{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02549800796812749, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0031872509960159364, 'mean_word_length': 5.375634517766497, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Intifada Coverage in the Israeli Press: Popular and Quality Papers Assume a Rhetoric of Conformity

Since its eruption in December 1987, the Intifada has been accorded considerable press attention. In the study reported here we show that in this crisis journalism tends to articulate mainstream ideology, rather than energize public awareness about the importance of its events. Two Israeli daily newspapers are studied, one `quality' paper, catering to a highly educated audience, and the other, a `popular' paper, with the largest readership in the country. Contrary to expectations, the differences in the Intifada coverage of the two Hebrew dailies seem to be rather meagre. It is argued that consensus and widely shared national ideology override professional norms and practices, so that differences in narrative structure and rhetorical strategies are minimized. The major crisis, threatening the coexistence of Israelis and Palestinians, is similarly presented in the otherwise distinctively different papers, in what amounts to a general tone of `playing it down'. A `rhetoric of conformity' in both papers suggests a clear preference to `our' point of view, expressing a perceived consensus, and at the same time contributing to its maintenance.