Addressing Anti Israel Media Bias

Introduction

Have you ever watched a television report where the words seem to be in conflict with the images you see? Have you seen reporters justifying the actions of suicide bombers? Unless you've been in a coma since the year 2000 it's been hard to escape seeing biased reports of events in the Middle East involving Israel. This section contains my personal "best of bias" (by no comprehensive), and has some pointers to resources that can empower you to join others doing something about it, if you haven't already.

Although I wrote this section before the World Trade Centre attack, that event in my opinion shows the need to challenge and hold accountable those in the media who seek to provide moral support for terrorism. This process of rationalisation or justification by the media consequently softens public support for governments to effectively deal with it. If terrorism was dealt with sooner, the disaster may have been thwarted. This support has grown more blatant as time goes on. But don't take my word for it - see for yourself.

I am not saying that Israel's actions are not open to criticism by journalists: a government that cannot be criticised is one to be feared. Nor am I taking exception at where the particular organisation's or journalists's views lie on the political spectrum: both left and right are legitimate perspectives. However, a democracy cannot let double standards; inaccurate, incomplete or unverified "facts"; and false interpretations in the information it receives go uncriticised. For this reason anti-Israel bias is important to all people - not just Jews. It is a barometer of how healthy the information we base our decisions on is.

Articles that are incorrect or biased reflect badly on the journalist who wrote the article, the editor responsible for accepting it and ultimately the organisations that publish it.

An inaccurate report that ends up being published and is later corrected is damaging enough, although understandable in a world of tight deadlines. The retraction often does not make it to the front page where the original article was published. Readers will recall the Associated Press Tuvia Grossman mislabeling of a photograph, and the less than satisfactory apology.

When such articles pass regularly there needs to be considerable damage done to the reputation of these three. That's the rules: you cannot censor a free press, but if bias persists then damage to reputations must follow.

Some Examples

Why is this material on this site? Because as the editorial policies of major broadcasters make small amounts of pro Israel material available through the normal channels (in breach of their own codes of conducts calling for "balanced reporting over time"), the Internet is perhaps the only place where a reply to it can be found. Yes it is hard to compete with a major news organisation's resources, but I feel it is important to try. The goal is not censorship, but equal access. Street theatre is not news.

• An article that appeared in the Guardian Online on May 17, 2001: Israel compared with apartheid South Africa.

• An article that appeared in the Guardian Online on Feb 22, 2001: an answer to their critics.

• The comments made by Kofi Annan, UN Secretary general at the opening of the conference on racism at Durban, South Africa Sep 3, 2001.

• An editorial summarising the Sydney Morning Herald's position on terror and human rights; and on the legitimacy of presenting a peace prize to Hanan Ashrawi.

• MSNBC reviewed over a million images of 2001. Guess what made it into the top 20.

• More articles to follow, time permitting.

If you feel these reports are biased, I urge you to sign up for the Honest Reporting email campaign.

This campaign has been effective, and in many cases has resulted in rework of articles published. I believe the proportion of bias in the mainstream press has dropped since the start of the Palestinian violence in 2000. This can mostly be attributed to some journalists coming to terms with what is in reality happening - however, media criticism has certainly helped. At first virtually all reports blamed Israel for the outbreak of violence. When this claim was no longer feasible, efforts where then directed at justifying that violence.

Here are some more examples of similar accusations from Palestinian officials made on the public record.

The BBC was unrepentant, as summed up by Richard Sambrook, (an Executive Director of the BBC, head of BBC News): "...we stand behind the veracity of the film". Notice he did not say: "we stand behind the veracity of the report (from Palestinian sources)". In other words, a conspiracy theory has penetrated to the heart of BBC News management, and the organisation is prepared to attach their reputation to the actuality of the events described.

The BBC's own biography on Mr Sambrook quotes him: "BBC News is renowned thoroughout the UK and around the World for the strength of its journalism and its impartiality. In the complexity of the 21st century I hope it helps people understand the world around them."

How a policy pushing information and misinformation down the same channel contributes to this goal is not clear.

How far will this go? While Jews are often at the front of new trends - other groups inevitably follow. The damage will of course be, and has been, to the credibility of journalism itself - but also to our democracies, when truth, actuality and the historical record is seen as up for grabs as never before.

Broadcast tribunals have failed dismally to stop this, and can be relied upon to enforce only complaints against plagiarism and copyright. While free speech means that different views can (and should) be heard on the one broadcaster, the BBC is now in the position of undermining it's own credibility if it broadcasts something calling this into question.

Ultimately what is to be decided is if the future of journalism: do its practitioners compete with each other for the most "confronting" report; or report what actually happens. Is history something that "the victors write", or is it something true, actual and real. Do the raw facts of history change each time a new ideology comes into vogue?

It's not to difficult to see where the idea for the line of attack on Israel in "Israel Secret Weapon" has come from, appearing as it has just after Gulf War II. Saddam Hussein was removed from power because he had at some point chemical weapons, and used those chemical weapons against civilians. Therefore if he can put into the public's mind the idea that Israel has them, and has used them similarly, then Israel becomes classified as a "rogue state" and should suffer the same consequences. Never mind that a little mental gymnastics and double standards are involved: journalist-activists with these politics were vocal opponents of removing the Iraqi dictator from power for the same purported reasons. The "Israel's Secret Weapon" team should be well pleased how they have leveraged the British taxpayer's money.

If you do participate in media criticism, please make your comments civil and stick to the secular facts. Keep in mind that all you can do to combat bias is to present the facts and a well constructed argument. Sometimes remaining civil requires some discipline, due to the unsavoury line the journalist has taken, especially when human life is taken in circumstances such as a terrorist attack. However, a point is more effective if not delivered with accompanying abuse. Don't expect all journalists producing this material to listen, but some will.

Other organisations that deal with this issue are:

• Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

Finally, no-one should doubt that contacting journalists online and criticising their work is a legitimate activity. If you feel that these articles are entirely accurate then feel free to compliment the journalist on their work.

Note: I am not associated with any of the above organisations, other than sharing their concern over biased media, and participating on their mailing lists.

Ben S.
August 2003.