What is it about?

This article reviews the manner in which newspapers framed their reports on the Israeli-West Bank Separation Barrier between the years 2002-2011. It finds that in the first two years of its construction most reports favored the pro-Israeli framing of the barrier as a security measure against terrorism. However, an advisory ruling by the International Court of Justice in 2004 stating that the barrier was illegal drastically changed this perception. Since then, newspapers have presented the barrier as a political land-grab that impedes on human rights of Palestinians. Of the four newspapers examined, the Guardian was predominantly pro-Palestinian, while the New York Times leaned more towards the pro-Israeli frame. Both the London Times and the Washington Post presented a balanced use of the two contrasting frames.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This article empirically demonstrates how intergovernmental organizations such as the UN or the International Court of Justice can influence the way in which the media reports on ongoing conflicts. As such, it is important for states engaged in a "battle over media" to take notice of the statements and rulings issued by such organizations, even when those are mostly symbolic or lack "teeth".

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: The Role of Intergovernmental Organizations in the “Battle over Framing”, The International Journal of Press/Politics, November 2015, SAGE Publications,
DOI: 10.1177/1940161215613060.
You can read the full text:



The following have contributed to this page