01/01/01 – 03/31/01
04/24/01
Palestine Media Watch
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw
1.1.7 Not appearing as A1
headlines
1.2.1 Israeli actions
placed in context
1.2.2 Palestinian/Arab
actions NOT put in context
1.2.3 Scare quotes in
headlines
1.2.4 Pro-Israeli editorializing
in headlines
1.2.5 Israel going out of
its way to seek peace
2.1.1 Appropriating
Israeli framing/vocabulary
2.1.2 Unnecessary
editorializing
2.1.3 Shimon Peres: Nobel
Peace prize laureate
2.1.6 Palestinian denial
comes much later after allegation
2.1.7 Israeli denial
reported soon after allegation..
Appendix A - Suggested
check list
Appendix D - Articles on
American news coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
The following report
examines some key aspects of the Philadelphia Inquirer’s coverage of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The period covered is
between January 1, 2001 and March 31, 2001.
Our aim in this report is
to raise the Inquirer’s self-awareness of certain patterns in its reporting
that we believe hinder adequate coverage of this important issue.
Analysis of headlines
begins by examining A1 headlines – that is, headlines appearing on the front
page. Those headlines that are above
the fold are marked with “**”.
Israeli deaths were featured 4 times on the front page,
with 2 of those 4 times above the fold.
03/29/01
[A1] Israel hits Palestinian officers after 2 teens slain
03/27/01
[A1] Jewish infant killed in West Bank gunfire [Morris]
02/15/01
[A1**] Driver rams into Israelis, killing 8 [Demick&Morris]
[A1**] Mideast killings may fuel revenge (Demick)
Palestinian deaths were featured only once on the front
page, and that instance was featured below the fold. The mention was, moreover, mitigated by the presence of an
Israeli justification of killing. No
such justifications were given in the headlines dealing with Israeli deaths.
02/14/01
[A1] Palestinian killed; Israel cites attacks [Morris]
Three front page headlines focused on Arab polemics
against Israel.
03/26/01
[A1] Volatile vocabulary in Mideast violence [Demick]
03/12/01
[A1] Artists fuel Arab rage against US and Israel [Raghavan]
01/13/01
[A1] Hussein's cash wins Palestinians' favor [Demick]
Three headlines focused on Israeli politics, one of which
was above the fold.
02/21/01
[A1] Barak rejects unity role - and politics [Demick]
02/16/01
[A1] Sharon and Barak agree for unity government [Demick&Morris]
02/05/01
[A1**] Barak appeals for votes of Arabs [Reuters]
Arafat was the topic of two front page headlines.
01/16/01
[A1] Arafat offers to give informers amnesty [AP]
01/03/01
[A1] Arafat expressed his reservations [Morris&Landay]
02/25/01
[A1**] End violence in Mideast, Powell urges [Raghavan&Demick]
02/07/01
[A1**] With win, uncertain era begins [Demick&Morris]
01/22/01
[A1**] Mideast begins lengthy talks [Morris]
01/08/01
[A1**] Clinton to Israel: 'Divide this land' [AP]
The following important issues were never on the front
page of the Philadelphia Inquirer during the period of analysis.
- UN reports/resolutions
- Human rights reports/findings
- Israeli assassination of Palestinian officials
- Killing of Palestinian children
- House demolitions
- Palestinian economic hardships
- Palestinian calls for peace
- Hanan Ashrawi – no. 1 Palestinian spokesperson -
injured in demonstration
The following is an
analysis of all headlines.
When headlined, Israeli
aggressive actions tend to be put in context, or shown to be “reactions” to
prior actions.
03/29/01
[A1] Israel hits Palestinian officers after 2 teens
slain [AP]
03/28/01
[A3] After two bombings, Israelis increase pressure
on Sharon [Morris]
02/14/01
[A1] Palestinian killed; Israel cites attacks
[Morris]
01/24/01
[A2] Israel suspends peace talks after killing in
West Bank [Morris]
When headlined, Arab or
Palestinian actions are usually stated flatly, with no context or
justifications.
For instance, the headline:
“Arabs end summit backing a call to
resume boycott of Israel” does not tell us why Arabs call on resuming
boycott of Israel. The headline could
have easily been written: “Citing Israeli ‘aggression’, Arabs end summit
backing a call to resume boycott of Israel.”
Similarly, the headline “Hamas plans for suicide bombs” could
have easily been written, “Israel shells
civilians populations, Hamas plans for suicide bombs”.
03/29/01
[A9] Arabs end summit backing a call to resume
boycott of Israel [Demick]
03/28/01
[A3] Arabs, divided on Iraq, united in criticizing
Israel [Demick]
03/05/01
[A2] Suicide bomber kills 3 Israelis and injures 66
[Washington Post]
03/04/01
[A2] Hamas plans for suicide bombs [Reuters]
01/05/01
[A2] Arab leaders criticize US peace proposal [AP]
01/03/01
[A1] Arafat expressed his reservations
[Morris&Landay]
Two headlines had scare
quotes in them – and both scare quotes were in compliance with the Israeli
frame of reference.
03/21/01
[A3] Palestinians' “Uphill battle” [AP]
01/08/01
[A3] Israel is drawing criticism for using “pin
point killing” tactic [AP]
Two headlines crossed into
the opinion side.
02/04/01
[A2] Where all went awry for a man of peace
[Morris]
02/08/01
[A3] Sharon gathers respected team for peace
efforts [Morris&Demick]
Three headlines portrayed
Israel as exerting itself to be restrained or peace-seeking.
03/08/01
[A2] Sharon takes office with a plea for peace
[Morris]
03/16/01
[A4] Despite arrests, Israel lifts ban [AP]
01/25/01
[A2] Despite latest killings, Israel to resume
peace talks [AP]
It is important to note that
a headline such as “Despite latest
killings, Israel to resume peace talks”, would be just as appropriate if it
had read “Despite latest killings,
Palestinians to resume peace talks”.
But no such headlines were present.
- Word “terror” used in association with
Palestinians: 3
- Word “terror” used in association with Israelis: 0
- Israeli children killed cited: 1
- Palestinian children killed cited: 0
- Palestinians killed cited: 2
- Israelis killed cited: 2
- “Violence” used in association with Palestinians: 2
- “Violence” used in association with “Middle East”:
5
- “Violence” used in association with Israelis: 0
- Home demolitions mentioned: 0
The most serious journalistic infraction this report will
examine is the unreflective appropriation of the Israeli framework and
vocabulary. We start with Barbara
Demick and then examine Nomi Morris.
BARBARA
DEMICK
In the following quote, the myth that Israel was fighting
for its survival in 1949 is repeated as though it were a fact. Many scholars have been challenged that
claim, demonstrating instead that Israel far from being a passive victim
defending itself. The un-reflexive
appropriation of the notion that Israel was “fighting of its survival” in the
1949 war is not only disturbing, but unnecessary on purely journalistic
grounds.
The quote also tries to whitewash Ariel Sharon’s actions
between 1949 and now and cast those actions as defensive: the reader is led to
think that all along, Mr. Sharon has been engaged in a defensive struggle. The consensus outside Ariel Sharon’s circle
of supporters is the opposite.
IN 1949, Sharon fought for Israel's survival. In a way, he never stopped. [020701][C]
The second quote offers an even more disturbing
appropriation of what can only be described as the stuff of legend and
lore. Ms. Demick presents the stories
as journalistic fact.
Again, we note the “parallel” the reader is urged to draw
by the last sentence below: just as Sharon allegedly had to fight menacing,
blood thirsty Arabs, so also Israel is doing the same.
Ariel Sharon was not quite a year old when his mother yanked him out
of his crib and stashed him in a barn for safekeeping against Arabs preparing
to storm Kfar Malal, the agricultural village near Tel Aviv where he was born.
At the age of 13, Sharon was crouching in the fields by night with a
Caucasian dagger given as a bar mitzvah present, guarding against Arab
intruders.
Israel's prime minister-elect has been doing battle with Arabs his
entire life. Indeed, his life parallels Israel's history of war.[020801]
In the following quotes, the words “respond” and
“retaliate” and some of their variations, are presented as fact rather than as
points of view or justifications offered by the Israeli side.
The test could come as soon as Sharon is called upon to respond
to the low-intensity warfare waged by Palestinian gun-men. [020801][C]
Sharon is not in a position to respond to acts of violence
until he is sworn in March 31. [020901][A]
The drive toward a unity government too a new urgency this week as
Palestinian violence escalated along with Israel's response to it.
[021601][D]
In Gaza, Palestinians fired mortar shells Friday toward the Jewish
settlements of Digit and Aley Sinai.
Israel retaliated by destroying two Palestinian police posts from
which the mortars were fired and closed off roads. [022501][B]
Israel has responded to Palestinian rioting by holding the
money in escrow for months and by closing its borders to thwart terrorism.
[022401][A]
The appropriation of the Israeli framework also occurred
through Ms. Demick’s repeated failure to use scare quotes or the word “alleged”
when it should have been used.