Media witnessing in asymmetric conflict

Abstract

This paper aims to demonstrate the relevance of media witnessing – the witnessing performed in, by, and through the media – in situations of asymmetric conflict. The expansion of media technologies has brought new opportunities for both individuals and organizations to bear witness to events and broadcast their reports to increasingly wider audiences. Practices of media witnessing have become crucial in situations of asymmetric conflict, where the battle for public opinion brings into play different resources than those utilized on conventional battlegrounds. We describe media witnessing as a field in which various forces, resources, and agents compete for recognition by media audiences. We provide a framework for analysis and apply it to two documentary films produced shortly after the clashes between the Israeli army and Palestinian forces in the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002. We conclude with a discussion of the significance of media witnessing in the context of contemporary asymmetric conflicts.

Keywords:

• asymmetric conflict
• political violence
• globalization
• media witnessing

Notes

1. In certain cases, status and capacity might converge. For instance, a doctor can be both status and capacity (another example is a child) – referring to different aspect of the witness: one is social hierarchy/standing, the other his/her role at the event.

2. The ban was ignored by many who watched the film privately. Furthermore, the film received intense attention in mainstream media and elsewhere. In 2004 Israel's High Court reinstated a ruling which overturned the ban, saying that the Film Board did not have a “monopoly over truth”. Despite rejecting the ban, the court described Jenin Jenin as a “propagandistic lie” which falsely accused Israeli soldiers of internationally killing children, women, the disabled and the mentally ill.

3. One conclusion from these two opposite tactics is that distance and proximity do not carry an inherent significance when it comes to producing trust. In some cases, proximity is an asset (Bakri's film), in other cases a liability (Shalev's film), and vice versa – all depending on the various agents' agendas in the field, chief among them the mediator's role, and also depending on the agendas and sensitivities of the anticipated audiences.