WATCHING THE PRO-ISRAELI MEDIA WATCHERS
Manfred Gerstenfeld and Ben Green
Media Watching
1
Media watching can be defined as critically examining one or more media on
a regular or recurrent basis. It usually results from a conviction that certain
media are biased against a cause the monitoring body or individual supports.
Media watch activities include data collecting, their analysis and publication.
The media have benefited over the past decades from a unique situation.
While they have the power to criticize others relentlessly and sometimes
brutally, there are few ways to take them to task. The work of their staff is
only subject to the specific media’s self-regulation. Except for extreme cases
journalists are not accountable to anybody outside their profession. Reporters
can choose the facts they will mention or omit, even if this leads to major
distortion of perceptions by their readers. Their methods to slant findings, if
they wish to do so, are almost unlimited. Media also rarely attack each other.
If they did this would create much greater accountability of journalists.
There are many ways in which media create false perceptions. Infinite
examples of them are exposed by a large number of authors. So for instance
says Alan Dershowitz.
At Israel’s 55th anniversary parade, the Neturei Karta, a small ultra-Orthodox
group, held a counterdemonstration with banners saying ‘real Jews are antiZionists.’ The Boston Globe printed two pictures: one of pro-Israel groups
carrying flags and the other of the anti-Israelis. This created the feeling that
there were equal numbers of Neturei Karta and Zionists at the parade. 2
The impact of such isolated remarks however is much smaller than of a
systematic ongoing approach.
Computing Media Bias
Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of Chicago University have
developed a sophisticated method to compute the bias of American media. It
is based on counting the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks.
They compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same
think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. The
authors then compare citation patterns and as the political identification of
Congress members is known and measurable they can establish where the
media are positioned.
Their findings showed a significant liberal bias. All news outlets except Fox
News’ Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of
Congress. They summarize: “by one of our measures all but three of these
media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABC’s World News
Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median
member of the House of Representatives.”3
Groseclose and Milyo write that various reports showed that the great
majority of journalists are liberal. One study found that only seven percent of
all Washington correspondents voted for George Bush in 1992, compared to
37% of the American public. They conclude: “Statistics suggest that
journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district
in the country.”4
This phenomenon is even more extreme in Sweden. Former Swedish deputy
Prime Minister Per Ahlmark mentions that in 1968 not more than three
percent of Swedish journalists had sympathy for the communist party. This
figure was identical to the percentage the party obtained in that year’s
election. By 1989 the number of pro-communist journalists had increased to
about 30%, while not more than four to five percent of the voters supported
the party.5
Media bias manifests itself differently in various cultures. Former Israeli
ambassador to Japan Yaacov Cohen relates how New York mayor Ed Koch
in 1985 in three different appearances in Japan, strongly condemned the
Japanese surrender to the Arab boycott. He added that this attitude cast doubt
about Japanese adherence to free trade. Hundreds of journalists heard him.
Not a single mention of these words appeared in any Japanese language
paper.6
Starting in the Seventies
Currently several organizations systematically follow foreign media’s
reporting on Israel-related matters. Most pro-Israel media watches are in
English but there also some in other languages such as French, Italian,
Spanish and Portuguese.
Since the second Palestinian uprising began in autumn 2000, many consider
that Israel is losing the media battle. The Israeli Government is frequently
blamed for not making its viewpoints effectively known. Pro-Israel media
watchers are an important source of information for their readers. But above
all, they are private actors in the Arab-Israeli public relations war.
Pro-Israel media monitoring – albeit in a more simplified form – goes back
about three decades. The first watches were in written form. Former Israeli
diplomat Lenny Ben-David relates that in the mid-70s Si Kenen, editor of the
AIPAC affiliated, Washington-based Near East Report, initiated a mediamonitoring column entitled The Monitor. Its purpose was to clarify
“controversial issues and to expose negative propaganda.”7
One of NER’s prime targets were the columnists Rowland Evans and Robert
Novak, who were syndicated in about 250 cities in the U.S. When they
published errors Kenen would send out telegrams to local activists who
would then write critical letters to the papers in which the columns were
published. The climax of this campaign came after Evans had falsely claimed
that Israel made a secret request of $4 billion per year for US arms. Evans,
who had initially refused to retract, had to do so after several weeks. Under
the ongoing pressure from letter writers Evans and Novak stopped writing on
the Middle East for several years.8
Some pro-Israel media watches were initiated after the war in Lebanon.
CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in
America, was founded in 1982.9 At that time they published hard copy
articles about various media who distorted information concerning Israel.
Europe and Israel
For a long time pro-Israel individuals have also criticized European antiIsrael media reporting on a more than one time basis. Former Israeli
Ambassador in Brussels, Sergio Minerbi, analyzed six documentaries of the
French-speaking Belgian television station RTBF between 1979 and 1982. In
1985 his findings were published in a book.10
In 1987 Henry Weinberg devoted an entire chapter of his book, The Myth of
the Jew in France 1967-1982, to the anti-Israel bias of the Paris daily, Le
Monde.11 Already in 1980 this leading French paper had published an article
entitled “Double Nationality, Double Allegiance” by the academic M.L.
Snoussi, which “openly leveled the charge of treason against French Jewry”.
Weinberg remarked that the article “contained phrases which in other
democratic countries would be considered as incitement to racial violence”.
After terrorists bombed a synagogue in the Paris Rue Copernic in October
1980, Le Monde had published another anti-Semitic article by Jean-Marie
Paupert on its front page. Weinberg remarked that it was full of anti-Semitic
clichés. Le Monde already at that time applied several of the techniques,
which have become so obvious today. Much of its coverage of the Middle
East was given to pro-Arab Jewish journalists. Frequently when citing Israeli
sources they quoted extremists such as Felicia Langer, Uri Avneri and
Matiyahu Peled without mentioning them as being remote from the Israeli
mainstream.
Weinberg summed it up saying that the paper expressed “consistently unfair
and excessive criticism of the Jewish state and made for the acceptance of
anti-Semitic expression as a legitimate means of public debate”.
David Bar-Ilan
Prominent among early pro-Israel media watchers in Israel was David BarIlan, editor of The Jerusalem Post, who published a column entitled Eye on
the Media. In 1993, a selection appeared in book form.12
In an interview in 1994, Bar-Ilan said: “The assumption of most foreign
media is that the Palestinian cause is a just one… Here is a people seeking
liberty, freedom, self-determination, which is as good as motherhood. Israel
should give it to them. If it does not, it is in the wrong.”13
In this interview Bar-Ilan gave the following story as one of the foremost
examples of anti-Israel bias:
The BBC is by far the worst offender when it comes to Israel… I shall only
give one example of its malice. A few years ago a coffeehouse collapsed in
Arab East Jerusalem due to structural problems. The most striking thing about
it was that Jews and Arabs worked together to save lives.
Even strong PLO activists like the deputy Mufti of Jerusalem were stunned by
that cooperation. The BBC did not say one word about it. They only
mentioned that Arabs suffered. They repeated the libel that a bomb had been
put in there.
This was a totally distorted report, leaving out the one phenomenon that
should have made news all over the world: the fact that Arabs and Jews
worked together to save lives at a time when the Intifada was at its height.”
Bar-Ilan mentioned that the building collapse was not a politically significant
event and added: “From the political sphere, there are hundreds of examples
of BBC malice.”14
The Internet: Major Impetus
Several developments have heavily influenced the substantial growth in proIsraeli media watching in recent years. The explosive expansion of the
Internet opened major new opportunities. Before one could follow media in a
regular way, however it involved sizable expense to get one’s conclusions to
many readers within a short time. Today media watchers can circulate their
findings at little cost by e-mail or by publishing them on websites.
Media monitors have access to Internet search engines that can carry out the
research that only expensive clipping services could do. Thus, for instance, a
media watcher can quickly determine in how many newspapers a biased
syndicated columnist appeared.
A third factor, which accelerated pro-Israel media monitoring, has been the
increased foreign media attention to the Arab-Israeli conflict since the second
Palestinian uprising in 2000. This led to an influx of foreign correspondents
into Israel and a flood of biased and sometimes explicitly anti-Semitic
information about Israel. In turn pro-Israeli individuals reacted to this biased
reporting. Some created specific organizations to watch, analyze and criticize
these media.
Aims of the Media Watches
Currently several watch organizations regularly comment on various media in
the world as to their reporting on the Arab-Israeli conflict. They differ in their
aims, focus and modus operandi. For some of them media watching is one of
a wider range of activities.
Pro-Israel media monitors have typically the following characteristics:

They focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

They supply otherwise inaccessible information – for instance
from Arabic sources – to policy makers and stimulate activists
to react to the media concerned. Their ultimate aim is to change
the media bias.

They have a website on which their material is published.

They regularly publish their findings, often one or two times a
week, either on their website or by sending e-mails to their
subscribers.

Sometimes media watchers will speak, without publicity, to a
media organization, which has published biased material, and
hope to reach an agreement.

Several also lobby foreign governments and authorities.
They have also become a counter weight to pro-Palestinian media watches.
Palestinian supporters have their media watches, which claim that the media
is biased against the Palestinians. These include Arab Media Watch, Palestine
Media Watch and Electronic Intifada.
The Main Media Watches
The main pro-Israel media watches—some of which operate from abroad and
others from Israel – in English are:
1. HonestReporting
15
HonestReporting grew out of a private British initiative after the
second Palestinian uprising started. In 2001 it became an independent
foundation with its own board. It maintains an association with the
Aish HaTorah educational movement. HonestReporting’s declared aim
is to ensure “that Israel receives the fair media coverage that every
nation deserves”.16
HonestReporting monitors mainly media in the United States, but also
in other English-speaking countries. It has several affiliates who deal
with foreign media. HonestReporting scrutinizes media for examples
of anti-Israel bias. It maintains a regular relationship with foreign
reporters based in Israel and provides them with information. If media
publish distorted facts and biased articles it informs subscribers of
offending articles, asking them to respond directly to the media
concerned. It is thus not only an information service but also an activist
body. It has 100,000 members worldwide.
HonestReporting has defined seven categories of media bias,
respectively; Misleading Definitions and Terminology, Imbalanced
Reporting, Opinions Disguised as News, Lack of Context, Selective
Omission, Using True Facts to Draw Untrue Conclusions and
Distortion of Facts.
Examples of its recent work include “Sheikh Yassin’s Happiest Day”
which addressed some of the media myths that appeared after the
terrorist cleric’s death.17 “BBC’s Selective Sensitivity”18 dealt with the
double standards at the BBC after the sacking of Robert Kilroy-Silk.
HonestReporting also awards every year a ‘Dishonest Reporting’
award. In 2003 Reuters was chosen.19 In 2002 it was the British media
and in 2001 the BBC.
2. CAMERA
20
CAMERA covers a wide range of media in the United States and
occasionally in the United Kingdom. It follows television, radio and
newspapers in a systematic way. It obtains part of its “media raw
material” by subscribing to databases. CAMERA also places adverts in
newspapers such as the New York Times. It reports media bias and
then asks its email list of 5000 activists to take subsequent action
through the writing of letters and op-eds to the media concerned. Its
material goes out to 50,000 subscribers.
CAMERA’s director Andrea Levin stresses that as much as half of the
work is done behind the scenes by staff members who communicate
with media outlets. When factual errors are identified, they contact
editors and reporters to elicit corrections. In other cases they urge
coverage of underreported stories.21
Some examples of CAMERA’s publications include “The New York
Times covers (and covers up for) Palestinian Child Bombers”,22 The
Washington Post a Language of its Own”23 and “CAMERA prompts
Boston Globe Correction on Legality of Settlements”.24
3. Palestinian Media Watch (PMW)
25
Palestinian MediaWatch (PMW), established in 1996, focuses on
analyzing Palestinian society. It monitors the Palestinian Arabic
language media and schoolbooks. For its data-gathering it records and
analyzes all Palestinian television programs and papers. Itamar
Marcus, its Director mentions that the Palestinian Authority (PA)
tightly controls all Palestinian media. Their analysis thus permits
understanding what the PA’s true intentions are.26
Media watching is only part of PMW’s activities. It also analyzes the
PA’s culture and society from numerous perspectives, including
studies on summer camps, poetry, schoolbooks, religious ideology,
crossword puzzles, and many more.
PMW has been playing an important role in documenting the
contradictions between the image the Palestinians present to the world
in English and the messages to their own people in Arabic. Some
subjects its reports have dealt with are “Encouraging Women
Terrorists”27 “War against the Jews and Israel in Palestinian Authority
Religious Teaching”28 and “Comparing the Palestinian Authority
Opinions and School Textbooks with the Hamas Charter”.29
In June 2004, PMW brought before the American Congress a special
report entitled “Four loopholes in US Anti-Terror Laws.”30 It analyzed
the use of US money in Palestinian controlled areas in support of antiAmerican activities and the promotion of terror. The PMW report
recommended five amendments to US law, which were all written into
the new US Foreign Operations Bill, passed by the House of
Representatives in July 2004.
Marcus considers that PMW’s most important activity is to bring its
material to the attention of foreign politicians and decision-makers. He
presents his findings frequently to parliamentarians and media abroad.31
4. Anti Defamation League (ADL)
32
The Anti Defamation League (ADL) is first and foremost a Jewish
defense organization.
Its media watch activities are a relatively minor part of its activities
and are published on the ADL website. It covers newspapers, TV,
internet, radio, magazines incidentally and is followed up by letter
writing to whoever it has identified as being guilty of biased reporting.
It attacks ethnic and religious defamation irrespective of who the
victims are.
Examples of ADL media watch publications include; “Arab Journalist
tells CNN Jews control the Media”33 and “Shocking anti-Muslim
remarks aired in Boston”.34
5. Honestly Concerned
35
Honestly Concerned began its activities in May 2002, mainly as a
private initiative of Sacha Stawski. It watches two major issues, media
reporting on anti-Semitism and Israel. Its collaborators are both
Christians and Jews. Much of their work is posted on their website.
They have three mailing lists. The first is for frequent updates, the
second is a weekly summary edition and the third is infrequent,
informing those on the list of special events. The website and the
mailing lists are predominantly in German but do include English.
6. Take-A-Pen
36
This website is built upon the premise that there is something anyone
can do about biased reporting in all forms of media. This website
provides advice on how to write effective letters to among others
politicians, international organizations, television and radio. The site
announces that it is operated by European and Israeli citizen.
As an example of their influence, the site mentions that they labeled
the Guardian “Liar of the Month” in April 2004.37 The paper’s
Ombudsman, Mr. Ian Mayes, contacted Take-A-Pen and published on
May 29, a correction on the Guardian’s website.38 This media watch
also criticizes the Israeli press and the “Liar of the Month” for May
2004 was Haaretz. In July 2004, it named Associated Press as “Liar of
the Month”. The site provides addresses for all media they watch.
7 EyeOnThePost.Org39
EyeOnThePost.Org watches one paper only, The Washington Post.
The catalyst for its establishment was the paper’s false reporting of a
massacre by the Israeli Defense Forces in its Defensive Shield
campaign in Jenin following the Passover bombings in March, 2002. It
gradually emerged that the IDF went out of their way to spare civilian
lives at an additional loss of soldier’s lives. The Washington Post
never apologized on this issue, nor did it adequately report the
measures taken by the IDF to avoid loss of Palestinian civilian lives.
Examples of EyeOnThePost.Org publications are “Israel Kills Six
Terrorist Leaders in Nablus” and “The Post’s Headline says ‘Israel
Kills Six Palestinian Leaders’”.40
8. Israel Media Watch
41
Israel Media Watch (IMW) was founded around 1995. It focuses on
bias of Israeli media. Though its declared aim is to keep the media
impartial its effective approach aims to identify left-wing bias. IMW
has published a column in The Jerusalem Post for the past two years.
This is a somewhat hybrid approach as it publishes in a media which
should be included in its scrutiny.
Examples of IMW’s work are “A Little Media Unprofessionalism”42
and “Freedom of Speech in the Dock”.43
9. France, Italy, Spain and Brazil
Proche-Orient.info44 and Crif45 – the political roof organization of
French Jewry – are the leading pro-Israeli French media watches. They
both publish daily overviews of articles appearing in the French press
dealing with Israel and issues of interest to the French Jewish
community. In addition, they provide analysis, opinions and debates.
Their scope includes radio and TV. Proche-Orient.info also covers
news from the international and Arab press. A third media watch,
Guysen Israel News46 provides daily news updates and in-depth
specials.
Informazionecorretta.com47 is an Italian pro-Israeli media watch. It
analyzes media appearing in Italy, including television and radio,
though they mostly comment on print media. They suggest their
readers contact the media and express their opinion on published
articles. The website provides some suggestions and instructions about
how to write letters to the media. Compared to other media watches
they give much attention to the use of photographs and cartoons
against Israel.
Some of HonestReporting’s foreign affiliates follow the national press
in that language. One example is their Spanish affiliate.48 Another, their
Brazilian one.49
Analysis of Recurring Phenomena
Several analyses have been made of recurring phenomena in media bias. Jeff
Helmreich in 2001 analyzed various patterns of violation of the ethics codes
of the American journalistic profession. He mentioned as one example that
many major English language media reported as direct quotes from
Palestinian leaders texts, which were substantially different from what they
had said. As an example he mentioned that Associated Press, when it
reported Arafat’s Al-Naqba speech on 15 May 2001, had excluded entire
clauses, added moderating words and cleaned out a slur about the United
States.50
In September 2002, Alfred Donath, Chairman of the Swiss Jewish
community SIG, was invited to speak about journalistic ethics in the Near
East conflict on the occasion of the ceremony for the Jean Dumur Ethic
Award. Donath had established thirty years ago in the Geneva University
Hospital, the first Commission for Ethics in Medical Research in Switzerland.
Though Donath did not explicitly say so, he implied that by the standards of
his profession, journalists are largely irresponsible operators. In his speech he
referred to the Israeli military operation in Jenin and said:
In almost all media there was mention first of 6,000, then of 3,000, and later
of 500 deaths. Where are all these hundreds of dead Palestinians? Where are
the mass graves in which Israeli bulldozers have buried thousands of dead
civilians and covered with concrete in order to hide Israeli crimes? Who has
stated on his word of honor the summary execution of half naked Palestinian
civilians shot in their heads? Who has smelled the rotting flesh of these
people? Who has heard the cries of fear of the women raped by Israeli
soldiers?
Donath said that the journalists had irresponsibly compared the vision of the
Nazi extermination camps with Jenin. He concluded that: “all this is
defamation but something always remains in memory.”51
Frequently Overlooked Issues
In an analysis of the major issues frequently overlooked by the international
news media in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Dan Diker identified a number
of neglects of Israel’s legal rights. Among the examples he mentions are that
media regularly refer to a legal obligation of Israel to withdraw to the pre1967 borders, a request inconsistent with the UN Security Council Resolution
242 and the Oslo Accords.
He also points out that Israel is under no legal obligation to refrain from the
construction of settlements under 242 or Oslo. Another typical example are
the media references to occupied Arab East Jerusalem, which ignores the fact
that Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority as far back as the mid 19th Century.
While the UN has stated that Israel has implemented its commitment to
withdraw from Southern Lebanon, news organizations still refer to the
Shabaa farms located on Israel’s side of the border with Lebanon as
“disputed”.52
Some individuals publish professional media analysis as well. Among the
best known is journalist Tom Gross, a former reporter for The Daily
Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal and other publications. He mails his
findings only to a specific list of contacts including journalists,
commentators, government officials and Middle East specialists around the
world. Gross reaches 2500 primary recipients located in over 50 countries,
most of whom are not Jewish.53
From time to time Gross publishes articles in publications such as the
National Review Online. Among the best known is “Jeningrad” – a study on
the press coverage of the non-massacre in Jenin in 2002.54 Much of his
analysis is not designed for the general public and there is no website where it
can all be seen.
Asserson and the BBC’s Systematic Bias
Trevor Asserson, a leading British litigation lawyer, has in the past two years
undertaken four well-documented studies detailing the BBC’s systematic bias
against Israel.55 For the initial reports of his bbcwatch.com he recorded the
BBC’s broadcasting on the Middle East over three periods of several weeks,
the first one being at the end of 2001.
Asserson’s analysis of the BBC provides a prime example of media
monitoring development over the years. Where Bar-Ilan, a decade earlier,
provided qualitative examples of BBC bias, Asserson analyzes it from a legal
point of view.56
The BBC’s monopoly derives from a legally binding contract with the British
government. Asserson defined the BBC’s 15 legal obligations under its
charter. These include inter alia: fairness, respect for truth, due accuracy,
attachment to fundamental democratic principles, not broadcasting their own
opinions on current affairs or public policy, ensuring opposing views are not
misrepresented and not letting the audience gauge reporters’ personal views.
Asserson identified many events where the BBC breached multiple
guidelines, in some cases even most. Asserson analyzed a selected number of
BBC programs and websites in a way in which they could be produced as
evidence in legal proceedings.
In July 2004 Asserson released bbcwatch’s fourth report. In it he analyzed all
documentaries on the subject of the Middle East shown on BBC 1 and 2 from
late 2000 until June 2004. He stated that “the BBC is running a campaign to
vilify Israel, broadcasting a documentary critical of Israel every 2-3
months...88% of documentaries on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict paint either
a negative impression of Israel or (in 2 cases) a positive image of
Palestinians.” Asserson concluded also “that there is a systemic problem with
the BBC complaints system.”57
The Israeli Government and the BBC
The BBC, considered by many observers structurally biased against Israel,
has been the subject of several other studies and critical articles.58 Tom Gross
points out that “the BBC’s double standards are clear to almost everyone
except, it seems, the BBC itself and its sympathizers in the press.”59
In 2003, the Israeli government broke off relations with the BBC for several
months. In 2004, in a rare reaction from the Israeli government, Minister
Natan Sharansky wrote to the BBC that its reporter Orla Guerin has “not only
set a new standard for biased journalism, it has also raised concerns that it
was tainted by anti-Semitism.”
Sharansky referred to the case of a Palestinian youth who was set to explode
as a human bomb. He mentioned that other major media focused, when
reporting about this case, on the use of children by Palestinian terror groups.
Guerin’s main item was that the Israelis had paraded a child in front of the
international media. Sharansky also pointed out that he did not recall a single
report in which the BBC noted “the ways and means in which the Palestinian
authorities stage events for the media or direct the media to stories that serve
Palestinian advocacy goals.”60
Israel – A Hated State
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the pro-Arab inclinations of the BBC,
in June 2004, Tim Llewelyn, a former BBC correspondent, accused British
broadcasters, including his former employer of “systematic bias against the
Palestinians.”61 He based his criticism on a book by Greg Philo and Mike
Berry titled Bad News from Israel.62
Tom Gross pointed out that BBC staff helped Philo with his study. According
to the publicist for Philo’s book, “those helping and taking part also included:
John Humphrys, Sue Inglish, Paul Adams, Nik Gowing, Sian Kevill, Alan
Hayling, Evan Davis and Fran Unsworth from the BBC.”63
Asserson had earlier remarked that one BBC staffer, Ian Haddow, had
expressed his anti-Israel bias by signing an e-mail petition against Israel. He
had added the words “save us from Israel” after his name. Asserson also said,
In private conversations with senior BBC journalists, we have been told that
anti-Israel feeling is rife within the BBC. Israel is considered a hated state.
Anybody who has a different view has great difficulty being heard or getting
his story out. I would not be surprised if that stretches to the point where some
people there think that Israel should not exist, because that is now the position
taken by some detractors of Israel.64
Shraga Simmons, member of the editorial Board of HonestReporting states
that the BBC is the last holdout among major foreign media of structurally
biased reporting. He considers that because they are publicly funded this
media’s bottom line is not sensitive to whether they are truthful or not.”65
The Age
A somewhat similar method as Asserson used was followed in an analysis of
the Australian daily The Age of Melbourne. The “Age Newspaper Study”
investigated the paper’s compliance with journalistic standards in the paper’s
news stories on the Arab-Israeli conflict over the eight-week period from
June 15, 2003 to August 15, 2003. The study analyzed the paper’s entire
news output on the conflict. It was conducted by a media study group of
unaffiliated professionals and released on 5 November 2003.66
During the study period 210 violations – an average of three per article –
were recorded of events, which were not adequately and properly reported.
Analysis of the violations revealed that the overwhelming majority of them
were detrimental to the Israeli side. Several of the biased articles violated the
Age’s code of conduct.
The ‘Age Newspaper Study’ rates journalists according to violations. This
formula illustrates a methodology that can be used elsewhere when
monitoring the media.
The Philadelphia Inquirer
The Greater Philadelphia District of the Zionist Organization of America
undertook a report entitled “The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Anti-Israel bias”.
The study analyzed “news coverage, choice and placement of photographs,
head-lines, editorials, op-eds, editorial cartoons, and letters to the editor
concerning Israel and Palestinian Arabs that appeared in that paper from May
9, 2002 through August 20, 2002.”67
The report found an “over-whelming evidence of a pattern of consistent bias
against Israel, while in favor of the Palestinian-Arabs... In short, the Inquirer
is teaching the public that Israel is the villain in this war and by extension,
unworthy of American support. That is not only unfair, but false.”68
Detailed studies like the ones investigating the BBC, The Age and The
Philadelphia Inquirer are most effective as it is rather difficult to argue with
the broad evidence.
L’Agence France Presse (AFP)
The anti-Israel bias of the official French press agency L’Agence France
Presse (AFP), though not systematically watched, has been the subject of
various studies. AFP is the third largest worldwide news agency, and the
main one reporting from the Arab world. It is an autonomous body, created
by law and is committed to research and broadcast “complete and objective
information.” De facto its Chief Executive’s appointment requires the
agreement of the key players in French government.69
In 2002, journalist Clément Weill Raynal analyzed in detail several cases of
AFP’s reporting. The first one concerned the incidents on the Temple Mount
on September 28, 2000, which many considered the start of the second
Palestinian uprising. Other events were the death of the child Mohammed Al
Dura, which the AFP ascribed to bullets shot by Israeli soldiers, while other
observers consider that they were probably Palestinian ones. A third one
concerned the AFP’s silence about the Palestinian Communication Minister
Imad Faloudji’s declaration on March 2, 2001 that the Palestinian uprising
had been planned for more than a year, and was not due to Ariel Sharon’s
visit to the Temple Mount.70
A major step forward in media watching was the documentary “Décryptage”
(“Decoding” in English.) Its directors, Jacques Tarnero and Philippe
Bensoussan, analyze AFP’s reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
through interviews and scenes from the media. In this way the viewer can
form his own opinion on the Agency’s anti-Israeli bias.71
Much in depth analysis of the French media’s attitude toward Israel has been
undertaken by the Observatoire du monde juif, a research center on Jewish
political life. Shmuel Trigano, its founder says:
We showed that French correspondents in Israel rewrote Arafat’s speeches to
avoid what seemed politically incorrect. When he attacked the Jews, they
wrote Israelis. When Arafat said horrible things they put dots instead of
quoting him. They did this to present him as a liberator and almost a secular
saint.72
The Observatoire’s publications often mention extreme cases of media
distortion. One was when Paris Match showed a picture of a Palestinian
father embracing his dead two-year-old daughter for the last time. The man
claimed she had been killed by Israelis, which the paper published without
verifying. Later the father admitted that the child had accidentally been shot
by him when he handled a firearm.73
Trigano says that he slowly started to realize that the extreme power of the
media represents a major danger for Western democracy.
Their attitude toward Israel and the Jews over the last few years has shown
that they can pervert analysis, debate and criticism. We are dependent on a
class of journalists with consensus political views. They read and co-opt each
other’s opinions, without accountability to anybody. Freedom and democracy,
however can not coexist if truth and facts are obscured.74
Middle Eastern and Arab Media Watching
Media watching has not only been confined to pro-Israel organizations that
seek to criticize unfair coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from their
perspective. Pro-Arab groups monitor the tilt in the international media as
well. There are websites like al-bab.com which analyze how the media treat
both the issue of Iraq and the Palestinians. A similar service is provided by
the “Media Monitors Network”.
Furthermore there are Arab and Muslim advocacy groups in the United States
that have special departments dealing with media monitoring. The AmericanArab Anti-Discrimination Committee states that it seeks to eliminate “antiArab prejudice” in the media, although its press releases are mostly devoted
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) has put out “Action Alerts” attacking radio shows with
Paul Harvey, Jay Severin, Jackie Mason, and Dr. Laura Schlessinger for antiIslamic slant.
Other organizations do not critique the media, but only translate reports from
Arabic or Persian that appear in the electronic or printed media thereby
making Middle-Eastern media accessible to the West. In this case, no
advocacy is involved and, frequently, the translations just speak for
themselves.
MEMRI
75
In this context an important source of Middle East media watching and
information is the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) – founded
in 1998. Its headquarters is in Washington DC, and it maintains offices in
Berlin, London and Jerusalem. Its focus is global and not confined to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. MEMRI sees as its main aim to make TV and
media material from the Arab world – and occasionally from Iran –
accessible to the Western world by translating it into English. Its publications
have gained credibility and are frequently quoted by leading western
newspapers. Recently MEMRI has begun to stream translated video from its
website.
Examples of subjects dealt with in the first half of 2004 are: an analysis of the
International Islamic Conference in Cairo in April 2004,76 the excerpts of an
interview which Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad gave on Al-Jazeera,77 a
Palestinian human rights report on internal violence in the Palestinian
Authority areas,78 and the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah Ibn Abd Al-`Aziz’
statement that Zionism is behind the terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia.79
MEMRI mentions that it was quoted in a bill proposed at the end of 2003 by
Senator Arlen Specter and other Republicans and Democrats entitled “The
Saudi Arabia Accountability Act”. Its aim was “to halt Saudi support for
institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage or in any other way aid and abet
terrorism.”80
The bill’s text said that, “Many Saudi-funded religious institutions and the
literature they distribute teach a message of hate and intolerance that provides
an ideological basis for anti-Western terrorism.” The legislation also cites a
study released in July by MEMRI that estimates $4 billion from Saudisponsored organizations has flowed to Palestinian Arab groups fighting Israel
since the beginning of their offensive in September 2000.”
How Effective are Media Watches?
When media watches wish to show how successful they are, they mention
that as a result of letter writing or critique, newspapers or journalists offer
apologies or corrections. CAMERA, for instance, reported: “In the face of
numerous CAMERA studies documenting bias in National Public Radio’s
coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the network began in early 2003 to
produce its own detailed self-analysis on the subject.”81 On another occasion
it mentioned that CAMERA staff and members obtained a correction from
The Wall Street Journal.82
Asserson writes that
When a public issue recently arose concerning the BBC Middle East coverage
one prominent member of the Anglo Jewish community said that some two
thirds of the correspondence he received referred him to the work of
BBCwatch. When the Israeli government decided to reduce its level of cooperation with the BBC in 2003 it referred to the work of BBCwatch to
support its decision.83
Asserson writes in his latest report, “At a private meeting with Richard
Sambrook and Malcolm Balen earlier this year Trevor Asserson was told that
the bbcwatch reports had influenced the decision to appoint Malcolm Balen
as arbiter of BBC balance on the Middle East.”84
Another measure of success is when the staff of media watches can present
their findings to government officials, parliamentarians and editorial boards
of foreign media. Several examples of this have been mentioned before.
Shraga Simmons considers that thanks to media watching extreme anti-Israel
distortions of facts by foreign media have almost disappeared over the years.
He cites CNN as an example of a media, which under the flood of e-mails
from activists has changed its attitude.
Simmons relates:
In January 2001 a major peaceful demonstration took place in favor of a
united Jerusalem near the Jaffa Gate. The CNN coverage of the event had
quoted only one person speaking, an Arab who opposed it. No Jew was
quoted. CNN even referred to the Jaffa Gate location by its Arabic name
which is never used in standard Western sources.
He says that nowadays such an aberration by CNN is unthinkable.85
Simmons adds that several journalists have told him that once they are
watched, they are forced to ask themselves whether their reporting is fair and
their facts are right.
Media Watching is Effective
Doubts have frequently been expressed about the effectiveness of media
monitoring and in particular concerning claims charging that reporters are
anti-Israel, and even anti-Semitic. Helmreich considered that the latter tactic
is ill advised. He mentioned that reporters are however, apparently sensitive
to criticism if it comes from their own milieu.
“‘There is nothing a journalist fears more than having a correction printed
about his story,’ said Serge Schmemann, deputy foreign editor of The New
York Times and a former Israel correspondent, in an interview with the
Jewish World. In this vein, Times Executive Editor Joseph Lelyveld
addressed his employees in a speech with, among other complaints, the
following castigation: ‘Three times in recent months we’ve had to run
corrections on the actual provisions of UN Resolution 242, providing great
cheer and sustenance to those readers who are convinced we are opinionated
and not well informed on Middle East issues.’”86
Ben David comments that Newspapers’ Ombudsmen – who supposedly take
up complaints of readers – are often not helpful. “In most cases – The
Washington Post, the Minneapolis Star and so forth – the Ombudsmen
ignore the complaints and side with the paper. In most cases the Ombudsman
himself is a former reporter.” He adds that The Washington Posts’
Ombudsman, Michael Getler has been belittling the Media Watchers
recently.87
Unexpected Help
In mid-2004, the pro-Israel media watches received major help from a rather
unexpected direction. The American Journalism Review (AJR) published
an essay by Barbara Matusow, which indicated that pro-Israel media watches
have a substantial impact on journalists.
The AJR article revealed that many journalists have little stamina and that the
e-mails they receive from activists affect them. It concluded that journalists
have discovered they “have been plunged into a kind of proxy war for the one
raging between Israel and the Palestinians.”88 Matusow’s language showed
pro-Palestinian bias in the following sentence, “Pro-Israeli sites have no
monopoly on distortion or twisted logic.”
Matusow wrote that National Public Radio (NPR) claims that it subjects itself
to major self-examination all the time. She also quotes Andrea Levin, the
executive director of CAMERA, who says, “Just the ordinary terms of
journalism, such as balance and equal opportunity to present opinions are
lacking... Unlike other outlets, NPR seems to consider itself above and
beyond criticism.”
Andrea Levin wrote to the AJR’s editor Rem Rieder pointing to factual errors
in Matusow’s article such as her claim that Israel controls most of the Gaza
Strip’s water resources and that the settlers occupy twenty five percent of the
strip’s land, while in reality the percentage is much lower. In the letter Levin
also wrote that she had told Matusow in a conversation that the biggest media
failure was that it did not cover “the hate indoctrination by the Palestinian
Authority that began when Yasir Arafat gained control of the means of
communication starting in 1994 on his arrival in Gaza... Ms. Matusow was
notably uninterested in my comment at the time and it did not appear in the
article.”89
A Healthy Process
The Matusow article is one more indicator that the media watching of the
Middle East conflict may well be the forerunner of a much wider and
healthier process. Media watching may finally make the media – sometimes
called the fourth branch of government – subject to some checks and balances
such as those existing for the executive, legislative and judiciary. To make
media more accountable for what they write serves democracy well. As the
criticism comes from many people who care, media monitoring is becoming
an important democratic process.
Jewish organizations and individuals are among those in the forefront of this
process because Israel and the Jews are defamed by so much of the media.
Their actions thus have a social and political importance, which goes far
beyond its current public affairs aspects.
Pro-Israel media watches reach large numbers of people. Yet these authors
have not been able to identify any prior substantial analysis of their activities.
As the Middle East conflict and the disproportionate interest in it continues,
media watching activities are likely to grow further in the coming years. They
are also likely to become more efficient and focus increasingly on single
journalists who continuously provide false or biased information.
Greater discussion and more detailed analysis of how media monitoring
functions, how effective is it and how it can be improved would benefit many
more than only the actors in the field.
Endnotes
1
The authors thank Lenny Ben-David, Sharifin Dickie, Eva Gurfein and Yonit Golub for
their assistance.
2
Manfred Gerstenfeld, Interview with Alan Dershowitz, American Jewry’s Challenge:
Addressing the 21st Century, (to be published by Rowman & Littlefield).
3
Tim Groseclose, Jeff Milyo, A Measure of Media Bias, September 2003.
4
Various studies quoted in ibid.
5
Per Ahlmark, Det ar demokratin, dumbom!, Timbro, 2004, p. 314 [Swedish].
6
Yaacov Cohen, “Yisrael-Japan 50, Shnot Yahasin he Avar v he Atid” in Moshe Yegar,
Yosef Govrin, Arye Oded (editors), Ministry for Foreign Affairs, The First Fifty
Years, Jerusalem, Keter Press, 2002, p. 556 (Hebrew).
7
I.L. Kenen, Israel’s Defense Line, Buffalo, Prometheus Books, 1981, p. 320.
8
Personal Communication Lenny Ben-David.
9
<http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=24>.
10
Sergio I. Minerbi, MentirAvec Les Images, Brussels, Louis Musin, 1985.
11
Henry H. Weinberg, The Myth of The Jew in France 1967-1982, Mosaic Press, 1987.
12
David Bar-Ilan, Eye on the Media, Jerusalem, Jerusalem Post, 1993.
13
Manfred Gerstenfeld, Interview with David Bar-Ilan in Israel’s New Future
Interviews, Jerusalem, Rubin Mass, JCPA, 1994, p.111.
14
Gerstenfeld, Israel’s New Future, p. 117.
15
<www.honestreporting.com>.
16
<www.honestreporting.com/a/Tell_a_Friend.asp>.
17
<www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Sheikh_Yassins_Happiest_Day.asp>.
18
<www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/BBCs_Selective_Sensitivity.asp>.
19
<www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/2003_Dishonest_Reporting_-Award.asp>.
20
<www.camera.org>.
21
Personal Communication Andrea Levin.
22
<www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=717>.
23
<www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=38&x_article=698>.
24
<www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=31&x_article=681>.
25
<www.pmw.org.il>.
26
Personal Communication Itamar Marcus.
27
Itamar Marcus, “Encouraging Women Terrorists”, Report No. 39, March 12, 2002,
<www.pmw.org.il>.
28
Itamar Marcus, “War Against the Jews and Israel in Palestinian Authority, Study 4,
March 2002, <www.pmw.org.il>.
29
Itamar Marcus, “Comparing the Palestinian Authority Opinions and School Textbooks
with the Hamas Charter”, Special Report No. 27, December 1, 1999,
<www.pmw.org.il>.
30
Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook “Four Loopholes in US Anti-Terror Laws”, Special
Report,16 June 16, 2004, <www.pmw.org.il>.
31
Personal Communication Itamar Marcus.
32
<www.adl.org/media_watch/default.htm>.
33
<www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20040625-CNN.htm>.
34
<www.adl.org/media_watch/radio/20040426-WTKK+Radio.htm>.
35
<www.honestlyconcerned.org>.
36
<www.take-a-pen.org>.
37
<www.take-a-pen.org/english/Articles/GWD.htm>.
38
<www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1227171,00.html>.
39
<www.eyeonthepost.org>.
40
<www.eyeonthepost.org/may-june_2004.html>, June 27, 2004.
41
<www.imw.org.il>.
42
<www.imw.org.il>, Yisrael Medad and Eli Pollak, June 1, 2003.
43
<www.imw.org.il>, Yisrael Medad and Eli Pollak, November 23, 2003.
44
<proche-orient.info/xhome>.
45
<www.crif.org>.
46
<www.guysen.com>.
47
<www.informazionecorretta.com/showPage.php?template=home_page>.
48
See <www.prensaveraz.com/Critiques/action_67.asp>.
49
<www.deolhonamidia.org.br>.
50
Jeff Helmreich, “Journalistic License: Professional Standards in the Print Media’s
Coverage of Israel”, Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 460, August 15, 2001.
51
Dr Alfred Donath, “Ethik des Journalismus im Lichte des Nahost-Konfliktes,” (lecture
on the occasion of the Award of the Jean Dunur Ethic Prize in Lausanne) September 24,
2002 [German].
52
Dan Diker, “Does the International News Media Overlook Israel’s Legal Rights in the
Palestinian-Israeli Conflict?”, Jerusalem Viewpoints, 495, April 1, 2003.
53
Personal communication Tom Gross.
54
<www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gross051302.asp>.
55
<www.bbcwatch.com>.
56
Manfred Gerstenfeld, Interview with Trevor Asserson, “What Went Wrong at the BBC:
A public monopoly abusing its charter through bias against Israel, Jerusalem Viewpoints
511,15 January 2004.
57
Press Release; The BBC and the Middle East, The Documentary Campaign 2000-2004;
BBCwatch.com, July 2004.
58
See for instance Daniel Doron, “Study of Media Accuracy, BBC” 28 September – 29
October 2000 (privately circulated) and Daniel Doron, “The BBC Incites Against Israel
Again”, The Jerusalem Post, July 5, 2001.
59
www.nationalreview.com/comment/gross200406181018.asp
60
Letter from Natan Sharansky to Mr Jonathan Baker, Head of Foreign News, BBC,
March 30, 2004.
61
Tim Llewelyn, “The Story TV News Won’t Tell”, The Observer, June 20, 2004.
62
Greg Philo and Mike Berry, Bad News from Israel, Stylus, 2004.
63
Personal Communication Tom Gross.
64
“What went wrong at the BBC: A Public Monopoly Abusing its Charter Through Bias
against Israel”, Trevor Asserson interviewed by Manfred Gerstenfeld, January 15, 2004.
65
Personal communication Shraga Simmons.
66
<www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/pdf/The_Age_Newspap_version2.pdf>.
67
<www.honestreporting.com/a/100_day_study.asp>.
68
<www.honestreporting.com/a/100_day_study.asp>.
69
“L’AFP, agence indépendante ou gouvernementale?”, Observatoire du monde juif,
No. 2, March 2002 [French].
70
Clément Weill Raynal, “L’Agence France Presse: le récit contre les faits”,
Observatoire du monde juif, No 2, March 2002 [French].
71
“Décryptage”, directed by Jacques Tarnero and Philippe Bensoussan, 2002.
72
Personal Communication, Shmuel Trigano.
73
Le conflit israélo-palestinien. Les média français sont-ils objectifs?, Observatoire du
monde juif, p. 24, [French].
74
Personal communication Shmuel Trigano.
75
<www.memri.org>.
76
MEMRI, “International Islamic Conference: Genuine Call for Tolerance or Reiteration
of Hollow Slogans?”, May 24, 2004.
77
MEMRI, “Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad on Al-Jazeera”, May 14, 2004.
78
MEMRI, “Palestinian Human Rights Group Report on Internal Violence in the
Palestinian Authority Areas”, May 9, 2004.
79
MEMRI, “Saudi Crown Prince on Yunbu’ Attack: ‘Zionism is Behind Terrorist Actions
in the Kingdom…I am 95% Sure of That’”, May 3, 2004.
80
Eli Lake, “Senate Mulling Sanctions Plan For the Saudis,” New York Sun, November
19, 2003, see <www.memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=66303>.
81
Camera, “NPR Critiques Itself”, June 11, 2004.
82
Camera, “CAMERA Staff, Members Obtain Wall Street Journal Correction on UN
Resolution 242”, May 12, 2004.
83
The BBC and the Middle East, the Documentary Campaign 2000 – 2004;
BBCwatch.com – July 2004.
84
Ibid.
85
Personal Communication, Shraga Simmons.
86
Jeff Helmreich, “Journalistic License: Professional Standards in the Print Media’s
Coverage of Israel,” Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 460, August 15, 2001.
87
Personal Communication Lenny Ben David.
88
Barbara Matusow “Caught in the Crossfire”, American Journalism Review, June/July
2004.
89
Letter to Rem Rieder, June 24, 2004. Personal communication Andrea Levin.