IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Law and Order” vs. “Injustice and Defiance”: Al Jazeera and CNN Framing of the 2017 Temple Mount/Al Aqsa Mosque Crisis


  • Qasem Amer

    (PhD Candidate, School of Communication, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia)

  • Hussein Adnan Bin

    (Professor, School of Communication, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia)


This study compares between the performance of the U.S. and Arab mainstream media following the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The textual coverage of the CNN and Al Jazeera of the 2017 Al Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount Crisis is under examination through operationalizing Wolfsfeld’s (1997b) meta-frames. A set of reasoning and framing devices have been employed to identify the labelling of involved actors and committed actions, the degree of reliance and personalization of news sources, the victimization of casualties and the legitimization of violence. This study concludes that the Law and Order frame, which is communicated with the Israeli perspective is dominated in the related CNN coverage. On the other hand, the Injustice and Defiance frame that represents the Palestinian perspective has chiefly appeared in Al Jazeera related coverage. In the CNN, the Israeli actors and actions have been almost labelled positively in contrast with the Palestinian actors and actions that have been labelled in a negative manner. The degree of personalization and reliance on Israeli news sources is notably greater than the Palestinian ones. Likewise, the Israeli casualties have been remarkably victimized and individualized more than their counterparts. Moreover, the Israeli violence and killing have been legitimized, whereas the Palestinian similar actions have been criminalized. Almost the opposite has been found in Al Jazeera related coverage.

Suggested Citation

  • Qasem Amer & Hussein Adnan Bin, 2018. "“Law and Order” vs. “Injustice and Defiance”: Al Jazeera and CNN Framing of the 2017 Temple Mount/Al Aqsa Mosque Crisis," Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 25-34, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:vrs:mjsosc:v:9:y:2018:i:1:p:25-34:n:2

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:mjsosc:v:9:y:2018:i:1:p:25-34:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.