Misplaced Pages

Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jaakobou (talk | contribs) at 22:08, 6 December 2007 (→Accusations of Bias: ref). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:08, 6 December 2007 by Jaakobou (talk | contribs) (→Accusations of Bias: ref)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Totallydisputed

This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Misplaced Pages's quality standards, as Constructed as a persuasive essay for a particular viewpoint, includes out-of-scope material, examples and images all come from a single point-of-view with no attempt to balance. You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions.
Dave Brown's Goya pastiche of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a monster eating a baby drew criticism for it's publication on UK's Holocaust Memorial Day and for its alleged use of classical European anti-Semitic libels under the pretext of criticizing Israel.

Because of worldwide interest in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the influence of outside parties (i.e. pressuring one side or the other to perform or refrain from a given action), many participants view media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as no less important than the conflict itself. As stated by Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, "wars are won, not only on the battlefield, but also with words."

Palestinian politician, Hanan Ashrawi, told Reuters, "the media are... crucial. It presents a version of reality. It creates awareness of what's happening, and the perceptions that are presented affect public opinion."

According to figures collected by the Glasgow University Media Group (GUMG), most people obtain their information about the conflict from television.

Background

Israel and the territories have one of the highest concentrations of journalists in the world, reflecting intense worldwide interest in the conflict. There are 350 foreign news organizations based in Jerusalem alone, employing some 800 reporters, cameramen and technicians. Since the beginning of 2004, another 1,300 accredited journalists have visited the region. The number is likely much higher if freelancers and writers who enter as visitors without presenting credentials are included.

Accusations of Bias

File:Independent281006.gif
Front page of the UK's The Independent, Robert Fisk claiming that Israel used uranium-based weapons in southern Lebanon during the 2006 Lebanon War, a claim later broken by a UN panel of experts, the IAEA and other international agencies.

In the experience of the Columbia Journalism Review no news subject generates more complaints about media objectivity than the Middle East in general and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. . Almost every mass media outlet has been accused of media bias, that is to say, slanted reporting either in favor of the Palestinians or of the Israelis (exacerbated by what psychologists call the "hostile media effect"). Often the same outlet is accused, by different people, of being both at once. For example, The New York Times is regularly castigated both by pro-Palestinian groups in the United States alleging uncritical support of Israel and by pro-Israel groups alleging a pro-Palestinian bias, both citing the same editorial pages as well as factual errors in its reporting.

Accusations of media bias generally have one or more of the following bases:

  • Diction: The use of emotive words or euphemistic terminology as well as double-speak may prejudice the audience one way or another.
  • Omission: The presentation of some facts but not all the facts may lead to false and biased conclusions.
  • Lack of Verification: News outlets may "parrot" as objective fact the unverified or disputed claims of one side.
  • Selective Reporting: Over time, the news presented through a media organization may emphasize one side of the story at the expense of the other.
  • Decontextualization: News may appear without sufficient explanation of the circumstances of the events being reported
  • Editorializing: News reporters may inject their own editorial opinion into supposedly objective reporting, presenting their opinions as fact.
  • Coercion or Censorship: Journalists may be pressured into distorting their reporting for fear of losing access or their lives.
  • Forgery or Falsification: Video footage, quotes, and other items are fabricated to bias the presentation. See Pallywood for such allegations.
  • Placement: The consistent placement of one side in preferential locations of an article (e.g. in the headline and first paragraph) increase the likelihood that readers will read one side of the story and not the other.

Diction

Diction, or word choice, can have a strong impact on how people interpret the same set of sensory perceptions. Consider, for example, the effect of the passive verb died over the active verb killed. Furthermore, consider the emotional as well as semantic difference between kill and murder; murder evokes stronger negative emotions and also connotes intent whereas kill implies an unintentional or defensive action. In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, consider the implications of the different terms:

  • Palestinian terrorist vs:
    • Combatant
    • Militant
    • Guerilla
    • Freedom-fighter
    • Peace activist
  • Israeli settlement vs:
    • Town
    • Village
    • Community
    • Colony
  • Security barrier vs:
    • Security fence
    • Separation wall
    • Apartheid wall
  • Disputed territories vs:
    • Palestinian territories
    • Israeli territories
    • Occupied territories
  • Violence vs:
    • Cycle of violence
    • One-sided violence

Alleged motivations

A number of reasons are cited for alleged bias, the most prominent being:

  • A tendency toward sensationalism. Stories that evoke emotional responses are more likely to get play in the mainstream press, and editors are accused of favoring those that emphasize pathos.
  • Prejudiced journalists. Several varieties exist, including:
    • Political ideology. Journalists are accused of having a left- or right-wing outlook that distorts their perceptions and reporting.
    • Ethnic and/or religious bias. Journalists with Jewish or Arabic names (or who are known to belong to one nationality or another) routinely have their reports discounted because of alleged tribal loyalty. From time to time, it is alleged that Jewish ownership of major media organizations leads to undue influence over the editorial process. (This, however, is also popularly rumored by antisemites of the government, film/television industry, jewelry business, and other fields.) Furthermore, members of one nationality may be accused of bias in favor of the opposite nationality due to overzealous attempts at neutrality.
    • Ethnic and/or religious prejudice. Reporters and journalists are also accused of bigotry against Jews, Arabs, or Muslims.
  • Israeli or Palestinian censorship and intimidation. Authorities in Israel and/or areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority exercise unfair control over what is published, either through censorship , intimidation before the fact , or sanctions after the fact.
  • Reliance on freelance journalists. Reporters may find it difficult, costly, or impossible to get firsthand knowledge of the conflict, and thus many rely on local freelance journalists with their own biases and agendas.

Bernard Lewis states in his 2003 book The Crisis of Islam:

The Israel-Palestine conflict has certainly attracted far more attention than any of the others, for several reasons. First, since Israel is a democracy and an open society, it is much easier to report - and misreport - what is going on there. Second, Jews are involved, and this can usually ensure a significant audience among those who for one reason or another are for or against them... A third and ultimately the most important reason for the primacy of the Palestine issue is that it is, so to speak, the licensed grievance - the only one that can be freely and safely expressed in those Muslim countries where the media are either wholly owned or strictly overseen by the government. Indeed, Israel serves as a useful stand-in for complaints about the economic privation and political repression under which most Muslim peoples live, and as a way of deflecting the resulting anger.

Complexity of the issue

As is the case with all controversial issues, each party is likely to charge the media with bias anytime coverage goes against their cause. This has indeed been the defense of major news organizations that have been subject to criticism and condemnation for alleged bias.

Indeed, because the context and reality differs so significantly for the principal parties in the conflict, it is likely that accusations of bias aren't merely self-serving; they are likely to be sincere objections to the press presenting a reality that seems alien to those who are in it. Efforts to prove bias run the range from polemics that accuse reporters of pursuing their own political agenda, to fact-based analyses to prove one bias or another.

Both sides maintain media monitoring organizations, which monitor video and print coverage for what they perceive as media bias against their side. The most visible such organizations are Arab Media Watch, the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

Fallacies of media reporting

The following flaws were identified as a source for media bias:

  • Assuming that Balance is neutrality. Some media organizations seem to believe that the truth is the average of two extremes, thereby neglecting the responsibility to find the truth. See false compromise.
  • Sources have equal credibility. A source that consistently turns out to be unreliable should not be given equal weighting to one that more often is reliable, and/or demonstrates good faith.

Incidents of controversial media reporting

The New York Times photograph of Tuvia Grossman, front, and an Israeli policeman. Contrary to the published caption, the bleeding Grossman was an American Jewish tourist who had been attacked by Palestinians. The police officer was defending Grossman from further attack.
  • Tuvia Grossman, an American Jewish tourist, was misrepresented in a photo as a Palestinian victim of a club-wielding Israeli policeman. In reality, the policeman was defending the bleeding Grossman from Palestinian mobs who "severely and stabbed" him and two friends.
  • During the April 2002 Battle of Jenin, Palestinian sources claimed Israel massacred hundreds of Palestinians. The United Nations (initially condemning Israel for its media blackout) and Amnesty International concluded that a massacre had not taken place. The Palestinian Authority later acknowledged those findings. Human Rights Watch concluded that Palestinian gunmen had endangered the lives of Palestinian civilians. Staged funerals had taken place, which various analysts and programs, such as 60 Minutes, have documented. Investigations found that 52 Palestinians had been killed, mostly militants. This figure is about 80 percent less than what initial Palestinian sources claimed. 23 Israeli soldiers were killed.
  • After the Gaza beach blast where eight Palestinians had been killed, Palestinian and other sources claimed they had been victims of an Israeli shell. Many reports have concluded Israel artillery had not been responsible for the blast. The unique state of the source of the explosion) has made it difficult to conclude what actually killed the victims. The IDF's theory is that the explosion was caused by unexploded ordnance buried in the sand, although whether it was a Palestinian or Israeli explosive is not determined. According to Human Rights Watch, the IDF investigation was not credible and their artillery strike most likely killed the family: "There has been much speculation about the cause of the beach killings, but the evidence we have gathered strongly suggests Israeli artillery fire was to blame," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and Africa division at Human Rights Watch.
  • PATV has broadcasted falsified videos: 1) An authentic clip of an Israeli helicopter is shown, the video then cuts to a girl tripping and falling on the ground while sound effects are played. (October 5, 2001) 2) Muhammad al-Durrah shot dead, after an implanted video clip of an unrelated Israeli soldier. (2002-03) 3) Another broadcast of Muhammad al-Durrah, this time implanting another shot of a different soldier. (2002-03) 4) An implanted scene of the Israeli Navy, then cuts to Palestinians grieving on the Gaza beach.
  • In 2002, Le Monde published an article named "'Israel-Palestine: The Cancer". The piece included two controversial passages, which read as follows:
It is hard to imagine that a nation of fugitives born of a people who have been subjected to the longest persecution in the history of humanity, who have suffered the worst humiliation and the worst contempt, should be capable, in the space of two generations, of transforming themselves into a people sure of themselves and dominating (of others) and, with the exception of an admirable minority, a scornful people that takes satisfaction in humiliating others.
The Jews of Israel, descendants of an apartheid named the ghetto, ghettoise the Palestinians. The Jews who were humiliated, scorned and persecuted humiliate, scorn and persecute the Palestinians. The Jews who were the victims of a pitiless order impose their pitiless order on the Palestinians. The Jews, scapegoats for every wrong, make scapegoats of Arafat and the Palestinian Authority
A French court found the editor-in-chief of Le Monde and the authors of the article guilty of "racial defamation" against Israel and the Jewish people. Opponents of this decision argued that the quotes were taken out of context, and were intended to be read as part of a larger and more balanced piece.
  • During the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Reuters was found to have published falsified images of destruction allegedly for the purpose of harming Israel's public image. News agencies were accused of parroting news given to them by Hezbollah without verification.

Investigations of media bias

In April 2006, the BBC released a REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT PANEL FOR THE BBC GOVERNORS ON IMPARTIALITY OF BBC COVERAGE OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT. Section 4.7 listed findings from the quantitative content analysis which the researchers judged to be most important, amongst which were - "that a disparity (in favour of Israelis) existed in BBC coverage taken as a whole in the amount of talk time given to Israelis and Palestinians; - that there was a broad parity in BBC coverage taken as a whole in terms of the appearance of Israeli and Palestinian party political actors; - that a disparity (in favour of Israelis) existed in BBC coverage taken as a whole in terms of the appearance of Israeli and Palestinian actors; - that some important themes were relatively overlooked in the coverage of the conflict, most notably in the recent period, the annexation of land in and around East Jerusalem."

A fall 2007 study at Harvard University's Belfer Center comparing the New York Times 's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to that of its Israeli counterpart Haaretz, described the "largely uninformed and uncritical mainstream and even elite media coverage in the United States of Israeli policies" and found that "in contrast, the debate in Israel is much more far-ranging, and includes a substantial body of dissenting opinion – especially among the elites – arguing that Israel bears a considerable share of the responsibility" for the conflict. The study concluded that the Times covers the conflict from a "pro-Israel" perspective, "not only in its editorials but even in its news coverage," but that its coverage of the occupation had become more even-handed since 2005.


A detailed analysis of the compliance with journalism standards of The Age Newspaper's reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was published by Media Study Group in 2003. It established an agreed-upon code of journalistic practice. Every news report on the topic during an eight week period was analysed for breaches of this code. The resultant breaches were analysed statistically as to whether they supported the Israeli or Palestinian side. Of 210 violations of the code detected, 5 (2.7%) were anti-Arab, 205 (97.3%) were anti-Israel and none were neutral. The conclusion was hat the newspaper was biased against Israel. The key point of this study was the attempt to use a more rigourous methodology to study the phenomenon of media bias http://www.honestreporting.com/a/specialReports.asp?p=4

Personal risks

Reporters Without Borders publishes a yearly worldwide press freedom ranking of countries. The Palestinian Authority was rated at 134th of 167, in the same category with Sudan, Rwanda, and Kazakhstan. RSF ranked Israel's "extra-territorial" actions, understood to refer to the West Bank and Gaza, at 135th. Israel itself was ranked 50th, among other liberal democracies

The Palestinian Authority and Palestinian terrorist organizations have been accused of intimidated foreign journalists through physically harming journalists, threatening bodily harm implicitly and/or explicitly, abusing journalistic immunity for carrying out attacks against Israel, thereby placing legitimate journalists at risk, and through frequent kidnappings of foreign reporters. These accusations often cite news reports and the works of NGOs such as Reporters Without Borders.

Palestinian journalists allege that they are harassed, threatened, insulted, physically attacked or wounded by the Israeli army. Israeli soldiers have been accused of entering homes and media offices of Palestinian journalists.

Violence and threats of violence

Foreign journalists have reported fearing for their lives when reporting incidents that would portray Palestinians or the Palestinian Authority in a negative light. Mark Seager, a British journalist who witnessed the Ramallah Lynching of two IDF reservists by Palestinian mobs, wrote that he feared for his life when the mobs turned on him after taking a picture of the incident:

I was composing the picture when I was punched in the face by a Palestinian. Another Palestinian pointed right at me shouting "no picture, no picture!", while another guy hit me in the face and said "give me your film!".
I tried to get the film out but they were all grabbing me and one guy just pulled the camera off me and smashed it to the floor. I knew I had lost the chance to take the photograph that would have made me famous and I had lost my favourite lens that I'd used all over the world, but I didn't care. I was scared for my life.

Italy’s state television network RAI recalled its correspondents from East Jerusalem, fearing for their lives, when the Palestinians strictly prohibited releasing tapes of the Ramallah Lynching, despite an RAI reporter, Riccardo Cristiano, sending a letter to the Palestinian Authority, stressing his support for the Palestinian cause. According to the AP, Israel Radio and the Jerusalem Post, the Palestinians also threatened news organizations and their workers in an effort to stop the broadcast of video showing large crowds of ]. Reporters Without Borders reported in 2005 that "lawlessness continues in Gaza and journalists have become targets. Four were kidnapped during the year and the Palestinian Authority (132nd) seemed powerless to prevent the situation worsening."

Journalists have also reporting fearing violence from Israelis. On 7 July 2006 the photographer Hamid al-Khur was shot three times by Israeli soldiers. 17 media workers were injured in 2006 during Israeli bombardment of the Palestinian Territories. During 2004 the APTN camera-man Nazeh Darwazi and the British cameraman James Miller were killed and the AFP photographer Saïf Dahla, Ahmed Jadallah (photographer) and Shams Odeh (cameraman) (both of Reuters) were wounded. On April 14, 2005 an Israeli Military Judge dismissed disciplinary proceedings against the army officer in the James Miller shooting; Foreign Office Minister Baroness Symons said: "I was dismayed to hear ... The British Government will continue to raise James's case with the Government of Israel.".

Misusing journalistic immunity

In one case, Palestinian militants were reported to have placed a "TV" sign on a vehicle used in an attack on an Israeli checkpoint. Although an Islamic Jihad spokesman accused the IDF of planting the sign, the Palestinian Journalist Syndicate stressed its "rejection of the use of media vehicles and the involvement of the press in any existing conflict, and all parties stop using these methods."

Kidnappings

The Palestinian territories are often lawless and a number of journalists have been kidnapped by Palestinians. So far all have been released unharmed.

Restriction of movement

Palestinian journalists say they have not been given official press cards since Israel stopped renewing them on 1 January 2002. Palestinian journalists are restricted by the Israeli authorities and are banned from traveling between Gaza and the West Bank.

Films about the media coverage

Media bias regarding the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has also attracted much media attention in itself. By now it has reached a point that several films have been made regarding the issue of media bias in this conflict.

The films include:

Notes

  1. British Drawing Stirs Anti-Semitism Debate by Glenn Frankel, Washington Post
  2. PCC: The Independent
  3. Sharon: Independent cartoon 'anti-Semitic' by Ciar Byrne, TheGuardian
  4. UK cartoon: Naked Sharon eats babies
    Winner of top prize depicts prime minister devouring Palestinian     by WorldNetDaily.com
  5. 'Media Coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict',Cammro Conference,King's College,University of London, Saturday 17th February 2007
  6. "Honest Reporting UK". 2007-03-10. Retrieved 2007-09-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. Bernard Lewis (2003): The Crisis of Islam. Holy War and Unholy Terror (Modern Library, The Random House) ISBN 0-679-64281-1 pp.92-93
  8. The Photo that Started it All
  9. "IDF demands uncut al-Dura tape". Jerusalem Post. 2007-9-17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. "GPO head: Death of Gazan aged 12 was staged". Haaretz. 10-2-2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. "Al-Dura's father: Israel's claims ridiculous". YNet. 10-2-2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. UN says no massacre in Jenin by the BBC
  13. U.N. report: No massacre in Jenin by USA Today
  14. The Battle of Jenin by TIME.com
  15. IDF: Tape shows Palestinians faked funeral by CNN
  16. IDF not responsible for Gaza blast By Yaakov Katz. June 14, 2006 (Jerusalem Post)
  17. Gaza beach blast: Possible scenarios by Hanan Greenberg June 11, 2006 (Ynet)
  18. Der Krieg der Bilder, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 16 June 2006
  19. German paper doubts Gaza beach reports June 18, 2006 (Ynet)
  20. Israel: Investigate Gaza Beach Killings, Human Rights Watch, 15 June 2006
  21. "Reuters toughens rules after altered photo affair". Reuters. 2007-01-18.
  22. Photo Fraud in Lebanon
  23. CNN's Anderson Cooper Exposes Hezbollah's Media Manipulations
  24. Slater, Jerome, "Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The New York Times versus Haaretz, 2000-06." Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Pages 2, 36. Also published in International Security, volume 32, issue 2, pages 84-120.
  25. http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639
  26. Mark Seager (2000-10-15). "'I'll have nightmares for the rest of my life'". The Telegraph.
  27. Coverage of the October 12 Lynch in Ramallah by Italian TV Station - MFA
  30. Statement by Baroness Symons following the James Miller verdict. 9th March 2005. Retrieved 19 September 2007.
  31. "Palestinian journalists slam use of 'TV' vehicle in Gaza attack". Haaretz. 2007-6-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  32. "Six killed in factional gun battles in Gaza". Reuters. 2007-6-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  33. Hamas role in Johnston's release, July 4. Retrieved 19 September 2007.
  34. "Peruvian photographer released by Gaza kidnappers returns home". International Herald Tribune. 2007-1-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  35. "2 Fox News Reporters Kidnapped In Gaza". CBS News. 2006-8-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  36. "Captors Release Two FOX News Journalists Kidnapped in Gaza August 14". Template:FOX News. 2006-8-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  37. Context TV
  38. pierrerehov.com

See also

Bibliography

  • Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, by Charles D. Smith (2004)
  • Bad News from Israel, Greg Philo and Mike Berry Pluto Press, (2004)
  • Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition, by Norman G. Finkelstein (2003)
  • Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy, Kathleen Christison (2001)
  • Reporting the Arab Israeli Conflict: How Hegemony Works by Tamar Liebes (1997)
  • Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World, by Edward W. Said (1997)
  • Missing: The Bias Implicit in the Absent, by Marda Dunsky; Arab Studies Quarterly, Vol. 23, 2001
  • Racism and the North American Media Following 11 September: The Canadian Setting, by T.Y. Ismael and John Measor; Arab Studies Quarterly, Vol. 25, 2003
  • The Other War: A Debate: Questions of Balance in the Middle East by Adeel Hassan; Columbia Journalism Review, Vol. 42, May-June 2003
  • Caught in the Middle by Steve Mcnally; Columbia Journalism Review, Vol. 40, January-February 2002
  • Covering the Intifada: How the Media Reported the Palestinian Uprising, by Joshua Muravchik; Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2003 ISBN 0-944029-85-X
  • Days of Rage: News Organizations Have Been Besieged by Outraged Critics Accusing Them of Unfair Coverage of the Violence in the Middle East. Are They Guilty as Charged?, by Sharyn Vane; American Journalism Review, Vol. 24, July-August 2002
  • Do Words and Pictures from the Middle East Matter? A Journalist from the Region Argues That U.S. Policy Is Not Affected by the Way News Is Reported, by Rami G. Khouri; Nieman Reports, Vol. 56, Fall 2002
  • Covering the Intifada: A Hazardous Beat; Photographers and Journalists Come under Gunfire While Reporting on the Conflict, by Joel Campagna; Nieman Reports, Vol. 56, Fall 2002
  • Images Lead to Varying Perceptions: 'In Photographs in Which We, as Journalists, Saw Danger, Some Readers Saw Deception, by Debbie Kornmiller; Nieman Reports, Vol. 56, Fall 2002
  • The Minefield of Language in Middle East Coverage: Journalists Rarely Have the Time or Space to Navigate through the War of Words, by Beverly Wall; Nieman Reports, Vol. 56, Fall 2002
  • The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy. Stephanie Gutmann, Encounter Books, 2005 (ISBN 1-893554-94-5)
  • Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict: What the Headlines Haven't Told You, by Michael Rydelnik; Moody Publishers (June 1, 2004) ISBN-10: 0802426409
  • Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East by Richard A. Falk and Howard Friel London: Verso (2007) ISBN 1-84467-109-7.

External links

Categories: