Fairness in Covering Mideast Violence
MEDIA IN REVIEW
In the midst of intense fighting between the Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East, a more
subtle battle is being waged by both sides to influence how the conflict will be viewed almost
halfway across the world. At stake in what is essentially a PR war is how each will be seen in the
American media and, ultimately, in the minds of the American people.
The Palestinians and Israelis not only struggle over the land they jointly occupy but over words
used to describe themselves, each other, and the events of their shared history. Media-watch
organizations from both camps scrutinize the news for words that seem to degrade their own side
and uplift the other. Caught in the middle of this particular cross fire are the journalists, whose
commitment to objectivity is often the first casualty.
In the ceaseless sifting of reports for the purpose of discerning whether there is fairness or not,
virtually nothing goes unmeasured. One analysis by Seth Ackerman, on the liberal media-watch
Web site www.fair.org (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), took National Public Radio (NPR)
reports during the first six months of 2001 and counted the numbers of deaths and injuries
reported for Israelis and Palestinians. NPR had reported 62 Israeli deaths out of a total of 77 and
51 Palestinian deaths out of a total of 148. Conclusion? "There was an 81 percent likelihood that
an Israeli death would be reported on NPR, but only a 34 percent likelihood that a Palestinian
death would be," wrote Ackerman.
For those killed under the age of 18, NPR reported 30 percent of Palestinian children's deaths but
89 percent of those of Israeli children, said Ackerman. "Apparently, being a minor makes your
death more newsworthy to NPR if you are Israeli, but less newsworthy if you are Palestinian,"
concluded the writer.
Ackerman's focus is on the report of the death, not the death itself. He concludes his article by
saying, "According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, a total of 576 Palestinians and
164 Israelis have been killed, a ratio of 3.5 to 1. Given that disparity, the fact that NPR has
reported the same numbers of Israeli as Palestinian deaths would seem to reflect fear of
appearing anti-Israel, more than it reflects reality."
Caught in the middle
Another report, by the pro-Israel site Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in
America (CAMERA), declares the opposite, saying, "Palestinians are virtually a protected class
at NPR." Comparing the wording used to describe two suicide bombings, one in the Philippines
and one in Israel within a 24-hour period, the reports called the Manila event a "terrorist
bombing" by "Muslim insurgents" and the Haifa bus explosion one of a "series of suicide
bombings as part of [a] campaign against Israeli occupation" by "militants."
If both views are correct, NPR is at one and the same time ignoring Palestinian deaths (being
anti-Palestinian) and whitewashing Palestinian terrorists (being pro-Palestinian). How can it be
biased both ways?
Both sides lob similar accusations of censorship and intimidation. CAMERA, for example, in an
article by Alex Safian, recounts various incidents in which Palestinian Authority (PA)
representatives reward or punish journalists for their reportage. He cites a string of outright
assaults on reporters who cover Palestinian-provoked violence, and a PA policy that revokes
media organizations' access to Palestinian leaders and the areas they govern in the event of
"unacceptable" news coverage.
While most foreign correspondents would blanch at the thought that to gain access to official
representatives of one set of adversaries, they must agree to report only that side's viewpoint, the
reality is that in the volatile setting of Israel and Palestine, the stakes are higher than merely
losing the scoop or forfeiting career goals. Many journalists have feared for their lives, and some
have been killed. A freelance cameraman who videotaped the scenes of Palestinians joyfully
celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Center was threatened by Yasser Arafat's cabinet
secretary, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, who said officials could not "guarantee his life" if the tape
were broadcast. Also, according to reports, photographers were held in a Nablus hotel to prevent
them from filming the celebrations. Those who did obtain video were threatened with loss of life
and with having their journalistic freedoms cut off by the PA.
Yet the pro-Palestinian factions point out glaring omissions on the part of what they feel are proIsrael media. "Whenever I read the word 'cross fire,' I reach for my pen," wrote Robert Fisk,
Mideast correspondent for the London Independent. "In the Middle East, it almost always means
that the Israelis have killed an innocent person. When the Israelis lobbed shells into the United
Nations compound at Qana in southern Lebanon in 1996, Time magazine printed a photograph
of a dead baby with a caption saying it had been killed in 'cross fire.' This was untrue. The baby
had been killed in the Israeli bombardment along with 105 other civilians.
"So when 12-year-old Mohammed al-Durah was killed in Gaza on Saturday and I read on the
Associated Press wire that the child was 'caught in the cross fire,' I knew at once who had killed
him. Sure enough, reporters investigating the killing said the boy was shot by Israeli troops."
Same fight, new ammunition
The Palestinians and Israelis justify their PR war the same way they rationalize their stones and
bullets. "We are forced to take such measures because we are fighting for our existence," both
say.
"When Israel is asked to explain the 300 Palestinians [compared with about 30 Israeli Jews] that
have been killed in the Al-Aqsa Intifada," writes Ackerman, "it generally responds that it has
little choice but to defend its troops against Palestinians who attack with rocks, Molotov
cocktails, and even automatic weapons. And when Palestinians are asked why they persist in
confronting Israel's soldiers, the reason is always the same: 'The Israelis are occupying our
land.'"
Occupation is a key buzzword for the Palestinian advocates. While some, like Ackerman, decry
occupation in the form of Jewish settlers on the West Bank, whom he calls armed militants and
supporters of extremist religious leaders, for others, occupation means Israel's existence. As
another media-watch group notes, according to the militant group Hamas, all of Israel is by
definition "occupied."
This is a theme echoed throughout the Muslim world. Former Iranian President Ali Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani said in December 2001: "The formation of the Zionist state [Israel] in the
land of Palestine was a multifaceted base for colonialism. By this means, the West rid itself of
Zionism, while establishing it in Palestine.... If, one day, the world of Islam comes to possess the
weapons currently in Israel's possession [nuclear weapons] this method of global arrogance
would come to a dead end. This is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing
on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam."
Islamists like Rafsanjani may conceivably envision a Middle East sanitized of the so-called
Zionists by a nuclear Final Solution, but to execute the Palestinians along with them? It seems
illogical to, on the one hand, lament the Palestinians' loss of land or rights, while on the other, to
be willing to allow their eradication if it purchases the extermination of Israel.
Advocates for the Palestinians invite Western sympathy by portraying the struggle as that of a
modern, well-oiled military force versus powerless civilians armed only with rocks. This image,
however, doesn't exactly jibe with the footage of Palestinians shooting automatic weapons in the
air in protests and celebrations, nor with the steady stream of suicide bombers equipped with
explosives, fuses, detonators, and other elements of an arsenal. When a ship carrying cargo to the
PA is discovered to be filled with modern military weapons, the American audience does not
believe that Israel is merely overreacting to kids throwing rocks.
A classic example of public relations miscalculation is the case of the suicide bombers. In the
West, a suicide bomber comes across as a useful idiot--a brainwashed fanatic throwing away all
rights (including his own right to life) at the behest of some very-much-alive leader's orders. The
Islamic world may canonize them as martyrs and even give money to their families, but to the
rest of the world, they are self-murderers, seeking to purchase others' death with their own. No
Americans see glow in suicide, not for the kamikaze pilots in World War II Japan, not for the
apocalyptic believers of Jim Jones or David Koresh, and certainly not for the Palestinians.
Israel's PR clumsiness
Israel, on the other hand, shoots itself in the foot in the PR war by adopting bullying, heavyhanded tactics that resonate in the West as overkill. Most recently, the footage of Israelis
bulldozing Palestinian houses, in the process killing a young American protester, Rachel Corrie,
gave credence to allegations of human fights abuse, militarism, and heartless treatment of
innocent victims. Americans largely feel Israel has a right to be tough, since it has had to
repeatedly fight for its right to exist, but they don't feel that justifies harming noncombatants.
To the American audiences, the escalating attacks evoke something unforeseen by either side.
Faced with an unending stream of ugly images and reports of hate and violence, many simply
change the channel or turn the newspaper page. Thus, boredom with the impasse of the two sides
may be the real enemy.
"Even places like Somalia and East Timor seemed to arouse more interest in the United States
than the forever-droning conflict in the Middle East," says veteran Middle East reporter Ralph
Begleiter. So, even as journalists have been pressured to take sides and increase the sensitivity
and accuracy of reports, they face difficulties in interesting their editors and news outlets in the
importance of the stories.
Rather than face the storm of complaints in their markets--of which many have either a
substantial Jewish readership or Muslim readership or both--it may simply be easier to cut down
on Middle East coverage and increase the coverage of something less controversial. The Los
Angeles Times was targeted by pro-Israel subscribers for a one-day boycott, but without
substantial editorial policy change, according to Jamie Gold, the paper's reader advocate.
Spokane, Washington's Spokesman-Review underwent a two-week review of its Middle East
coverage, only to arrive at a similar result. "I haven't noticed any particular change in the editing
or selection of wire copy and photos since then," said ombudsman Doug Floyd.
Chicago Tribune Public Editor Don Wycliffe said that community protests and discussions with
local Jewish congregations on a sympathetic stow about a suicide bomber did have an effect.
"Our coverage has changed to the extent that we think twice about assignments that our
correspondents undertake, photos that we use, etcetera," he said.
The Detroit Free Press, which serves the country's largest Arab-American community, as well as
a Jewish community, has produced 100 Questions and Answers About Arab-Americans: A
Journalists' Guide to respond to its highly sensitized readership.
The Arlington Heights Daily Herald of Illinois approached the issue of fairness in a creative way.
It brought in Palestinian-American columnist Ray Hanania to write on Middle East issues from
the Arab perspective, while inviting Chaya Gil, a vice president of the America Jewish
Committee's Chicago chapter, to present the pro-Israel viewpoint.
Hanania is a true-blue American and Vietnam veteran but also a no-holds-barred advocate for
Palestinian autonomy and restitution. On the issue of articulating Palestinians' message, he
writes: "In American public relations, it's not the truth of an issue that carries the weight with an
audience, it is the manner in which a message is delivered. We, as Arabs and Muslims, must
learn how to present the message in a way that properly delivers the truth to the American public.
We must stop preaching to the friendly choir and start taking on the tougher challenges of
speaking to the American people. It is not enough to learn how to speak English. We must learn
how to speak 'American.'"
The American bias
On the question of whether American journalists have a bias, Begleiter believes that American
reporters are not inherently pro-Israel or pro-Palestine but rather pro-peace. "I've always felt
myself tilting," he says, "toward the idea that peace agreements, solutions to problems, and
successful negotiations are possible, and tilting away from the notion that Arabs and Israelis are
condemned by their history and mutual bitterness to fight forever."
"The significance of this tilt," Begleiter writes in his report Is the Media Biased? Covering the
Middle East From the Journalist's Vantage, "is that at various moments in the peace process, it
can be perceived by either side as bias toward the other party. When the Israelis invade, occupy,
or shell Lebanon, an American reporter working on the assumption that a settlement is possible
will be perceived by the Arabs as 'condoning' Israeli violence. When an Arab stabs, blows up, or
shoots Israeli civilians, American reporters tilting toward negotiations are perceived by the
Israelis as being sympathetic toward 'terrorists.'"
If, as Begleiter maintains, American journalists cover the news from the point of view of how the
issues can be successfully resolved, it is not surprising that they would engender so much
criticism. After all, they are not going along with the agenda of either antagonist; rather, they are
working from a totally different paradigm.
American journalists, after all, know their audience. They know what will "play in Peoria." If the
Palestinians and Israelis want to win the hearts and minds of the American audience, they may
need to come up with something different than the same old, same old.
As Hanania puts it: "The conflict is not between Palestinians and Israelis. It is between those
who support peace through compromise and those who don't. The real dividing line separates
extremists from moderates.
"The Palestinian and Israeli extremists using terrorism to prevent peace," he concludes, "are on
the same side."
Journalists in the Crosshairs
• The Palestinian-Israeli struggle concerns not only territory but media favoritism and how each
will be viewed through the eyes of the global community.
• Journalists find themselves caught in the middle of the conflict, pressured by both sides, with
objectivity in their reporting the first victim.
• Pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian interest groups see the same news reports from different
perspectives, and each side fires accusations of media censorship and intimidation at the other.
• It is a war over words, with use of loaded terms like occupation, militant, and terrorist causing
one side or the other to explode in rage.
• Both Israelis and Palestinians wish to be portrayed as the conflict's victims, but the Palestinians'
heavy-handed use of suicide bombers and the Israelis' bullying tactics cost both sides Western
sympathy.
• The real bias held by most American journalists may be a tilt not so much toward the Israelis or
Palestinians per se but in favor of peace and practical solutions.
PHOTO (COLOR): Deadly force: Palestinian youths take cover as Israeli soldiers shoot at stone
throwers during clashes in the Gaza Strip. In such situations, even the most fair-minded reporters
find it difficult to avoid portraying the Israelis as heavy-handed.
PHOTO (COLOR): Guerrilla war: A wrecked bus sits on a Jerusalem street after a Palestinian
suicide bombing. However objectively reporters try to portray such events, the bombers come
across to American news consumers as bloodthirsty fanatics.
PHOTO (COLOR): Homeless: A Palestinian girl sits on the remains of her family home,
bulldozed by Israeli forces, in a Gaza refugee camp. When the media report on such responses to
Palestinian violence, many Americans see Israeli policy as callous and cruel.
By Kate Tsubata