Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

The Los Angeles Times and its Naivete of Bias

Monday, July 30th, 2007

The truly execrable Los Angeles Times is at it again. Contributor Barry Rubin responds to a recent editorial.

By Barry Rubin

Editorial in the Los Angeles Times, July 27:

History is continually being revised. Although written first by the victors, over time the voices of the defeated and disregarded demand inclusion. China and Korea insist that Japan acknowledge wartime atrocities; Native Americans, that their 4,000-year history become a part of this country’s founding narrative; and women, that their deeds get equal scrutiny with those of men.

Whether most Palestinians fled their homes voluntarily or through coercion and force, and whether they have a right to return, will likely be argued until the end of time. But that thousands did flee and have spent subsequent decades living in refugee camps — the United Nations says that descendants have swelled the number of refugees to 4 million today — is not at issue. Why not teach that truth?

By amending history textbooks for Arab children, Israel has acknowledged the validity of the Nakba. And if it’s valid for Arabs, it should be valid for Jews as well.

What is really amazing about something like this is that those writing it don’t have the least consciousness of the fact that in Arab and Palestinian media, books, politics, etc., nothing that Israelis and Jews say, feel, or have experienced is acknowledged in any way. In other words, they and others demand that Israel be completely balanced — and criticize anything that appears not to be — while not demanding anything of the other side. I might add that I am not opposed to a passage being put in Israeli textbooks saying that the Arabs consider the creation of Israel a disaster for themselves.

But for the Los Angeles Times, one might expect some minimal attempt at balance, even if only to protect those writing it from well-grounded accusations of bias or stupidity. Something along the lines of: And Palestinian textbooks and media should also be revised. Yet in this seven-paragraph-long editorial there is no mention of how the Arab world deals with Israel or Jews. And if one points out how ridiculously imbalanced what they are doing is, those parts of the media and Western intellectuals who say such things would either be startled or dismissive.

Let’s assume that Israel’s coverage of the Arab/Palestinian world view is just barely passing. That would make the score 80 for Israel and 0 for its enemies.

But there is still more ignorance here. First, every Israeli knows about how the Palestinians view the situation. Palestinians, both leaders, and average people, are constantly quoted. The observance of Nakba Day, a recently created Palestinian commemoration mourning Israel’s creation, is widely covered in the Israeli media. When a long series on Israeli history was televised about two years ago this point was included.

But the opposite does not apply. Any survey of the Palestinian media–and that includes the television and newspapers controlled by the Palestinian Authority–will rarely if ever find any examples of empathy or even honesty about Israel, its people, or its history. MEMRI, Palestinian Media Watch, and the U.S. government’s Foreign Broadcast Information Service, can and have supplied huge numbers of examples of this situation.

While there is some debate over exactly what current Palestinian textbooks contain–whether they reject Israel’s existence altogether–there is certainly nothing that says, for example, “The Zionists felt a strong connection with their ancient land and argued that reestablishing a state there was necessary for their people’s survival and well-being.” The book could then go on to explain why Palestinians rejected this idea. Palestinians and Arabs in general are taught by every source — sermons, government statements, textbooks, etc. — that Israel is evil and illegitimate. The great majority of the time, the few statements that contradict these claims are discouraged, censored, or punished.

In general in the Arab world, Israel and Israelis are presented as monstrous murderers. In the Israeli media — tv, radio, and the four main daily newspapers–the presentation of the Palestinians is not that much different from what appears in the American media. There is considerable sympathy for their plight coupled with exposure and scathing criticism of any action that Israel’s government or army commits that is deemed illegal or immoral. Soldiers who kill or injure civilians are punished or put on trial. On the Palestinian side, no one has ever been punished for terrorist acts against Israeli civilians (at most, they are convicted of staging attacks at the wrong time, and even these people are quickly and quietly released).

How then can such nonsense appear in elite American newspapers, so totally one-sided, demanding perfection from Israel and nothing from the other side? Clearly this must be an example of a philosophical standpoint which is distorting the truth and greatly damaging — I am tempted to write the words, “possibly helping to destroy” — the cause of truth-seeking, democracy, and freedom in the world. The roots and effects of that world view, which applies nowadays to far more than Israel, need to be explored and combated.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs, and author of the recently published The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Talking to terrorists

Thursday, July 26th, 2007

Honest Reporting has a piece today about “the recent spate of Hamas op-eds in mainstream newspapers, including the Washington Post, New York Times and LA Times”. This time the Washington Post has published an article by Hezbollah’s Sheik Muhammed Hussein Fadlallah, in which he claims that the concept of Jihad in Islam is “no different than any human and civilized concept of self-defense”. In reality, Hezbollah has used the flimsiest of pretexts to disguise its aggression against Israel as self-defense.

The question which comes to my mind at this point is “why are Hamas and Hezbollah suddenly so popular in our media?” And the answer is that they have press agents that they are paying to make them popular.

There seems to be an ongoing attempt in the US to make these groups appear as moderate potential partners for negotiation. So-called ‘realists’ argue that the conflicts — both the narrow Israeli-Palestinian one and the broader confrontation between the West and radical Islam can’t be solved without talking to the Islamist organizations.

Nobody respectable has suggested (yet) that the US should talk to al-Qaeda. Most Americans would react to the idea with profound revulsion, understanding that there cannot be enough common ground to support negotiation with people whose goal is to kill many of us and create enough chaos to cause our society and nation to collapse.

Hezbollah and Hamas are perceived here as primarily enemies of Israel (although Hezbollah has certainly killed enough Americans), so many Americans ask “why not talk to them — it never hurts to talk”.

The problem with talking is twofold. First, negotiating confers legitimacy and status, regardless of whether there is anything to negotiate. Hamas and Hezbollah leaders should be treated as outlaws, not statesmen or diplomats. It’s almost as if the more murderous they are, the more respectable they are seen to be.

Second, negotiation is not talking about the weather. It’s a process of give and take, in which each side promises to make a concession in return for the other side’s giving something. This can only work if there is an intersection between both sides’ minimal acceptable outcomes. But there’s no intersection between “Israel exists” and “Israel doesn’t exist”. So a negotiation process cannot end the conflict.

Historically, US-mediated negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians (for example) have resulted in US pressure on Israel to make concessions, and mostly — but not in every case — Israeli compliance. The Palestinians, on the other hand, generally did not comply. So when the negotiations broke down Israel was in a far worse position than before, not to mention the damage done by propaganda painting her as at fault.

There is plenty of reason, therefore, to not talk to organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, with whom there can be no intersection of interests. Unfortunately, the solution to the problems they pose must be a military one. The more concessions that they extract by diplomatic means, the more difficult will be the ultimate confrontation — which will come about regardless of diplomacy, negotiations, mediation, or whatever.

Hamas’ Abu Marzouk, Hezbollah’s Fadlallah and others may sound reasonable to those who do not know the history of the conflict or the true nature of the groups they represent. The NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. are not serving the cause of peace by giving them a platform from which to speak.

Technorati Tags: , ,

The BBC exposed

Sunday, July 22nd, 2007

There are all kinds of anti-Israel bias in news reporting, from the honest one-sidedness found, for example, on Aljazeera or Pacifica Radio, to the subtle manipulation by selective use of emotional content as practiced by NPR.

Barbara PlettThe BBC is somewhere in between, including correspondent Barbara Plett who famously ‘started to cry’ when the helicopter carrying mortally ill Yasser Arafat took off from Ramallah.

Alan JohnstonAnd of course there was Alan Johnston, who did his best to ‘tell the Palestinian story’ from Gaza until one of the militias, in an act of profound ingratitude, kidnapped him and held him for ransom over several months.

But anecdotal evidence of bias is just that. The BBC claims (as does NPR) that overall their reportage is balanced. Now Honest Reporting has analyzed the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past half-year, and showed conclusively that the style used in headlines and text, and the voices — Israeli or Palestinian — chosen to present the human side of the news, are steeply slanted in one direction.

You can read Honest Reporting’s critique of the BBC here.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

More about Palestinian media

Sunday, July 15th, 2007

In the previous post I talked about the ‘training’ young children receive from Hamas TV programs.

But even the so-called ‘moderate’ Fatah faction, which operates the official Palestinian Authority TV station, presents children’s programs which glorify death and martyrdom as a goal for children. For example, here’s one in which Mohammed Al-Dura calls on children to follow him. Palestinian Media Watch has many more examples.

Palestinian radio, TV, movies, music, schoolbooks, art, theater, sermons — every imaginable medium — contains hatred, exhortations to violence, historical revisionism, lies and accusations against Israel, and so forth. It is all brought to bear on children (and adults) for one purpose: to guarantee that there will be an unending supply of soldiers motivated by sheer hate, and that there will never be room in Palestinian hearts for peace or reconciliation.

Technorati Tags:

A Freudian typo?

Saturday, July 14th, 2007

Dion Nissenbaum is the McClatchy news bureau chief in Jerusalem. He has a blog, called “Checkpoint Jerusalem“. Most newsmen try to be more or less objective, but it’s not too hard to see where his sympathies lie.

For example, he presents the release of kidnapped BBC reporter Alan Johnston as a humanitarian act by Hamas, rather than a cynical attempt to exploit the situation. And he doesn’t mention the ransom.

He doesn’t attempt to hide his dislike of the Israelis. Almost every article describes some horrific situation, and hints that it’s Israel’s fault:

The footage doesn’t show what was going on around Imad [Ghanem of Hamas TV] when he was first shot, but it clearly shows the cameraman being shot twice while laying injured on the ground and appearing to pose no danger.

It’s not clear who fired the shots, though Imad later said that the bullets came from an Israeli tank.

“The Israeli military’s repeated attacks on media and journalists during military operations are unacceptable and constitute violations of international humanitarian law,” said Reporters Without Borders.

But the best is either a Freudian typo or a deliberate bit of editorializing. Here’s Nissenbaum on Fourth of July celebrations held by American representatives in Israel:

There are essentially two events: One that caters to the Israeli side, held near Tel Aviv, and one that caters to the Palestinian side, held in Jerusalem.

The Independence Day celebration in Israel was held on July 3rd and hosted by U.S. Ambassador Richard Jones…

The Independence Day celebration in Jerusalem was hosted by Consul General Jacob Walles and was a much more low-key affair.

So we have one in Israel and one in Jerusalem. And Jerusalem is where?

Technorati Tags: , ,