The New York Times can often argue that no matter how they cover the Arab-Israeli conflict, people on both sides will accuse them of bias. But no matter how rational, unemotional, and detached I try to be, it’s just been impossible not to get infuriated by their coverage of what’s happening in Gaza.
Take the photo slide-shows on their website. In the multimedia section, there are three or four slideshows, and each has about 10 photos. Now I understand that they want to show both sides of the conflict and that includes photos from the rocket attacks on south Israel and the victims of those rockets. But when they show two photos of distraught Palestinian civilians versus two photos of distraught Israeli civilians, this is not balanced coverage given the proportions of what is happening on the ground. The rest of the photos are often showing smoke over Gaza from a far distance, where you don’t really see the impact of what is happening.
The Washington Post has been significantly different. Their photo gallery of the situation has around 52 photos, with a note from the editor at the beginning warning of the violent nature of some of the images. It shows the tragic situation is in Gaza’s hospitals, where the wounded are being treated on the floors. It shows numbers of dead Palestinian children, and destroyed homes and mosques. There are images from both sides, but it just seems more comprehensive and reflective of the massive humanitarian crisis and “disproportionate” violence and bloodshed.
The LA Times has a photo gallery of 36 photos, 12 of which show grieving Israelis in south Israel where Hamas rockets are being fired, versus two or three photos of grieving or wounded Palestinians.
NPR has a slideshow of ten photos, but mostly showing smoke from a distance, or demonstrations. This could be attributed to the fact that journalists have not been allowed to enter Gaza, but then again, I think there are different ways to get closer images. NPR talk to their reporter on the border and he gives an idea of the situation as he sees it.
The New York Post has a story about Mayor Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, who paid a one-day visit to Israel to express support and solidarity with the Israelis. Some of the comments on this news story were interesting, where New Yorkers expressed anger over Bloomberg sticking his nose where it does not belong and wasting tax payers money on trips he has no business making.
Editor and Publisher, the American Journal which covers the newspaper industry, had a piece about the American media’s one-sided coverage of the conflict, particularly critical of the New York Times.
The Indypendent, which defines itself as the newspaper of the independent nyc center, published a first-person account from Cynthia McKinney, the former Georgia congresswoman who had been on the SS Dignity, a ship she and 15 other activists were traveling in from Cyprus to Gaza to deliver humanitarian supplies before they were intercepted and rammed by Israeli patrol boats.
The Indypendent also covered pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the city, as did the New York Times. Here’s an excerpt from the Times’ article:
Note: When four blocks around Times Square are covered by protestors, that does not mean “hundreds”, that is more like thousands. Of course, it can be argued that there’s no factual error, because hundreds can mean five thousand, but it’s obviously an editorial choice that downplays the numbers.
Independent media in the US has been relatively more critical of Israel’s “all-out war” in Gaza than mainstream media – with lots of analysis and commentary arguing against it. A couple more links if you’re interested:
- The Huffington Post linked to a commentary in the Haaretz – Israel’s left-wing paper – by Gideon Levy, titled: And there lie the bodies.
- Chris Hedges, who covered the Mideast for The New York Times for seven years, writes a column on Truthdig.com titled “Party to Murder”.
- CNN’s citizen journalism website iReport has been publishing videos and images from Gaza, and from protests in the US and other countries. Many of the slideshows are preceded by a “discretion advised” note.
So now after I spent two hours putting this post together, I can’t help but wonder how media coverage and public opinion affect the course of a war like this.
Do they?
It’s all very depressing.
Take the photo slide-shows on their website. In the multimedia section, there are three or four slideshows, and each has about 10 photos. Now I understand that they want to show both sides of the conflict and that includes photos from the rocket attacks on south Israel and the victims of those rockets. But when they show two photos of distraught Palestinian civilians versus two photos of distraught Israeli civilians, this is not balanced coverage given the proportions of what is happening on the ground. The rest of the photos are often showing smoke over Gaza from a far distance, where you don’t really see the impact of what is happening.
The Washington Post has been significantly different. Their photo gallery of the situation has around 52 photos, with a note from the editor at the beginning warning of the violent nature of some of the images. It shows the tragic situation is in Gaza’s hospitals, where the wounded are being treated on the floors. It shows numbers of dead Palestinian children, and destroyed homes and mosques. There are images from both sides, but it just seems more comprehensive and reflective of the massive humanitarian crisis and “disproportionate” violence and bloodshed.
The LA Times has a photo gallery of 36 photos, 12 of which show grieving Israelis in south Israel where Hamas rockets are being fired, versus two or three photos of grieving or wounded Palestinians.
NPR has a slideshow of ten photos, but mostly showing smoke from a distance, or demonstrations. This could be attributed to the fact that journalists have not been allowed to enter Gaza, but then again, I think there are different ways to get closer images. NPR talk to their reporter on the border and he gives an idea of the situation as he sees it.
The New York Post has a story about Mayor Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, who paid a one-day visit to Israel to express support and solidarity with the Israelis. Some of the comments on this news story were interesting, where New Yorkers expressed anger over Bloomberg sticking his nose where it does not belong and wasting tax payers money on trips he has no business making.
Editor and Publisher, the American Journal which covers the newspaper industry, had a piece about the American media’s one-sided coverage of the conflict, particularly critical of the New York Times.
The Indypendent, which defines itself as the newspaper of the independent nyc center, published a first-person account from Cynthia McKinney, the former Georgia congresswoman who had been on the SS Dignity, a ship she and 15 other activists were traveling in from Cyprus to Gaza to deliver humanitarian supplies before they were intercepted and rammed by Israeli patrol boats.
The Indypendent also covered pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the city, as did the New York Times. Here’s an excerpt from the Times’ article:
Anger over the Israeli assault on Gaza spilled into Times Square on Saturday, as hundreds of protesters condemned the attacks in a demonstration that stretched four blocks and clogged much of the city’s central tourist district for several hours.
Note: When four blocks around Times Square are covered by protestors, that does not mean “hundreds”, that is more like thousands. Of course, it can be argued that there’s no factual error, because hundreds can mean five thousand, but it’s obviously an editorial choice that downplays the numbers.
Independent media in the US has been relatively more critical of Israel’s “all-out war” in Gaza than mainstream media – with lots of analysis and commentary arguing against it. A couple more links if you’re interested:
- The Huffington Post linked to a commentary in the Haaretz – Israel’s left-wing paper – by Gideon Levy, titled: And there lie the bodies.
- Chris Hedges, who covered the Mideast for The New York Times for seven years, writes a column on Truthdig.com titled “Party to Murder”.
- CNN’s citizen journalism website iReport has been publishing videos and images from Gaza, and from protests in the US and other countries. Many of the slideshows are preceded by a “discretion advised” note.
So now after I spent two hours putting this post together, I can’t help but wonder how media coverage and public opinion affect the course of a war like this.
Do they?
It’s all very depressing.
Hi Lina, great post...it's such a coincidence because I was just on the AOL News page and I was looking through the pictures, and I realized the SAME thing you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteThere's 500 pictures, and the first batch of pictures are maybe 90 percent of the funeral of an Israeli Soldier. The pictures show everyone crying, the tomb of the soldier, and just in general very emotional pictures. When it comes to the Palestinian pictures, they're mostly of protests or far away smoky pictures.
Also, there's a poll on there:
How do you feel about Israel's incursion into Gaza?
It's justified 74%
It's not justified 13%
I have mixed feelings 13%
^^Disgusting.I'm not surprised though...when the average American who relies on Fox for its news comes and looks at the pictures of the sad Israelis mourning, obviously they're going to think its justified.
http://news.aol.com/article/israel-considers-truce-in-gaza-assault/232890
Once again, great post!
Great round-up, been wanting to do something similar myself. Thanks Lina!
ReplyDeleteMedia bias simply cannot be forgiven when said media have the tools to record and deliver the objective reality of any given event. Political affiliations must be cast aside, or else why bother spending money teaching journalism and touting higher moral values?
Great post. Can we see the myth of objective journalism yet?
ReplyDeleteWe miss you,
So glad to see this as what I see of the American media is very limited. In addition to being on-sided, until the ground troops went in msn.com simply ignored it... Sad. Thanks for the thoughts.
ReplyDeleteBut no matter how rational, unemotional, and detached I try to be, it’s just been impossible not to get infuriated by their coverage of what’s happening in Gaza.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to say, but that isn't going to change. Americans aren't "unemotional and detached" when it comes to terrorists, and I suspect you'll find that even in a city as liberal as new York, you will find the vast majority of Americans condemn Hamas a a terrorist group.
I understand your frustration, though. It used to infuriate me how the US was portrayed in the Arab media. I once had an argument with an Arab friend of mine about Al Jazeera, and she didn't understand what I was saying at all. She thought the Arab media was quite fair to the US. And she's a very smart woman.
The first day that Palestinian Arabs and Arabs in general admit that they've been defeated (six, seven times already, but who's counting) will be the first day that they make a positive step into the future. The Germans and the Japanese accepted their defeats and learned from those who defeated them and today are successful democracies.
ReplyDelete*
I couldn't believe it when I learned that Bloomberg went to Israel. When I saw his face on TV coming from Tel Aviv, I really wanted to puke.
ReplyDeleteHmmmm ... presidential run for him in the future?
Lina, the NYT is in serious financial trouble, and although we would like to think journalism is a noble and unbiased art, companies need to sell newspapers. New York is probably the most closely tied area to Israel in the US.
ReplyDeleteThe NYT will be reticent to print anything that goes against the sensibilities of their primary paying readership and advertisers. Especially now, especially this issue.
In my opinion,for the most part, unbiased investigative journalism died awhile ago. New media has not resurrected it, either.
I am finding it interesting that so many are talking about media bias (esp with the NYT)and no one thought it odd during the Obama-worship of the election. It's a given: like all humans,journalists are biased, and promote their own views through selective reporting.
It will be very interesting to see how the president-elect will deal with Israel and Gaza, as the silence has been rather loud. Altho 'one president at a time' sounds good, he did choose to speak out against the Mumbai bombings.
More interesting will be how the media handles his dealing with it.
Kinzi, nobody ever finds it "odd" when the media is reporting stories that they want to hear :P
ReplyDeleteI first noticed the US Media was crooked in the late 1980s, when a couple domestic issues I cared about ended up going into news driven tailspin. Particularly with CNN, is obvious that the guests they were selecting to present the point of view they opposed were either on the payroll or the most incompetent possible debaters they could find.
Hey, how come when I was complaining about US media bias a couple years ago on Arab blogs, nobody was listening? Hmmmm?
Lina,
ReplyDeleteWell, it's a lovely roundup, and well worth the time.
Interesting that the Post seems to be be a bit more realistic than the others; then again, back in 2003 when Iraq was invaded, I felt the Post was doing much less parroting of US government rhetoric than the other major dailies.
Does the media's coverage reflect the intensity and severity of Israel's ongoing strikes on Gaza? According to Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent "Israel’s opening salvo is not merely another surgical operation or pinpoint strike. This is the harshest IDF assault on Gaza since the territory was captured during the Six-Day War in 1967.”
ReplyDeleteOne waits to see when the details of the strikes on Gaza as reported by Jerusalem Post are shared with British viewers: On 27 December at 11:30 a.m., more than 50 Israeli Air Force fighter jets and attack helicopters swept into Gazan airspace and dropped more than 100 bombs on 50 targets. The planes reported “alpha hits,” IAF lingo for direct hits on the targets, which included Hamas headquarters and offices. Thirty minutes later, a second wave of 60 jets and helicopters struck at 60 targets.
By 5th January or Day Ten of the conflict,Israeli sourcs claimed having conducted over 1000 raids on Gaza.
David Horovit reminds Jerusalem Post's readers that Israeli Premier Ehud "Olmert has relentlessly insisted that he was the man best placed to oversee the rehabilitation from 2006 - from a war mismanaged by an inexperienced prime minister, a defense minister (Amir Peretz) who was entirely unqualified for the job, and a chief of staff (Dan Halutz) who placed exaggerated confidence in the air force's capacity for destroying carefully protected underground infrastructure and a highly mobile Hizbullah fighting force" in Lebanon.
It is worth probing to explore if the follwing quetions are being adequately covered by te British media
What were the considerations as the earlier truce was about to expire? According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet – high with election fever and eager to appear tough – rejected these terms.
What aims were under consideration? Gilbert Kahn, a Kean University political scientist, quoted in the NY Jewish Weekly, said once the truce deadline passed,"Israel was determined to do several things. First they wanted to maximize the good will and support they expected from Bush administration.
Secondly, they wanted to maximize the likelihood that the incoming administration would continue to display a strong sensitivity to the need for Israeli leaders to defend their citizens in the south, while at the same time setting a positive tone for their relationship with the new administration.”
Who can be considered a responsibe party to restore peace? The sound of Gaza burning should be drowned out by the words of the Israeli writer Larry Derfner. He says: "Israel's war with Gaza has to be the most one-sided on earth... If the point is to end it, or at least begin to end it, the ball is not in Hamas's court – it is in ours."
There are many people who speak out against one sided journalism. Please see www.truthout.org, and also www.democracynow.org, and there are others which are more progressive. With the internet, we are able to get other sides of the story!!!!
ReplyDelete...
Don't forget that while the israeli operation in gaza has been going on for two weeks, the palestinian rocket attacks on south israel has been going on for 8 years now. So one might argue that the time's slide-show photos are actually pretty balanced.
ReplyDeletevery good links. I find them very informative
ReplyDeleteYes, I just got back from Mexico a few days ago where I was able to get a glimpse of how people around the whole world are enraged by the situation in Gaza. I come back to the US and I realize we've been put in a capsule isolated from true, important and objective information about the current state of the rest of the world. I'm really stunned by this. I can't believe it. It is indeed very sad.
ReplyDeleteYa Graig and Nadavu look what the Israeli were doing in the border of Gaza ,peace my potato
ReplyDeleteHey Lina
ReplyDeleteI am a college student and I go to the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont, U.S.A. And I was wondering what do you think that the media could do better to represent what is really going on in Gaza through their photography?
I've been living in Jordan for a year now and I have to say I was stunned when I arrived and learned the reality of the Palestine-Israel situation. It's essentially the opposite of what I learned when growing up in the US. Certainly, if it were reported in US newspapers each time an Israeli soldier shot and killed a kid, the way they do when a Palestinian kills someone, this would be a start.
ReplyDeletePeople in the US don't understand that Israel aggressively mistreats and dehumanizes Palestinians both in the West Bank and Gaza on a daily basis.
Interesting comments you have there…I really salute you and respect you for saying these true words…and hopefully others will read them and learn no matter how they “Americans” try to show us that they care and sympathize with the Palestinian/Iraqi cause. But they are the supporting power behind the Israelis.
ReplyDelete