Soccer Dad: The media orphan

August 31, 2006

The media orphan

There's a famous definition of the Yiddish word "Chutzpah" (which could be translated as "nerve" or "gall:"

A man kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court on account that he's an orphan.

YNet reports on a conference of journalists, Mere Rhetoric sums it up best in his title MSM: It's Israel's Fault We Made Things Up

A number of bloggers singled out Steve Erlanger, the NY Times Jerusalem Bureau chief for criticism. As NRO Media blog observes

You really must read the whole thing to appreciate the mindset of the people like the NYT's Steven Erlanger and the AP's Ravi Nessman who reported on this war for U.S. newspapers.

Mark Fox's Weblog notes

I think Israelis are concerned about proportionality, but unlike Erlanger they are considering what Israel may face in the future not just in the present. With Iran bent to acquiring nuclear weapons any steps used to remove its proxy from Israel�s northern border are proportional.

Deja Vu uses a legal theme consistent with the introductory joke and titles her post ERLANGER, JUDGE AND JURY, NOT REPORTER

How dare Israelis think of themselves first? How dare they care about their dead and kidnapped soldiers? How dare they refuse to live under the constant threat of Hezbollah terrorist rockets? How dare they be more concerned with the lives of their children than with the lives of their enemies? How dare they imagine that their experience or view point should be reported when it differed from that of the UN, Italy or France?

In other words, Erlanger does not see his job as a reporter covering the news but as a judge and jury of what should be the news. If Israelis fail to see the news his way, its their own fault, not his.

Boker Tov Boulder does a little digging and comes up with a difficult to parse statement made by Erlanger. But she ends it with a reminder of Erlanger's premise of what the Middle East is about.

Daled Amos provides an apt characterization of Erlanger

But on the other hand is Steven Erlanger, the New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief, who claimed to be surprised that Israel's view of the war differed from that of its critics, and seems to be under the impression that Israelis didn't "quite grasp how the war was perceived outside of Israel." [Erlanger apparently was not taking US opinion into account]

Left unclear is why Israel should give weight to her critics' opinions at a time that thousands of rockets are raining down on Israel's cities and setting her forests on fire. McGregor-Wood and Erlanger share a hubris bordering on petulance at not getting their way. Erlanger himself is still stuck on the concept of proportionality in war and seems genuinely surprised that Israel did not further limit her defence of her citizens.

In Context has a nice illustration and emphasizes that Erlanger admitted that he refused to report on something positive Israel did.

And it's worth checking out LGF if only to see what he bolded from the news story. Very telling.

EU Referendum has a lengthy (but, of course, worthwhile) post An industry in denial in which he takes aim at ~~Les~~ Ravi Nessman of the Associated Press

But what particularly stands out are the comments by Associated Press' Chief Jerusalem Correspondent, Ravi Nessman. He downplayed the Reuters doctored photo scandal, saying: "It was probably one guy� everyone's working very hard. Everybody is tired. Everybody is overworked. It's very unlikely that the photo editors sat there and said, these are doctored photos, get them on the wires� I'm sure it slipped through. They're trying to do as credible a job as possible."

Nessman also claimed that "there was one real photo scandal in this war, and there were dozens of non-scandals that cropped up." This can only be a reference to the "Qanagate" staging, which stands at odds with a claim from Stephen Farrell of The Times who remarked that, "Pictures have been faked as long as there have been pictures." He cited "commercial imperative" as a factor in the doctored images

The Anchoress cites the article as part of a general indictment of the media.

But what's my take?

When I take a picture, I look through the viewfinder and try to center the most importaint element of the picture. As it happens, when, I do this, often some clutter enters the pictures around the extremes. I can take a really good picture, but there's someone or somethng that I don't want off to one side.

In general the media is much the same way. It focuses on a central; a narrative that shapes their reporting. If a detail doesn't fit into the picture they're drawing, then they ignore it. They airbrush it out. And we're not supposed to no that it exists.

Deja Vu linked to an article from today's NY Times (though not by Erlanger) that illustrates this beautifully, "Lift Blockade of Lebanon, Annan Urges." (The headline is illustrative of this phenomenon. Does it say "Annan ignores plight of Israeli hostages?" No. But it's clear like the usual premise of the MSM that the sole obligations here are Israel's.)

Say the article had a paragraph (referring to His Excellency Kofi )

The Lebanese had failed to insist that Hezbollah disarm to comply with Resolution 1701, only requesting that the group not display its arms publicly� His reference was to the dominance in southern Lebanon of the Hezbollah terrorist organization, which provoked a hugely destructive 34-day war with Israel by launching irregular cross-border raids against Israel culminating in the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and killing of eight more on July 12.

There would, of course, be nothing false with the above paragraph. It would accurately convey the legal definition of what Hezbollah is. It would give the context for Israel's response and that it wasn't just the kidnapping.

As you can guess that's not how the Times reported it.

The Lebanese were committed, he said, to �the idea that you cannot have a state within a state but have to have one authority, one law and one gun.� His reference was to the dominance in southern Lebanon of the Hezbollah militia, which provoked a hugely destructive 34-day war with Israel by capturing two Israeli soldiers on July 12.

The narrative is that Israel lacks a sense of proportion when striking back at its enemies. Is there any reason to ignore Hezbollah's repeated violations of the border and resolution 425? Is there any reason to ignore the Israeli hostages? Is there any reason not describe Hezbollah accurately?

Of course not. Unless those pieces of information mess up the picture you were focusing on. Reporters don't want us to have all the information, they want to tell us what they think we should know. The symposium described by Ynet shows that the MSM has a long way to go if they care about their credibility in any circles outside of their nice comfortable cocoon.

More at Memeorandum and Buzztracker.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Technorati tags: Media Bias, Israel.