Investigating the Press Through the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Wednesday, June 27, 2007. On the heels of the Middle East peace talks in Sharm El Sheikh comes Israel's first military action in Gaza since Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas separated from the elected Hamas government and moved to the West Bank. Israel moved tanks and troops into Gaza and firefights ensued. How many casualties were there?

The Associated Press claims that there were 10 Palestinian casualties, including two civilian deaths, one of which was that of a 12-year-old boy. The Associated Foreign Press claims 11 Palestinian casualties, stressing three civilian casualties, including a 12-year-old boy. Reuters, in all its suggestive vagueness, reports "at least" 12 Palestinian deaths, including that of a 12-year-old boy and "other civilians." Not only did Reuters provide such detailed "facts," but it also included a vividly gory description of the dead boy of the 12-year-old, clearly depicting the Israeli military as the tyrannical oppressor without regard for human life. Palestinian authorities claim 13 casualties in Wednesday's violence. There appears to be a slight discrepancy in the stories in terms of numbers, as well as occasional editorializing on some of the details.

The fact that so many news sources are present and focused on the same conflict might result in vastly different accounts of the facts, but might they also provide a reliable account that can be verified and checked by the different parties? One can only hope.

Fair Presentation of Both Sides

I take particular issue with the Reuters article. How much color should be added to a factual article? News updates do not require emotional pangs and induced sympathy from online readers. Reading the Reuters article entitled "Israeli forces kill 12 Palestinians in Gaza raid," you might think that Reuters was trying to boost ratings, much as a soap opera might bring back a killed-off character to renew interest in the show. How can I help but compare Reuters to tasteless daytime television when the impartiality of a news article is so dubious. Consider two statements made by opposing sides in the conflict and how the author treats each:

In relating details of Israeli injuries, the article states "Two Israeli soldiers were wounded by an anti-tank missile during operations that Israel's deputy defense minister, Ephraim Sneh, described as 'preventive measures' to foil rocket attacks from Gaza." In the same breath with which the article details injuries on the Israeli side, it questions and almost rebukes Israel's intentions with the subtle use of "sarcastic quotation marks."

Conversely, when explaining a Palestinian view of Israel's military intentions, the article states "Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said the Israeli incursion was part of a "conspiracy in which (Palestinian President Mahmoud) Abbas is a participant and which is aimed at pressuring Hamas and the people of Gaza." Note that the author sees fit to insert the infamous "sarcastic quotation marks" when elaborating on the Israeli rationale for the incursion, whilst witty criticisms of the conspiracy theory of an Islamic fundamentalist are conspicuously absent.

In this "factual" Reuters article (notice use of quotation marks), Israeli intentions are impeached while those of a recognized terrorist organization are, well, not. I do not argue that Israel's actions are unimpeachable, nor that the Hamas rule of Gaza is alone responsible for the conflict, but a news update cannot be the place for biased analysis if we wish to know the facts.

All Views Are Created Equal

Wednesday's AP article mentioned earlier is entitled "Israeli troops kill 10 Palestinians"; this and most other news headlines concerning the conflict detail the Palestinian deaths. In general, if no deaths result in Israeli military action, the headline might detail the nature of the military action. But where are the headlines detailing aggressive action taken against Israel? About three-quarters of the way through Wednesday's AP article, the reader learns that "Palestinians fired a rocket into Israel, but it struck open ground near the Gaza border, causing no casualties, the army said. Several mortar shells were also fired at Israel but fell short, landing on the Gaza side, the military said." Does the fortuitous circumstance that there were no deaths resulting from the attacks diminish the importance of the event?

However, just as the article seems to acknowledge anti-Israeli action, it makes somewhat of a blatant backtrack. It states "Hamas, which has carried out scores of suicide bombings and rocket attacks against Israel, has so far shown relative restraint toward Israel. It did not participate in Wednesday's rocket attack." It appears that many more allowances are made for Palestinian actions than for Israeli actions. We must be wary of using labels like "underdog" and "oppressor" if we are to maintain a clear view of the conflict.

I cannot recall recent headlines depicting missiles fired into the Israeli town of Sderot. In fact, on Reuters.com, the latest article featuring Hamas rocket attacks in the article's headline appears on May 28^th, one month ago, despite ongoing rockets being fired into Sderot.

After examining Wednesday's headlines through Internet sources in the United States, a pertinent comparison can be made by examining articles directly from the conflict zone. A Wednesday article from the Jerusalem Post entitled "IDF leaves Gaza; 12 Palestinians dead" states that the Israeli Defense Force denies responsibility of the 12-year-old popularized in the AP and Reuters articles. Interestingly enough, the Earth Times article "Seven Palestinians Killed in Gaza Fighting" cited on PalestinianNews.net also acknowledges the IDF's denial of involvement in the death of the civilian child.

One might assume that a new source cited by a Palestinian website might be more biased than, say, a Reuters article. However, it appears that the fact that the IDF denied responsibility for was left out from the AP, AFP, and Reuters articles mentioned earlier. This information should have been presented in these articles. It seems too large a fact to leave out, whether or not you may lend it credence.

It appears that piecing together a realistic scene from this ongoing conflict in such a volatile area is not easy, especially with the mixed messages that the press sends. How can we accurately determine where we stand on an issue if we cannot glean the facts from the information made available to us? Unfortunately, the articles examined lead me to believe that news organizations such as AP and Reuters have taken sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whether or not you agree with their opinions, perhaps take care to accept all of their articles as pure fact, for clearly they may contain the truth, it does not appear to be the whole truth.