With the media playing such an important role in Mideast events, here are some tools to ensure that you’re more than just a passive player in the process.
Since the outbreak of violence in the Middle East on September 29, 2000, much concern has been raised about media bias. And as is becoming painfully clear, a key aspect to the Mideast struggle today is the manipulation of media to influence public opinion.
We expect journalists to maintain independence and objectivity — and certainly not pledge “cooperation” with one side of an armed struggle. But when a representative of Italian state television issued an apology in Arabic over the filming of a brutal lynching of two Israelis in Ramallah, and promised to cooperate more fully with the Palestinian Authority in the future, Western sensibilities were shaken.
Why is the media biased? It could be they are intimidated by Palestinian strongmen into covering only the “positive” side, while Israeli democracy permits more open coverage of the Israeli position. Or it could be that it’s more exciting to root for the underdog. Or it could be that the world applies a double-standard of morality to Israel.
Whatever the reason, if truth is to prevail, we can’t just “read” the newspaper. Be discerning and become part of the process. Otherwise, you’re just a passive object of someone else’s agenda. As Mark Twain once said, “If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.”
How can readers discern the truth between the lines? Listed here are common methods employed by the media — intentionally or not — to influence public opinion. By being aware of these methods, we can avoid becoming a pawn in the media war.
Here are the “7 Violations of Media Objectivity”:
By using terminology and definitions in a way that implies accepted fact, the media injects bias under the guise of objectivity.
EXAMPLE: In March 2001, two separate acts of terrorism occurred a few days apart, providing the opportunity to compare the media’s selective use of terminology. The BBC’s article on an IRA car bomb in London carries the headline “BBC bomb prompts terror warning,” and the word “terror” (or its derivatives) is used 5 other times in the article. The IRA alerted police ahead of time, and one man was slightly injured in the blast.
But after a Palestinian suicide bomber killed three Israeli civilians (without prior warning) in Netanya, the BBC purposely avoided the label “terrorist,” and instead used the far milder term “militants.“
EXAMPLE: The New York Times subtly altered its reference to the Temple Mount, which unbiased historians have always acknowledged was the site of two Holy Jewish Temples. In apparent deference to Palestinian leaders who claim that no Jewish Temple ever stood on the Jerusalem hill toward which Jews have prayed for centuries, The Times began appending the phrase to include “which the Arabs call the Haram al Sharif.”
Then, a few weeks later, The Times referred to “the Temple Mount, which Israel claims to have been the site of the First and Second Temple.” It was no longer established historical fact — but a mere “claim.” Then, in a subsequent article, The Times described Israeli troops as having “stormed the Haram, holiest Muslim site in Jerusalem, where hundreds of people were at worship.” No mention whatsoever of its status as the “Temple Mount” or the single holiest Jewish site.
EXAMPLE: Ariel Sharon, the democratically-elected leader of the State of Israel, is consistently referred to by derogatory monikers like “hard-liner” and even “war criminal.” Curiously, no such appellations are attached to Yasser Arafat.
Media reports frequently skew the picture by presenting only one side of the story.
EXAMPLE: In February 2001, Deborah Sontag of the New York Times and Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian (UK) both reported on the opening of a new exhibit in the West Bank town of Ramallah dedicated to the memories of 100 Palestinian “martyrs.”
Curiously, both reporters use nearly identical language in their reports:
SONTAG: “Israeli critics would say that the exhibit, ’100 Martyrs – 100 Lives,’ glorifies death and encourages the cult of the shaheed, or martyr.”
GOLDENBERG: “Israeli critics would argue that the exhibit glorifies violent death, and promotes a cult of martyrdom.”
Issues of plagiarism aside, what is most disturbing is the way both Sontag and Goldenberg assume what Israelis critics “would say” — had the reporter bothered to ask. Media watchdog smartertimes.com, wrote about the Sontag piece: “Israeli critics ‘would say’ that, if they had actually been called or quoted by the Times, rather than having their criticisms assumed. Funny how the Arabs in the article are interviewed and allowed to speak for themselves, rather than having their views summarized by a reporter estimating what they ‘would say’ had the reporter bothered go to the effort to ask.”
EXAMPLE: A related violation, yet particularly insidious, is where the media presents a speaker from one side of the conflict who merely ratifies the opposing viewpoint. For example, under the guise of “balanced reporting,” the media is fond of quoting Michael Lerner, a California rabbi who called Prime Minister Barak’s policies “racist” and “oppressive,” referred to the IDF as “barbarous” and “brutal,” and accused Israeli citizens of perpetrating “classic Russian pogroms on Palestinian civilians.”
An objective reporter should not use adjectives or adverbs, unless they are part of a quotation. Also, the source for any facts and opinions should be clear from the report, or alternatively it should be stated that source is intentionally undisclosed.
Even so-called “opinion pieces” must bear a modicum of objectivity. James Hill, the managing editor of the Washington Post Writers Group, writes:
“You have to hold columnists to the same standard as anyone at the newspaper. If a column writer is making egregious errors in the process of stating his or her opinion, eventually it’s not the columnist who’s doing that, it’s the paper that’s doing that.”
EXAMPLE: On February 7, 2001, “The Early Show” co-host Bryant Gumbel interviewed former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross about what Ariel Sharon’s election victory meant for the peace process. Gumbel abdicated his role of objective journalist by repeatedly asking Ross leading questions, loaded with venomous descriptions of Sharon. Gumbel said:
“But does he [Arafat] even have a chance with — with Sharon, when many objective observers view him as — as not only a racist, a terrorist, a murderous war criminal?”
EXAMPLE: Even photos are subject to editorializing. A “news” photo from Reuters depicts Palestinians youths throwing stones. Poetically surreal, the Palestinian attackers are heroically silhouetted on a mountaintop, their stones floating triumphantly through the majestic clouds.
EXAMPLE: A Los Angeles Times editorial cartoon depicted an Orthodox Jew praying at the Western Wall, with the stones of the wall forming the word “hate.” The caption read: “Worshipping their God.”
In defense, L.A. Times artist Michael Ramirez pointed out that a second man in the cartoon (who was sprawled on the ground and much less noticeable) was actually a Moslem praying. Unfortunately, the keffiah which would identify him as a Moslem is practically invisible. Furthermore, Ramirez was unable to explain why the chosen venue of “hate” was the Western Wall, a site sacred only to Jews, which has never been a place of Moslem prayer. (Following reader protest, the Los Angeles Times altered its cartoon, deleting the unique Herodian frame around the Western Wall stones, to make it look more like a generic wall.)
By failing to provide proper context and full background information, journalists can dramatically distort the true picture.
EXAMPLE: A BBC photo depicts two Palestinians, hands tied behind their backs, and kneeling on the ground. Standing over them is an Israeli soldier with a rifle pointed at their heads.
There is no context identifying this photo, just the benign caption “Tension has been high around the Jewish settlements.” But who are the Arabs in this photo? Did they just murder Jews in cold blood? Or were they innocently buying bread at the local market? BBC does not say. And why is the soldier pointing the gun? Is he guarding dangerous prisoners until reinforcements can arrive? Or is he about to blow off their heads at point-blank range? BBC lets the implication stand for itself.
EXAMPLE: In February 2001, when a Palestinian killed eight Israelis by ramming his bus into a crowd, the front page of the Los Angeles Times carried an Associated Press photo which shows the damaged bus, and the Palestinian driver still behind the wheel, laid back with a sad face. The caption reads:
“Palestinian bus driver Khalil abu Olbeh, 35, sits wounded after leading police on a 19-mile chase. Family members said that he was distraught over financial problem and upset by current unrest.”
The caption and photo sympathetically suggest that this mass murderer is somehow a victim of “Israeli aggression.”
Meanwhile, the Guardian (UK) defended the bus driver as “a sort of Palestinian everyman who finally snapped because of the combined pressure of the four-month uprising and Israel’s economic blockade.” Despite his having admitted to carefully planning the attack, the Guardian said the attack was “far from being the calculated aim of a dedicated terrorist,” and claimed that the killer was merely drowsy from medication.
EXAMPLE: The October 23 edition of Teen Newsweek, a magazine distributed to middle school students across America, features a prominent photo of three Palestinians, with the man in the middle holding up his blood-covered hands. The caption reads: “In the West Bank city of Ramallah, bloodied Palestinian protestors express their rage.”
The implication is that the Palestinians are bloody because they are victims of Israeli aggression. There is no mention whatsoever that these Palestinians are bloody because they just got finished beating, stabbing, burning and disemboweling two innocent Israelis. And how does Teen Newsweek’s photo caption refer to these heinous murderers? As benign “protestors.”
By choosing to report certain events over others, the media controls access to information and manipulates public sentiment.
EXAMPLE: Ever since the violence began, media outlets routinely refer to the Intifada as being “sparked by Ariel Sharon’s provocative visit to the Temple Mount.” This is despite the admission by Palestinian Minister of Communications Imad el-Falouji that the Palestinian Authority planned the outbreak of violence. As reported in the semi-governmental Beirut “Daily Star” (March 3, 2001):
“A Palestinian Cabinet minister said on Friday that the five-month-old uprising against Israel had been planned since the Camp David peace talks failed in July, contradicting past contentions of a spontaneous outburst from Palestinians on the street. Imad Faluji, the Palestinian National Authority’s Communications Minister, said during a PLO rally in Ain al-Hilweh refutifada, in which more than 400 people have been killed, was planned.”
However, a search of the entire CNN website for the name of the PA minister, Imad Falouji, revealed one lone reference, buried in three short paragraphs near the end of an article. Was the PA minister’s assertion that the Intifada was planned not newsy enough for CNN? And shouldn’t CNN stop referring to Sharon’s visit as “sparking the Intifada”?
EXAMPLE: On October 24, 2000, The New York Times referred to a case of Palestinian incitement:
“Israelis cite as one egregious example a televised sermon that defended the killing of the two [lynched] soldiers. ‘Whether Likud or Labor, Jews are Jews,’ proclaimed Sheik Ahmad Abu Halabaya in a live broadcast from a Gaza city mosque the day after the killings.”
But The Times utterly failed to convey the main message of the inflammatory sermon. In fact, The Times appears to go out of its way to choose a one-sentence quotation that could be seen as innocuous when taken out of context. The salient point of the Gaza mosque sermon, broadcast live on Palestinian Authority TV, is as follows:
“Even if an agreement for Gaza is signed, we shall not forget Haifa, and Acre, and the Galilee, and Jaffa, and the Triangle and the Negev, and the rest of our cities and villages. It is only a matter of time… Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them.”
EXAMPLE: MSNBC nominated a series of photos for “Pictures of the Year 2000,” (including one entitled “A Death in Gaza,” which depicts 12-year-old Mohammed Aldura huddled behind his father moments before being shot to death. Of the 49 photos up for consideration, most are of nature scenes. The only two politically-related photos both carry an anti-Israel message: the Gaza photo, and a photo of a young (presumably Arab) boy in a damaged West Bank home. A more obvious choice, the photo of the Palestinian’s bloody hands at the Ramallah lynching, was not nominated by MSNBC.
The Gaza photo is used as a demonstration of the cruelty of Israeli soldiers, but does not provide any context, leading to the false conclusion that the boy was directly fired upon in full view of Israeli soldiers. Although Israeli crossfire may have caused the boy’s accidental death, there is serious doubt whether Israeli soldiers were positioned to do so.
The media fails to bring crucial background information: Palestinian children are encouraged onto the front lines, used as intentional sacrifices to garner world sympathy. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that the boy was killed by a Palestinian gunman standing near the Palestinian cameraman — all staged by Palestinians at the beginning of the intifada to garner world sympathy (which it did).
Media reports frequently use true facts to draw erroneous conclusions.
EXAMPLE: In February 2001, when Ariel Sharon was elected Israeli Prime Minister, the Christian Science Monitor tried to delegitimize the voters’ choice by claiming that voter turnout “was an unprecedentedly low 60 percent,” and claiming that “at least 62 percent of eligible Israeli voters did not vote for Sharon.”
In reality, only despotic countries like North Korea or Syria report 99 percent voter turnout. Truly free elections mean that citizens are also free not to vote. In the United States, only 51 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2000 presidential elections. This means that President George W. Bush received fewer than 25 percent of the eligible votes; additionally he did not even win the popular vote. To paraphrase Cobban’s calculation, “At least 75 percent of eligible American voters did not vote for Bush.” In years when only congressional elections are held, American voter turnout drops to 36-38 percent. But no one makes such charges undermining the American president’s authority or legitimacy.
EXAMPLE: Many articles report that “hundreds of people have been killed, the vast majority Palestinians.” This is an indisputable fact, yet without qualifying these figures, the reader is led to the false conclusion that Israeli soldiers are the aggressors and have used excessive force.
However, if Israeli forces were actually doing what they are accused of — shooting indiscriminately into crowds with automatic weapons, many thousands of Palestinians would be dead. In reality, the ratio of deaths is less than one per riot.
EXAMPLE: Teen Newsweek, a magazine distributed to middle school students across America, published a chart illustrating the number of Palestinian and Israeli children killed since 1987. The Palestinian numbers, represented in bright red, many times exceed Israeli losses, shown in a less visible yellow. There is no explanation of circumstances how these children died. The implication is that there is equivalency — even though the Palestinian children were killed while attempting martyrdom in the context of violent attacks on Israeli forces, while the Israeli children were killed while sitting on a public bus or in a cafe, blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber.
In today’s competitive media world, reporters frequently do not have the time, inclination or resources to properly verify information before submitting a story for publication.
EXAMPLE: In reporting on violence of Joseph’s Tomb, CNN writes:
Meanwhile, at least 77 people, mostly Palestinians have died during several fierce clashes at Joseph’s Tomb during the past week. The lone Israeli soldier to die during the clashes bled to death in the tomb as rescuers tried for hours to reach him.
CNN’s claim that 77 people died in one week of clashes at Joseph’s Tomb is a gross factual inaccuracy. Since one Israeli was killed, 76 were obviously Palestinian. Yet in truth, six Palestinians and one Israeli soldier had died during that week of clashes at Joseph’s Tomb. In other words, CNN cited the total number of Palestinian casualties in all clashes, and juxtaposed that figure with the Israeli casualty of one isolated event.
EXAMPLE: The New York Times, Associated Press and other major media outlets published a photo of a young man — bloodied and battered — crouching beneath a club-wielding Israeli policeman. The caption identified him as a Palestinian victim of the recent riots — with the clear implication that the Israeli soldier is the one who beat him.
In fact, the bloodied “Palestinian” depicted in the photograph was Tuvia Grossman, a 20-year-old Jewish student from Chicago, studying in Jerusalem. And the assailants were not Israelis, but members of a Palestinian mob who beat and stabbed Grossman mercilessly for 10 minutes. And the infuriated Israeli policeman with a baton was deterring the Palestinians from finishing their lynching.
Media bias assumes that if there’s a victim, it must be a Palestinian. Yet who are the real victims and who are the aggressors? The truth is often the opposite of how it appears.
By being astute media observers, we can make a difference. In response to public pressure, The New York Times reprinted Tuvia Grossman’s picture — this time with the proper caption — along with a full article detailing his near-lynching at the hands of Palestinians rioters.
These contents were adapted from an article by Rabbi Shraga Simmons.