My post criticizing the Times' coverage of the the Israel day parade brought the following response from your friendly neighborhood Hauser.
The vigor with which both sides accuse the parts of the media (NYT, WaPo, NPR, CNN) that do make a real effort to report neutrally (they fail frequently, but the effort is sincere nonetheless, which I hope I make clear in HR harping on media, and the quality which distinguishes ostensibly center-left pubs from right wing (e.g., WaTimes) counterparts)) is a bit disturbing to me.
Putting NPR (which is as virulently anti-Israel at times as the BBC) to one side, the mainstream media systematically fail at objectivity when they cover the Israel-Palestinian conflict. They do for the following reasons:
1) False equivalence: Every claim given by the two sides is given inherently equal weight. Thus, the media will try to split the difference between even the most accomodating Israeli position and the most hard-line Palestinian position. Arafat may take the position that the Temple was never existed on the Temple Mount, and that he has had nothing to do with terror attacks since the Olso accords, but those are flat out lies. (Just as W.'s claims about the long-term fiscal impact of his tax plan were).
2) Open society v. Closed society: Israeli society has full freedom of speech. All actions taken by the government are subject to vigorous public debate, which often contradicts official positions of the government. There exists a determined hard-core dove camp in Israel that can always be found to echo the preconceived notions of the international media (if the Jews only act enlightened enough, the Arabs will finally come around to peace). On the other hand, it is very difficult to get accurate information on the other side. Any opponents of Arafat (except for those claiming to be more militant than he) are in grave danger at criticizing his policy of violence. The views of the Palestinian man on the street are greatly distorted by the news they have been able to see.
3) Reliance on Pre-Set Storylines. The metastory the media loves to play is the Jews, History's most storied victims, as victimizers. It has drama, irony and angst (lots and lots of liberal Jewish angst on both sides of the ocean). Smaller metastories also take root - most recently, the Sharonv.Arafat mano-a-mano angle. Whenever something doesn't fit neatly into this story, its downplayed. When
something dovetails with this story, its played up. This skews things dramatically.
4) Foreign Policy Editorial Bent The establishment media do have a bias in foreign policy - towards multilateralism. American actions that are isolationist (cutting back foreign aid) or unilateralist (missile defense, Kyoto, Iraq, rejection of international treaties) are painted darkly. Similarly, the reliance of foreign policy writers on the professional international diplomatic core skews their analysis towards the realist perspective that dominates in those circles. The multilateralist realist consensus is that Israel is a destablizing influence in the region that needs to be contained in order for current Arab regimes to remain in power. Unqualified American support for Israel disturbs the region's balance, and thus it is in America and the international community's interest that the U.S. moderate its support for Israel and take a balanced approach to the conflict. This position should be held regardless of the facts on the ground.
Look again at the Camera report - the intense human interest stories in the camps, and the minor follow-up on the Israeli home front. Look at the ridiculous side-by-side stories of the female suicide bomber and her victim. Do you think the Times should have had side-by-side profiles of Mohammed Atta and co. with the victims of WTC? Unlike the European press, the cause of such bias is not anti-Semetism, but the effect is just the same - tilting the coverage of the Middle East conflict against Israel.
No comments:
Post a Comment