July 24, 2006
Howell-er
I've already complained about Deborah Howell's A mideast maelstrom of complaints, and I have to say, the more I think about the more bothered I am by it.
She starts off with
Reporting on Israel is the third rail of American journalism. Touch it critically and you excite strong emotions. It was no surprise that the war in Israel and Lebanon brought a volley of visceral, negative e-mail. Writers -- most of them strong supporters of Israel -- reacted especially vehemently to two commentaries, but they also picked at news stories, headlines, a Post Magazine piece on the Israel lobby and KidsPost.
First of all she admits that supporters of Israel were most bothered by the Post's coverage. But the recent letters sections of the Post shows about the same number of letter pro- and anti- Israel. See (here, here, here and here.) So what the paper decides to publish does not necessarily reflect proportion of letters it received.
I'm also bothered that the pro-Israel letters published often came from people writing in official capacity whereas the anti-Israel letters were more frequently from "regular" people. If Ms. Howell is correct, there's much greater grass roots support for Israel than the Post is letting its readers see. The Post not only disguised the relative support of each position, but also the broad support for Israel in its choice of letters.
She goes on to explain
The Post had two skilled war correspondents in the region from the start of the fighting -- Scott Wilson in Israel and Anthony Shadid in Lebanon -- and dispatched more reporters last week. The coverage has been comprehensive and deep and particularly moving when dealing with the uncertainty and fear of the Israeli and Lebanese people.
Good war correspondents should be explaining war goals and achievements of the Israeli army. (As well as the goals and achievements of Israel's enemies.) If people are suffering because of the war, it's not enough to tell us that. The reporting should explain why people are suffering. Is Israel simply inconveniencing the Lebanese or is accomplishing something?
West Bank Mama writes (for example)
The IAF has been doing a great job of destroying the amunition that Hizbalah has in the northern parts of Lebanon - but the katyushas are still falling and killing our people. After the first fight in south Lebanon between IDF ground forces and Hizballah they found that the terrorists have built bunkers and tunnels - sometimes under civilian houses - where they have stored the rockets. They come out periodically, shoot them into Israel, and then go back in. The IDF can bomb just so much from the air - but at some point they have to go in by foot, find the tunnels and bunkers, and kill Hizballah. Everyone knows it is going to be bloody.
Or last night's IDF report tells us
During the day IDF carried out more than 120 aerial attacks in Lebanon, on targets including the following:More than 80 missiles-launching areas.
The Al Manar television station in Beirut that serves the Hezbollah terror organization.
Approximately 20 vehicles suspected of serving the Hezbollah terror organization in the launching of missiles at Israel, and were seen fleeing from or staying at missile-launching areas.
Missiles launchers used to fire missiles at Israel.
Structures serving Hezbollah terrorists for hideout and storage of Hezbollah weaponry.
Today Anthony Shadid reported Civilian Toll Mounts in Lebanon Conflict that features the following quote from a Lebanese man who was injured in Israeli airstrike
"It's nothing more than revenge, revenge on civilians," Zabit said from his bed.
Shadid is reporting on the war, and produces a piece filled with pathos. But it provides no context. Where is the Israeli army's explanation for the reason it shot at certain cars? The reporting from Lebanon has been focused on the toll it takes on the Lebanese and on the diplomatic efforts to prevent Israel from destroying Hezbollah. Nothing, or next to nothing, on the Israeli war aims and how much Israel has accomplished. A good war correspondent should be able to provide more and that's missing from Shadid's account (and in general from the Post's war coverage.)
Howell's excuse for the paper running a piece of propaganda by the leader of terrorist organization and an absurdly ignorant op-ed by one of their regular columnists is
Good editorial pages and commentators enlighten and provoke readers to broaden their thinking. Cohen's and Haniyeh's pieces indeed were provocative. But there were plenty of pro-Israel op-ed pieces, including one by Charles Krauthammer, who urged Israel to invade Lebanon and expel Hezbollah. And Post columnist David Ignatius is a must-read on the Middle East. The Post's editorials have expressed concern that Hamas and Hezbollah not be given legitimacy; that Israel not overplay its military hand; that Syria and Iran's influence be curtailed; and that the United States, its allies and the United Nations should be involved to find a way toward peace.
Hamas is defined as a terrorist organization by the United States government and it is currently engaged in armed conflict with an American ally. Of course the Haniyeh piece goes beyond simply being provocative. It was a slick propaganda piece. If there were any rough edges to it that might have turned Americans off to the Hamas leader's view, they were smoothed out as Edward Abington told James Besser
“Haniyeh has a media unit comprised of American-educated Palestinians,” he said. “They’re the ones writing this kind of stuff.”
It was propaganda filled with code words designed to appeal to a liberal American audience by a decidedly illiberal terrorist leader. Hamas wanted an outlet to convince and the Post gave it a platform.
Forgetting for a moment whether or not the Haniyeh op-ed was provocative or not, why should that matter. I noticed that the Post never ran an op-ed by Slobodan Milosevic. Why not? Wouldn't that have "broadened the thinking" of Post's readers? Did the Post ever feature an op-ed by P.W. Botha or any other member of his apartheid government in order broaden our thinking? (Maybe, but I doubt it.) Or does the Post arbitrarily decide who's a good guy or, at least, within the pale? Hamas is terrorist group by definition in the United States. That would seem to be an objective criteria that the paper could use to exclude op-ed comments by Haniyeh. Not using any criteria makes the Post irresponsible not contributing the debate.
Given the overwhelmingly negative the reaction to Cohen's article you would think that the Post would have said, "You know. We blew it. It's his opinion of course but it was poorly expressed." But instead Howell proudly proclaims it provocative. An army of bloggers refuted a longtime columnist's insipid argments without breaking a sweat; I would think that the paper might show a little shame.
Some readers didn't like The Post Magazine piece by Glenn Frankel examining the Israel lobby and felt it was poorly timed. I liked it. Production on the magazine closed June 30, before the war began. One could also say that piece couldn't have been more aptly timed.
I think that the Frankel article was not appropriate at any time given that it was more about the reaction to the Walt and Mearsheimer "Israel Lobby" article than about the article or the authors themselves. This gave Frankel an excuse to confirm the basic thrust of Walt and Mearsheimer but claim that he was balanced in exploring the issues it raised. In fact Walt and Mearsheimer deserved a lot more scrutiny. Frankel wasn't brave enough to explore them or their essay though.
Another reader was disturbed that KidsPost didn't label Hezbollah a terrorist group and charged that "a pro-Arab, anti-Semitic terrorist cell" must be to blame. Expect a piece this week explaining the complex issues to children.
While I won't make the same charge the reader did, it's baloney to call this a complex issue. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. Hezbollah was supposed to have no more pretext to attack Israel after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000. That it has attacked persistently in the past 6 years shows its motivation was not the Israeli presence in Lebanon but Israel's very existence. There is nothing complicated unless one values adding shades of grey to a situation.
At the end Ms. Howell confirms implicilty what she wrote above
There were a few letters from readers critical of Israel.
The majority of complains have been from supporters of Israel. Might that make the paper's ombudsman think that maybe, just maybe, be tilting to one side? There was an admirable article in the Post For Troops, A Sense of Moral Clarity There is, of course, nothing wrong with clarity. Unfortunately the Post doesn't seem to value it in its editorial judgments of the Middle East.
Finally, Howell's observations undercut another recent article in the Post Two Views of the Same News Find Opposite Biases. This article is one of those typical "well we must be right because we antagonize people on both sides of the conflict." Aside from questionable methodology (how much weight should perceptions of 20+ year old news stories be given attitudes have changed a lot since then) the premise of the "study" is flawed. In the Mideast the media strives for balance between a democracy one side and a host of monarchies, dictatorships and terrorist organizations on the other.
Instead of comparing the reactions of each side, why not compare the coverage of the Middle East to NATO/Serbia/Kosovo or to ANC/Apartheid. The question isn't what the balance should be but rather is it a balanced situation. In the Middle East it assuredly is not. But, again, the media would prefer to obfuscate than to clarify.
This was not an encouraging outing by the Post's ombudsman at all.
Technorati tags: Washington Post, Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Media Bias.
