Detailed Report on COLUMNS dealing with the

Palestinian-Israeli conflict

published in

Washington Post

between

October 6, 2000 and March 16, 2001

 

 

Palestine Media Watch

 

http://www.pmwatch.org

 

03/20/2001

 

 

1.                 Introduction

 

This report provides a breakdown of opinion columns on the Middle East crisis published by The Washington Post between October 3, 2000 and March 16, 2001 (the period covered by this report). 

 

This report examines in some detail the content of these columns.

 

 

2.                 The Editorial Board

 

The members of The Washington Post editorial board are:

·        Fred Hiatt – Editorial page editor

·        Colbert I. King – Editorial page deputy editor

·        Ken Ikenberry – Editorial page deputy editor

 

 

3.                 The Columns

 

During the period that is the focus of this report, The Post published forty-five (45) opinion articles, the first of which was published on October 9, 2000:

 

Date

Title

 

 

October 9, 2000

“Avoiding a War”

October 9, 2000

“Opting For Violence”

October 10, 2000

“Joseph’s Tomb”

October 10, 2000

“Don’t Fear Saddam”

October 11, 2000

“Who Leads To Peace?”

October 11, 2000

“A Feast of Retreats”

October 11, 2000

“Talk To Me, Mr. Barak”

October 12, 2000

“Afraid of the Truth”

October 13, 2000

“Camp David: Bad Idea, Bad Result”

October 15, 2000

“Be Honest About Evil”

October 15, 2000

“Breaking the Cycle of Violence”

October 17, 2000

“…A New Reality”

October 18, 2000

“Stronger for having Sought Peace”

October 18, 2000

“The Talking Cure”

October 19, 2000

“Talking Peace With Thugs”

October 20, 2000

“Arafat’s Strategy”

October 20, 2000

“In the Middle East, Neither Side is Innocent”

October 21, 2000

“No Partners for Peace”

October 23, 2000

“Might Vs. Right”

October 25, 2000

“Phony Truce”

October 27, 2000

“Realities of War”

October 27, 2000

“Israel’s Restraint”

October 29, 2000

“Peace Begins at Home”

November 7, 2000

“The Two Israels”

November 8, 2000

“What We Want”

November 26, 2000

“For Israel, Land or Peace”

December 3, 2000

“Into the Next Mideast Whirlwind”

December 4, 2000

“The Peace Paradox”

December 13, 2000

“Peace With a Tall Fence”

December 21, 2000

“God’s Property”

December 24, 2000

“Racing the Clock on a Mideast Accord”

December 28, 2000

“Or Forever Hold Your Peace”

January 4, 2001

“Say Goodbye and Good Luck”

January 9, 2001

“Clinton’s Last Try”

January 12, 2001

“Middle East Madness”

February 3, 2001

“Arafat’s Mess”

February 7, 2001

“Poolside Diplomacy”

February 7, 2001

“Back to Familiar Territory”

February 8, 2001

“Israel’s Answer to Arafat”

February 9, 2001

“…Sharon the Enforcer”

February 9, 2001

“Meet Barak’s Legacy…”

February 23, 2001

“Israel’s Phony ‘National Unity’”

March 5, 2001

“A Return to Cold War”

March 10, 2001

“Israel’s Wrong Turn”

March 13, 2001

“The Ugly Arab Press”

 

 

4.                 Op-Ed Authors

 

 

Author

Published op-eds, 10/6/00-3/16/01

 

 

Richard Cohen

5

Jim Hoagland

5

Charles Krauthammer

5

Stephen Rosenfeld

3

George Will

3

E.J. Dionne, Jr.

2

Gershom Gorenberg

2

Michael Kelly

2

Madeline Albright

1

Jimmy Carter

1

Jackson Diehl

1

Saeb Erakat

1

Fred Hiatt

1

Hussein Ibish

1

David Ivry

1

Henry Kissinger

1

Daoud Kuttab

1

Mary McGrory

1

William Raspberry

1

Peter Rodman

1

Robert Satloff

1

Dan Schueftan

1

Nathan Sharansky

1

Michael Tarazi

1

Lally Weymouth

1

Benjamin Wittes

1

 

 

5.                 Column Breakdown

 

In the table below, pro-Israeli articles are identified as “pro-Isr” and pro-Palestinian articles are identified as “pro-Pal.”  Balanced articles are indicated as such.

 

The terms were defined as follows:

 

Pro-Israeli:    

A pro-Israeli column is one that analyzes the conflict solely from an Israeli viewpoint, without significant mention of Palestinian suffering or Israeli human rights abuses.  Such columns might include those that define Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s Camp David positions as generous, those that criticize Palestinians for using violence without taking note of disproportionate Israeli violence, and those that advance appeals to ethnicity or religion as a basis for analyzing the conflict.

 

Pro-Palestinian:

A pro-Palestinian column is one that analyzes the conflict solely from a Palestinian viewpoint, without significant mention of Israeli viewpoints.

 

Balanced:

A balanced column is one that recognizes, in one way or another, that both Palestinians and Israelis have a set of positions and opinions regarding the conflict that Americans must analyze before reaching any conclusions.

 

 

Date

Type

 

 

October 9, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 9, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 10, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 10, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 11, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 11, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 11, 2000 (Tarazi)

Pro-Pal

October 12, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 13, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 15, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 15, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 17, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 18, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 18, 2000 (Kelly)

Balanced

October 19, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 20, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 20, 2000 (Raspberry)

Balanced

October 21, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 23, 2000

Pro-Pal

October 25, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 27, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 27, 2000

Pro-Isr

October 29, 2000

Pro-Isr

November 7, 2000

Pro-Isr

November 8, 2000

Pro-Pal

November 26, 2000

Pro-Pal

December 3, 2000

Pro-Isr

December 4, 2000

Pro-Isr

December 13, 2000

Pro-Isr

December 21, 2000

Pro-Isr

December 24, 2000

Pro-Isr

December 28, 2000

Pro-Isr

January 4, 2001

Pro-Isr

January 9, 2001

Pro-Isr

January 12, 2001

Pro-Isr

February 3, 2001

Pro-Isr

February 7, 2001

Pro-Isr

February 7, 2001

Pro-Isr

February 8, 2001

Pro-Isr

February 9, 2001

Pro-Isr

February 9, 2001

Pro-Isr

February 23, 2001

Pro-Isr

March 5, 2001

Balanced

March 10, 2001

Pro-Pal

March 13, 2001

Pro-Isr

 

 

Space

 

 

No. columns (of 45 total)

Percentage of total

 

 

 

Pro-Israeli

37

82 %

Pro-Palestinian

5

11 %

Balanced

3

7%

 

 

Gaps

 

 

No. weeks

 

 

Longest gap between pro-Israeli columns

4

Longest gaps between pro-Palestinian columns

15

 

 

6.                 Analysis

 

The February 27, 2001 edition of The Village Voice reported that in a meeting with Khalil Jahshan, vice president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Mr. Hiatt, editorial page editor at The Post, stated:  "I don't think it's my job to match opposing political views column for column, but I do think that we should try to have other points of view represented on the page."

 

This report has demonstrated that WP op-ed pieces failed to represent all points of view in the Mideast conflict, opting instead to deliver thirty-seven (37) of its forty-five (45) opinion columns during the time period examined by this report in a distinctly pro-Israeli voice.

 

During the 23-week period beginning October 6, 2000 and ending March 16, 2001, The Washington Post dedicated more than seven times as much space in its op-ed pages for pro-Israeli columns than for pro-Palestinian columns.  Furthermore, pro-Israeli columns were given fifteen (15) times more space than columns that qualified as “balanced”  in their reporting.

 

The ratio of pro-Israeli:balanced:pro-Palestinian columns was a lopsided 37:5:3, with the longest gap the WP allowed between any two pro-Israeli pieces being just four (4) weeks.  At the cut-off date for this report, the longest gap between pro-Palestinian pieces was fifteen (15) weeks.

 

This disproportionate allocation of space in the op-ed pages of the WP is clear evidence of imbalanced, uneven reporting.  Particularly in the first two weeks of the crisis – which are critical to the public in helping them formulate their opinions on the conflict – there were two op-ed pieces sympathetic to the Israeli side published each day for three consecutive days (October 9- 11), with no Palestinian perspective at all.  On October 11, the WP published the first pro-Palestinian column to accompany a pro-Israeli one, but the subsequent two weeks saw nothing but pro-Israeli columns (October 12-13).  It was a whole two weeks until another Palestinian perspective was published; meanwhile, nine (9) pro-Israeli pieces appeared.

 

This report leaves no question that The Washington Post has failed to provide its readers with a balanced offering of opinions on the Middle East conflict.  The few attempts it has made at providing the other side of the story (or at providing an objective, balanced perspective) have been drowned in the overwhelming mass of one-sided commentary it has published to date.  Overall, a narrow point of view was consistently presented to readers with minimal efforts to give voice to the opposite standpoint.

 

 

7.                 Conclusions

 

The Washington Post should offer its readers as many diverse opinions on the Middle East crisis as it can spare in its opinion pages.  Readers have the right – and indeed, the expectation – to hear all arguments from all involved parties.  In the future, The Washington Post should work to provide its readers with equal exposure to the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli perspective, as well as the objective, balanced point of view.