In the month of July 2001, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a total of 33 stories on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The following is a summary of daily analyses by Palestine Media Watch of those stories.

1.0 Summary of findings

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict during the month of July showed signs of progress away from coverage that unreflectively reiterated the official Israeli line and towards coverage that placed as its priority communicating to the readership what is really taking place on the ground.

Examples of such progress:

(1) The less frequent use of the loaded words “response” and “retaliation”, which succinctly and effectively communicate to the reader the official Israeli version of who initiated the violence: when Israelis “retaliate”, the inescapable conclusion that they are not the initiators of violence. The move by stories published by the Inquirer, and their headlines, to describe the sequence of actions with minimal reference to words that mislead the reader into assuming that Israelis never start violent acts, is a welcome development;

(2) Headlining violence done onto Palestinians: in previous months, the Inquirer usually headlined violence done on Israelis, but rarely mentioning Palestinians in headlines;

(3) The Inquirer has replaced its old, erroneous map that showed the Golan Heights as part of Israel by a new map that shows the Golan Heights as occupied territory.

However, as welcome as this progress is, there is still plenty of room for improvement. Examples of areas of continuing concern are:

(1) A disproportionate number of stories contain no quotes from the Palestinian Authority: out of 33 stories, 11 did not contain ANY quotes from the Palestinian Authority, while only a handful did not contain Israeli quotes;

(2) A major problem, easily illustrated below, is the total absence of ANY human interest stories on Palestinian suffering;

(3) Despite its efforts, the Inquirer still publishes stories that adopt unreflectively the language and framework of official Israel.

2.0 Recommendations

(1) Publish human-interest stories on Palestinians that communicate to your readers a very important reality in all of this: the fact the Palestinians are living under occupation. It is astonishing that you can go for months without writing A SINGLE story explaining to your readers the basic facts about living under occupation – stories that go beyond popping numbers on how many people killed and injured, how many houses demolished, how many bombs went off , etc.

(2) Get rid of the following loaded words and expressions, or at least use them surrounded by quotes:

a) “response”, “retaliation”;

b) “preemptive strikes”, “preemptive raids”;

c) “restraint”, “policy of restraint”.

(3) Ensure that your stories quote both Palestinian as well as Israeli officials;

(4) Explain to your readers what Ehud Barak offered and why the Palestinians refused to take the offer. It is simply astonishing that NOT ONCE since September 28, 20000 – that is, the outbreak of this Intifadha – have you ran a story explaining what went wrong in Camp David. Since the myth tha Barak offered the Palestinians most of what they wanted continues to be mentioned (July 21), you owe such a story to your readers.

3.0 Contacting the Inquirer

Those who wish to contact the Inquirer regarding this report may do so by dropping an email to:

Paul Nussbaum:

pnussbaum@phillynews.com

-- Inquirer Foreign Desk Editor

Rebecca Klock: rklock@phillynews.com

-- Inquirer Deputy Foreign Desk Editor

Lillian Swanson:

lswanson@phillynews.com

n Inquirer readers Ombudsman

n Phone (215) 854 - 2206

Barbara Demick:

bdemick@phillynews.com

-- Inquirer Correspondent to the Middle East

Michael Matza:

mmatza@phillynews.com

-- Inquirer Correspondent to the Middle East

Nomi Morris:

nmorris@krwashington.com

-- Knight Ridder Middle East Bureau Chief

Letters:

inquirer.letters@phillynews.com

n Letters to the editor

n Phone: (215) 854-4543

Associated Press News Wire:

feedback@thewire.ap.org

4.0 Covering Children

The Inquirer appears to be making an effort to rectify its long-standing double standards in covering the death and injury of Palestinian children vs. covering the death and injury of Israeli children. For the first time in months, the killing of a Palestinian boy makes a headline (July 9). (Not an A1 headline, however.)

Nevertheless, two stories illustrate that the Inquirer’s habit of not highlighting the suffering of Palestinian children is still alive.

1. In the July 15, 2001 story, "As fighting continues, Arafat seeks US help" (Ibrahim Hazboun – AP -- A13), we are told that a "7-year-old Palestinian girl was wounded by gunfire", but were given no details beyond that. The wounding of a 7-year-old Israeli child would have been followed with a name, circumstances of the incident, and probably a photograph. None of that appears in this article about the Palestinian child.

2. In the July 20, 2001 story, "Infant among 3 Palestinians killed" (Nasser Shiyoukhi -- AP -- A7), the age of the infant -- 3 months -- was not given until paragraph 8 of the story. The following day, we had to wait until THE VERY LAST PARAGRAPH of the story to read the human aspect of the killing of 3-month-old Diya. His mother is given three short sentences of quote space. When Jewish teenagers were killed on May 9, the Inquirer dedicated 2 stories and 3 photographs to the incident.

5.0 Quoting officials

In 11 of the 33 stories, Israeli officials received full quotes, while Palestinian officials received NONE. As mentioned in our June report, the discrepancy in the Inquirer’s June coverage was 14 out of 35 stories had quotes from Israeli officials but none from Palestinian officials. Clearly, the Inquirer has not made a great effort to communicate this discrepancy to the journalists it publishes.

The Palestinian Authority is the official representative of the Palestinian people. It is the job of your journalists to ensure that they seek out the opinion of BOTH sides and not just one side of this conflict. They should make a conscious effort not to become a vehicle for propagating the ideas and justifications of one side over the other.

6.0 On “retaliation” and “response”

Use of the words “retaliation” and “response” was markedly less frequent this month than in previous months. Hopefully, this is a sign that the Inquirer is thinking twice before unreflectively reproducing canned justifications from official Israel. Indeed, describing an action as a “response” or a “retaliation” does nothing more than reinforce the already well-entrenched view that Israel has always been at the receiving end of aggression and that it never engages in provoking and stoking violence. This view in turn gives Israel carte blanche to do whatever it pleases in the name of self-defense.

7.0 Downplaying Palestinian suffering

The Inquirer’s coverage of Palestinian suffering during this month was slightly better than that of previous months. A positive sign is that some headlines (e.g., July 10, 11) mentioned violent Israeli actions against the Palestinians. Headlining violence against Palestinians, as we have shown in previous reports, is a rarity for the Inquirer.

Some points of concern remain. In her July 2, 2001, story, Nomi Morris writes: "violence that has killed more than 600 people on both sides of the dispute." The lumping of the number of dead serves to obfuscate the fact that more than 500 Palestinians have been killed, with a ration of almost 5 Palestinians killed for each Israeli killed. This point is important since it highlights the fact that Israel is the one responsible for 5 out of every 6 deaths.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate the deeply embedded impulse in the Inquirer to humanize Israeli suffering and not do the same for Palestinian suffering is to examine the front page July 2 story by Nomi Morris ("Fearless students give Israel a boost").

First, it is important to note that we have yet to read a SINGLE human interest story from Nomi Morris that delved into Palestinian suffering. Through the months, Ms. Morris has written SEVERAL stories on settler anxiety, but she has never devoted a whole story on Palestinians and the challenges they face under occupation.

Second, in the month of June, the Inquirer published 5 human interest stories. ALL FIVE were Israeli-centric:

1 - June 1: "After deaths, settlers hit back and also denounce Sharon"

2 - June 3: "Mourning for friends, a loss of innocence"

3 - June 5: "Israelis' thoughts turn to leaving"

4 - June 6: "A gift of life from one side to the other"

5 – June 10: "A refusal to live amid violence"

In the month of July, three human-interest stories were published:

1 – July 2: "Fearless students give Israel a boost" -- Nomi Morris

2 - July 17: "Open minds study closed Arab world" -- Barba Demick

3 - July 18: "As Mideast violence rages, grassroots peace

subsides" == Nomi Morris

Two of those stories (1, 3) were exclusively about Israeli suffering and inconvenience, and one talked about a partnership between a Palestinian and an Israeli. That is, NOT ONCE was a human-interest story devoted to Palestinian suffering for the last two months, while Israelis received 7 human-interest stories.

8.0 Adopting the Israeli spin

The most revealing evidence of second-nature pro-Israeli sympathy from the Inquirer is the use of words and phrases coined and whose use is encouraged by official Israel.

(1) We commonly read that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are “Radicals”, rather than militant resistance, while Jewish groups that engage in violence are called “Jewish extremists”, “vigilantes”, “fringe groups”, etc.;

(2) We read that Israelis are conducting “preemptive strikes” when they initiate attacks on Palestinians, civilians or otherwise; when Israelis claim that they are not involved in an act of violence, the journalists also plead ignorance – such pleading NEVER takes place when Palestinians deny involvement;

(3) We are told that the Israelis are engaged in a policy of “restraint”, thereby minimizing the violence unleashed on the Palestinians by framing it in a context where we are always forced to compare what is taking place with some extreme scenario of death and destruction;

(4) Time and again we are treated to the myth of “Barak’s generosity”, never once explaining to the reader what exactly Barak offered, beyond the misleading figure of 95%;

(5) We are told that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are “anti-peace”, when reality is the opposite: what Hamas, Jihad, and all other resistence groups want is peace, with dignity and security;

(6) We are time and again told that Israelis are taking “revenge”, when in fact they are involved in acts of collective punishment: one takes revenge against those who perpetrate a wrong and not against anyone associated with such a person.

“Radicals”

Twice the word "radical" was used to describe militant groups: the "radical Hamas" and "the radical Islamic Jihad". Why are not militants fighting occupation in other places of the world, or even rebels, not called "radical", even when they are much more violent than Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Bosnians fighting the Serbs,Chechens fighting the Russians, the IRA fighting the British, the Columbians, the Peruvians, etc., etc. It seem that "radical" applies only to Palestinians fighting Israelis. (July 2)

“preemptive raids”

1. The phrase "preemptive raids" is straight out of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's ofice. The least you should have done is quote it. The headline should have read: "Israel defends 'preemptive raids'". (July 4)

2. Yet another example of your double standards and how you appropriate the Israeli vocabulary: in paragraph 3 you place "the biggest violation" between quotes, since it was said by a senior Palestinian official, but you repeat "preemptive raids" without quotes, since it came from Israeli officials. (July 4)

1. In the last paragraph, we read: "The Israeli army destroyed 26 houses in Gaza on Tuesday to try to prevent attacks on an adjacent border outpost." Note that this is official Israel's justification of the action. There is a more plausible explanation, presented by the Palestinians: the demolition is an act of collective punishment and not at all a preventative measure. You could have simply inserted, the army says at the end, and would have distanced yourselves from one side or the other. (July 13)

Pleading ignorance

1. When Israel says that they do not know about a shooting, Greg Myre tell us that it is unknown who did the shooting -- even if Palestinians insist that

Israelis did it: we read "by whom, it is unclear" (paragraph 3) and not "Israeli forces were suspected". But when it is the other way around, we never read

"by whom, it is unclear"; we read: "Palestinian militant were suspected" (paragraph 2). It would have been sufficient if Mr. Myre stuck to reporting what

each side said and left it at that. (July 5)

3. Although the story states that the group claimed responsibility, nevertheless it still equivocates: "If settlers were responsible..." Such equivocation never

appears when talking about Palestinian groups. We never read: "If Hamas were

responsible" -- and this at times even when Hamas DENIES involvement. (July 20)

“Restraint”

1. The word "restraint" appears without quote in the headline. This is shocking, given that the description "restraint" has been bitterly challenged by the Palestinians. Moreover, the dozens of military incursions, house demolitions, assassinations, town closures, F16 attacks, and shelling all together illustrate that only Sharon and his supporters believe that his policy is one of "restraint". It would have been more appropriate if the word were used in quotes. (Especially given that in the end of paragraph 2 the author writes: "what Sharon calls his policy of restraint".) (July 22)

“Barak’s generosity”

2. Once again we read about Barak's generosity: "A year ago, Barak offered the

Palestinians a state in Gaza and most of the West Bank and a share of Jerusalem -- but they held out for more...." This rendering of what happened leaves the reader with the impression that Palestinians wanted more land: in fact, they wanted not more land but more sovereignty. It is a shame that this late in the game, and with the facts of what really happened in Camp David, your readers are still being treated to this unhelpful characterization of what took place in Camp David. (July 21)

“Anti-peace”

1. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are characterized as "anti-peace". A more appropriate, and journalistically more accurate, characterization would have been to call them "anti-occupation". Perhaps Ms. Norris meant to say "anti-Peace-Process" (note the capital letters). But that's not the same as being "anti-peace". (July 26)

Taking “revenge”

1. Israeli bombed police stations that belong to the Palestinian Authority. As

far as we know, the PA had nothing to do with the killing of the Israeli teenager on Thursday. Therefore, the attacks are not really an act of revenge but an act of collective punishment and punishment by association. It would have been much more appropriate to place quotes around the word "revenge". (July 28)

9.0 Maps

In both May and June, the Inquirer ran maps that depicted the Golan Heights as part of Israel proper rather than as occupied territory, as they are internationally recognized to be. (May 9, and June 2.) The Inquirer ran a July 27 story (A3) in which the Golan heights were marked off as occupied territory. The rectification is appreciated.

10.0 On the positive side

(1) The words “response” and “retaliation” are being used with greater care. In fact, for the first time, we read that Palestinians are acting in reaction to Israelis, rather than vice versa (July 18)

(2) More stories headlined that mention violence against Palestinians – a hopeful sign is the July 8 headline about the 11-year old boy killed;

(3) Rendering from the Israeli side is placed around quotes more often;

11.0 Story-by-story analyses

July 1, 2001 -- "Arafat and Peres shake hands" -- Danielle Haas -- Reuters --

A9 -- Jerusalem

1. In the piece we read: "About 600 people have been killed." Please breakdown

the number of killed: it important to tell your reader that nearly 500 out of those 600 people (that is, more than 80%) are Palestinians and Arab-Israelis.

2. A rare quote from Arafat. Shimon Peres is also quoted.

3. No photographs.

July 2, 2001 -- "Fearless students give Israel a boost" --Nomi Morris -- Knight Ridder -- A1 (BF) -- Jerusalem

1. It is important to note that we have yet to read a SINGLE human interest story from Nomi Morris that delved into Palestinian suffering. Through the months, Ms. Morris has written SEVERAL stories on settlers anxiety, but she has never devoted a whole story on Palestinians.

2. In the month of June, we counted 5 human interest stories. ALL FIVE were

Israeli-centric:

1 - June 1: "After deaths, settlers hit back and also denounce Sharon"

2 - June 3: "Mourning for friends, a loss of innocence"

3 - June 5: "Israelis' thoughts turn to leaving"

4 - June 6: "A gift of life from one side to the other"

5 - "A refusal to live amid violence"

This is astonishing: in the whole month of June, not once was a story written

to depict to your readers the extreme hardship under which the Palestinians

are living.

3. Once again we read: "violence that has killed more than 600 people on

both sides of the dispute." Please do not let this turn into a habit. Please inform your readers that almost 500 of those 600 are Palestinian.

4. Large photo of the June 2 victims (A6).

July 2, 2001 -- "Israelis hit Syrian radar station in Lebabon" -- Zeina Karam --

A6 -- AP -- Sarin Tahta

1. Twice the word "radical" was used to describe militant groups: the "radical Hamas" and "the radical Islamic Jihad". Why are not militants fighting occupation in other places of the world, or even rebels, not called "radical", even when they are much more violent than Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Bosnians fighting the Serbs,Chechens fighting the Russians, the IRA fighting the British, the Columbians, the Peruvians, etc., etc. It seem that "radical" applies only to Palestinians fighting Israelis.

2. The long and long-winded article somehow manages to talk about the raids on the Chebaa farms without explaining what the Chebaa farms are or providing even a small paragraph to give the reader some historical context.

Jult 3, 2001 -- "Violence leaves two more dead and a Mideast truce in doubt",

1. Quotes from Israeli officials and US officials. No quotes from the

Palestinian Authority.

2. Large photograph of twisted car after a car bomb.

July 4, 2001 -- "Israeli defends preemptive raids" -- Greg Myre -- AP -- A6 -- Jerusalem

3. No Photos.

4. Both Palestinians and Israelis were quoted. Although, space given to Israelis is at least three times larger than space given to Palestinians.

July 5, 2001 -- "US envoy says both sides hurt Mideast effort" -- Greg Myre -- AP -- A3 -- Jerusalem

1. When Israel says that they do not know about a shooting, Greg Myre tell us that it is unknown who did the shooting -- even if Palestinians insist that

Israelis did it: we read "by whom, it is unclear" (paragraph 3) and not "Israeli forces were suspected". But when it is the other way around, we never read

"by whom, it is unclear"; we read: "Palestinian militant were suspected" (paragraph 2). It would have been sufficient if Mr. Myre stuck to reporting what

each side said and left it at that.

2. Both Palestinians and Israelis were quoted".

July 5, 2001 -- "Sharon pleads for Europe's aid, but hears leaders' concerns" -- A3 -- Jocelyn Noveck -- Paris

1. Since the main reason for Sharon's trip was to undermine Arafat, a more appropriate headline would have been: "Europe rejects Sharon's effort to pressure Arafat".

2. No quotes of the Palestinian Authority's comments on Sharon's trip and his efforts in Europe.

July 6, 2001 -- No coverage

NO COMMENT

July 7, 2001 -- NEWS IN BRIEF -- "Sharon returns from European trip" -- A2

NO COMMENT

July 8, 2001 -- NEWS IN BRIEF -- "An 11-year-old Palestinian boy was shot and

killed" -- A4

1. This should have been an A1 story, with photos. Imagine if the boy were Israeli. He would have not received a "News in brief" spot but a headline on the front page.

July 9, 2001 -- "Clashes in Gaza as Palestinian boy is buried" -- Ibrahim Barzak --

AP -- A2 -- Rafah

1. Finally, a headline that mentions that a Palestinian boy was killed. A rarity, but a welcome innovation.

2. Photo of boy's mother kissing her boy before funeral. Also appreciated.

July 10, 2001 -- "Israel demolishes more buildings in Palestinian areas" --

Greg Myre -- AP -- A2 -- Jerusalem

1. Another appropriate headline that highlights the core of the conflict: Israel's brazen disregard for international law and its long-standing practice of collective punishment.

2. Both Israel and Palestinian officials were quoted.

July 11, 2001 -- "Israel levels more houses; Palestinians open fire" -- Ibrahim Barzak -- AP -- A4 -- Rafah

1. Appropriate headline.

2. No mention of the word "retaliation" or "response": a positive step forward, signaling independence of mind. "Retaliation" is a loaded word, very conveniently and efficiently casting the Israelis as acting in self defense, when it is obvious that they are engaged in acts of collective punishment and provocation.

3. Both sides were quoted.

4. The Photograph is appropriate, but could have been better: a close up of the crying man would have communicated better the feeling of despair. (See for example your photo of the crying Bosnian women, July 12, A2: it effectively communicates the intense feeling of sorrow.)

July 12, 2001 -- "Birth -- and death -- at Israeli checkpoint" Greg Myre --

AP -- A8 -- Jerusalem

1. The tragic deaths of a baby and a factory women shot in her taxi belong to the front page.

2. The headline is confusing: there was only death at the check point. A better headline would have been: "Baby dies after delay in check point".

3. The killing of the Palestinian woman is given short shrift.

4. NO pictures.

5. Palestinian officials were not quoted. Israeli officials were.

July 12, 2001 -- "Greek Orthodox Church defies Israeli directive" - Ibrahim Hazboun -- A8 -- AP -- Jerusalem

NO COMMENT

July 13, 2001 -- "On day of violence, two sides in Mideast warn of more" -- INQUIRER WIRE SERVICES -- A6 -- Hebron

2. The word "response" was used once. Please consider eliminating such loaded vocabulary.

July 13, 2001 -- "Story shifts on baby born at checkpoint" -- Mohammed Daraghmeh -- AP -- A6 -- Bardala

1. In all the fuss, the basic essence of the tragedy is lost: that a baby would die because of Israeli control of the flow of traffic. It should have taken the woman and her baby not more than 5 minutes to get to the hospital (which was 12 miles away). Instead, it took her 30 minutes to find a taxi, then another 15 in the checkpoint, with no doctors around to assist her in the emergency.

July 14, 2001 -- "More Mideast killings suggest cease-fire is over" -- Karin Laub -- AP -- A4 -- Jerusalem

1. Two quotes from Sharon. No quotes from the Palestinian Authority.

2. Positive: Sharon's message to "stop terror" is between quotes.

3. Photo of Israeli soldiers carrying the body of Palestinian.

July 15, 2001 -- "As fighting continues, Arafat seeks US help" -- AP - Ibrahim Hazboun -- A13 -- Jerusalem

1. We are told that a "7-year-old Palestinian girl was wounded by gunfire", but are given no details beyond that. The wounding of a 7-year-old Israeli child would have been followed with a name, circumstances of the incident, and probably a photograph. None of that appears in this article about the Palestinian child.

2. No quotes of either Palestinian or Israeli officials.

July 16, 2001 -- "Israeli tanks destroy Palestinian police posts in West Bank" -- Nasser Shiyouchi -- AP -- A2 -- Hebron

1. Positive: the first time I remember reading an explanation about what "divided" means when applied to Hebron.

2. Three quotes from Israeli officials. No quotes from the Palestinian Authority.

3. No Photos.

July 17, 2001 -- "Open minds study closed Arab world" -- Barba Demick -- Inquirer -- A1 (BF) -- Jerusalem

1. Many quotes from Israeli scholars, but NOT A SINGLE QUOTE FROM AN ARAB! It would have enriched the story to have included what Arab scholars think about the situation.

2. Photo of Israeli scholar.

July 17, 2001 -- "Suicide bomber claims to Israelis" -- Mary Curtis -- Los Angeles Times -- A2 -- Jerusalem

1. Two long quotes from Israeli officials. No quotes from Palestinian officials.

2. No photos.

July 18, 2001 -- "Israelis kill four in air strike; Palestinians reply with

mortar" -- Inquirer Services -- A2 -- Bethlehem, West Bank

1. Positive: the first time I read that Palestinians have acted in response to attacks on them, rather than the usual "Palestinians-initiate-Israelis-respond".

A hopeful sign that the Inquirer is taking a detached view of what is taking

place rather than repeating and internalizing the Israeli framework.

2. Quotes of Israeli officials, but no quotes from Palestinian officials.

3. No photos.

July 19, 2001 -- "Israeli stages buildup in West Bank" -- Mary Curtis and Tracy

Wilkinson -- Los Angeles Times -- A5 -- Bethlehem

1. Both Israeli and Palestinian officials were quoted.

2. Positive: quotes were appropriately used around the expression "terrorist

interception", since the phrase is coined by Israeli officials.

3. No photos.