Detailed analysis of news
coverage
of the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict
by the Philadelphia Inquirer
05/01/01 – 05/31/01
Palestine Media Watch
On “retaliation” and “responses”
Downplaying Palestinian suffering
--
In the month of May
2001, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a total of 38 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 most glaring
journalistic failure in the Inquirer’s coverage is its treatment of the killing
of Palestinian children vs Israeli children.
In story after story, the killing if Palestinian children is presented
with minimal detail, while Israeli killings are covered in great depth.
In several
occasions, the names of Palestinian children killed, sometimes as young as 6,
are not provided, with no explanation as to why the names did not appear (May 1
(2), May 12 (2), May 13 (1)). Often,
the coverage of Palestinian children killed is perfunctory and does not come
near to delving into the human dimension to the same extent it is delved into
when the victims are Israeli. Examples
of this abound: May 1 (1,2), May 2 (4,5), May (8) (1,2), May 9 (1), May 10 (1),
May (12) (2), May 13 (1), May 17 (1)
Another glaring
journalistic flaw is the discrepancy between the number of quotes from Israeli
officials and Palestinian officials. In
almost every story, long quotes from Israeli officials are provided, while quotes
from Palestinian officials are rarely given.
In fact, in several stories, NO quotes from Palestinian officials were
given: May 9 (both stories), May 19, May 26, May 27, May 29, May 30. Where quotes were given, they were extremely
brief, amounting to several words, or were provided toward the end of the story
– e.g., May 14 (1), May 28 (1), May 30 (1).
The words
“retaliation” and “response” continued to be used uncritically: May 5 (2), May
7 (3), May 12, May 20 (2), May 22 (3), May 25 (2).
We found several
instances of misleading journalism:
May 2 (1) -- The
headline – “Peres’ pursuit of peace fails to quiet unrest in Mideast” --
clearly misleads the reader into thinking that Foreign Minister Shimon Peres is
undertaking a peace initiative initiated by the Israelis. In fact, as the
article notes, the initiative is an Egyptian-Jordanian plan. Moreover, as the
piece notes, it is an initiative that Israel is resisting. The headline is
clearly misleading, to say the least.
May 3 (1) -- At the
end of paragraph 3, the story states: "[The Israeli government] also said
no new Jewish settlements would be built." As anyone who has followed the
story knows, this is a highly misleading statement. The Israeli government has
flatly rejected the Jordanian-Egyptian plan precisely because the plan calls
for a freeze on any settlement building.
Israel differentiates between starting new settlements and expanding
existing ones to accommodate what Israel calls "natural growth". When
Israel says that "no new Jewish settlement would be built", it is
simply reiterating its long-standing position. Indeed, no "new
settlements" have been built for many years, and yet the size of
settlements has doubled! Mr. Schweid is clearly misleading his readers when he
does not explain this differentiation.
His reader will be left thinking that Israel has agreed to Palestinian
demands, and yet the Palestinians refuse to cooperate.
May 5 (1) -- In
paragraph 13 of the story, we read: "three Palestinian civilians were
reported wounded in the crossfire". The word "crossfire" is
misleading, since it pretends that the Palestinians may have been wounded by
Palestinian fire. If Ms. Laud is not sure
who wounded the
Palestinians, she should either investigate or tell us that it is not known how
they were injured. We NEVER hear of Israelis wounded in crossfire.
May 23 (1) -- The
one glaring flaw of this report is that is misleads the reader into thinking
that the Palestinians are resisting the Mitchell report recommendations as much
as the Israelis In fact, the Palestinians have time and again accepted the
Mitchell report in toto.
A distressing
finding is the systematic downplaying of Palestinian suffering. In story after story, details about death
and destruction visited upon Palestinians were buried deep into the story and
mentioned briefly, without the vivid details Israeli death and suffering are
depicted with. Here are some examples:
May 3 (4) -- Only at
paragraph 11, towards the end of the story, are we told that 20 Palestinian
houses were demolished. The whole nightmare is given two short paragraphs. Not
once in the two paragraph were we told how the populations felt or what they
experienced. The demolitions come across as an aside, a detail, not important.
May 6 (2) -- Mention
of 17 Palestinians injured appears only in Paragraph 10 of the story.
May 11 (1) -- We had
to wait to paragraph 9 of the story to learn that "Israeli bulldozers
razed Palestinian farmland and a police station near a crossing point with
Gaza". It is distressing that state actions that are in total contravene
with the Geneva Convention and international law would be treated as
non-events.
(2) The same
observation applies to the following quote, found buried in paragraph 10:
"Dozens of Palestinian homes have been destroyed and hundreds of people
left homeless."
May 13 (2) -- A
Palestinian death was mentioned only at paragraph 10 of the story, with the
numbing description: "another Palestinian was killed yesterday by Israeli
tank fire...."
May 19 (2) -- We are
told in a parenthesis deep into the story that Gaza, unlike the West Bank, is
fenced off from Israel. I can guarantee you that 99% of your readers did not
know that Gaza was fenced off Israel. That such a crucial key fact about the
occupation would appear in a digression is symptomatic of the faulty
prioritization in your stories.
May 25 (1) -- The
death of Palestinians has become so commonplace and uneventful that we have to
wait to paragraph 8 of the story to discover that 2 Palestinians were shot dead
by Israelis.
May 29 (2) --
Israeli incursions, destruction of farms, and uprooting of 70 olive trees -- a
violation of the so-called Israeli cease fire -- are mentioned deep in the
story as an aside. The story should
have highlighted these actions since they clearly contradict Israel's assertion
that the IDF will not initiate actions against Palestinians unless under direct
mortal threat.
A grave journalistic
failure that many of the pieces examined suffered from is their uncritical
adoption of the official Israeli spin.
May 3 (2) -- At the
beginning of Paragraph 4, the story states: "The travel restrictions and
other curbs were imposed as a strategy to counter terrorist attacks on Israeli
soldiers and civilians." Aside the loose and unhelpful use of the word
"terrorist", it important to note how the theory put forward that
Israeli operations are attempts to "counter terrorist attacks" is
adopted wholesale. Many Palestinians and other independent observers, including
human rights organizations, have come
to the conclusion that Israeli operations in the Occupied Territories are
deliberately punitive and not preventative. That is, they are offensive and not
defensive at all. It is unfortunate that Mr. Schweid would adopt the Israeli
justification without taking his distance from it.
May 5 (1) -- In
paragraph 13 of the story, we read: "three Palestinian civilians were
reported wounded in the crossfire". The word "crossfire" is
misleading, since it pretends that the Palestinians may have been wounded by
Palestinian fire. If Ms. Laud is not sure
who wounded the
Palestinians, she should either investigate or tell us that it is not known how
they were injured. We NEVER hear of Israelis wounded in crossfire.
May 9 (3) -- Nomi
Morris reports the content of the boat as though she were there to examine them
herself. She could simply have added that an Israeli spokesperson said what
weapons were found.
2. Nomi Morris
writes: “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.” It is
vitally important that your journalists do not water down facts to a matter of
opinion. The settlements are considered to be violations of
international law by the United Nations.
Their violation is not a claim or an opinion. Your journalists should write to convey this reality.
May 21 (1) -- It is
strange that nowhere in the story are we told that the Palestinian side wholly
endorses the Mitchell Report and accepts it in its entirety. Instead, te
impression given is that the Israelis and the Palestinians are resisting the
report with equal strength -- an inaccurate portrayal, to say the least.
May 22 (1) -- Again,
it is disappointing to note that Palestinian wholehearted acceptance of the
Mitchell report goes unmentioned.
May 23 (1) -- I am
astonished that the relatively strong criticism of ambassador Indyk of Israeli
actions were buried in an AP wire story. His comments are almost unprecedented,
and yet they are buried in an A13 wire story. Astonishing!
May 24 (2) -- An
important flaw the article suffers from can be detected in the headline with
the presence of the word "errors". The notion that the many acts of
Israeli terror and unbridled military violence against Palestinian populations
are merely
"errors"
is controversial. Palestinians, and many independent observers, strongly
believe that Ariel
Sharon's actions are deliberately aimed at widening the conflict
and escalating the
confrontation. Anyon who is familiar with Israel's behavior in all
of its wars, from
1948 to 1982 and beyond would detect the tell-tell signs of the
old Israeli
war-mongering.
May 24 (3) -- The
only hint we were given that there is a theory that challenges the notion of
"errors" was a quote from Ruven Pedatzur, lecturer at Tel Aviv
University, in which we read: "either [the Israeli army] is behaving in an
incompetent manner... or else the top brass are trying to bring about a
military escalation." Anyone who read Mr.
Pedatzur's article
knows that the first option is rhetorical -- the army is not incompetent and
usually does not "botch relatively simple military operations", as
Prof. Pedatzur says
-- so that one is left with the plausible explanation that indeed "the top
brass are trying to bring about a military escalation." Whether the
theory is true or
not can be debated. But what is clear is that Ms. Demick had two possible
explanations and chose the one that shows Israel in best of lights rather than
the unflattering one
of war-mongering. A much more compelling article would have dropped the notion
of "errors" and would have objetively offered the reader both
theories -- with Palestinian quotes.
May 25 (1) The death
of Palestinians has become so commonpleace and uneventful that we have to wait
to paragraph 8 of the story to discover that 2 Palestinians were shot dead
by Israelis.
No maps depicting
the so-called “generous” Barak offers frequently mentioned in Trudy Rubin’s
columns.
A may showing the
Golan Heights as par of Israeli territory appeared in May 9, 2001 (May 9 (2)).
May 1 -- (5) On the
positive side: please note how Mr. Myre refers to Shimon Peres as "Israeli
Foreign Minister". As detailed in the report, both Barbara Demick and Nomi
Morris seem unable to resist tagging "Nobel Peace Prize Laureate"
(NPPL) to Peres's title. Please note
that the story not only did not suffer from dropping the NPPL, but gained in that
it characterized Peres for what he is: an agent of his Prime Minister and not
an emissary for peace at large.
May 3 (5) -- On the
positive side: the words "retaliation", "response", and
variations thereof did not appear.
May 4 (2) -- The word "response" or
"retaliations" or variations thereof were not used.
May 8 (3) --
Descriptions of the circumstances surrounding the killing and the human
dimension of the Palestinians' reaction were given.
May 8 (4) -- All
Israeli allegations were clearly attributed to Israelis (e.g., "Israeli
security official said").
May 8 (5) -- Denials
from Palestinian officials of Israeli accusations were reported.
May 9 (3) -- The
story was properly placed on the front page: Sharon's blunt rejection of the
Mitchell report is potentially a watershed moment in this crisis, and it is
refreshing to see that the Inquirer gave it the importance it deserves.
May 9 (4) -- The
story mentions the fact that the settlements are considered by the
international community to violate the Geneva Convention. As basic and crucial
as this fact is, it has rarely been mentioned in previous stories. It is a
hopeful sign that Ms. Demick mentioned this fact.
May 9 (5) -- Throughout the story, claims and
accusation carefully attributed to those who were making them rather than
stated as facts. We are told what Mr. Sharon felt, what he said, how he
reacted. That is, Ms. Demick acted as a faithful witness and not as an advocate
or a diplomat.
May 9 (6) -- It was
heartening to read the following: "The Israelis said that they were
retaliating for the mortar fire when Iman was struck and killed by
shrapnel." It is heartening to read this because what we usually read is:
"The Israelis were retaliating for the mortar fire...." I hope that the
word "retaliation" will from now on be used as it was used in this
paragraph: as a claim from the Israelis and not as a fact.
May 1, 2001--
"Palestinian children among 8 dead after explosions, clash". Greg
Myre -- AP -- A2
(1) The horrendous
death of an 8-year old boy and his 6-year old sister merits only an A2 story
from the news wire. It is disappointing that neither Barbara Demick nor Nomi
Morris picked up the story.
(2) I note with
disappointment that you did not inform your readers of the number
of Palestinian
children killed so far: more than 100.
(3) The name of the
two children is absent. Absent also are details about their lives. Indeed, the
whole story feels rushed: a hurried accounting of death and destruction is
thrown at us, with no feeling whatsoever - and no attempt to bring life to the
horrors.
(4) Another vivid
example of how Palestinian actions are not contextualized, while Israeli
actions are not only contextualized, but framed as responses:
"In the
southern Gaza strip, Palestinians fired two mortar rounds at the Jewish
settlment of Gadid from the Palestiinian city of Khan Yunis, the Israeli army
said. Israeli tanks responsed with shell fire."
(5) On the positive
side: please note how Mr. Myre refers to Shimon Peres as "Israeli Foreign
Minister". As detailed in the report, both Barbara Demick and Nomi Morris
seem unable to resist tagging "Nobel Peace Prize Laureate"
(NPPL) to Peres's title. Please note
that the story not only did not suffer from dropping the NPPL, but gained in
that it characterized Peres for what he is: an agent of his Prime Minister and
not an emissary for peace at large.
May 2, 2001 --
"Peres' pursuit of peace fails to quiet unrest in Mideast". A4 --
Greg Myre, -- AP.
(1) The headline
clearly misleads the reader into thinking that Foreign Minister Shimon Peres is
undertaking a peace initiative initiated by the Israelis. In fact, as the
article notes, the initiative is an Egyptian-Jordanian plan. Moreover, as the
piece notes, it is an initiative that Israel is resisting. The headline is
clearly misleading, to say the least.
(2) Details about
the killed Israeli settler are provided early in the story – in paragraph 3.
His name and age are given, as well as the exact number of bullets that were
fired on him, where and how he died, and that he was killed "like his
father before him".
(3) Mr. Myre cites
the figure of 27 bullets fired on the killed settler, but we are not told where
and how that information was obtained.
(4) Information
about the 7 and 4 year old Palestinian brother and sister comes only at
paragraph 7.
(5) No further
details about circumstances of death of the killed children. This is the more
egregious since no
details - not even their names – were given to us yesterday. Mr. Myre could easily
have obtained details about the children during their funeral, but he obviously
chose not to.
(6) Israeli denials
in the bombing of the building that killed the Palestinian children is repeated
twice, with a full quote from Israeli Defense Minister Benyamin Ben-Eliezer.
(7) Not once in the
story were we informed about the Palestinians' stand with respect to the
Egyptian-Jordanian plan.
May 3, 2001 --
"Powell and Peres discuss violence" -- Barry Schweid, AP – A4
(1) At the end of
paragraph 3, the story states: "[The Israeli government] also said no new
Jewish settlements would be built." As anyone who has followed the story
knows, this is a highly misleading statement. The Israeli government has flatly
rejected the Jordanian-Egyptian plan precisely because the plan calls for a
freeze on any settlement building.
Israel
differentiates between starting new settlements and expanding existing ones to
accommodate what Israel calls "natural growth". When Israel says that
"no new Jewish settlement would be built", it is simply reiterating
its long-standing position. Indeed, no "new settlements" have been
built for many years, and yet the size of settlements has doubled! Mr. Schweid
is clearly misleading his readers when he does not explain this differentiation. His reader will be left thinking that Israel
has agreed to Palestinian demands, and yet the Palestinians refuse to
cooperate.
(2) At the beginning
of Paragraph 4, the story states: "The travel restrictions and other curbs
were imposed as a strategy to counter terrorist attacks on Israeli soldiers and
civilians." Aside the loose and unhelpful use of the word
"terrorist", it important to note how the theory put forward that
Israeli operations are attempts to "counter terrorist attacks" is
adopted wholesale. Many Palestinians and other independent observers, including
human rights organizations, have come
to the conclusion that Israeli operations in the Occupied Territories are
deliberately punitive and not preventative. That is, they are offensive and not
defensive at all. It is unfortunate that Mr. Schweid would adopt the Israeli
justification without taking his distance from it.
(3) Only at
paragraph 9 is the fact that the peace proposal on the table is sponsored by
Egypt and Jordan.
(4) Only at paragraph
11, towards the end of the story, are we told that 20 Palestinian houses were
demolished. The whole nightmare is given two short paragraphs. Not once in the
two paragraph were we told how the populations felt or what they experienced.
The demolitions come across as an aside, a detail, not important.
(5) On the positive
side: the words "retaliation", "response", and variations
thereof did not appear.
May 4, 2001 - The
Inquirer ran an A26 story with the headline: "Sharon, Peres in accord on
Arafat". The story was by Greg Myre, AP.
(1) Support by the
Palestinians of the Egyptian-Jordanian plan was not mentioned until paragraph
15.
On the positive
side:
(2) The word
"response" or "retaliations" or variations thereof were not
used.
(3) Shimon Peres is
referred to for what he is, Foreign Minister - no mention of Nobel Peace Prize
Laureate.
By and large, a
straight story with no glaring imbalances.
May 5, 2001 - The
Inquirer ran an A5 story with the headline: "Mitchell report calls for
freeze on Israeli settlements". The story was by Karim Laub, AP.
(1) In paragraph 13
of the story, we read: "three Palestinian civilians were reported wounded
in the crossfire". The word "crossfire" is misleading, since it
pretends that the Palestinians may have been wounded by Palestinian fire. If
Ms. Laud is not sure
who wounded the
Palestinians, she should either investigate or tell us that it is not known how
they were injured. We NEVER hear of Israelis wounded in crossfire.
(2) In paragraph 11,
the word "responding" was used without double quotes.
(3) At the end of
the story, we are told that "no one was hurt" when Palestinians fired
mortars at an Israeli farming village. Immediately after that, we are told that
"an Israeli tank fired several shells at a Palestinian police
station," but we are not informed if any Palestinians were hurt. We are
merely told that there was "some damage".
On the positive
side:
(4) Shimon Peres is
referred to for what he is, Foreign Minister - no mention of Nobel Peace Prize
Laureate.
Beside the three
objections, the story is balanced.
May 6, 2001 - The
Inquirer ran an A5 story with the headline:
"Militant's death blamed on Israel". The story was by Ibrahim
Hazboun, AP.
(1) At paragraph 9,
Israeli denial of the shooting is mentioned.
(2) Mention of 17
Palestinians injured appears only in Paragraph 10 of the story.
On the positive
side:
(3) Details on the
assassination of Ahmed Khalil Assad are given early in the story. We are also
told about how the Palestinians felt about the assassination.
(4) Shimon Peres is
referred to for what he is, Foreign Minister - no mention
of Nobel Peace Prize
Laureate.
The story is
journalistically better than the ones examined so far.
May 7, 2001 --
"Palestinian areas under intense fire as Israel hunts gunmen" -- Greg
Myre, AP – A2
Some comments:
(1) The offensive
word "hunts gunmen" - as if they were animals to be tracked down and
shot.
(2) In the headline
subtitle, we are told that "One person died". A more precise and
accurate description would have been: "One Palestinian killed".
(3) The word
"response" appears twice and the word "respond" once. In
all cases, they were used to describe Israeli attacks or motivation behind
Israeli attacks.No description of Palestinian actions was described as a
response.
(4) The word
"occupation" appeared only once -- in the middle of a quote from
Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo.
(5) Late in the
story, in paragraph 15, we are told that a 5-year-old boy and and 11-year-old
girl were wounded by shrapnel. Needless to point out that neither child's name
was provided.
Today's story is
depressingly below par: it fails to convey the sense of terror that
Palestinians are living. What Mr. Myre fails to tell your readers is that units
from the 4th most powerful in the army are shelling civilian buildings and
wrecking havoc in the lives of innocent civilians. Mr. Myre also fails to
mention that such actions are in violation of international law and the 4th
Geneva Convention.
May 8, 2001 - The
Inquirer ran an A2 story with the headline: "Palestinian baby killed in
shelling of Gaza Strip camp". The story was by Ibrahim Barzak, AP.
(1) It important to
note that the killing of Shelhevet Pass on March 26 received an A1 headline,
and was written by KR writer Nomi Morris. Baby Iman received an A2 story, and
the story was picked up from the AP wire.
(2) It is important
to note that baby Shlehevet's story was accompanied with a photograph of the
baby in the arms of her family (p. A8). No photographs were shown of baby Iman.
On the positive side
(3) Descriptions of
the circumstances surrounding the killing and the human dimension of the
Palestinians' reaction were given.
(3) All Israeli
allegations were clearly attributed to Israelis (e.g., "Israeli security
official said").
(4) Denials from
Palestinian officials of Israeli accusations were reported.
I am glad to see
that the death of a Palestinian baby was not swept under the carpet, but I am
sad and depressed that even innocent babies are not treated equally by your
editors.
May 9, 2001 - The
Inquirer ran an A1 story with the headline: "Sharon rejects effort to keep
settlements from expanding". The story was by Barbara Demick, Inquirer
staff writer.
The story was a
welcome instance of good reporting from Barbara Demick and good editing from
the editors.
On the negative
side:
(1) No Palestinian
quotes were given - no reactions from Palestinians to Sharon's blunt rejection
of the Mitchell report. Sharon is given ample space to explain his position,
but no Palestinian quotes are provided to counter his reasoning.
(2) The map shown
displays the Golan Heights as part of Israel. They are occupied territory and
should be depicted like the West Bank and Gaza.
On the positive
side:
(3) The story was
properly placed on the front page: Sharon's blunt rejection of the Mitchell
report is potentially a watershed moment in this crisis, and it is refreshing
to see that the Inquirer gave it the importance it deserves.
(4) The story
mentions the fact that the settlements are considered by the international
community to violate the Geneva Convention. As basic and crucial as this fact
is, it has rarely been mentioned in previous stories. It is a hopeful sign that
Ms. Demick mentioned this fact.
(5) Throughout the
story, claims and accusation carefully attributed to those who were making them
rather than stated as facts. We are told what Mr. Sharon felt, what he said,
how he reacted. That is, Ms. Demick acted as a faithful witness and not as an
advocate or a diplomat.
(6) It was
heartening to read the following: "The Israelis said that they were
retaliating for the mortar fire when Iman was struck and killed by
shrapnel." It is heartening to read this because what we usually read is:
"The Israelis were retaliating for the mortar fire...." I hope that
the word "retaliation" will from now on be used as it was used in
this paragraph: as a claim from the Israelis and not as a fact.
May 9, 2001 - "
Palestinian says arms-smuggling effort will go on" -- Nomi Morris, Knight
Ridder News Service – A19
(1) Of all the
pictures that could have been chosen - Iman alive in the arms of her smiling
family (as Shalhevet was shown), the crying father, the wailing female members
of the family, the little 8 year old aunt -- the picture that was carefully
selected was one of white
hooded Jihad
militants. On April 2, the photograph you selected for baby Shalhevet's funeral
was that of her father sitting on a chair with a mournful expression on his
face as he stared at his daughter’s coffin.
You could have shown the lines of commando troopers that circled Hebron,
you could have shown us the armed settlers, you could have shown us the angry
settlers throwing stones as they marched towards Shalhevet's grave -
but instead you
showed the father and a few settlers.
(2) Not ONE quote
from a Palestinian official was given. This is astonishing, to say the least.
What the PA has to say about Ahmed Jibril is something very imprtant to know.
(3) Nomi Morris
reports the content of the boat as though she were there to examine them
herself. She could simply have added that an Israeli spokesperson said what
weapons were found.
(4) The story ends
with: "Israel fired shells into Khan Yunis after four mortars landed in
Jewish settlements in Gaza, causing no injuries." It would have been a refreshing exercise to
tell us that the four mortars were originally fired after Israeli shelling of
Khan Yunis. A deadly cycle is agrip of the conflict -- communicating that important
reality is one of basic missions of journalists who cover the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
A depressing article
- with the cynical photograph casting bad light on the whole piece. I honestly
have yet to read a SINGLE piece from Nomi Morris that was a solid piece of
journalism.
May 10, 2001 – “2
Jewish teens beaten to death” – Nomi Morris – Knight Ridder News Service
1. The full story is
totally focused on the killing of the boys.
No such stories are written exclusively focusing on the killing of
Palestinians. Usually, Palestinian
deaths are mentioned as background information, not the main topic of stories.
2. Nomi Morris
writes: “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.” It is
vitally important that your journalists do not water down facts to a matter of
opinion. The settlements are considered
to be violations of international law by the United Nations. Their violation is not a claim or an
opinion. Your journalists should write
to convey this reality.
3. It is a welcome
change to read Palestinian statements of regret.
May 10, 2001 – “Old
friends in Md. Mourn a family’s loss” – Michael Ruane and Nurith Aizman
A touching human
story, but not journalistically solid.
The writers should have conveyed to the reader the basic fact that the
boys lived in an illegal settlement. As the story is written, the reader can
easily be misled into thinking that the boys were attacked in Israel proper.
Whether they were killed inside or outside Israel does not justify the
killings, but it frames the readers’ reaction and interpretation of the
tragedy.
The two stories
together illustrate quite vividly the double standards the Inquirer applies when treating Israeli deaths and Palestinian
deaths. Whereas baby Iman’s killing
received one dubious photograph (May 9), one wire story, little compelling
details, the killing of the teenage boys received 3 photographs (one front page
and in color), two stories, neither of which wire stories, and many details
about the lives and families of the victims.
May 11, 2001 -
"Israelis hit Arab locations in Gaza" -- Jamie Tarabay -- A2-- AP.
Some comments:
(1) We had to wait
to paragraph 9 of the story to learn that "Israeli bulldozers razed
Palestinian farmland and a police station near a crossing point with
Gaza". It is distressing that state actions that are in total contravene
with the Geneva Convention and international law would be treated as
non-events.
(2) The same
observation applies to the following quote, found buried in paragraph 10:
"Dozens of Palestinian homes have been destroyed and hundreds of people
left homeless."
The destruction of
Palestinian homes, the razing or Palestinian land, and the uprooting of
thousands of trees, is a story that needs to be told in detail and not in
snipets of paragraphs.
May 12, 2001 - The
Inquirer ran an A5 story with the headline:
"In
retaliation, Israelis bulldoze 6 Gaza buildings". The story was by Jamie
Tarabay, AP.
(1) The presence of
the word "In retaliation" in the headline is shocking. It is official Israel that claims that such
illegal actions are "retaliations".
Palestinians and many independent observers believe that they are not
mere retaliations but acts of collective punishment.
(2) Buried in
paragraph 11, we are told that "a 16-year old Palestinian was killed by
Israeli troops who fired live ammunition at several dozen stone throwers."
I am really shocked that: (a) you would tell us about the killing of a child
only towards the end of the story, (b) neither the name nor the gender of the
child was given, and (c) that you would consider the firing of live ammunition
on stone throwers so much of a minor even that you would mention towards the
end of the story.
In a normal world,
the headlines should have read: "16 year old Palestinian killed as Israeli
army fires live ammunition at stone throwers". Instead, we are told that
Israel "retaliated" by razing buildings. Very clear what worldview
you are using: one that sympathizes with official Israel and considers the
razing of buildings more important than the death of children.
An egregious and
unconscionable piece, with all due respect.
May 13, 2001 - The
Inquirer ran an A4 story with the headline:
"Israeli attack on Palestinians' car leaves 2 dead". The story
was by Wael al-Ahmad, Reuters.
(1) I note with
sadness that the death yesterday of a 16-year old Palestinian, whose name and
gender were not given, was not mentioned at all.
(2) I note with
sadness that a Palestinian death was mentioned only at paragraph 10 of the
story, with the numbing description: "another Palestinian was killed
yesterday by Israeli tank fire...."
May 14, 2001 --
"Worrying work at holy Jerusalem site" - A1 (BF) - Barbara Demick,
The Philadelphia Inquirer
1. Ms. Demick
provides 7 full quotes from Israelis, for a total of 165 words. Only one Palestinian quote is afforded,
totaling 13 words. One quote from the Israeli police supporting the Palestinian
is also provided, and it also total 13 words.
2. No mention
whatsoever was made of Palestinian worries that Israelis are also doing the
same thing: excavating to undermine Muslim presence. It is startling that a
long article on the Holy site be written and yet no mention of the 1996
outbreak of violence over the provocative opening of a tunnel under the
Netanyahu administration -- a crisis that left scores of Palestinians and
Israelis killed.
3. We have to wait
to paragraph 22 to learn that the Israeli Supreme Court has "recently
refused a petition to stop the construction on the mount." This is an
important piece of information and it is unfortunate that it be buried deep
into the story
4. I note the
detailed map of the holy site. I hope we will be able to see in the future a
detailed map of proposals on the table of the future Palestinian state.
May 14, 2001 --
"Virtual trip to Second Temple" - A10 - Barbara Demick, Inquirer staff writer.
1. 62 words of
quotes from Israelis are provided, vs. 18 words of quotes from Palestinians.
2. The contrast is
stark between how Israeli fears are delved into, examined in detail and depth,
as illustrated in the adjoining story ("Worrying work at holy Jerusalem
site"), and how Palestinian worries are mentioned dismissively in this
story.
May 14, 2001 -
"Israelis assailed on settlements" - A3 - Ramit Plushnick-Masti -
Reuters.
We note with
satisfaction that the word "occupation" and variations thereof
occurred 7 times. The conflict cannot
be understood unless the reader is made well aware that an illegal occupation
is taking place and that a people is resisting it, as they are
entitled to.
May 15, 2001 -
"Israeli army attack leaves 5 Palestinian officers dead" - A1 --
Barbara Demick, The Philadelphia Inquirer
Well written story,
with adequate number of quotes from both the Palestinian and the Israeli sides,
specific attribution to allegations and claims, and overall depiction of who
did what and the reactions from both sides.
We also note the
careful description of "Gilo" as "a Jerusalem neighborhood
built on land
annexed from the West Bank".
May 16, 2001 -
"Palestinians fill streets in protest" - A3 -
Barbara Demick, The
Philadelphia Inquirer
It is astonishing
that your one correspondent would write about the huge Palestinian
demonstrations over Al Nakba without delving into the actual history of what
took place. We are told, briefly, in paragraph 18, that "700,000
Palestinian became refugees in 1948 during the war that followed Israel's
creation." We are given
smatterings of angry quotes here and
there in the piece from Palestinian refugees, but a reader who is not
familiar
with what really
took place would not know that in fact whole populations were intentionally
terrorized by Israeli forces into leaving their homes -- something that has
been revealed by
Israeli scholars and has been the subject of recent heated debate in Israeli
society. Ms. Demick describes the Palestinians as "angry", but does
not provide the background information needed to understand that anger and to
put it in proper context. This is unfortunate.
May 16, 2001 -
"Senator, citing anti-Semitism, questions aid to Egypt" - A24 -
Barbara Scweid, AP
1. US Aid to Israel,
including guaranteed loans that are often written off and forgiven, surpasses
$5 billion. Barbara Schweid cites the figure $3 billion.
2. Once again, the
reader is misled with the following: "[The offer to the Palestinians]
included statehood on virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza and control over
part of Jerusalem." A map showing what "virtually all" meant
would have been enlightening. It would also have been enlightening if we were
told what "control over part of Jerusalem" meant.
May 17, 2001 --
"Mideast attacks endure as sides allude to peace" -- A3 --
Greg Myre, AP
1. We have to wait
to paragraph 16 of the story to learn that a 14 year
old Palestinian
child was "killed by bullets fired by Israeli troops".
2. It is heartening
to see a photograph of a Palestinian mother weeping over her child.
May 19, 2001 -
"Mall bombing triggers deadly day in Mideast" -- A1 (AF). -- Barbara
Demick.
1. The most salient
aspect of this sad escalation was the fact that Israel used F16 jet fighters to
bomb Palestinians for the first time since 1967. A more appropriate headline
would have been: "Israel uses F16 jet fighters to bomb Palestinian
targets," with a sub-headline that talked about the mall bombing.
2. We are told in a
parenthesis deep into the story that Gaza, unlike the West Bank, is fenced off
from Israel. I can guarantee you that 99% of your readers did not know that Gaza
was fenced off Israel. That such a crucial key fact about the occupation would
appear in a digression is symptomatic of the faulty prioritization in your
stories.
3. The story quotes
George Bush, Kofi Annan, Israeli police, an Israeli civilian, a Palestinian
civilian, and an Israeli official spokesperson. What Palestinian officials had
to say about this is nowhere to be found.
May 19, 2001 -
"In West Ban, a celebration of martyrdom" -- A1 (AF). Barbara Demick
1. A rare photo of
the face of a Palestinian child. Except that the child chosen is a suicide
bomber. This would
have been welcome in normal circumstances -- that is, if you had been showing
the face of Palestinian victims of Israeli bombing -- but in this case the
photo plays to reinforce the image of Palestinian children as terrorists that
deserve to be punished.
2. The story tries
very hard to highlight the religious dimension in the bomber's life. Anyone
familiar with life in the West Bank would have found nothing particularly
radical about the religious life of the young man. What is radical is the
inhumane occupation and the extent to which Israeli has rained violence on the
Palestinians. That aspect is barely touched on by Ms. Demick.
May 20, 2001 --
"US role urged as Mideast boils over" -- A1 (AF) -- Barbara Demicl
& Nomi Morris.
1. The word
"terrorism" -- which Paul agreed was not a useful term in this
conflict -- was used several times to describe Palestinian actions. As Paul
rightly noted, any actions aimed at terrorizing civilian populations is
terrorism. By that definition, Israeli bombings are terrorism, since they do
terrorize civilian populations. Please refrain from using this
overused word, as
you agreed to.
2. The word
"retaliation" also was used several times in the piece. Again, this
is an Israeli claim and casts an image of an army merely engaged in reacting to
aggressive actions.
May 21, 2001 --
"Bloody weekend dims prospects for Mideast Peace" -- A2 -- Nomi
Morris and Warren Strobel
1. It is strange
that nowhere in the story are we told that the Palestinian side wholly endorses
the Mitchell Report and accepts it in its entirety. Instead, te impression
given is that the Israelis and the Palestinians are resisting the report with
equal strength -- an inaccurate portrayal, to say the least.
May 22, 2001 --
"Mideast sides get road map to negotiating table" -- A1 (BF). Warren
Strobel and Nomi Morris. KR
1. Again, it is
disappointing to note that Palestinian wholehearted acceptance of the Mitchell
report goes unmentioned.
2. Since the players
-- Israelis and Palestinians -- are central to the conflict, a more accurate
headline would have been: "Palestinians accept Mitchell findings, Israelis
refuse to accept key recommendation".
3. The report did
conclude that Sharon's visit was not an immediate spark, but it also concluded
that the uprising was not orchestrated by the Palestinian authority. The
article makes mention of the first finding but not the second.
May 22, 2001 --
"Two killed, five injured in clashes at two sites" -- A13 Dina Kraft
-- AP.
1. I am astonished
that the relatively strong criticism of ambassador Indyk of Israeli actions
were buried in an AP wire story. His comments are almost unprecedented, and yet
they are buried in an A13 wire story. Astonishing!
2. Equally
astonishing is Ms. Kraft citing wall graffiti to contradict official
Palestinian
statements: and how
does Ms. Kraft know that the graffiti are indeed from Arafat's Fatah
movement?
Astonishing journalism, indeed.
3. And again, the
ugly word "retaliation" rears its familiar head. "Palestinian
fired mortars", we are told. No room for the possibility that Palestinians
were firing those mortars in retaliation to Israeli "retaliation" of
the day before. Israelis, on the other hand, leveling police stations and
shooting at their Palestinian police chiefs, are merely "responding".
But maybe ambassador Indyk has a point: you can't really want peace if you are
shooting at the very people who can help you bring it about....
May 23, 2001 --
"Sharon calls on Palestinians to join a truce" -- A2 -- Nomi Morris -
Knight Ridder
1. The one glaring
flaw of this report is that is misleads the reader into thinking that
the Palestinians are
resisting the Mitchell report recommendations as much as the Israelis.
In fact, the
Palestinians have time and again accepted the Mitchell report in toto.
2. On the positive
side, the article does cite official reaction from the Palestinian
Authority - a rare
occurence worth pointing out.
May 24, 2001 --
"Israeli army errors pile up" -- A3 - Barbara Demick -- Philadelphia
Inquirer
1. A welcome human
story on the inhumanity Palestinians are served up as matter of
routine in the
Occupied Territories. The photograph showing Issa Souf in hospital
with his parents is
a weclome change from the aggressive images of Palestinian anger.
2. One important
flaw, howerver, that the article suffers from can be detected in the
headline with the
presence of the word "errors". The notion that the many acts of
Israeli
terror and unbridled
military violence against Palestinian populations are merely
"errors"
is controversial. Palestinians, and many independent observers, strongly
believe that Ariel
Sharon's actions are deliberately aimed at widening the conflict
and escalating the
confrontation. Anyon who is familiar with Israel's behavior in all
of its wars, from
1948 to 1982 and beyond would detect the tell-tell signs of the
old Israeli
war-mongering.
3. The only hint we
were given that there is a theory that challenges the notion of
"errors"
was a quote from Ruven Pedatzur, lecturer at Tel Aviv University, in which
we read:
"either [the Israeli army] is behaving in an incompetent manner... or else
the top brass are
trying to bring about a military escalation." Anyone who read Mr.
Pedatzur's article
knows that the first option is rhetorical -- the army is not
incompetent and
usually does not "botch relatively simple military operations", as
Prof. Pedatzur says
-- so that one is left with the plausible explanation that
indeed "the top
brass are trying to bring about a military escalation." Whether the
theory is true or
not can be debated. But what is clear is that Ms. Demick had two
possible
explanations and chose the one that shows Israel in best of lights rather than
the unflattering one
of war-mongering. A much more compelling article would have dropped the notion
of "errors" and would have objetively offered the reader both
theories -- with Palestinian quotes.
May 25, 2001-
"On alert, Israel downs small plane in its airspace" -- A4 - Nomi
Morris – Knight Ridder
1. The death of
Palestinians has become so commonpleace and uneventful that we have
to wait to paragraph
8 of the story to discover that 2 Palestinians were shot dead
by Israelis.
2. Again, the
unhelpful and convenient (for Israelis) word "responded" is used to
describe the
sequence of violent actions. We are never told that Palestinians
respond to Israeli
actions.
May 25, 2001 --
"Mitchell hopeful for Mideast" -- A4 -- Shawn Pogatchnik -- AP
1. It once again
unfortunate that Palestinian acceptance of the report is not
highlighted.
Instead, the story attempts to conveny the sense that both
Palestinians and
Israelis are equally reluctant to accept the report's
recommendations.
May 26, 2001 --
"Israelis are targeted in 2 more attacks" -- Nomi Morris and
Barbara Demick --
Inquirer Staff writers
1. A revealing quote
appears in paragraph 6: "Sharon ordered Israeli troops to stop initiating
military operations against Palestinian targets. "The key word here is "initiating". It turns out,
after all, that Israeli troops do initiate operations, rather than always
"respond" or "retaliate",
as Demick's and Norris' stories repeatedly tell us.
2. Israeli
officials, the spiritual leader of Hamas, and even the Hamas militant who
carried out a
suicide bomb, are
quoted, but not Palestinian official quotes
are provided.
May 27, 2001 -- "US readies for Mideast
diplomacy" -- Mat Spetalnick -- Reuters -- A2
1 - Several official
Israeli sources were quoted directly -- Jerusalem Police Chief and a Sharon
spokesperson -- but no official Palestinian sources.
2 - It is heartening
to see mention of UN resolutions and to read the following quote:
"Palestinians demand a halt to all settlement-building ob occupied land,
which is considered a violation of international law."
My 28, 2001 --
"Bomb explosions greet US envoy in Middle East" – Nicole Winfield --
AP -- A2
1 - Once again,
minimal quotes from Palestinian officials, with plenty of quotes from Israeli
officials. The quote lone quote from a
Palestinian official was: "package deal from A to Z" -- that is, four
words and two letters!
2 -- The article
quotes that since fighting erupted in September, "478 people have been
killed on the Palestinian side and 85 on the Israeli side." In the tabulations, Arab-Israeli citizens
killed by their government's army -- the IDF --were somehow lost.
My 29, 2001 --
"Israel, Palestinians to discuss security" – Nicole Winfield -- AP --
A2
1 - Once again, no
direct quotes from Palestinian officials, but an ample quote from Foreign
Minister Shimon Peres.
2 - Israeli
incursions, destruction of farms, and uprooting of 70 olive trees -- a
violation of the so-called Israeli cease fire -- are mentioned deep in the
story as an aside. The story should
have highlighted these actions since they clearly contradict Israel's assertion
that the IDF will not initiate actions against Palestinians unless under direct
mortal threat.
3 -- Again:
Arab-Israeli citizens killed are left out of the total count of fatalities in
this conflict.
May 30, 2001 --
"6 Mideast killings bode ill for new talks" -- Barbara Demick --
Inquirer Staff Writer -- A2
1. Again, no quotes from Palestinian officials. Mr. Sharon is quoted twice, but nothing from the Palestinian Authority's spokespeople.