Why Israel Loses The Media Wars

Journalism values the even-handed approach, often at the expense of providing much-needed context.

 

Not all the news is fit to print: This headline on the New York Times website Wednesday morning appeared more than 12 hours after Israel had provided strong evidence that the IDF did not fire the fatal rocket. This version included reference to President Biden’s siding with Israel’s version.

The rocket that landed in a parking lot adjacent to a hospital in Gaza on Tuesday evening, killing hundreds of civilians, set off an explosion of outrage around the world, virtually all of it aimed at Israel as the culprit.

It seems clear now, though, that in fact the rocket was fired by Islamic Jihad, a terrorist ally of Hamas. Israeli authorities offered “clear evidence” last night, based on images, logic and a recording between two Islamic Jihadists acknowledging that it was an errant missile fired by their group that caused the tragedy.

But more than 12 hours after Israel made public, in detail, its findings, The New York Times had the same headline on its website that it posted the night before: “Hundreds Killed in Gaza Blast, Palestinians Say.”

What about what Israelis say? Doesn’t the truth matter?

As infuriating as it is predictable, the case of the fatal blast is but the latest example of mainstream media appearing to rush to judgment against Israel, holding its army responsible for violating rules of warfare in clashes with Palestinian terror groups committed only to killing Jews for being Jews.

Was it only last week that the civilized world expressed shock and sympathy for Israel over the slaughter, rape, burning and beheading of innocent Israelis, from babies to elderly invalids, by Hamas? And now we are supposed to believe them? (See, “When Goodwill Toward Israel Goes Sour,” Oct. 15)

How is it that criminal allegations against the IDF made by terrorist groups – in this case Hamas – with no proof to back their charges and with a long history of fabricating “facts” are given as much credence (and sometimes more)  as explanations from Israel, a democracy with a long and solid record of honest accounting?

I’ve been writing for decades about my frustration over the fallout from Israel’s asymmetrical wars with terrorist combatants. During a mostly sleepless night last night, I pulled out several bound volumes of The Jewish Week and, in going through coverage of the second intifada, starting in the fall of 2000, I was reminded of the passage in Ecclesiastes 1:9: “What has been will be again,what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”

I found a number of pieces I wrote about how Palestinian terrorists wage wars for sympathy rather than victory. PLO leader Yasir Arafat was expert in victimizing his own people and then appealing for world support. The more deaths, the better. That has been the diabolical approach of terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas ever since. Truth, facts are not part of the equation. Manipulating reality is preferred. Fake ambulances with terrorists inside. Films of “dead” bodies of Palestinians who then get up and walk away.

One parallel to the outrage following last night’s deadly rocket near the Gaza City hospital: 

In September 2000, on the second day of what became known as the second intifada, a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, Muhammad al-Durrah, was shot and killed when he and his father were caught in the crossfire between Israeli troops and Palestinian security forces in Gaza City. The incident was filmed and shown on French TV, and Israel was blamed for the shooting. The boy’s death seemed to symbolize the victimization of young Palestinians at the hands of Israel’s military machine. He was hailed as a martyr and his death became a rallying cry for Palestinians. 

After initially accepting responsibility for the shooting, citing the Palestinian use of children as human shields, Israel later retracted its admission, convinced that the incident was staged by the French TV station.

How Bias Can Sneak In

I don’t subscribe to the belief that most mainstream media organizations or journalists in the U.S. are intentionally anti-Israel. And I don’t think it’s wise to accuse them of such sentiment. Writing “Letters to the Editor” can be very effective in response to unfair or insufficient reporting – or to first-rate reporting. (Everyone likes to be complimented.) Even if your letter is not published or posted, remember that it is read by an editor. And the more letters media companies receive on a topic, the more attention they will pay to the issue. 

If you do write a letter, keep it brief, to the point, factual, polite (avoid sarcasm) and not accusatory. Don’t attribute anti-Israel or anti-Semitic bias to the media company or individual journalist. Such letters will be ignored.

Before you write, keep in mind that some of the key elements of journalistic reporting often can result in bias. 

Consider:

SYMMETRY: Perhaps because American Jews feel like frustrated bystanders, we sometimes focus, if not obsess, on media coverage, which in turn often obsesses on symmetry – the bedrock belief that each side in a dispute deserves equal coverage. That may sound fair, but it doesn’t take into account that in striving for objectivity, one can hide important facts, masking the moral relativism of a situation. 

Example: One month into the second intifada, Israel launched a missile attack on Fatah offices in response to the brutal murder of two Israeli reservists who took a wrong turn in Ramallah. They were lynched by a mob, their bodies thrown out of a high-story window. But in the media coverage the next day, there was little indication that one act was of barbarism and unrestrained hatred and the other was controlled, firing a missile at a building – not people – and came with a three-hour advance warning, resulting in no fatalities.

The all-too-even-handed lead in The New York Times the next day read: “What happened today was a collision of what each side sees as the other’s core ugliness.”

Objective journalism? I see it as, at best incomplete, hiding under the guise of neutrality. It doesn’t shed light on the situation; it keeps us in the dark. 

That kind of reporting in the 1950s was manipulated by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose unfounded charges of Communist compliance against public figures were dutifully reported by the press, giving undue credibility to his falsehoods.

The press may have thought it was doing its job, following a McCarthy accusation with a denial from the accused. But in striving to balance both sides, it failed to present the truth. So it is with Mideast coverage so often. 

THE UNDERDOG: Mainstream media tends to have empathy for the perceived underdog. While Israel once was described as the biblical David – small and outnumbered – it long ago became Goliath, thanks to its powerful army. The people of Gaza today, trapped in a small space and living in poverty, are seen as the underdogs, though it is rarely reported that they are held captive by Hamas, which spends its funds on military equipment to attack Israel rather than care for its citizens. 

CONTEXT: No one story can give the entire history of the Mideast conflict, though hyperlinks online can be helpful and should be used more often. One key piece of information is missing in most reports on the Israel-Iran conflict: In cases where Israel is said to have bombed nuclear sites in Iran or assassinated key Iranian scientists, no explanation is given why Israel takes such action. Of course it’s because the leaders of Iran repeatedly have pledged to destroy the Jewish State.

PHOTOS AND TV: The media has great interest in dramatic images, which these days means the devastation of Gaza, and the suffering of its people. But the photos and videos don’t tell the story of Hamas leaders basing themselves in hospitals and schools and mosques to avoid Israeli rocket fire while keeping their fellow Gazans penned in. 

LEADS: The most recent event takes precedence in a news story. So if Israel’s army responds to a terrorist attack, or in this case to a massacre, we first learn of Israel’s action. Only then, a few paragraphs in, do we learn what prompted it – if we’re still reading. 

 A final note: Over time, Israelis have become resigned to receiving negative press; government officials point out that American coverage is far less problematic than European reporting. In conducting this war against Hamas, there seems to be consensus in Jerusalem and throughout the country that the primary goal is not to win hearts but to achieve a full and final victory over an enemy that has proven to be barbaric in spilling innocent blood.

The clear message: Israelis would rather be criticized, even demonized, than eulogized.

Am Yisrael Chai.