Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

LA Times publishes anti-Semitic cartoon

Tuesday, January 15th, 2008

The rules of the game regarding anti-Semitic expression have changed. Here is a cartoon chosen by the editors of the Los Angeles Times to illustrate a violently anti-Israel article written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the authors of the book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”, a book which many have argued is itself anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semitic cartoon from the LA Times

Anti-Semitic cartoon from LA Times, January 6, 2008

CAMERA has written a response to the Mearsheimer-Walt article, and has even purchased a full-page advertisement in (other) LA-area newspapers criticizing the Times for its distorted coverage and incidentally pointing out the similarity of the cartoon to one in a German newspaper of the Nazi era.

Last July, I called for a boycott of the Times after they ran a op-ed by Hamas mouthpiece Moussa Abu-Marzouk, in which he asserts that murder of civilians within Israel is justified as ‘resistance to occupation’.

But the Times is just one example of a more widespread phenomenon. The fact is that extreme anti-Israeli expression (which I have argued is often actually anti-Semitic) as well as outright Jew hatred are becoming more and more commonplace. The recent case of Ms. Magazine refusing to print a completely innocuous advertisement that was pro-Israel illustrates the degree of animosity toward Israel in some circles.

US college campuses are presently awash in anti-Semitic expression and have been for some time, as documented in a 2005 hearing before the US Commission on Civil Rights:

The excessive fascination with Israel and the tendency to hold it up to disproportionate scrutiny has turned over into attitudes and acts of hatred and anti-Semitism on many of the nation’s college campuses. There have been a number of examples. For instance, in 2002, at San Francisco State University, Jewish students held an Israeli-Palestinian sit-in hoping to engage the pro-Palestinian students on campus in a dialogue. What ensued as the rally was closing was a hate-fest in which pro-Palestinian students surrounded the 30 remaining Jewish students, screaming “Hitler didn’t finish the job” and “Die racist pigs.” In April, a flyer advertising a pro-Palestinian rally featured a picture of a dead baby with the words, “Canned Palestinian Children Meat – Slaughtered According to Jewish Rites under American License,” thereby reinvigorating the 900-year-old blood libel that Jews eat Gentile children.

During Passover of that year, a brick cinderblock was thrown through the glass doors of the University of California at Berkeley’s Hillel Building. A week after that, two Orthodox Jews were attacked and severely beaten one block from Berkeley’s campus, with anti-Zionist graffiti on blocks and buildings near the school. During a vigil for Holocaust Day, Jewish students who were saying the mourner’s kaddish, the prayer for the dead, were shouted down by protesting students saying a prayer in memory of the suicide bombers. Northwestern University’s Norris University Center was marked with a three-foot swastika in 2003, accompanied by the words “Die Jews.”

However, I doubt that even three years ago we would have seen the kind of mainstream presentation of extreme anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic views as appear today. One of the precipitating events was the 2006 Second Lebanon War, in which much of the media presented an image — almost entirely false — of a diabolical Israel, wantonly killing Lebanese civilians. In addition to made-up incidents, fake casualties, faked news footage and Photoshopped pictures, the war was presented as Israeli aggression, ignoring the fact that Israel responded to an invasion of her territory and the killing and capture of her soldiers. The fact that Hezbollah operated from civilian areas, using residents as human shields was also deemphasized.

There were two major reasons for this: one was the academic bias against Israel which has come to be widespread in the college-educated media as well, and the highly effective media management strategy employed by Hezbollah, which tightly controlled access by the foreign media and assured, sometimes by means of simple intimidation, that they reported what Hezbollah wanted in the way that they wanted.

In any event, the reporting of the war fed anti-Israel sentiment (already strong in Europe) in the US, and interestingly — but not really surprisingly — it seems to spill over into anti-Semitism.

Another factor has been the opposition of some left-wing elements to the Bush Administration, in which it’s become useful to blame “neo-cons” — many of whom are Jewish — for the invasion of Iraq, etc. And the fact that the US economy seems presently to be on a downward trend will certainly give rise to the usual scapegoating.

Anti-Semitism has a viral nature, in which it spreads and intensifies in proportion to its prevalence. So once started, it seems to take on a life of its own.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

More wire service lies, this time from the AP

Saturday, January 12th, 2008

Last week, Barry Rubin wrote about the distortions of news perpetrated by an Arab Reuters stringer (see Do you trust the wire services? You shouldn’t.). This week it’s AP’s turn, with yet another biased Arab reporter.

Empowering Lies

By Barry Rubin

What if a major news story is completely made up? What if it is basically Hamas propaganda without any basis in truth? And what if this story is repeated around the world?

Of course, nowadays it is not hard to imagine such things happening on debatable issues. When one gets to specific statistics, however, it should not be too easy to lie and get away with it.

But it is.

The story in question here is by Ibrahim Barzak, “Israel cuts fuel, electricity to Gaza,” January 7, 2008. Like all individual articles it might be of limited importance by itself but it is an example of a phenomenon which has grown to be almost daily.

In the version run by the Philadelphia Inquirer it carries the following subheadline: “People have only a third of winter needs, said an official. The intent is to halt rocket attacks.”

It is important to emphasize–do a computer search if you like–that this article has been published and broadcast around the world by huge media outlets, not to mention websites.

And the main point–and impact–of the story is a fabrication.

Here is the lead:

With winter deepening, Gazans will be forced to live without lights and electric heaters for eight hours a day because Israel has cut fuel supplies to the territory’s only electric plant in half, Gaza’s top energy official warned yesterday….

Yesterday, Kanan Obeid, chairman of Gaza’s Hamas-run energy authority, said Gaza now has only 35 percent of the power its 1.5 million residents need. [my emphasis – ed.]

Well, perhaps Gaza’s top energy official said that but it is a lie. AP and the media that depend on AP–fell for this lie. Or perhaps the author and institution are not so innocent because there is no Israeli source provided for the main issues at stake. When I investigated the story it took me five minutes to get an official who totally denied the claims made by it.

Here is the true story, so obscured by the AP article that one can only believe the distortion was deliberate.

  1. About 70 percent of Gaza’s electricity comes  from Israel (the article says 60 percent though this changes nothing about the analysis that follows), 5 percent from Egypt, and 20 percent from Gaza itself.
  2. There has been very little cutback in the electricity provided directly by Israel.
  3. The only reduction is in supplying diesel fuel, some of which is used in the Gaza generating plant, though more is used by trucks.
  4. Thus if the diesel fuel supply was cut back by half, the Gaza generator would lose less than half of its supply, even less if the Hamas government made it a priority. At most, the electricity supply would be cut no more than 10 percent–not 65 percent.
  5. Note also that while it sounds rather horrible not to have electricity eight hours a day, this merely would mean that you don’t use electricity when you are sleeping. It should also be added that winter in Gaza is not exactly like Maine.
  6. In addition, Barzak tries, and no doubt succeeds, in fooling readers by stating in passing: “The power outages, which will rotate across Gaza….” In other words, at worst each sector would only have temporary power reductions, taking turns, rather than–as the article states earlier–everyone having eight hours without electricity.

After trying to convince readers that people in Gaza are suffering greatly from existing cuts, the article slips into making its case by talking about things that have not happened yet. The Israeli government wants small cutbacks in the electricity directly applied to the Gaza Strip. Even if these cuts were made–and this may not happen–the result would still fall very far short of the claims made about huge reductions and tremendous suffering.

The article continues:

Israel said the purpose of the cutback was to nudge Palestinians to call on extremists to stop their daily rocket attacks on southern Israel. But Gazans contended they have become targets of unfair punishment, and 10 human-rights groups took that argument to the Israeli Supreme Court.

Note that while, technically, Israel’s motive is presented–so the AP can claim to be balanced–we are quickly told that this claim is untrue. Israel’s statements are questioned; Hamas’s statements are accepted as fact.

The point here is to avoid telling readers three other things as well:

  1. Israel is a remarkable democracy where even wartime actions against an enemy openly declaring an intention to kill all its people and daily attempting terror attacks are fairly adjudicated in court.
  2. Israel is still supplying directly and indirectly the vast majority of Gaza’s power despite the war being waged against it by a regime there which sponsors cross-border attacks, holds an Israeli soldier as hostage, and proclaims that it will never accept Israel’s existence.
  3. If the Hamas regime were to change its policy there would be no sanctions at all.

The article’s goal, therefore, is to muster support for Hamas within the Gaza Strip and to mobilize forces throughout the world against sanctions. That may be the job of Hamas but is it the task for the world news media and Associated Press? Instead, this article is not reporting news but attempting to indoctrinate readers in the belief that Palestinians are suffering, Israel is responsible, and Israel’s explanations of its actions are false.

But it is this article that is false by claiming that Israeli activities have reduced Gaza’s electricity by two-thirds.

Oh, by the way, on January 11, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that even the restrictions on diesel fuel oil would be lifted. So residents of the Gaza Strip will get everything necessary for 100 percent of their usual electricity production.

While rocket attacks, attempted terrorist operations, and incitement continue, Israel will provide power for Hamas’s offices, broadcasts calling for the killing of all Israelis, and arms’ workshops. This, we are told by too much of the media, is the way things are supposed to be according to morality and international law.

. . .

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA). His latest books are The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Do you trust the wire services? You shouldn’t.

Friday, December 28th, 2007

Time after time, we read, see and hear outrageously biased “news” reports and “analyses” in the supposedly impartial media. Barry Rubin dissects one of them for us.

How The News Is Made
By Barry Rubin

Ring, ring, goes the telephone. And of course I answer it.

The voice on the other end says that he is “Joseph” of Reuters. I get many calls from journalists and wire services but never has someone I don’t know introduced himself by first name only. Since he has an obvious Arabic accent it is quite clear that he thinks I am either so biased as to care what his family name is or so stupid not to guess why he isn’t giving it.

So the effect is to achieve the exact opposite of what he wants. It puts me on my guard.

Next he tells me that he is doing a story on how Israel is strangling the Palestinian economy. In such circumstances, I have taken to arguing back with correspondents. By framing the story that way, I explain, Reuters is building in a bias. After all, the story should be: What’s wrong with the Palestinian economy, how to fix it, and will the massive infusion of aid–$7.4 billion just promised for three years by mostly Western donors–help?

Aren’t wire services, and the media in general, supposed to be somewhat balanced? They ask an open question, collect viewpoints, and let the reader conclude what the factors are, or at least wait until they have gathered some evidence. This is supposed to be especially true of wire services, which supply newspapers and other media with the basic facts on which they can build their own stories.

What is going on here, then, is not reporting but propaganda.

Clearly unnerved, he promises to quote me accurately. And he does keep that promise fully, sort of. But the outcome is quite predictable. And here is the dramatic headline that went out in the resulting story: “Analysis-Aid can’t save Palestinian economy in Israeli grip.”

No doubt is to be left that it is Israel’s fault that the Palestinian economy is in shambles. And so pervasive is this evil that even the whole world cannot save them. So after that $7.4 billion is all gone with no result everyone will know who to blame, right?

Before continuing let’s note the problem with this analysis on two levels. First, Israeli closures and control on movement are the result of Palestinian terrorist attacks, coupled with the unwillingness and inability of the two Palestinian governments (Palestinian Authority-Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip) to stop them. No attacks; no closures. And this is absolutely clear. If attacks were to stop, so would Israeli restrictions. But if Israel removed all roadblocks and closures, the attacks would continue. This makes obvious the principal, fundamental cause of the problem and what needs to change in order to fix it.

In other words: if Palestinian terrorism stops, Israeli restrictive measures will end and the Palestinian economy has a chance to develop.

But if Israeli restrictive measures end, Palestinian terrorism would continue and thus the Palestinian economy would not develop because Israel would put back on the restrictions eventually and also, of course, no one will invest in the middle of a war.

Is that clear and logical? Obviously, not for Western leaders and much of the news media.

Second, even if all Israeli action were to disappear, the Palestinian economy would still be in trouble. There are a number of reasons for this which are all well-known and were vividly seen in the 1990s, at a time when there was massive aid and a low level of Israeli security operations. These factors include: huge corruption which siphons off money; the lack of a clear legal framework for investment and commerce; the incompetence of the Palestinian regime; internal anarchy and violence by gangs with political cover; and an ongoing war against Israel.

(more…)

AP: Tell the truth about Palestinian corruption

Sunday, December 9th, 2007

A huge amount of the international aid to the Palestinians has always been either stolen or used to support the war against Israel. Normally such scandals more or less come to an end when they are found out, but this one has legs, and one of the reasons seems to be that media persist in ignoring the facts.

You Owe Us Bigtime: The distortion of Palestinian aid politics

By Barry Rubin

My favorite sentence of the week is this one: “Asking for record $5.8 billion in aid through 2010, Palestinians promise fiscal reform.” Karen Laub wrote on this subject for the AP, December 5, 2007. The request came from “Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas” to double projected aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA).

What is funny about that opening sentence is that the PA has received so much money before and squandered it. Reform promises have been made and broken for more than 13 years. It is hard to remember that the PA has existed that long with so little positive achievement. If Palestinians have such a bad economy it is not due to the “occupation” or to Israel but to their own leaders’ greed, incompetence, failure to end violence, inability to present an attractive investment climate, and unwillingness to impose stability on their own lands.

So how does an AP story deal with the unintentional humor of the idea that pouring more money into the PA will lead to any diplomatic progress or that this regime will make better use of the funds? Remember that to a very large extent the United States and European governments are basing their whole Middle East policy on this mistaken idea. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has turned this into a second career.

This is such an extremely important story that it is worth examining in detail.

(more…)

The New York Times exposed

Wednesday, November 21st, 2007

I’ve previously written about some less-than-obvious forms of media bias (for example see my comments on NPR here and here).

Many people think that “media bias” consists primarily of simple falsehoods and omissions, lack of balance in selecting spokespeople, lack of context, etc. All this exists, but there are even more subtle techniques, which are highly effective because they come in “under the radar” of even a relatively skeptical reader or viewer, and because they are constantly repeated.

Such things as diction, passive or active voice, order of presentation, etc. combine with the more obvious techniques to produce ‘news’ stories with a powerful propaganda effect. Given the amount of psychological research undertaken to develop advertising that works, it’s not surprising that these methods find their way into political literature. It is somewhat disconcerting when one recognizes them in what is supposed to be ‘news’.

As in The New York Times, for example.

Honest Reporting has done a tremendous job of analyzing the NYT’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past six months. Here is their summary of this analysis:

  • Balance: Despite an evenly balanced selection of stories on Israel and the Palestinians, the New York Times gave far more weight to Israeli military incidents in text location, headlines and photo selection than to Palestinian attacks. More than 60% of images sympathetic to one side or the other favored the Palestinians.
  • Consistency: Israeli and Palestinian actions were not treated consistently in choice of language. Israel or the Israel Defense Forces were the subject of strongly worded, direct headlines in 18 out of 20 cases (90%). However, in the 20 cases where the Palestinians were responsible for attacks, the language was mostly passive and the group responsible was only named in eight instances (40%).
  • Context and Accuracy: Inaccurate statements or important context that would give readers a fuller picture of news events was often omitted. Terms such as “militants”, “occupied territory,” and “illegal settlements” were used without providing a proper explanation.

The entire “New York Times 6 Month Study“, is fascinating reading. It puts the lie to the NYT’s pretense of objectivity and provides a classic example of how to do critical media analysis.

Technorati Tags: ,