Introduction
This report, Coverage
of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from May 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003 by the
Charlotte Observer, examines how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was
covered in the opinion pages and news articles within that period of time in
the paper. Our aim in preparing this report is to raise The Charlotte Observer’s awareness of its own news coverage and
editorial content regarding this conflict.
Our aim is not to characterize or label The Charlotte Observer,
but to examine its product and the quality and variety of what it is offering
its readership.
Analysis of the Op/Ed pages was done by gathering facts
over a set period of time, categorizing them according to pre-defined criteria,
entering the data into a spreadsheet to produce statistical data, and then
analyzing this data. News analysis was done by maintaining a file
of articles published each day and examining the articles for incomplete or
inaccurate data, misleading headlines, misuse of terms and other concerns that
are a chronic problem in the U.S media when presenting information on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Questions or comments about this
report may be directed to pmwatch@zworg.com.
Questions or comments to The Charlotte Observer may be directed
to opinion@charlotteobserver.com.
Palestine Media Watch
Palestine
Media Watch (http://www.pmwatch.org) is a
grassroots media watch group that monitors the American media's coverage of the
Middle East. To fulfill its mission of
closely monitoring news and editorial coverage by major US media outlets and
pushing for a more balanced and informed portrayal of the Middle East conflict,
Palestine Media Watch (PMW) has officers across the United States, Israel, the
West Bank and Gaza, and boasts an active and growing membership both in the
United States and internationally. PMW
is a member of the American Media Watch Groups Consortium.
The Charlotte Observer
The Charlotte Observer was founded in 1886 and joined Knight
Ridder Newpapers in 1955. The paper’s
publisher is Peter Ridder and the Editor is Jennie Buckner. The newspaper has won four (4) Pulitzer
awards, including two Gold Medal awards for public service. The paper’s circulation includes 60 counties
throughout North and South Carolina from the beaches in the east to the
mountains in the west. Over 235,000
papers are produced daily; almost 300,000 Sundays. [1]
The Charlotte Observer’s editorial board includes:
§
Ms. Jennie Buckner,
Editor
§
Mr.
Ed Williams, Editorial Page Editor
§
Ms.
Jane McAlister Pope, Deputy Editorial Page Editor
§
Mr.
Jack Betts, Editorial Page Associate Editor
§
Ms.
Fannie Flono, Editorial Page Associate Editor
§
Ms.
Mary Newsom, Editorial Page Associate Editor
§
Mr.
Stewart Spencer, Editorial Page Associate Editor
§
Mr.
Lew Powell, Forum Editor
The Charlotte
Observer’s
Foreign News Desk is headed by:
§
Ms.
Alix Felsing, National/Foreign News Desk Editor
Findings – Op/Ed pages
1) After monitoring the Op/Ed pages ofThe Charlotte Observer from May 1, 2003
to June 30, 2003 and classifying each piece pertinent to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict as Pro-Israel (PI), Pro-Palestinian (PP) or
Neutral (N), Palestine Media Watch has found that The Charlotte Observer’s readers are being presented with a
predominantly Pro-Israel perspective. Please
see Appendix A for definition of terms.
Percentage breakdown: Forty-seven
percent, almost half, of the editorials, Viewpoint pieces, satirical
cartoons and Forum letters combined were defined as Pro-Israel. Thirty-four percent were defined as
Neutral and the remaining 19 percent were defined as Pro-Palestinian.
Totals: A total of
thirty-two items were printed in The
Charlotte Observer dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during
this period. Fifteen were
Pro-Israel; eleven were defined as Neutral and six were defined as
Pro-Palestinian.
Although the
majority of pieces were categorized as Pro-Israel, there was a small
improvement over last year’s findings. Last year, the Op/Ed pages were also over-whelmingly Pro-Israel
with fifty-two percent (52%) being Pro-Israel, thirty-three percent (33%) Neutral
and the remaining fifteen percent (15%) Pro-Palestinian. This year’s figures show an improvement,
albeit small, towards a more balanced approach. Pro-Israel pieces decreased by four percent (4%), Neutral pieces
increased one percent (1%) and Pro-Palestinian pieces increased by four percent
(4%).
The majority of Pro-Israel
Viewpoint pieces were written by William Safire [New York Times], Charles
Krauthammer [Washington Post Writers Group] and Cal Thomas [Tribune Media
Services]. Pro-Palestinian pieces came
from various sources ‘Special to the Observer’ including Sherri Muzher, media
analyst and lawyer and Edith Garwood, ISM volunteer and Coordinator for
Palestine Media Watch – Charlotte.
Neutral pieces were
written by Dr. James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, Dr.
Christopher Alexander, director of the Dean Rusk program at Davidson College
and Thomas Friedman [New York Times].
2) Many Pro-Israel writers used lies, inflammatory
language and exaggerations to make their points.
- 2/14/03, 17A, Israel’s enemies await resolution of Iraq situation, Cal
Thomas. “…based on the last [Palestinian]
election in 1996, when ballot-stuffing and voter intimidation were widely
reported…”
In
fact, there were 2000 international observers supervised by former President
Jimmy Carter monitoring the 1996 elections.
The only intimidation of voters was perpetrated by Israeli forces in the
area. Former President Carter stated,
“I don’t think there is any doubt they [Israeli forces] are doing everything
they can to intimidate the voters.” President Carter judged the process as a “democratic election”
both “open and fair.” Immediately
following the elections CNN reported, “Many Palestinians had waited all their
lives for this day. And it seemed that
no one was willing to pass up the chance to choose their first democratically
elected leadership.” [2] Note: This
example outside monitoring period.
- 5/2/03, 17A, Road map to Israel’s oblivion, Cal Thomas. “This is sham Middle East theater. Having gained so many concessions from
Israelis without living up to a single agreement they have signed,
Palestinian leaders …”
This
statement completely twists the facts in this case. In fact, Israel has not taken the first step of accepting the
Roadmap. The government has only
accepted “steps” outlined in the plan and then only conditionally. Substantively, Israel also has not accepted
to end the illegal occupation and recognize an independent, viable, sovereign
Palestinian state.
The
‘Roadmap Status Report: Phase I’ published by the PLO Negotiations Affairs
Department outlines the steps required by both parties to be performed in
parallel and the status of each step.
The Palestinian Authority has completed several steps required by the
plan or is in the process of doing so.
The Israeli Government, other than dismantling a few token outposts is
having difficulty moving forward. [3] Roadmap phases and requirements can be
easily verified through the State Department website. [4]
- 6/6/03, 17A, Road map endangers Israel, Cal Thomas. Although there were several inaccurate
statements made within this piece, one questionable statement was “… in
the 1967 war, which was started by Israel’s neighbors with the express
intention of wiping Israel off any road map (a goal that remains
unchanged).”
In
fact, modern historians, including Benny Morris have documented that
“ultimately, it was the sputtering Syrian-Israeli border that triggered the
process that led to the Six-Day War,” and that the war was “… in large part a
product of error and mutual miscalculation.” [5]
To
also state that the war was “started” by the Arabs is highly misleading when
Israel fired the first shot. Also, a few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin
remarked, “I do not think Nasser wanted war.
The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been
sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” [6] And Israeli General Matityahu
Peled was even more frank, “To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our
frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an
insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of
situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal [Israeli army].” [7]
3) There were also
two pro-Israel pieces covering the same issue and by the same columnist
published during a one-month time frame:
Road map to Israel’s oblivion
by Cal Thomas (5/2/03) and Roadmap
endangers Israel by Cal Thomas
(6/6/03).
Please see Appendix B
for spreadsheet containing raw data used to create statistical pie charts in
this section.
Findings – News Coverage
There were several
articles published over the past year that reflected life on the ground in the
Occupied Territories for the Palestinians.
These articles are worth noting because not many media outlets in the
U.S. take the time or space to publish such pieces as the piece printed late
last year on the use of Israeli bulldozers as weapons and the June article on
the building of the fence, 6/17/03, 3A, Israelis building West Bank fence,
Yoav Apel (AP) before the containment wall became a hot issue later in the
summer.
There also were concerns
reported in last year’s report on The
Charlotte Observer’s (TCO) coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
which were not repeated during this monitoring period.
Last year, TCO
published several articles relating to Israel’s Independence Day in May. These articles focused on the Israeli
perspective of the holiday with no mention of what it means to millions of
Palestinians today who call it ‘Al Nakhba’ or ‘The Catastrophe’. Israel’s declaration of statehood meant loss
of Palestinian land, businesses, homes and the separation of families for over
750,000 Palestinians.
- 5/7/03, 13A, Israel edgily marks its 55th anniversary, Mark
Lavie (AP), which acknowledges Israel’s 55th anniversary, also mentions
the on-going negotiations on the Palestinians’ “right of return”.
After a period of
violence where both Israelis and Palestinians were being targeted, TCO printed
pictures of both wounded Israelis and Palestinians on their front page.
- 6/12/03, 1A, Mideast carnage rips peace quest, Margaret Coker (Cox News
Service) and Glenn Frankel (Washington Post). Front page below the fold picture of wounded Palestinian
mother and child included with picture of wounded Israeli woman in front
of bus above the fold.
There was an article
within the monitoring period that mentioned the illegality of extra-judicial
executions or ‘assasinations’ and another which discussed the targeting of
individuals in crowded residential areas.
- 6/12/03, 1A, Carnage rips peace quest, Margaret Coker (Cox News
Service). “International human
rights organizations call such attacks extrajudicial killings that have
questionable legal standing,” in reference to the state sponsored
assassination of several Hamas leaders in Gaza City.
- 6/13/03, 4A, Targeted killings, or careless murders?, Ravi Nessman (AP).
Aside from these
examples of balance in TCO reporting, Palestine Media Watch catalogued several
serious concerns on the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the
monitoring period of May and June 2003.
These concerns are detailed below:
1) Unclear headlines
(at best) or biased headlines (at worst) were a concern during this
period. Ms. Robin Thrana, Copy Desk
Chief at TCO, stated, “… all a reader has time to do is glance at the headline,
rather than read the article,” and
that, “Our [the Charlotte Observer’s]
primary goal is to make the headline as accurate and clear as possible.” She also stated another goal was neutrality.
[8]
The following are
examples of headlines which are unclear or misleading:
- 5/4/03, 17A, Israeli says troops returning fire when
journalist killed, In Brief. The article states, “Television
footage showed Miller’s crew waving a white flag and yelling that they
were British journalists as they approached Israeli troops,” and that
“Witnesses said an Israeli tank opened fire on the journalists”. The last paragraph states that “…one
Israeli army official said his troops had come under fire and were
responding.”
The
story is about the shooting death of a journalist in the course of doing his
job. The headline spotlights one of the
standard excuses given by the military which is given in the last
sentence. Also, the headline is misleading
in that it says ‘Israeli’ which suggests an unbiased civilian, not an army
spokesperson.
Any
report by one party in a conflict (i.e. Israeli army/government or Palestinian
fighter/PA) should be taken with a ‘grain of salt’. The army is giving the
expected response and is not the story focus.
The headline should read in an unbiased, factual manner, such as
“Journalist killed by Israeli troops” or “Journalist killed while filming in
Gaza” or “Journalist killed”, not – one party’s response.
- 5/14/03, 8A, Sharon tough on settlements,
James Bennett (New York Times). The
first paragraph states, “Prime Minister Ariel Sharon set a hard line
Tuesday on retaining Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.” The headline leads the reader to
believe that Sharon is coming down hard on settlements by implementing the
‘Roadmap’ steps and dismantling them.
- 5/24/03, 1A, Sharon endorses Mideast roadmap,
Aaron Davis (Knight Ridder).
Actually PM Sharon gave a heavily “qualified endorsement” to the
roadmap which “left the road map more a starting point for negotiations
then a finished blueprint,” and “did nothing to remove any of the
obstacles to beginning negotiations or to close the gap between Israeli
and Palestinian positions.” A more
accurate headline would be “Sharon negotiating on road map” (which was the
headline on page 3A where article continued from 1A). As of the publication of this report,
Sharon still has not fully ‘endorsed’ or accepted the ‘Road map’ as
designed by the Quartet [U.S., U.N., E.U., and Russia].
- 5/26/03,
1A, Israeli Cabinet approves road
map, John Ward Anderson (Washington Post), sub-heading Accepts new Palestinian state. This headline is highly misleading. The article states in the second
paragraph, “… the deeply divided cabinet attached key conditions to the
initiative that could make implementation problematic and ultimately doom
it.” The article later states, “…
the cabinet ‘agreed to accept the steps set out in the road map…’
but avoided saying the road map itself had been approved.” The article also states, “Senior
officials also refused to say Israel had accepted the complete road map,
asserting under questioning by reporters that it had accepted only steps
set out in the plan.”
Also,
the Likud platform still reads (as of publication of this report), “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment
of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely
in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.
Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and
ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of
Israel's existence, security and national needs.” [9]
Therefore,
this page 1A headline in bold, large type is highly misleading if not
completely inaccurate.
- 6/12/03, 1A, Mideast carnage rips peace quest,
Margaret Coker (Cox News Service) and Glenn Frankel (Washington
Post). Headline says that the
suicide bombing being reported has ripped the peace quest when only the
day before (Tuesday June 11) Israel fired over a half dozen missiles
into a civilian area killing over five Palestinians and wounding over 55,
the vast majority civilians including women and children, many from the
same families. The headline is
highly misleading by giving the impression that only Palestinian attacks
on Israelis is affecting the peace process and fueling unrest.
- 6/26/03, 1A, Bush welcomes Abbas, Ron
Hutcheson (Knight Ridder), sub-headings: President agrees with Palestinians on some issues, but says
security is key; Prime Minister finds little support for urging Israel to
release convicted terrorists.
This is an example
of putting a negative spin on a
positive article. The article mentions
over five (5) times that the visit and press conference were positive with
statements such as, “enhanced his [Abbas] standing in the world”, “diplomatic
victory”, “draped his [Bush] arm over his guest’s [Abbas] shoulder”,
“sympathetic to the Palestinian cause”, and “diplomatic success”. President Bush warned PM Sharon about the
building of the containment wall “snaking through the West Bank” and the press
overseas, such as the BBC, reported the visit from a very positive
viewpoint. The Charlotte Observer headline reflects a very subdued view
of the event. The difference can be
seen when compared against earlier headlines that appear to go out of the way
to reflect a positive spin when the article concerns Israel.