, July 31). A puzzling decision.
Yedioth Ahronoth
, p. 3.

Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
Voluntary Silence
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
11
Through the comprehensive analysis of the concept of self-censorship and line-by-line analysis of the interviews,
we revealed self-censorship properties such as silence, avoiding criticism, minimizing wrongdoings, denying
responsibility, and euphemism. We were able to shed light on the nature of this phenomenon, and under what
circumstances editors and reporters may increase its practice. We must also note that this practice is seen as part
of the systematic societal attempts to maintain the propagated hegemonic narratives and prevent exposure to
information that may contradict them (Bar-Tal, Oren, & Nets-Zehngut, 2014).
Although self-censorship may be practiced in any context, we realize that the violent conflicts and wars in which
mass media function at times are probably the determining factor of its practice. Furthermore, as the context
becomes more authoritarian and totalitarian, demanding one view and voice, the more self-censorship we find, as
various studies show (Hutt, 2006; Ngok, 2007). We also recognize that although context is a very powerful
variable that imprints human behavior, especially in extreme conditions, personal characteristics play a part,
because journalists behave differently from one another with regard to self-censorship in the same context.
The analysis of the interviews showed that the fear of being punished is an important motivating force.
Journalists are aware of potential sanctions and are motivated to avoid them, because they have serious
consequences for their personal and professional lives. However, we also learned that the main motivation in a
democratic society in the context of bloody confrontations is often to protect the in-group. We learned that in
societies plagued by a protracted conflict, its members are asked to be mobilized and they themselves demand
loyalty, especially when the in-group engages in violent acts and threats are high. Mass media in these conditions
function as a societal institution which cares about the fate of the society and mobilizes itself for the sake of the
group. In addition, media experience both implicit and explicit pressure from the formal institutions such as
government and the army to fulfill its patriotic duty. The governmental and military establishments wish to see a
massive mobilization of support for military efforts, in order to achieve their designated objectives without open
and free public debate. The mass media fulfill this expected role instead of acting as watchdog over the course of
decisions and practices that may sometimes lead the nation in disastrous directions. This practice of the media is
observed mainly in societies that are involved in protracted violent conflicts (Elbaz & Bar-Tal, 2016; Nets-Zehngut
& Elbaz, 2017). But it also appeared in other societies that became involved in short term violent conflicts, such
as Great Britain in Falkland (Adams, 1986; Temple, 2018) and the United States in Iraq (Dadge, 2006; Schechter,
2005). Finally, society members expect the media to be faithful. Thus, the combination of external pressures and
mass media’s own perception of duty yield a high level of self-censorship, reinforced, as we showed, by
combinations of motives that are not mutually exclusive.
We also found that journalists are aware of the effects of practicing self-censorship. This is a troubling finding
because they know the nature of the harm it causes. Self-censorship leads to a narrowed scope of debate in the
society, omission of knowledge regarding IDF's military failures, reproduction of failing dogmas of the elites,
reinforcement and amplification of gaps in knowledge between the rivals in a conflict, and decreased warnings
against moral deterioration. Those are serious liabilities of self-censorship, which damage the society’s
functioning and impede achievement of its goals. But it also has positive consequences; it helps to maintain
consensus and cohesiveness, in addition to protecting the society from acquiring a negative image.
The presented findings of the study confirm the assumption that there is a connection between political
consensus on the necessity of the war and the media's tendency to practice self-censorship. Most journalists
stopped withholding information from the public toward the end of the war. They changed their way of
presenting news and opinions when critical views regarding the way the war was managed appeared among the
elites. This means that mass media, at least in Israel, function in correspondence with the political and military
echelons. This is not surprising in view of the fact that there is a great correspondence in Israel between the
formal conflict supporting narrative of the political and military echelons and the informal narrative held by the
majority of the Jewish society (Bar-Tal & Raviv, in press). The media in this situation adapt to the narratives
propagated by the political elite. Once the elite expresses discord, the media allow themselves to join this chorus,
even expressing criticism that is in line with some voices.
Finally, we assume that reporters and editors could have prevented various failures and problems if they had not
practiced self-censorship. Thus in general, with some exceptions, the Israeli media have betrayed their
responsibility to expose and not to conceal information, to criticize and not to embrace the army, to question and
not to accept the official narratives without reservation. The free flow and exposure of information, especially
when there are no formal obstructions, are needed not only for maintaining the ethical aspects of the role, but
also to fill the role of a watcher that stands on the observation tower to prevent failures, losses, disasters,
misdeeds, immoral acts, and to keep a society moral and democratic. Societies know, when necessary, to use
censorship to limit the reports of journalists in order to maintain the security of the state, the society, and
society’s members (Halperin & Hoffman, 1976).
In sum, the socio-psychological infrastructure of intractable conflict and the strong norms regarding its
maintenance hinder the development and consideration of alternative views of the conflict. This, in turn,
contributes to the perpetuation of the conflict, reduces the likelihood of peaceful conflict resolution, and results in

Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
Voluntary Silence
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
12
continuation of the difficult challenges that the conflict poses (Bar-Tal & Halperin, 2011). We assume that self-
censorship in the media is a social mechanism that serves as a barrier to the free flow of information that can
bring about useful public debates leading to more rational decision-making by leaders (Hameiri, Sharvit, Bar-Tal,
Shahar, & Halperin, 2017). Breaking the journalistic silence could destabilize the hegemonic conflict supporting
narrative, and bring not only a new view of the situation, but also enable development of a new counter-narrative
to facilitate the process of peacemaking. This implication is not only relevant to the investigated case of the
Israeli-Arab conflict, but also can be generalized to other contexts of violent conflicts.
References
Adams, V. (1986). The media and the Falklands campaign. New York: St Martin's Press.
Allan, S., & Zelizer, B. (2004). Rules of engagement. In Allan S. & Zelizer, B. (eds.), Reporting war: Journalism in wartime.
London: Routledge, 3-21.
Antilla, L. (2010). Self-Censorship and science: A geographical review of media coverage of climate tipping points. Public
Understanding of Science, 19(2), 240-256.
Auerbach, Y. (2010). National narratives in a conflict of identity. In Bar-Siman-Tov, J. (ed.), Barriers to peace in the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 99-134.
Bagdikian, B. (1997). The media monopoly (5
th
ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Socio-psychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(11), 1430-1453.
Bar-Tal, D. (2013). Intractable conflicts: Socio-Psychological foundations and dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bar-Tal, D. (2017). Self-censorship as a socio-political-psychological phenomenon: Conception and research. Advances in
Political Psychology, 38(1), 37-65.
Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2011). Socio-psychological barriers to conflict resolution. In Bar-Tal, D. (ed.), Intergroup conflicts
and their resolution: A social psychological perspective. New York: Psychology Press, 217-240.
Bar-Tal, D., & Jacobson, D. (1998). The elusive concept of security and its expression in Israel. In D. Bar-Tal, D. Jacobson, & A.
Klieman (Eds.), Security concerns: Insights from the Israeli experience (pp. 15-36). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Bar-Tal, D., Nets-Zehngut, R., & Sharvit, K. (Eds), (2017). Self-censorship in different contexts: Theory and research. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer.
Bar-Tal, D., Oren, N., & Nets-Zehngut, R. (2014). Sociopsychological analysis of conflict-supporting narratives: A general
framework. Journal of Peace Research, 51(5), 662-675.
Bar-Tal, D., & Raviv, A. (in press). Conflict in the convenient space. Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Aliyat Hagag - Yedioth Ahronoth (in
Hebrew)
Barzilai, G. (1992). A democracy in wartime: Conflict and consensus in Israel. Tel Aviv: Sifriat Polaim (In Hebrew).
Beam, Michael, A. (2018). Facebook news and (de)polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Information,
Communication & Society, 21(7), 940-958.
Bennett, W. L. (1990). Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication, 40(2), 103-127.
Bennett, W. L. (2003). News, the politics of illusion. New York, NY: Longman.
Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication.
Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731.
Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1995). The crisis of public communication. London: Routledge.
Byman, D. (2011). A high price: The triumphs & failures of Israeli counterterrorism. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Carey, J. W. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Carruthers, S. L. (2000). The media at war: Communication and conflict in the twentieth century. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Caspi, D., & Rubinstein, D. (2013). The wallkeepers: Monitoring the Israeli-Arab conflict. In D. Bar-Tal & I. Schnell (Eds.), The
impacts of lasting occupation: Lessons from Israeli society (pp. 299-325). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cook, P., & Heilmann, C. (2013). Two types of Self-Censorship: Public and private. Political Studies, 61(1), 178-196.
Dadge, D. (2006). The war in Iraq and why the media failed us. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Dahl, R. A. (2000). On democracy. Hew Heaven, CT: Yale University Press.
Davis, A. (2003). Whither mass media and power? Evidence for a critical elite theory alternative. Media, Culture & Society,
25(5), 669-690.
De Baets, A. (2002). Censorship of historical thought: A world guide, 1945-2000. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Dor, D. (2004). Intifada hits the headlines: How the Israeli press misreported the outburst of the Second Palestinian Uprising.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Elbaz, S. (2015). Rethinking Israeli journalism: Core values and media revolution. New York: Israel Academic Press.
Elbaz, S. (2017). Delegitimization on Israeli websites: The coverage of the “other” before and during Operation Protective
Edge. The Public Sphere, 12, 63-88 (in Hebrew).
Elbaz, S., & Bar-Tal, D. (2016). Dissemination of culture of conflict in the Israeli mass media: The wars in Lebanon as a case
study. The Communication Review, 19(1), 1-34.
Elbaz, S., Magal, T., Nets-Zehngut, R., & Abutbul, G. (2017). Self-censorship of narratives of political violence in media. In Bar-
Tal, D. Nets-Zehngut, R. & Sharvit, K. (eds.), Self-censorship in contexts of conflict: Theory and research. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer, 119-138.
Fishman, M. (1997). News and nonevents: Making the visible invisible. In Berkowitz, D. (ed.), Social meanings of news.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 210-229.
Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what's news. New York: Vintage Books.
Hallin, D. C. (1986). The “uncensored war”: The media and Vietnam. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Halperin, H. M., & & Hoffman, D. N. (1976). Secrecy and the right to know. Law a Contemporary Problems, 40, 132-165.

Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
Voluntary Silence
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
13
Hameiri, B., Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2017). Self-censorship as a socio-psychological barrier to peacemaking. In Bar-Tal, D.
Nets-Zehngut, R. & Sharvit, K. (eds.), Self-censorship in contexts of conflict: Theory and research. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer, 61-78.
Hameiri, B., Sharvit, K., Bar-Tal., D., Shahar, E., & Halperin, E. (2017). Support for self-censorship among Israelis as a socio-
psychological barrier to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Political Psychology, 38(5), 795-813
Harel, A., & Issacharoff, A. (2008). 34 Days: Israel, Hezbollah, and the war in Lebanon. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Horton, J. (2011). Self-Censorship. Res Publica, 17(1), 91-106.
Hutt, M. (2006). Things that should not be said: Censorship and self-censorship in the Nepali press media, 2001-02. The
Journal of Asian Studies, 65(2), 361-392.
Jansen, S. C. (1988). Censorship: The knot that binds power and knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson-Cartee, K. (2005). News narratives and news framing: constructing political reality. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Kenny, T., & Gross, P. (2008). Journalism in Central Asia: A victim of politics, economics, and widespread self-censorship. The
International Journal of Press/Politics 13(4), 515-525.
Kriesberg, L. (1993). Intractable conflicts. Peace Review, 5(4), 417-421.
Laplante, L. J., & Phenicie, K. (2009). Mediating post-conflict dialogue: The media's role in transitional justice processes.
Marquette Law Review, 93(1), 251-283.
Lasswell, D. H. (1975). The structure and function of communication in society. In Schramm, W. (ed.), Mass communications
(2th ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, 117-130.
Lee, F., & Chan, J. (2009). Organizational production of self-censorship in the Hong Kong media. The International Journal of
Press/Politics, 14(1), 112-133.
Lewis, J. (2001). Constructing public opinion: How political elites do what they like and why we seem to go along with it. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Liebes, T. (1997). Reporting the Arab-Israeli conflict: How hegemony works. London: Routledge.
Liebes, T. (2000). Inside a news item: A dispute over framing. Political Communication, 17(3), 295-305.
MacArthur, J. R. (2004). Second front: Censorship and propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Mazzoleni, G., & Schultz, W. (1999). 'Mediatization' of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication, 16(3), 247-
261.
McChesney, W. R. (1999). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press.
McChesney, W. R. (2004). The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the twenty-first century. New York, NY:
Monthly Review Press.
McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
McQuail, D. (2000). Mass communication theory: An introduction (4
th
ed.). London: Sage.
Morris, B. (2001). Righteous victims: A history of the Zionist-Arab conflict 1881-2001. New York: Vintage Books.
Mosco, V. (2009). The political economy of communication (2th ed.). London: Sage publications.
Neiger, M., Zandberg, E., & Meyers, O. (2010). Communicating critique: Toward a conceptualization of journalistic criticism.
Communication, Culture & Critique, 3(3), 377-395.
Nets-Zehngut, R., & Elbaz, S. (2017). Self-censorship of narratives of political violence: Four international case studies. In Bar-
Tal, D. Nets-Zehngut, R. & Sharvit, K. (eds.), Self-censorship in contexts of conflict: Theory and research. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer, 79-117.
Nets-Zehngut, R., Pliskin, R., & Bar-Tal, D. (2015). Self-Censorship in conflicts: Israel and the 1948 Palestinian Exodus. Peace
and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21(3), 479-499.
Ngok, M. (2007). State-press relationships in post-1997 Hong-Kong: Constant negotiation amidst self-restraint. The China
Quarterly, 192, 949-970.
Nir, R., & Roeh, I. (1992). Intifada coverage in the Israeli press: Popular and quality papers assume a rhetoric of conformity.
Discourse & Society, 3(1), 47-60.
Nossek, H., & Limor, Y. (2001). Fifty years in a ‘Marriage of Convenience’: News media and military censorship in Israel.
Communication Law and Policy, 6(1), 1-35.
Peleg, I. (Ed.) (1993). Patterns of censorship around the world. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Reich, Z. (2008). The anatomy of leaks: Tracing the path of unauthorized disclosure in the Israeli press. Journalism, 9(5), 555-
581.
Schechter, D. (2005). When news lies: media complicity and the Iraq war. New York: Select Books.
Schudson, M. (2002). What's unusual about covering politics as usual. In Zelizer, B. & Stuart, A. (eds.), Journalism after
September 11. London: Routledge, 36-47.
Segal, Z. (1996). Freedom of the press - between myth and reality. Tel Aviv: Papyrus (In Hebrew).
Shelah, O., & Limor, Y. (2007). Captured in Lebanon. Tel Aviv: Yedioth Ahronoth (In Hebrew).
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content. New York:
Longman Publishers.
Sigal, L. V. (1986). Sources make the news. In Manoff, R. K. & Schudson, M. (eds.), Reading the news. NY: New York:
Pantheon, 9-37.
Simons, G., & Strovsky, D. (2006). Censorship in contemporary Russian journalism in the age of the war against terrorism: A
historical perspective. European Journal of Communication, 21(2), 189-211.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Tehranian, M. (2002). Peace journalism: Negotiating global media ethics. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics,
7(2), 58-83.
Temple, M. (2018). The rise and fall of the British press. New York: Routledge.

Sagi Elbaz & Daniel Bar-Tal conflict & communication online, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2019
Voluntary Silence
© 2019 by verlag irena regener berlin
14
Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K. (2014). Producing protest news: An inquiry into journalists’ narratives. International
Journal of Press/Politics, 19(4), 410-429.
Tribe, D. (1973). Questions of censorship. London: Allen & Unwin.
Tumber, H., & Palmer, J. (2004). The media at war: The Iraq crisis. London: Sage Publications.
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2000). Mass media research. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Wolfsfeld, G. (1997). Media and political conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolfsfeld, G. (2001). The news media and peace processes: The Middle East and Northern Ireland. Washington, DC: United
States Institute of Peace.
Wolfsfeld, G. (2011). Making sense of media & politics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wolfsfeld, G., Frosh, P., & Awabdy, M. T. (2008). Covering death in conflicts: Coverage of the Second Intifada on Israeli and
Palestinian television. Journal of Peace Research, 45(3), 401-417.
Wright, R. C. (1960). Functional analysis and mass communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(4), 605-620.
Zandberg, E., & Neiger, M. (2005). Between the nation and the profession: Journalists as members of contradicting
communities. Media, Culture & Society, 21(1), 131-141.
Zelizer, B. (1993). Journalists as interpretive communities. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10(3), 219-237.
Appendix: List of interviewees
1. Alfon Dov, Former Editor-in-Chief of
Haaretz
2. Amikam Yair, Former military correspondent for
Yedioth Ahronoth
3. Baram Uzi, Present commentator and former Minister in Yitzhak Rabin's second government
4. Ben David Alon, Military commentator for Channel 10
5. Ben Simon Daniel, Journalist, former Knesset Member of Labor Party and a former correspondent for
Haaretz
6. Benn Aluf, Editor-in-Chief of
Haaretz
7. Dan Liran, Former head of National Information Directorate, former Editor-in-Chief of Channel 2 newscast
8. Dekel Yaron, Former IDF Radio Commander
9. Dvori Nir, Military correspondent for Channel 2
10. Elad Aviram, Former head of
Haaretz
news department
11. Eldar Akiva, Former chief political columnist and editorial writer for
Haaretz
12. Fishman Alex, Military commentator of
Yedioth Ahronoth
13. Galezer Doron, Former Chief Executive Editor of
Maariv
Newspaper and former Deputy Chief Executive Editor of
Yedioth
Ahronoth
14. Gvirtz Yael, Editorial writer in
Yedioth Ahronoth
during the Second Lebanon War
15. Haber Eitan, Former military correspondent and a prominent columnist for
Yedioth Ahronoth
16. Kirschenbaum Moti, The first Editor of the Channel 1 newscast and former CEO of the Israel Broadcasting Authority
17. Lahav Hadas, Former deputy Editor-in-chief for
Yedioth Ahronoth
18. Lavie Aviv, IDF Radio journalist and former prominent journalist for
Haaretz
and
Maariv
19. Lukach Ilan, Former Editor-in-Chief of Channel 2 newscast
20. Menashe Chico, Former diplomatic commentator, Israeli National Radio
21. Peled Yossi, Former Major General of the Northern Command
22. Rapoport Meron, Former prominent journalist for
Yedioth Ahronoth
and
Haaretz
23. Raz Menashe, Former editor and presenter on
Mabat
news broadcast and former political and military reporter at the
Israel Broadcasting Authority
24. Saragusti Anat, Former prominent journalist for Channel 2 news
25. Sarid Yossi, Former news commentator for
Haaretz
and former Minister in Labor's governments
26. Shai Nachman, Knesset Member of Labor party, former journalist and IDF spokesman
27. Shelah Ofer, Knesset member of Yesh Atid Party and former prominent journalist for
Yedioth Ahronoth
, Maariv and
Channel 10
28. Shpigelman Elisha, Former Editor of
Mabat, Channel 1
news broadcast
29. Sukenik Gadi, News anchorman for Channel 2 during the Second Lebanon War
30. Yachimovich Shelly, Former prominent journalist
The authors:
Sagi Elbaz completed his postdoctoral research at the School Of Education, Tel Aviv University in 2016. His research interests
include Political Communication, Elites and Minorities Representation, Media-Military Relations, Peace Journalism, and Culture of
Conflict.
Address: School of Education, Tel Aviv University, 3 Kadesh Barnea St., Tel Aviv, 6998603, Israel.
eMail: sagi74@gmail.com Website: http://www.sagielbaz.com/
Daniel Bar-Tal is Branco Weiss Professor of Research in Child Development and Education at the School of Education, Tel Aviv
University. His research interest is in political and social psychology. He served as President of the International Society of
Political Psychology.
Address: School of Education, Tel Aviv University, 3 Kadesh Barnea St., Tel Aviv, 6998603, Israel.
eMail: daniel@post.tau.ac.il Website: https://da4903.wixsite.com/danielbar-tal