Please excuse the length of this posting, but I thought readers should see a report sent to members of Jewish Voice for Peace, the rapidly growing group of moderate Jewish Americans. The complaint is about the biased reporting of current events in Israel by the New York Times:
“Our analysis of over 30 New York Times stories over the last few weeks shows clearly that the New York Times still values Israeli lives more than Palestinian ones. Even though the vast majority of those killed and injured are Palestinian, and Palestinians are facing extreme collective punishment, Israeli violence against Palestinians doesn’t make the news:
– Over 50% of headlines depicted Palestinians as the instigators of violence, while no headlines depicted Israelis as aggressors. 45 Palestinians have been killed, a fact unreported in America.
-No headlines referenced racist mobs that have roamed the streets of Jerusalem shouting “Death to Arabs.”
-Palestinians were referred to as terrorists 41 times, while the term was used four times (including quotes from Palestinians) to refer to violent Israeli actions intended to terrorize Palestinians.
-The terms “violent” or “violence” were used 36 times to refer to Palestinians, and twice to refer to Israelis.
– The terms “attack(s)” or “attackers” were used 110 times to describe Palestinian actions and people, and 17 times to describe Israelis. Here’s some of what the New York Times didn’t say:
– The root causes of the current uprising are Israel’s ongoing policies of occupation, displacement and oppression. Over the last year, from the Negev to East Jerusalem, Israel has demolished an average of 1.7 homes each day and allowed increasing numbers of Jewish settlers to take over homes in Palestinian neighborhoods.
– Settlers, the police, and racist mobs attacking Palestinians are a frequent occurrence in Palestinian neighborhoods.
Real journalism — the kind we expect from the Times — isn’t just reporting the views of whoever has the most power. Real journalism is giving context and background, and reporting on ALL the facts. The context to what’s happening is clear: Palestinians are rising up because the status quo is unsustainable, and it is now reaching its breaking point. We can’t let the New York Times off the hook, not now. We need fair and factual reporting”.
Cecilie Surasky, Jewish Voice for Peace
Why this posting? Because Epicureanism stands for moderation and, in this context, fair reporting.
This comment comes from Owen Bell (Disqus not working)
Its true that the New York Times, and most other American media outlets, tend to be
pro Israel. Overall, the British media is pro Israel, but not especially.
However, European and Russian news outlets in particular, are overwhelmingly
pro Palestinian. Moreover, news outlets in the Arab world are de facto
Palestinian propaganda machines. The situation outside of the Western and Arab
world is more nuanced. So overall, from an international perspective, world
media does not favour either side- it really depends on which country you’re
in.
The point I’d like to make though is that press freedom in Israel, while not
perfect, is far greater than press freedom in Palestine. If you try to run a
bad story about Hamas (who control most of the Palestinian population) in Gaza,
you w ill be violently shut down. The head of Fatah recently approved of the
Palestinian killings in Jerusalem, but the Palestinian people either do not
know, do not care, or approve of it themselves.
On a more general point, I think true objectivity is impossible- but on Israel
and Palestine in particular. There are too many issues and nuances in the
debate for you not to be guilty of bias by ommision at the very least. I think
news outlets ought to be open about which side they favour. Then any
information they report should be taken with that bias in mind.
Owen, it seems to me that framing the issue as “pro” or “con” Israel or Palestine impedes fruitful discussion as does the “objective-subjective” dichotomy–those terms blur what matters most of all: the the search for truth.
This, to me, is the core issue: “Omission is the most powerful form of lie.” Orwell’s insight explains better than any other, for me, the realities of the Israel-Palestine tragedy. Edward Schillebeeckx expresses the same truth a little more fully: “[N]o one can ever think or believe from no point of view at all . . . . History is never neutral.” To be human is to have a point of view and the best we can do is try to make our assumptions explicit to ourselves and those with whom we converse.
Two examples of lying by omission. First, absent in almost all discussions about the current Levantine tragedies is the history of Palestine between 1890-1948. Ignoring those formative roots would be like trying to explain who Owen Bell is by starting from just yesterday.
A second example, a more lethal lie-by-omission: ignoring the military realities on the ground in the Levant between 1935 and 2015. Or in the past 10, 20 or 50 years–the horrific imbalance in the Levant of who has the overwhelming monopoly of force on the ground, in the air, and on the sea should be starting point of any truth-seeking conversation. Worst of all, that overwhelming monopoly of military power is politically unaccountable. Sad times indeed.