Detailed analysis of news
coverage
of the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict
by the Philadelphia Inquirer
June, 2001
06/01/01 – 06/30/01
Palestine Media Watch
On “retaliation” and “responses”
Downplaying Palestinian suffering
--
In the month of June
2001, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a total of 35 stories on the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The
following is a summary of daily analyses by Palestine Media Watch of those
stories.
To
share your opinion on the coverage of the Palestinian Israeli conflict, please
send email to:
inquirer.letters@phillynews.com
The double standard
in the Inquirer’s coverage of Israeli children death and injury was vividly
illustrated in its coverage of the early June bombing of the Tel Aviv disco:
The
most telling aspect of this story is the fact that it contains no less than
18
direct quotes from the young Israeli victims. NEVER has any story about
Palestinian
suffering
contained nearly as many direct quotes from victims, and NEVER do we
get
empathic language such as "loss of innocence" when talking about what
Palestinian
children
and youth are enduring. (June 3)
Here is this month’s
breakdown of quotes in stories:
Israeli
officials quoted in 26 stories out of a total of 35 stories
Palestinian
officials quoted in 12 out of 35 stories
That is, quotes
appear from Israeli officials in 86% of the stories, while quotes from
Palestinian officials appear in only 36% of the stories. In other words, in 64% of the stories, NO QUOTES FROM PALESTINIAN
OFFICIALS APPEARED, whereas only in 14% of the stories did no quotes from
Israeli officials appear.
The words
“retaliation” and “response” appeared less frequently, probably
because there was
less violence this month than previous months.
Note however
that in early June,
when violence was still taking place, “retaliation” and
“response” were used
only to describe Israeli actions, never Palestinian actions.
The
word "retaliation" appeared twice - paragraph 1 and 8 - to describe
settlers
terrorist actions. The word was not used to describe Palestinian
actions.
The basic reality that Palestinian actions are retaliations against
daily
occupation is never mentioned. (June 1)
A
telling quote: "Last night's attack is likely to increase pressure
on
Sharon to retaliate by bombing Palestinian targets. And that, in turn,
is
likely to incite more suicide bombings." Why was the word
"retaliation"
not
used when describing the motivation behind the suicide bombers? In fact,
it
applies much more appropriately when used with reference to Palestinian
actions
than Israeli actions: you retaliate against the aggressor -- the IDF
and
occupying settlers -- but you indulge in collective punishment when you
unleash
violence by association against civilian populations who had nothing
directly
to do with the offending act. (June 2)
You
continue to use the words "response" and "retaliation"
uncritocally and
without
any qualifications of the term. (June 3)
Sanitizing
“Israeli operation”:
Your
reporters describe "operations... Israel has carried out in recent months”
as
follows: "bombing offices of Palestinian Authority agencies, pinpointing
attacks
on
Palestinians who Israel believes are responsible for terror; and limited
incursions
into Palestinian-controlled areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip". (June
3)
No space for
Palestinians:
Incredibly,
we were given 9 direct quotes from Israelis -- e.g., "A good Arab
is
a dead Arab" -- but NOT A SINGLE QUOTE from one of those
"Arabs". Why on earth would neither of your reporters bother to tell
us what the Palestinians, trapped in
their
mosque and fighting an angry mob, are feeling or what they have to say? (June
3)
Incredibly,
but no surprisingly, the whole story contained one brief quote
from
the Palestinian donor's father, totally 5 words. By contrast, 5 full paragraph
quotes
of the recipient's father and doctor. Even in an act of stunning humanity and
compassions,
Palestinians are denied a voice. Only how Israelis feel about the
act
is important, not how Palestinians feel. (June 6)
Not bothering to
investigate:
The
killing of two Palestinians is described as "the shooting of two brothers",
an
account, we are informed casually by Ms. Morris, that "Israeli sources
disputed...
saying
the two were killed in an auto accident." Ms. Morris is supposed to be
reporter
a reporter on events and not a scribe for who said what. Ms. Morris should
have
followed up by investigating if the two men had indeed died of a car accident
or
of settler terrorist attacks -- a thing the hospital could easily determine.
(June 4)
Not bothering
with “details” on Palestinians:
The
only thing we are told about the three women killed is their names and that
they were "Bedouin", living in a tent. Nothing near the searing human
portraits of tears and sorrow that we read when the victims are Israelis. (June
11)
We
are told that a "12-year old Palestinian boy was killed", but we are
given no further details about the boy. Imagine writing that an Israeli boy was
killed, with no details - no name, no description of his hobbies, his friends
and family, etc. (June 18)
Note
that while the June 23 story (of the two Israeli soldiers killed by a
suicide
bomber) came with two PHOTOGRAPHS, this story came with NO PHOTOGRAPHS of the
victims. Among the wounded victims were two toddlers. It would have been very
informative to show the faces of "collateral" damage to highlight the
danger Israel puts civilians in every time it decides to assassinate a
militant. (June 25)
This is a
religious war:
The
headline could have easily read: "'We wanted peace', says father of
bomber".
Instead,
we get the stereotype-reinforcing headline, insinuating that the more a Muslim
is
devout, the more he is liable to become a suicide bomber. (June 4)
Whitewashing
settlers:
Note
how carefully Ms. Morris avoids the use of "terror" or
"violence" when
describing
settlers actions. The words "terror", "violence", and the
like, are
common
currency when Palestinian action are described -- but not when Israeli
violence
takes place. (June 7)
Ignoring
international law:
Another
classic quote from Ms. Morris: "The Palestinians want Israel to stop
all
settlement activity, in which homes for Jews are built on land Palestinians
believe
is rightly theirs." Ms. Morris committed a similar blunder on May 9 when
she
wrote: "Erakat blamed Israel for the deaths, charging that the presence of
200,000
Israelis in settlements that he said violated international law were the root
of
the violence." As noted in PMWatch's report on the Inquirer's May coverage
(http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/reports/pi/newssummarymay2001.html#_Toc516248049),
your reporters should not hedge on matters that are clear cut, such as the fact
that
settlements
are indeed a violation of international law and the fact that the
West
Bank and Gaza strip are indeed Palestinian land. (June 8)
We
read at the last paragraph: "The Palestinians oppose settlements, calling
them one of the main obstacles to the formation of a Palestinian state in the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip." In fact, the settlements are not opposed by
only the Palestinians: they are deemed illegal by international law and by the
entire international community, including the United States. (June 27)
Only Palestinians
are violating cease-fire:
The
story reports one Palestinian accusation of Israeli violations of the
"cease
fire", and statements from the IDF alleging 6 Palestinian violations
of
the cease fire. In fact, dozens of IDF violations of the so-called
"cease
fire" have been made by the Palestinians. A long list of alleged
violations
between June 3 and 6 can be found at:
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/db/features/display_message.asp?mid=447
(June 5)
Ms.
Morris sites Israeli allegations of 90 Palestinian violations of the so-called
"cease-fire",
but nowhere are we told that the Palestinians make the same allegations
about
IDF violations. Please consult
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/db/features/display_message.asp?mid=447
for
a list of Palestinian accusations of IDF violations. (June 8)
Only Israelis
“retaliate”:
Note
again how carefully the word "retaliation" is avoided when describing
Palestinian
reactions to Israeli violence: "Stone-throwing is frequent and often
draws
Israeli fire; inciting rhetoric and roadside shootings..." (June 9)
Adopting Israeli
vocabulary:
The
article uses without qualification "illegal weapons" to describe
weapons held by
Palestinians.
It would have been very useful to know what exactly "illegal weapons"
referred to and who considers those weapons "illegal". As far as
international law is concerned, in a struggle against occupation, ALL weapons
and ALL means used to resist are internationally sanctioned. The "illegality" of the weapons,
then, is a contentious matter and the journalist should have drawn attention to
this point by at least putting quoting "illegal weapons". (June 13)
The
designation "Illegal weapons" was used twice in the story without
qualification or quotes around them. I for one do not know what these
"illegal weapons" refer to and would like your journalists to tell me
what they are. The status of weapons used by Palestinian resistance groups -
that is, whether these weapons are "illegal" or not -- is a hot point
of contention between Israelis and Palestinians and between Palestinians
themselves. Using them without qualification or quotes gives the impression
that the challenge is merely one of implementing agreements, when in fact the
challenge is sorting out what counts as "illegal" and what does not.
(June 14)
The
words "buffer zone" appear in the headline without quotation marks
around them. "Buffer zone" impliyes a protective zone. As the story
later reveals, the Palestinians hotly dispute the notion that Israelis are
creating a "buffer zone" and argue that the "buffer zone"
argument is simply yet another ruse to seize yet more land and to disconnect
yet more Palestinian populations from one another. In other words, another
example of your journalists and editors unreflectively adopting the Israeli
point of view. (June 19)
In
the story, the designation "buffer zone" was used six times. Only the
first time was it
double
quoted. Why were the double quotes dropped? (June 19)
Another
example: in paragraph 14, the designation "security closure" is used
without quotes. Again, the expression is coined by official Israel.
Palestinians have time and again argued that these closures have a much
sinister goal: to demoralize the populations into giving up the intifada by
making their lives as miserable as possible. (June 19)
Israeli sources
are reliable – but not Palestinians:
Yet
another example of looking at crisis from the Israeli angle: In paragraph 10 we
read:
"Two Israelis were shot and
wounded yesterday
in the West Bank and mortar shells
were fired
toward an Israeli army outpost in the
Gaza
strip, representing the first
challenge
on the ground to the truce."
Two
paragraphs later we read:
"In another incident, a
Palestinian was killed
and two were injured in what
Palestinian
officials said was a shooting by
Jewish
settlers on the West Bank. In a
statement,
the leader of Jewish settlers
"strongly
condemned" the shooting.
(a)
Note that in the first quote the incidents are described as facts, while in the
second as
hearsay
from Palestinians;
(b)
Note how in the second paragraph expressions of Israeli regrets are reported;
no Palestinian quotes in the first;
(c)
Note how your journalists drew the conclusion that the incident
"represent[ed] the first challenge on the ground to the truce" in the
first paragraph but not in the second -- and yet, no Israeli lives were lost,
but a Palestinian life was! (June 14)
Minimizing the
important:
An
important quote from Yasir Arafat -- or, as Mr. Barzak puts it: "Arafat
offered
an unusually explicit assertion that Jewish settlers should not be
targeted
by Palestinians." What is deemed "unusual" should be
highlighted:
I
thought that's the business you are in -- telling us what is news. But, instead
of
highlighting Arafat's quote, you chose to highlight what has sadly become
the
usual: the killing of a Palestinian trying to "sneak" into Israel.
The headline
should
have been: Arafat asserts that Jewish settlements should not be targeted by
militants. Now, that would have grabbed
people's attention! The only problem, of course, is that it would have made
Arafat look good -- not a risk you are willing to take, it seems. (June 24)
The
headline obviously should have been: "Powell agrees to 'observers'".
Notwithstanding the waffling from Powell later, this is a clear signal that the
State Department is pushing the envelope on the monitoring point. Your headline
and the highlighted boxed text seem to be trying their best to minimize this
potentially watershed moment in the crisis. (June 29)
Only
at the very last paragraph is mention made of the very important shift in US
policy: acceptance of the idea that there is a need for international
monitors. Official Israel is trying
very hard to downplay the importance of this development, and obviously Mr.
Schweid is taking his cues as to what is important and what is not from them.
(June 30)
For the second month
in a row, a map showing the Golan Heights as part of Israel
Was published.
The
map you show displays the Golan Heights as part of Israel. The
Golan
Heights are in fact considered as Occupied territories, by the United Nations,
the
United States, and Israel. Please indicate the Golan Heights as
occupied
territories, as you indicate Gaza and the West Bank. For an exact
map,
please see: http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm
(June 2)
1. The more frequent
presence of quotes at the end of the month bodes well for
the Inquirer’s July
coverage. We hope that the stories run
by the Inquirer will
continue to give us
all voices: Palestinian and Israeli officials, as well as
civilians from both
sides.
2. The best story
this month was Barbara Demick’s June 10th story:
a.
A rare piece of solid journalism that goes beyond the numbing mumbo-jumbo of
official
Israel. Ms. Demick does an excellent job of exposing the duplicity and
mendacity
of official Israel in trying to sell the world the canard that settlement
growth
is "natural". Ms. Demick shows that there is nothing natural about
their
growth
and that in fact they are the result of a deliberate Israeli policy.
b.
Also heartening is the presence in the story of quotes from a human rights
group
-- Peace Now. As our analysis of stories published in the Inquirer, quoting
human
rights watch groups is almost as rare as quoting Palestinian official -- that
is,
VERY RARE. Ms. Demick's story gained a great deal of credibility by drawing
from
Peace Now -- a sober and respected Israeli source of facts about the situation
on
the ground.
3. Lillian Swanson
promised that the Inquirer will re-examine its maps of the region and
will accurately
indicate occupied territory as such. We
look forward to the more accurate
maps.
June 1, 2001 --
"After deaths, settlers hit back and also denounce Sharon" --
Dina Kraft -- A17 -
AP - Jerusalem
1. The word
"retaliation" appeared twice - paragraph 1 and 8 - to describe
settlers terrorist
actions. The word was not used to describe Palestinian
actions. The basic
reality that Palestinian actions are retaliations against
daily occupation is
never mentioned.
2. No quotes from
Palestinians -- official or not.
3. No photographs.
June 2, 2001 -
"Suicide blast kills 17 in Israel" -- Nomi Morris and Barbara
Demick -- Inquirer
-- A1 (BANNER) -- Tel Aviv
1. A telling quote:
"Last night's attack is likely to increase pressure
on Sharon to
retaliate by bombing Palestinian targets. And that, in turn,
is likely to incite
more suicide bombings." Why was the word "retaliation"
not used when
describing the motivation behind the suicide bombers? In fact,
it applies much more
appropriately when used with reference to Palestinian
actions than Israeli
actions: you retaliate against the aggressor -- the IDF
and occupying
settlers -- but you indulge in collective punishment when you
unleash violence by
association against civilian populations who had nothing
directly to do with
the offending act.
2. No quotes, direct
or indirect, from the Palestinian authority.
3. The map you show
displays the Golan Heights as part of Israel. The
Golan Heights are in
fact considered as Occupied territories, by the United Nations,
the United States,
and Israel. Please indicate the Golan Heights as
occupied
territories, as you indicate Gaza and the West Bank. For an exact
map, please see:
http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm
3. Two photographs
appeared of the bombing scene (A8).
June 2, 2001 --
"Unique funeral in E. Jerusalem" -- Nicole Winfield --
AP -- (A8) --
Jerusalem
1. Various
Palestinian voices were quoted, the Prime Minister's spokesman
was quoted, but no
quotes from the Palestinian Authority.
2. No photographs.
June 3, 2001 --
"Sharon, Arafat showing restraint" -- Nomi Morris and Barbara
Demick -- Inquirer
-- A1 -- Tel Aviv
1. At long last,
quotes from the Palestinian Authority -- and from Arafat, no
less.
2. Your reporters
describe "operations... Israel has carried out in recent months”
as follows:
"bombing offices of Palestinian Authority agencies, pinpointing attacks
on Palestinians who
Israel believes are responsible for terror; and limited
incursions into
Palestinian-controlled areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip".
The 64-million
dollar question that begs to be asked, then, is: if Israel has been
so surgical in its
attacks, why do we have more than 100 Palestinian children killed?
and tens of
thousands of civilians injured?
3. You continue to
use the words "response" and "retaliation" uncritically and
without any
qualifications of the term.
4. Mug shot of a
dour-looking Yasser Arafat appeared (A8).
June 3, 2001 --
"Mourning for friends, a loss of innocence" -- Mort Rosenblaum --
AP -- A8 -- Tel Aviv
1. The most telling
aspect of this story is the fact that it contains no less than
18 direct quotes
from the young Israeli victims. NEVER has any story about Palestinian
suffering contained
nearly as many direct quotes from victims, and NEVER do we
get empathic
language such as "loss of innocence" when talking about what
Palestinian
children and youth
are enduring.
2. A photograph of a
young victim and a weeping friend by her bedside appeared (A8).
June 3, 2001 --
"Outraged Israelis attack mosque" -- Barbara Demick and Nomi Morris
-- Inquirer -- A9 --
Tel Aviv
1. Incredibly, we
were given 9 direct quotes from Israelis -- e.g., "A good Arab
is a dead Arab"
-- but NOT A SINGLE QUOTE from one of those "Arabs". Why on earth
would neither of your reporters bother to tell us what the Palestinians,
trapped in
their mosque and
fighting an angry mob, are feeling or what they have to say?
June 4, 2001 --
"Cease-fire, violence: Palestinians promise both" -- Nomi Morris
-- KR - A8 --
Jerusalem
1. Once again, not a
single quote from the Palestinian Authority, the official
spokesmen and
representatives of the Palestinian people. Quotes from Israeli
officials, Colin
Powell, Islamic militants, but nothing from PA.
2. The killing of
two Palestinians is described as "the shooting of two brothers",
an account, we are
informed casually by Ms. Morris, that "Israeli sources disputed...
saying the two were
killed in an auto accident." Ms. Morris is supposed to be
reporter a reporter
on events and not a scribe for who said what. Ms. Morris should
have followed up by
investigating if the two men had indeed died of a car accident
or of settler
terrorist attacks -- a thing the hospital could easily determine.
3. 4 photos:
- Picture of grieving mother over the
coffin of her daughter (A2)
- A photo of crying grieving girls during
the burial of their classmates (A8)
- A Photo of Shimon Peres and Ariel
Sharon (A8)
- A Photo of Yassir Arafat and German
Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer (A8)
June 4, 2001 --
"Father says bomber was 'devout Muslim'" -- Jamal Halaby --
AP -- A8 -- Zarqa,
Jordan
1. The headline
could have easily read: "'We wanted peace', says father of bomber".
Instead, we get the
stereotype-reinforcing headline, insinuating that the more a Muslim
is devout, the more
he is liable to become a suicide bomber.
2. No quotes from
Palestinian Authority.
June 5, 2001 --
"Israelis' thoughts turn to leaving" -- Barbara Demick --
Inquirer -- A2 --
Tel Aviv
1. Long quotes from
Israelis thinking of emigrating out of Israel,
and sympathetic,
understanding depictions of their feelings, and
delicate physical
descriptions -- humanizing the victims and bringing them to life.
Very rarely do we
read anything nearing this level of empathy when it comes to
describing
Palestinian suffering and anguish.
2. In the story, we
read that "there were as many Palestinians trying to
leave because of the
violence as Israelis." Should we expect a story about
Palestinian
immigration?
3 No quotes from the
Palestinian Authority.
June 5, 2001 --
"Battle rages in Gaza even as cease-fire grows by a faction" --
Nicole Winfield --
AP -- A2 -- Jerusalem
1. The story reports
one Palestinian accusation of Israeli violations of the
"cease
fire", and statements from the IDF alleging 6 Palestinian violations
of the cease fire.
In fact, dozens of IDF violations of the so-called
"cease
fire" have been made by the Palestinians. A long list of alleged
violations between
June 3 and 6 can be found at:
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/db/features/display_message.asp?mid=447
2. No quotes from
the Palestinian Authority.
June 6, 2001 --
"CIA director gets Mideast duties again" -- Barry Schweid --
AP -- A2 --
Washington
1. One quote from
Arafat -- the exact same quote provided on June 3.
2. 3 pictures: mug
shot of George Tenet, a picture of Hamas leader Ahmed Yasin
and an armed body
guard, and a picture of an orthodox Israel looking on
a poster of Sharon.
June 6, 2001 --
"A gift of life from one side to the other" -- Ramit Plushnick-Masti
-- Reuters -- A2 --
Jerusalem
1. The headline
could have easily read more dramatically: "Palestinian family
donates son's heart
to Israeli man".
2. Incredibly, but
no surprisingly, the whole story contained one brief quote
from the Palestinian
donor's father, totally 5 words. By contrast, 5 full paragraph
quotes of the
recipient's father and doctor. Even in an act of stunning humanity and
compassions,
Palestinians are denied a voice. Only how Israelis feel about the
act is important,
not how Palestinians feel.
3. Photograph of
recuperating Igal Cohen.
June 7, 2001 --
"CIA chief in Mideast today with tensions high" -- Nomi Morris --
KR -- Assawiya, WB
-- A15
1. The first full
quote from a Fatah official in a long time that articulates
the Palestinian
position and states what Palestinians want and how they feel.
2. Note how
carefully Ms. Morris avoids the use of "terror" or
"violence" when
describing settlers
actions. The words "terror", "violence", and the like, are
common currency when
Palestinian action are described -- but not when Israeli
violence takes
place.
3. Photograph of
Jewish settlers praying.
June 8, 2001 --
"Tenet visits Sharon and Arafat; securit talks next" -- Nomi Morris
--
KR -- Jerusalem --
A14
1. Another classic
quote from Ms. Morris: "The Palestinians want Israel to stop
all settlement
activity, in which homes for Jews are built on land Palestinians
believe is rightly
theirs." Ms. Morris committed a similar blunder on May 9 when
she wrote:
"Erakat blamed Israel for the deaths, charging that the presence of
200,000 Israelis in
settlements that he said violated international law were the root
of the
violence." As noted in PMWatch's report on the Inquirer's May coverage
(http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/reports/pi/newssummarymay2001.html#_Toc516248049),
your reporters should not hedge on matters that are clear cut, such as the fact
that
settlements are
indeed a violation of international law and the fact that the
West Bank and Gaza
strip are indeed Palestinian land.
2. Ms. Morris sites
Israeli allegations of 90 Palestinian violations of the so-called
"cease-fire",
but nowhere are we told that the Palestinians make the same allegations
about IDF
violations. Please consult
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/db/features/display_message.asp?mid=447
for a list of
Palestinian accusations of IDF violations.
3. No quotes from
the Palestinian Authority.
4. No photographs.
June 9, 2001 --
"CIA chief, Mideast foes discuss truce" -- Susan Sevareid -- AP --
Jerusalem -- A4
1. Again: no quotes
from the Palestinian Authority, the official, internationally
recognized,
representative body of the Palestinian people. Quotes from Israeli and
US officials were
plenty, but none from Palestinian officials.
2. Note again how
carefully the word "retaliation" is avoided when describing
Palestinian
reactions to Israeli violence: "Stone-throwing is frequent and often
draws Israeli fire;
inciting rhetoric and roadside shootings..."
3. No photographs.
June 10, 2001 --
"A refusal to live amid violence" -- Barbara Demick -- Inquirer --
Adam, WB -- A2
1. A rare piece of
solid journalism that goes beyond the numbing mumbo-jumbo of
official Israel. Ms.
Demick does an excellent job of exposing the duplicity and
mendacity of
official Israel in trying to sell the world the canard that settlement
growth is
"natural". Ms. Demick shows that there is nothing natural about their
growth and that in
fact they are the result of a deliberate Israeli policy.
2. Also heartening
is the presence in the story of quotes from a human rights
group -- Peace Now.
As our analysis of stories published in the Inquirer, quoting
human rights watch
groups is almost as rare as quoting Palestinian official -- that
is, VERY RARE. Ms.
Demick's story gained a great deal of credibility by drawing
from Peace Now -- a
sober and respected Israeli source of facts about the situation
on the ground.
3. No quotes from
Palestinian officials.
4. One photograph of
Palestinian boys on a donkey passing by an advertisement
for a Jewish
settlement.
June 11, 2001 -
"Women's deaths by Israeli fire endanger Mideast truce talks" --
Howard
Schneider -- Washington Post --
Jerusalem - A2
1. The only thing we
are told about the three women killed is their names and that they were
"Bedouin", living in a tent. Nothing near the searing human portraits
of tears and sorrow that we read when the victims are Israelis.
2. We are given one
quote (a great improvement from the customary zero quotes) from a
Palestinian official,
but 5 quotes from Israeli officials, in which they insisted that they made a
mistake, that they will investigate what took place, etc. Very rarely are we
given similar quotes of denial and justification from Palestinian officials.
3. Yet another numbing
wide shot of an angry Palestinian crowd in a funeral. No shots of the killed
women, their tents, their crying families, etc. (A2)
4. Photo of Israeli
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Goran Persson, and Javier Solana. (A2)
June 12, 2001 --
"Settlers demand that Sharon retaliate against Palestinians" -- Susan
Sevareid -- AP -- Jerusalem -- A2
1. Large close-up
photo of funeral of Israeli baby Yehuda Shoham. We see the father holding his
baby, surrounded by friends and family.
2. No quotes from
Palestinian officials. Palestinian officials have expressed their condolences
and sorrow over the killing of the baby, but nothing of what they said is
reported. Compare this with the 5 self-serving quotes from Israeli officials
that appeared yesterday.
June 13, 2001 --
"Palestinians, Israel accept U.S. truce plan" -- Howard Schneider –
Washington Post -- A2 -- Jerusalem
1. Once again, a
virtual shut out of what the Palestinian Authority -- the official
representative body of the Palestinian people -- had to say. The whole article
contains ONE word from Palestinian security chief, Mohammed Dahlan. By
contrast, a full quote from Ariel Sharon, along many long quotes from US
mediators are present.
2. The article uses
without qualification "illegal weapons" to describe weapons held by
Palestinians. It
would have been very useful to know what exactly "illegal weapons"
referred to and who considers those weapons "illegal". As far as
international law is concerned, in a struggle against occupation, ALL weapons
and ALL means used to resist are internationally sanctioned. The "illegality" of the weapons,
then, is a contentious matter and the journalist should have drawn attention to
this point by at least putting quoting "illegal weapons".
3. Two mug shots:
one of Yasir Arafat and one of Ariel Sharon.
June 14, 2001 --
"Violence, discord threaten tenuous Mideast truce" -- Barbara Demick
and Nomi Morris - Inquirer Staff -- A22 -- Jerusalem
1. The designation
"Illegal weapons" was used twice in the story without qualification
or quotes around them. I for one do not know what these "illegal
weapons" refer to and would like your journalists to tell me what they
are. The status of weapons used by Palestinian resistance groups - that is,
whether these weapons are "illegal" or not -- is a hot point of
contention between Israelis and Palestinians and between Palestinians
themselves. Using them without qualification or quotes gives the impression
that the challenge is merely one of implementing agreements, when in fact the
challenge is sorting out what counts as "illegal" and what does not.
2. Yet another
example of looking at crisis from the Israeli angle: In paragraph 10 we read:
"Two Israelis were shot and
wounded yesterday
in the West Bank and mortar shells
were fired
toward an Israeli army outpost in the
Gaza
strip, representing the first
challenge
on the ground to the truce."
Two paragraphs later
we read:
"In another incident, a
Palestinian was killed
and two were injured in what
Palestinian
officials said was a shooting by
Jewish
settlers on the West Bank. In a
statement,
the leader of Jewish settlers
"strongly
condemned" the shooting.
(a) Note that in the
first quote the incidents are described as facts, while in the second as
heresay from
Palestinians;
(b) Note how in the
second paragraph expressions of Israeli regrets are reported; no Palestinian
quotes in the first;
(c) Note how your
journalists drew the conclusion that the incident "represent[ed] the first
challenge on the ground to the truce" in the first paragraph but not in
the second -- and yet, no Israeli lives were lost, but a Palestinian life was!
4. A large close-up
look at teenage Jewish boys examining a bullet riddled pole. The incident
resulted in no Israeli deaths. That same day, a Palestinian was killed by a
settler -- but no photos, large or small, on that killing. (A22)
June 15, 2001 --
"Israel halts some of its truce-mandated pull backs...after one of its officers
is killed" -- Susan Savareid -- AP - A34 -- Jerusalem
1. Again, no quotes
from Palestinian officials.
2. Again, the use of
"illegal weapons" without explaining to us what "illegal
weapons" means.
3. Photo of
"Officers from both sides" (A35).
June 16, 2001 --
"Sides serious as Mideast truce holds" -- Susan Sevareid -- AP --
Jerusalem -- A3
1. We are told that
"eight Palestinians were wounded" - but nothing about the nature of
their wounds: were they bullet injuries, smoke inhalation, etc.?
2. NO quotes from
the Palestinian officials, but a long quote from Sharon's office.
3. No photographs.
June 17, 2001 -- NO
COVERAGE
June 18, 2001 --
"Sharon, Peres reportedly split on meeting with Palestinians" -- Mark
Lavie – AP -- Jerusalem -- A2
1. We are told that
a "12-year old Palestinian boy was killed", but we are given no
further details about the boy. Imagine writing that an Israeli boy was killed,
with no details - no name, no description of his hobbies, his friends and
family, etc.
2. The Israeli
version of events about Israelis firing at protestors is given, but not the
Palestinian version.
3. Another
illustration of how cheap Palestinian lives are regarded: we are told flatly
that "a young Palestinian was killed by Arafat's forces, apparently in an
effort to prevent fire at Israeli targets." This is spectacularly shabby
journalism. That is all that Mr. Lavie has to say about that incident?
4. The most glaring
flaw: a debate is raging today in Israel over the Sharon plan vs those who
believed in the Oslo process. It is now common knowledge in Israel that
Sharon's policy is one of destroying the PA. And yet, Mr. Lavie barely touches
on the matter, preferring instead to paraphrase Sharon's office's argument
about "not negotiating under fire".
5. Quotes from
Sharon and Powell. NO QUOTES FROM THE PA.
6. Photograph of an
Israeli soldier arguing with a distraught Palestinian woman.
June 19, 2001 --
"Israelis confirm plan for buffer zone" -- Nomi Morris - KR -
Qalqilya - A3
1. The words
"buffer zone" appear in the headline without quotation marks around
them. "Buffer zone" impliyes a protective zone. As the story later
reveals, the Palestinians hotly dispute the notion that Israelis are creating a
"buffer zone" and argue that the "buffer zone" argument is
simply yet another ruse to seize yet more land and to disconnect yet more
Palestinian populations from one another. In other words, another example of
your journalists and editors unreflectively adopting the Israeli point of view.
2. In the story, the
designation "buffer zone" was used six times. Only the first time was
it
double quoted. Why
were the double quotes dropped?
3. Another example:
in paragraph 14, the designation "security closure" is used without
quotes. Again, the expression is coined by official Israel. Palestinians have
time and again argued that these closures have a much sinister goal: to
demoralize the populations into giving up the intifada by making their lives as
miserable as possible.
4. We are told that
"The cease-fire appeared in jeopardy. Two Israeli motorists were killed by
Palestinian gunmen in the West Bank." First, what happened to the cautious
"alleged". Was Ms Morris present at the time of the shooting and was
she able to positively identify the gunmen?
Second, the implication from this passage is that the cease-fire is in
jeopardy because of the killing of Israelis. Why didn't Ms. Morris tell us that
a 12-year old Palestinian boy was killed, and that this too is contributing to
unsettling the shaky 'cease-fire'?
5. One positive
thing: ample quotes from the official representatives of the Palestinians – the
Palestinian Authority.
6. A large
photograph of barbed wire in the foreground and the city of Tulkarm in the
background.
June 19, 2001 --
"Massacre survivors ask Belgian judge to indict Sharon" -- Constant
Brand – AP -- Brussels, Belgium -- A3
1. The story
actually broke on June 4, and PMWatch forwarded an AP wire story to Paul
Nussbaum and all the
major players in the Inquirer. The story appears only now, two weeks later, and
only after NPR came out with it yesterday.
2. Photograph of
Ariel Sharon and Shaul Mofaz.
June 20, 2001 -- NO
COVERAGE
June 21, 2001 --
"2 more deaths make shaky Mideast truce even shakier" -- Mark Lavie
--
AP -- A5 --
Jerusalem
A good article,
except for the following:
1. Name of the
Israeli settler was given, but not the name of the Palestinian killed.
2. Quotes from the
US government and the Israeli government, but not from the
Palestinian
Authority.
June 22, 2001 -- NO
COVERAGE
June 23, 2001 --
"2 Israeli soldiers lured to deaths" -- Mark Lavie -- AP -- A3 --
Jerusalem
1. Many Palestinian
militants have been assassinated by exploding telephone booths, by
exploding cars, by
soldiers shooting at bus loads of people, by helicopter gun ships
shooting at
militants not engaged with them in a fight -- to just cite a few examples.
And yet not once
were we offered a headline that implied underhanded behavior on the part of the
Israelis. Astonishing, given that each of the dozens of assassinations carried
out by Israel was
not only underhanded and cowardly, but is deemed ILLEGAL under
international law,
whereas attacking the soldiers of an occupying force is deemed
TOTALLY WITHIN THE
RIGHT OF THE OCCUPIED PEOPLE.
2. Quotes from the
Prime Minister's office, a quote from the suicide bomber himself,
but NO QUOTES of the
Palestinian Authority.
3. TWO photographs
showing the grief of the soldiers are displayed. By contrast,
when a Palestinian
militant is assassinated, what we are given is a small picture
of twisted metal and
told that we are seeing is wreckage from the attack. I ask
you, which of the
two humanizes and which does not: a picture of young men carrying