Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘media bias’

Where were Newsweek’s fact-checkers on this story?

Newsweek magazine said on Sunday it erred in a May 9 report that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to the victims of deadly Muslim protests sparked by the article.

Editor Mark Whitaker said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.

The report sparked angry and violent protests across the Muslim world from Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan to Indonesia to Gaza. In the past week it was condemned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and by the Arab League.

On Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States.

But… I thought the media was all controlled by an international Zionist conspiracy. Why would the Arab world trust it in the first place?

Lisa has some insight into why so much of the foreign media coverage of Israel is so shoddy:

While standing in a tiny area reserved for the press, I struck up a conversation with a European photographer who had arrived in Israel three weeks previously. He had not yet been out of Jerusalem, and asked me about Tel Aviv. I told him that it’s very different from Jerusalem, gave him my card and told him to give me a call if he ever wanted a tour of my city. Don’t make the mistake that so many foreign journalists make, I told him, of getting stuck on the Jerusalem-Ramallah route. Israel is a lot more interesting and complicated than that.

Yes, he said, I heard that there’s a really big Jewish neighbourhood in Tel Aviv.

I laughed, then stopped when I saw that he wasn’t joking.

Um, listen, I said. That’s like saying you heard there’s a big black neighbourhood in Addis Ababa.

So maybe the journalists aren’t all pre-biased after all. Maybe they’re just too idiotic to know any better than to report the soundbytes that are fed to them on a silver platter. That would actually explain an awful lot.

Check out the opening paragraph of this news story on North Korea’s nuclear announcement:

North Korea is to strengthen its “atomic potential” in response to Washington’s hostile policies, Russia’s Itar-Tass news agency quoted the president of its parliament as saying Thursday.

The article then continues to expand on the quotes from the Dear Leader of Death Camps for – count them – ten paragraphs, before bothering to mention that “Washington’s hostile policies” don’t really exist except in Kim Jong-Il’s mind:

On Feb. 10, North Korea said it possessed nuclear weapons and was dropping out of six-party talks aimed at ending its atomic ambitions. It blamed U.S. hostility for the decision to pull out.

About six weeks later, the North said it was forced to increase its nuclear arsenal because it saw the U.S. military as a serious threat.

U.S. officials have repeatedly said Washington has no plans to invade the North.

Frankly, I’ve given up expecting fair media coverage from Reuters.

Arafat’s “condition”, which probably is nowhere near as serious as the reports are making it out to be, is inspiring articles that predict how Arafat’s “legacy” will be rewritten by the press. Reuters can always be counted on to lead off with a shining example:

Foreign doctors rushed to Yasser Arafat’s side on Thursday to tend to the seriously ill Palestinian leader, who for decades has symbolized his people’s struggle for statehood. [ . . . ] The ex-guerrilla, loved by most of his people and reviled by many Israelis, has had stomach pains since last week.

Let’s deconstruct that short, seemingly innocuous excerpt, shall we?

Symbolized his people’s struggle for statehood – is that so? Then why has he repeatedly not only rejected every single offer that would have led to Palestinian statehood, but done everything in his power to sabotage them? Why did he walk away from 97% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and half of Jerusalem at Camp David in 2000 without so much as a counter-proposal, and instead launch a 4-year campaign of terror? Because he doesn’t symbolize the Palestinian “struggle for statehood”, he symbolizes the Palestinian struggle to wipe Israel off the map.

Ex-guerrilla – really? In one sense, Arafat is still a guerrilla, strictly speaking. He’s not the legitimate leader of a state, because he has no state. He’s not reformed. He hasn’t renounced violence – in fact, he encourages violent guerrilla tactics. In another sense, he was never a guerrilla, because that term implies that he’s fighting a war against a military enemy. By directing his fight against innocent civilians, Arafat never earned the description of guerrilla. Isn’t it time to call a terrorist a terrorist?

Loved by most of his people – only in his own mind, perhaps. Certainly not according to a recent PCPSR poll, which puts his popular support down at around 35%, and support for his Fatah party at about 25%. Anecdotal evidence suggests widespread disgust with Arafat among Palestinians, belief that he led them astray, and contempt that his Palestinian Authority is corrupt and lines its own pockets. Many believe he isn’t extreme enough, and cast their support with groups like Hamas. But to suggest he’s “loved by most of his people” is a gross misrepresentation, to say the least.

Reviled by most Israelis – I suppose Israelis revile him for the colour of his keffiyah. Yeah, that must be it. The thousands of Israelis who he was directly responsible for murdering must have nothing to do with it.

Look for more of this nonsense if Arafat’s condition worsens. In fact, most newspapers keep pre-written obituaries handy for public figures in poor health, just in case. I can’t imagine what praises and glorifications the staff at Reuters, the Guardian, and the CBC are working on now.

11/01 – Update: I guess I don’t have to wonder anymore what drivel the BBC will come up with. This makes my point nicely. Excuse me, I think I’m going to be sick.

Let’s play a game: what’s missing from this Guardian article about a British MP complaining of “mistreatment” by Israel because his ambulance was held at a Palestinian checkpoint?

Let’s see… one-sided criticism of Israel? Check. Editorial characterization in guise of fact? Check. Quotes from the MP, Ian Gibson – who, it should be noted, was in Ramallah for a suitably vague reason (”guest of a medical charity”)? Check. Quotes from unidentified “Palestinian sources”? Check. Accusations against Israel for violating international agreements? Check.

Israeli sources?

Anyone?

No mention of any Israeli sources being interviewed at all.

No mention that the reason ambulances are often delayed or turned back at checkpoints is that terrorists use them to smuggle suicide bombers or explosives – a severe violation of international law on several counts.

No explanation of why Gibson was so insistent to be taken to a Palestinian and not Israeli hospital.

This is what passes for “journalism” by the Guardian’s standards.

The Daily Show’s take on it:

“Somewhere, Walter Cronkite is rolling over in his grave.”

“Walter Cronkite is still alive.”

“Not according to my sources.”

All of the following headlines refer to, in theory, the same story:

• Jerusalem Post: US, Israel in informal deal on settlements
• Jerusalem Post: PA slams US settlement policy
• Haaretz: Tenders issued for 1,000 housing units in W. Bank settlements
• Canadian Press (as reported on Canada.com): Israel approves more West Bank settlement homes, escalating crisis
• Associated Press (as reported in the Globe and Mail): Israel plans massive West Bank expansion
• Reuters: Israel Plans 530 Settler Homes with U.S. Acquiescence
• BBC: Israel expands settlement growth
• The Guardian: US deal ‘wrecks Middle East peace’

Ok, that last one was just for illustrative purposes. But the differences are not so subtle. An “informal deal” in the Jerusalem Post becomes “U.S. acquiescence” to Reuters. “1,000 housing units” in the leftist Israeli paper Ha’aretz gets interpreted by AP as a “massive West Bank expansion”. The Jerusalem Post reports the Palestinian Authority’s accusations that this will hamper the “peace process” (what peace process?); the Guardian assumes the PA’s complaint is fact.

Language, of course, is politically charged. This is just one example of the pervasive media bias that we all know exists against Israel.

In the meantime, IsraelInsider has an article deploring the use of the term “settlements” in the first place:

When we use the term “settlements” and “settlers,” we feed attempts to portray not just the disputed territories and its inhabitants, but all of Israel and its people as a “settler state” akin to apartheid in South Africa. If Gush Etzion, Hevron and other communities are settlements, so too were Tel Aviv, Rishon L’Tzion and Degania along with many others. To accept the Arab vocabulary and demands for removing “settlements” and “settlers” implies we also would see the dismantling of Tel Aviv, and many other cities, towns and villages in pre-1967 Israel and removal of their inhabitants. “Towns, villages” they are, with inhabitants. “Settlements” and “settlers” only gives the Arabs propaganda ammunition.

Other criticized terms include “creation of Israel” (re-establishment, they argue, would be a better term), “occupied territories” (should be “disputed territories”), “West Bank” (preferring “Judea-Samaria”), “The Wall” (it’s really a “security fence”), and of course, “militants” (terrorists). The editorial urges all Israeli and Jewish publications to choose language carefully to avoid propagating myths being spread by much of the Arab world.

And it’s business as usual for AP, writing underdog pieces about their favourite Palestinian media darlings trying to stand up to the big bad evil tyrants of Israel.

This time, the issue is a hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners, which is about as made-for-the-media an event as I can possibly imagine:

Palestinian prisoners launched a hunger strike Sunday, in what was shaping up to be the biggest showdown between thousands of inmates and the Israeli authorities since the outbreak of fighting in 2000.

[ . . . ]

Mr. Barghouti is taking part in the hunger strike, his daughter Aruba said. The strike started Sunday with 1,600 inmates in three prisons and was to spread to others, with all 7,500 prisoners to take part by the end of the week.

The Palestinian government said it backed the prisoners and declared Wednesday a day of solidarity. “We fully support the legitimate demands of the prisoners and the ending of the policy of collective punishment, torture and terror by the Israeli prison administration against the prisoners and their families,” Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia said in a statement.

Torture and terror, my ass. There’s a sort of irony in watching the Palestinians imprisoned for terrorism accuse Israel of terror.

Their chief complaints? They want more phone access and more liberal visiting hours for their families. Poor babies.

But then, they know full well that the world doesn’t care why they’re in jail, or how many innocent people they’ve murdered… a hunger strike will still get them front-page coverage and worldwide sympathy. Excuse me while I gag.

Meanwhile, sometimes I wish that the Israeli officials who get interviewed for this stuff wouldn’t make it so easy for the press by obliging with statements like this one:

Israeli Public Security Minister Tzachi Hanegbi said over the weekend that Israel would not give in to the prisoners’ demands. “The prisoners can strike for a day, a month, even starve to death, as far as I am concerned,” Mr. Hanegbi said.

Would it kill the Israelis to at least try to make their case in the press? I realize their attitude of frustration is largely a result of years of biased coverage, and they figure why bother being polite. But come on, this stuff just makes it so easy for the Palestinians to spread their propaganda. A few classes in media relations for any Israeli in a position to be speaking to the foreign press might be a wise investment.

It’s easy for Arafat to deny any crisis when journalists receive death threats for reporting it:

Palestinian journalists covering the ongoing crisis in the Palestinian Authority complained over the weekend that they had received death threats from the various feuding parties.

As a result, many of them said they have stopped covering the internecine fighting. Others said they were continuing to report on the power struggle, but without having their names mentioned for fear of reprisal.

“Many Palestinians working with the foreign media in the Gaza Strip are being threatened,” a journalist in Gaza City told The Jerusalem Post. He said the threats were coming from all the parties involved in the internal strife

[ . . . ]

The Gaza City rally was either downplayed or completely ignored by the Palestinian media. Al-Quds, the largest daily newspaper, instead carried a story in which it said Palestinians throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip continued to express their support for Yasser Arafat by staging marches and issuing statements.

So much of the world continues to stubbornly insist that the Palestinian government is democratic. Freedom of the press would seem to be a basic requirement for that to hold true, and yet, here’s just further evidence that journalists are only allowed to report one thing: anti-Israel news stories. Anything else could get them shot.

Al-Canada The CBC continues its regularly biased coverage of Israel, in an article that paints the defencive Rafah incursions as a “massacre” (taking Arafat at his word, it seems):

Israel’s continuing assault on the Rafah refugee camp has killed another 20 Palestinians.

The operation along the Gaza-Egypt border has sparked a growing international outcry. The United Nations and the European Union have demanded an end to the incursion and Amnesty International has accused Israel of war crimes.

Israeli military vehicles in Rafah (AP photo)

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat described the attack as a “big massacre.” He’s calling for international intervention.

It gets worse from there. This is what the CBC refers to as “balanced coverage”. Yeah right.

For a little perspective, check out this Ma’ariv interview (via Meryl):

It was a combat situation, under fire. Soldiers were injured but in the end, we brought our soldiers home. I haven’t told this to anyone but in the midst of this operation, we assisted a baby being born and evacuated an elderly woman who was injured and summoned a local ambulance for her. Terrorists ran and fired from behind the ambulance. Therefore, I do not want to make any comparison between our scale of values and theirs.

“If my soldiers can assist a Palestinian woman giving birth when six of their comrades have been blown to bits in the street but, at the same time, they fire at us from behind an ambulance, you must understand that we are at opposite ends of the scales of values. They are at the very bottom”.

Yet the moral equivalency games continue.