When Egyptian President el-Sissi stated in an AP interview that he wanted to expand Egypt's peace treaty with Israel to include other Arab states, it was great news for Israel, and Netanyahu's office was quick to respond. I went online for background (expecting to find mention of the growing common interests of Egypt, Saudi Arabia vis-a-vis Iran, Islamic State, etc.) and found "Netanyahu praises Sisi's call to expand Egypt-Israel peace to other Arab states" written by the JPost.COM Staff (get it here) (no authors stated by name).
This seemed to be what I was looking for. When I opened the article, I discovered, however, something entirely different. Stay with me as we analyze this short article.
The second subject in the article was Lapid's and Netanyahu's upcoming trips to the US, with more prominence given to Lapid's trip (Lapid's is first although it will be chronologically after Netanyahu's). We were informed that Lapid will be going to the US after the Succot holiday to discuss his 'diplomatic initiative' with American lawmakers (32 words). (What! Does an Opposition leader make diplomatic initiatives?!) Afterward, the article mentions that Netanyahu will be going to speak at the UN (22 words).
The third subject is more about Abbas (34 words).
Netanyahu - 100 words; Lapid 195 words, plus two separate links to Lapid's Bar-Ilan speech.
On trips to the US:
Netanyahu - 22 words; Lapid 32 words
The rest was on Abbas.
In short, Lapid succeeded in garnering 50% of the article + 2 separate links to his Bar-Ilan speech; Netanyahu had 25% with no links, and the rest was about Abbas (25%).
Many years ago, Marshall McLuhan said 'the medium is the message'. If you dominate the medium, your message will dominate. I must pay my highest respects to Lapid. The man is a media genius. He was handed the subject of Netanyau's el-Sissi reply and turned it into an article mostly about himself. In short, Lapid dominated this article and clearly won this micro media skirmish.
I suggest that we all read and listen to the mass media with discernment, because it is likely that an attempt is being made to manipulate, and at least we should know about it. Lastly, please note that intensive media involvement per event is not the only way that Lapid handles the media. In a previous blog, I showed how Lapid manipulates the press by more subtle means.
This seemed to be what I was looking for. When I opened the article, I discovered, however, something entirely different. Stay with me as we analyze this short article.
Let's Check the Numbers (total article length - 408 words)
Title and Introductory Subheadings (47 words)
In addition to the article title, I found linked sub-headings to Abbas' expected bombshell at the UN and to Yair Lapid's support for the 2002 Saudi Initiative (actually his recent Bar-Ilan speech). There was a further sub-heading (unlinked) about Netanyahu's call to Abbas to return to the negotiating table. The article title and sub-headngs amounted to 47 words, but only 13 of those words related to Netanyahu's response. Nine words were the link to Lapid's Bar Ilan speech.
Body of the Article (361 words)
The first subject covered was the el-Sissi response. The first 87 words pertained to Netanyahu's response including a short quote from his office's press release, which we were informed was released before the onset of Succot (I suppose to allay the fears of religious readers). What was really interesting, however, was Lapid's response (186 words! including another link to the same link as previously, except this time called the 'Bar-Ilan speech').
The third subject is more about Abbas (34 words).
Conclusion
So what are our conclusions about this article, which is ostensibly about the Netanyahu's response to el-Sissi's remarks (that was the title of the article).
Netanyahu - 100 words; Lapid 195 words, plus two separate links to Lapid's Bar-Ilan speech.
On trips to the US:
Netanyahu - 22 words; Lapid 32 words
The rest was on Abbas.
In short, Lapid succeeded in garnering 50% of the article + 2 separate links to his Bar-Ilan speech; Netanyahu had 25% with no links, and the rest was about Abbas (25%).
A Final Word
What I believe happened here is that the article started out as Netanyahu's response to el-Sissi. Netanyahu's team rushed to get out a response before Succot and then, having done their duty, went home to prepare for the holiday. In contrast, it seems that Lapid actually talked with the reporters by phone (he is quoted), and his office followed up with his post-Succot US trip (Lapid's 'diplomatic initiative'). Lapid and his team were more focused on the reporters and gave them more information. Therefore, Lapid's positions came to dominate the article. Netanyahu's media team was already in holiday mode and, therefore, Netanyahu came in a poor second.
Many years ago, Marshall McLuhan said 'the medium is the message'. If you dominate the medium, your message will dominate. I must pay my highest respects to Lapid. The man is a media genius. He was handed the subject of Netanyau's el-Sissi reply and turned it into an article mostly about himself. In short, Lapid dominated this article and clearly won this micro media skirmish.
I suggest that we all read and listen to the mass media with discernment, because it is likely that an attempt is being made to manipulate, and at least we should know about it. Lastly, please note that intensive media involvement per event is not the only way that Lapid handles the media. In a previous blog, I showed how Lapid manipulates the press by more subtle means.
No comments:
Post a Comment