OK, you know what? We're gonna start highlighting these.
I've noticed for a long time that the news we get here about events in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict often privileges the Israeli perspective at the expense of the Palestinian perspective. Over the next several months, I'll try to point out examples of when this happens. I'll also do my best to present counterexamples, and you should feel free to send me links which you think qualify in either category.
I'm not the only media observer to note the amazing preference that US media tends to give the Israeli perspective, by the way. Check out The Electronic Intifada's ongoing mission to document this and other media issues.
In fact, Electronic Intifada recently noticed the same thing I did. Earlier this week, on January 4, the Israeli army killed 7 Palestinian children and injured more than a dozen others in Gaza. The US media largely ignored this, but you can rest assured that if 7 Israeli children had been killed by Palestinians, it would have been in the top headlines across the US.
In fact, the main news stories I saw on the killing of these 7 children had headlines similar to this one: "Abbas Assails Zionist Enemy After Tank Kills 7." OK. What's the problem with that?
Well, for one, note that the headline doesn't mention that Israeli tanks killed 7 children. That's a common theme. Headlines in the US rarely mention that Israel or Israelis did any killing. But if Palestinians do any killing, the headlines often attribute the violence to Palestinians.
Also note that the focus of this Reuters story by Nidal al-Mughrabi is the reaction of the soon-to-be new Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. The focus is not on the killing of 7 children. Again, if the situation were reversed, and 7 Israeli children had been killed, that horrible violence would be the focus of the story.
Also note the AP Photos that are posted along with the story. Here they are:
One shows Abbas giving an angry speech. The other shows Israelis at a peaceful candlelight vigil. Images in the US press often depict angry Palestinians. They rarely show grieving Palestinian families. The US press very frequently shows images of grieving Israelis after violence claims the lives of Israelis. The US press rarely shows angry Israelis or pictures of Israeli-instigated violence. So, the general picture we get here in the US is that the Israelis are sad and peace-loving, while the Palestinians are angry and violent. This is an incomplete and distorted picture, and just bad journalism.
We'll have more stuff like this in the weeks and months ahead, so stay tuned.
One quick note, just to be very clear. When I talk about 'Israel' and 'Israelis', I'm using the term in the same way as if I were referencing any other nation-state -- Canada and Canadians, for example. I refer to the government of the State of Israel, and never do I refer to the whole of the Jewish people (which is one definition of the word 'Israel'). If I said "Canada sent troops," I would mean that the Canadian government ordered troops... you see what I mean. When I say 'Israel sends troops," I'm using the term 'Israel' in the same way. The Israeli people -- by which I mean citizens of the State of Israel -- are in fact very diverse in terms of political opinion and in terms of ethnicity and race -- and there is no way to consider Israelis as a unified bloc. But I can use the term 'the Israelis did so and so' to mean that the Israeli government took such and such action.
I've noticed for a long time that the news we get here about events in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict often privileges the Israeli perspective at the expense of the Palestinian perspective. Over the next several months, I'll try to point out examples of when this happens. I'll also do my best to present counterexamples, and you should feel free to send me links which you think qualify in either category.
I'm not the only media observer to note the amazing preference that US media tends to give the Israeli perspective, by the way. Check out The Electronic Intifada's ongoing mission to document this and other media issues.
In fact, Electronic Intifada recently noticed the same thing I did. Earlier this week, on January 4, the Israeli army killed 7 Palestinian children and injured more than a dozen others in Gaza. The US media largely ignored this, but you can rest assured that if 7 Israeli children had been killed by Palestinians, it would have been in the top headlines across the US.
In fact, the main news stories I saw on the killing of these 7 children had headlines similar to this one: "Abbas Assails Zionist Enemy After Tank Kills 7." OK. What's the problem with that?
Well, for one, note that the headline doesn't mention that Israeli tanks killed 7 children. That's a common theme. Headlines in the US rarely mention that Israel or Israelis did any killing. But if Palestinians do any killing, the headlines often attribute the violence to Palestinians.
Also note that the focus of this Reuters story by Nidal al-Mughrabi is the reaction of the soon-to-be new Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. The focus is not on the killing of 7 children. Again, if the situation were reversed, and 7 Israeli children had been killed, that horrible violence would be the focus of the story.
Also note the AP Photos that are posted along with the story. Here they are:
One shows Abbas giving an angry speech. The other shows Israelis at a peaceful candlelight vigil. Images in the US press often depict angry Palestinians. They rarely show grieving Palestinian families. The US press very frequently shows images of grieving Israelis after violence claims the lives of Israelis. The US press rarely shows angry Israelis or pictures of Israeli-instigated violence. So, the general picture we get here in the US is that the Israelis are sad and peace-loving, while the Palestinians are angry and violent. This is an incomplete and distorted picture, and just bad journalism.
We'll have more stuff like this in the weeks and months ahead, so stay tuned.
One quick note, just to be very clear. When I talk about 'Israel' and 'Israelis', I'm using the term in the same way as if I were referencing any other nation-state -- Canada and Canadians, for example. I refer to the government of the State of Israel, and never do I refer to the whole of the Jewish people (which is one definition of the word 'Israel'). If I said "Canada sent troops," I would mean that the Canadian government ordered troops... you see what I mean. When I say 'Israel sends troops," I'm using the term 'Israel' in the same way. The Israeli people -- by which I mean citizens of the State of Israel -- are in fact very diverse in terms of political opinion and in terms of ethnicity and race -- and there is no way to consider Israelis as a unified bloc. But I can use the term 'the Israelis did so and so' to mean that the Israeli government took such and such action.
Erik, I'm weighing in during class, so I'll have to keep this brief.
The focus of the story is correct. It's placed on the man who might be taking over as the Palestinian president in a volatile region. In effect, what he says while he is campaigning, specifically, what he says as a result of violent acts by the Israelis, is of more importance to the world than the deaths of seven Palestinians.
In fact, when it was reported 2 days ago, it looked like this.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=381686
I don't think you'll have any problem with this story. That's how it looked during most coverage of the violent aspects of the story. The fallout from the violence is a story unto itself.
If you're looking for bias based on this, you need another source.
OK. Come back tomorrow (Tuesday 1/11/05) for more on this.
For now, we'll call the headline battle a tie at 1-1, but I win on pictures 3-0. The photo in the ABCNews story you link to, Anonymous, is of Israeli settlers crying. Your headline does attribute the Palestinian deaths to the "Israeli Tank Fire."
On the more general point that the emphasis "should" be on Abbas' reaction -- I think that you're right that Abbas' reaction is an appropriate topic. But my intent is to compare coverage of Palestinians dying as a result of Israeli actions vs. Israelis dying as a result of Palestinian actions. For example, whenever the news is about one of those horrific suicide bombings, the headline nearly always talks about the number of Israelis killed. The photo nearly always is of grieving Israelis. The reaction of the Israeli government is presented, as is the reaction of Palestinian leaders -- but that reaction is almost never in the headline. Compare this to when Palestinians are killed by Israeli actions. Often, there is no report on the top page of any news outlet in the US. NPR has been accused of calling weeks where dozens of Palestinians have been killed "period[s] of relative quiet." Rarely have I seen photos of crying Palestinian families in any US news report.
You say that I'll "need another source" to show any bias. I agree - one or two stories alone isn't enough to prove a bias of any kind. That's why we're going to make this an ongoing project. I hope you'll stay with me and keep contributing.
Again, more details tomorrow. See you then.
Here's a story about a NPR piece on this incident, which also talked only about Abbas' comments and failed to provide the crucial information that Abbas was reacting after an Israeli army tank killed 7 Palestinian civilians.
And here's an editorial about that NPR story.