Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses

Seifert, 1

The Hebrew University Rothberg International School Division of Graduate Studies Media and Public Diplomacy (01961) Prof. Tamir Sheafer

Final Exam Spring 2011 Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses Kimberly Seifert Student ID: 777030826 July 2, 2011

Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses

Seifert, 1

In the modern era of globalization and ever-converging nations, it is of critical importance that governments actively engage one another so that each nation may promote a friendly environment for its unique interests. This engagement is known as public diplomacy (PD). PD is characterized by the effective use of soft power (Nye, 2004), which can generally be described as governmental efforts of one nation to influence public or elite opinion in a second nation for the purpose of turning the foreign policy of the target nation to advantage (Manheim, 1994; see also Davidson, 1974; Gilboa, 2000, 2006; Kunczik, 1997; Leonard, 2002; Livingston, 1997). With rapidly increasing access to the internet and the democratization of information across the globe, media have become the primary medium for public diplomacy. Mediated PD is defined as the intentional efforts of a government (especially its leader) to exert as much control as possible over the framing of the countrys policies in foreign media (Entman, 2008). Entman (2008) notes that mediated PD represents more targeted endeavors which typically involve shorter time frames than that required for classic PD initiatives. Furthermore, Entman (2008) emphasizes that all PD strategies are aimed at affecting elite action and opinion, as the effect of mass opinion on the decision makers of various countries is arguable at best. Indeed, Entmans (2008) cascading network of activation model asserts that a nations leader and his administration have the greatest influence on the frame that will ultimately be adopted by domestic media. Mediated PD is often the first step in a larger PD strategy and involves a nations domination of a target countrys media attention. Media attention is the most important limited resource in the political communications arena (Sheafer &Gabay, 2009). Mueller (1973) defines domination as the advantage of access to this limited resource. The competition for media attention has two dimensions, agenda building (i.e., receiving media attention) and media framing (i.e., control of the selected version of reality presented by the media) (Cook, 1998; Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988). Content provided by media is dependent on these two dimensions. A nations ability to gain access to agenda building in a target nation is first determined by the extent to which the acting nation is able to convince the target nation of shared or similar political-cultural values. These values represent an ideological system that comprises the

Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses

Seifert, 2

symbolic center of the nation: the consensus. The closer issues, events or political actors are deemed to this consensus, the more important they are considered, and the better chance they have of receiving media attention (Sheafer & Gabay, 2009; Ericson et al., 1989; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Secondly, access to agenda building is determined by a nations ability to appeal to the medias professional values and needs. Media tend to seek entertaining stories that will please readers and lead to profits; hence, nations must present a skilled performance that appeals to these values (Sheafer & Gabay, 2009). Entman (2004) defines media framing, the second element of media attention, as selecting and highlighting some facets of events or issues, and making connections among them so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation and/or solution. The emphasis here is on the process that leads journalists to apply a particular frame. Nations must strategically address frame building and recognize that communication and political acts are nearly indistinguishable in the process. Like agenda building, the success or failure of a nations impact on frame building , and thus policy promotion, depends largely upon the perception of shared politicalcultural values and the medias professional values and needs (Sheafer 2001, Sheafer & Gabay 2009).

Strengths & Weaknesses of Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy Efforts Appealing to the Medias Professional Values and Needs

To determine the strengths and weaknesses of Israels mediated public diplomacy, we will first examine Israels ability to appeal to the medias professional values and needs. Keeping in mind that journalists seek to write about dramatic events that will sell, Israel has little difficulty staying in the headlines as it is frequently involved in conflict. According to East-West Communications, Israel ranked in the top-10 for the number of global press mentions in the years 2008, 2009 and 2010.1 In fact, Yigal Palmer a spokesman from the Foreign Ministry notes that approximately one thousand foreign correspondents are based out of Jerusalem on a daily basis, illustrating the disproportionate coverage that Israel receives at any given time.

Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses

Seifert, 3

Furthermore, Sheafer and Gabay (2009) showed that, in times of conflict, an events initiator (Israel, in this case) is much more able to lead other foreign players to favor its agenda. This knowledge could be very useful to Israeli officials, though it is unclear if they are aware of it. In spite of the initiators advantage occasionally enjoyed by Israel, Sheafer and Gabay affirm the clear correlation between the agendas of a countrys government and its media, as asserted by Bennetts (1990) Indexing Hypothesis. Obviously, however, remaining in the news due to involvement in conflict is not a desirable position. Nonetheless, Israel has only recently changed its position from the reactive stance of Hasbara, or explanation and advocacy, to one of proactive public diplomacy (Gilboa, 2006). Until recently, Israel seemed to still be following Shimon Peress seriously flawed opinion that good policies do not require good public relations (Gilboa, 2006). The updated, current strategy involves taking the battle to the enemy, and increasing relations with the right people (Schneeweiss) 2 . A highly relevant example from June 2011 is Prime Minister Netanyahus rather theatrical speech to the United States Congress. Not only was the speech attended by a packed house of lawmakers and met with approximately 29 standing ovations within 45 minutes, but PM Netanyahu displayed the skill and finesse required to proactively solicit media attention. This is a clear illustration of Entmans cascading model of activation. The head of the Israeli government made an explicit effort to establish a direct relationship with elites and decision makers in a target nation, the United States. Netanyahu was also charismatic and showed a clear understanding of the American medias professional needs. Additionally, Donny Sonnshein, Head of Media and Public Affairs at the Foreign Ministry, emphasizes the Ministrys increased effort to reach out to non-state actors, such as journalists who have written on topics related to Israel other than conflict, tourists, universities and the like. Unfortunately Israels very slow realization of the importance of mediated public diplomacy has led to a consistent lack of resources for these efforts (Gilboa, 2006). The bottom line is that Israels attempts to appeal to the medias agenda and receive the necessary attention remains a weakness, but is heading in the right direction.

Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses

Seifert, 4

Political-Cultural Proximity

The second aspect of successful mediated public diplomacy hinges on the extent of perceived or real political and cultural similarity felt between an acting nation and its target audience. While this does play a role in the domination of agenda building, political-cultural proximity is more heavily influential in the contest over framing. One significant obstacle Israel faces in this respect is a growing disconnect between Israels self-perception and how the world perceives it. According to D.J. Schneeweiss from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, how Israel knows itself is no longer how the world knows it. Surely it is very difficult for Israel to espouse shared values with a target nation if it is unaware of the distance between its self-perception and how it is perceived by the target audience. Although the US perceives strong cultural resonance with Israel (Page & Bouton, 2006), Israel has not yet determined what exactly its values are, which of these it shares with other important target nations and how best to assert them. Another factor which illustrates Israels lack of a strategic approach to promoting shared values is the extreme level of transparency present in Israeli society. Earlier this month Haaretz reported the former head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, blatantly criticizing the Prime Ministers thoughts about an attack on Iran and warned of the imminent vacuum of strong voices willing and able to speak out against Netanyahus potentially reckless decisions. 3 Though no longer in office, Dagan is doing a significant disservice to his country by displaying for the world the acute internal dissent that exists within Israel. Dagan is not only undermining his governments power to present a unified narrative to foreign audiences, but more importantly, he is undermining Israels legitimacy on the global stage. Although one can reasonably assume that Dagan is expressing sincere sentiments, it is incorrect to assume that better or more factual information necessarily persuades or leads to increased support for a nations policies (Entman, 2008). The political-cultural value of illegitimacy is surely not something that Israel can claim to share with any nation. Additionally, Israel must cope with the fact that information today is transmitted instantaneously,

Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses

Seifert, 5

therefore any slip-up or crack in the facade is immediately dispersed, creating irreversible damage. Recalling that soft power is a necessary tool for successful PD implementation, it is important to point out that soft power arises from the attractiveness of a nations values, culture and policies and causes people to act out of cooperation (Gilboa, 2006). Thus, soft power relies on a nations moral authority or legitimacy, not only for the sake of legitimacy itself but also for the basis legitimacy provides for other espoused values. For example, Israels claim to be democratic is incoherent and difficult to maintain if the state simultaneously appears to be illegitimate. A foreign nation that may consider itself to be democratic may nonetheless fail to claim that this is a shared value between itself and Israel. Outside of the US, Israel significantly struggles to influence frame building. On one hand, this relates to the aforementioned discrepancy between Israels self-image and its image to foreign audiences. If Israel tends to view itself as the moral victim in a conflict (and the world does not view it this way), it has very little chance of promoting its preferred definition of a problem. Without a desired definition as a basis for the story, there is no way Israel can successfully control a foreign medias identification of causes, moral judgement or proposed remedies. Moreover, no nation can disregard that at best it can hope to achieve command of frame building equal to that of some other foreign nation (or nations) or to the frame promoted by the target government itself. To deal with this discrepancy of images, Sonnshein describes Israels focus on rebranding itself in the national arena. Schneeweiss characterizes this as a re-telling of the Israeli strategy. Zaharna (2009) defines nation-branding as the use of multiple modes of communication to deliver a strategically designed, simple, coherent, and compelling message, with the goal of differentiating and positioning an entity within a target audiences mind. Referring back to the East-Wests Nation Brand Perception Index, Israels brand over the last has fluctuated from a low of 192 to the current high of 173 (out of 200) since 2008. For a country consistently in the top-10 for number of mentions in international media, this negative perception leaves much to be desired. Clearly whichever version of Israel is making it to the media in not

Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses

Seifert, 6

one which is received favorably or with which foreign nations claim political or cultural proximity.

Conclusion

Israels mediated public diplomacy efforts can best be described as a series of weaknesses with a few examples to the contrary. The one potential strength is Israels unwavering ability to enter the medias agenda and consistently gain coverage. However, this coverage is more frequently driven by conflict involving Israel as opposed to pro-active efforts by the Israeli government to enter the medias agenda. Israels success in promoting political and/or cultural proximity between itself and other nations is pitiful, at best. Though Israel is able to claim continual success in American media, much of this can be attributed to the pre-existing agendas of the US government and US media. Otherwise, Israels critical lack of legitimacy renders it largely unable to promote politicalcultural values that it can present as being shared between itself and target audiences. D.J. Schneeweiss promotes the 4-pronged strategy of taking the battle to the enemy, increasing relations with the right actors (including non-state actors), re-branding Israel and not losing themselves in the fight. According to Sonnshein, Israel must streamline its message, decrease the number of messengers and increase coordination. Gilboa (2006) suggests more centralized leadership, better training for PD officials, focus on internet PD approaches, increased funding and increased use of non-governmental soft power initiatives. Though it is unfortunate to state that Israels mediated public diplomacy displays no certain strengths, it is the persistent reality today.

NOTES 1. All such data is from the East-West Global Index 200: Nation Branding Perception Index, East-West Communications. http://eastwestcoms.com/global_volume.htm (accessed 16 June 2011). 2. Quotes from Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) representatives, D.J. Schneeweiss, Yigal Palmer and Donny Sonnshein were gathered at a meeting to discuss Israels public diplomacy efforts on May 3, 2011 at the offices of the MFA.

Israels Mediated Public Diplomacy: Strengths & Weaknesses

Seifert, 7

3. Haaretz, June 3, 2011, Translated by Haaretz online English edition http://www.haaretz.com/ print-edition/news/dagan-warns-of-netanyahu-s-poor-judgment-1.365616 (access 16 June 2011). REFERENCES Bennett, W. L. (1990). Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States, Journal of Communication, 40, 103-125. Cooke, T. E. (1998). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Davison, W. P. (1974). News media and the international negotiation, Public Opinion Quarterly, 38, 174-193. Entman, R. M. (2008). Theorizing mediated public diplomacy: The U.S. Case, Press/Politics, 13, 87-102. Gilboa, E. (2000). Mass communication and diplomacy: A theoretical framework, Communication Theory, 10, 275-309. Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model, American Journal of Sociology, 94, 53-78. Kunezik, M. (1997). Images of nations and international public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Manheim, J. B. (1994). Strategic public diplomacy and American foreign policy: The evolution of influence, New York: Oxford University Press. Mueller, C. (1973). The Politics of Communication. New York: Oxford University Press. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs. Sheafer, T. (2001). Charismatic skill and media legitimacy: An actor-centered approach to understading the political communication competition, Communication Research, 28, 711-736. Sheafer, T. & Gabay, I. (2009). Mediated public diplomacy: A strategic contest over international agenda building and frame building, Political Communication, 26:4, 447-467. Sheafer, T. & Shenhav, S. (2009). Mediated public diplomacy in a new era of warfare, The Communication Review, 12:3, 272-283. Shoemaker, P. J. & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.). London: Longman. Zaharna, R. S. (2009). Mapping out a spectrum of public diplomacy initiatives: Information and relational communication frameworks. In Snow, N. and Taylor, P. M. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (pp. 86-100). New York: Routledge.