The Hottest Button: How The Times Covers Israel and Palestine

[Violet_Crumble]

By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: April 24, 2005

Let me offer two statements about this paper's coverage of the conflict in the Middle East. First: I find the correspondents at The Times to be honest and committed journalists. Second: The Times today is the gold standard as far as setting out in precise language the perspectives of the parties, the contents of resolutions, the terms of international conventions.

Neither of these comments is my own. The first is a direct quotation from Michael F. Brown, executive director of Partners for Peace, an organization that seeks, it says, "to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories." The second comes from Andrea Levin, president and executive director of the Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America, the muscular pro-Zionist media monitor. With partisans on each side offering respectful appraisal in place of vituperation and threat, you would think that we had reached a milestone moment in The Times's coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

You would be wrong. Less temperate groups on each side find The Times guilty of felonies ranging from outright dishonesty to complicity in the deaths of civilians. A group called the Orthodox Caucus has led boycotts of The Times for "simply not telling the truth." I have met with representatives of If Americans Knew, an organization that says The Times conscientiously reports on the deaths of Israeli children but ignores the deaths of Palestinian children - children, they say, usually "shot in the head or chest" by the Israeli soldiers.

On the edges, rage and accusation prevail; nearer the middle, more reasoned critics still find much to criticize. Michael Brown and Andrea Levin can cite chapter, verse, sentence and punctuation mark. They watch this paper with a truly awesome vigilance.

It's this simple: An article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot appear in The Times without eliciting instant and intense response. A photograph of a grieving mother is considered a provocation, an interview with a radical on either side is deemed willful propaganda. Detailed studies of column inches devoted to one or another subject arrive weekly. One reader, Leo Rennert of Bethesda, Md., has written to me 164 times (as of Friday) over the past 17 months to comment on the Middle East coverage. His messages are seldom love letters.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/weekinreview/24okrent.html?pagewanted=1&hp

[haypops]

1. Good read

I found this article informative. Probably like most people, I think I know there is all to know on this conflict. I don't.

The authors comments in the penultimate paragraph (It's only a newspaper) was brilliant. This conflict used to define journalism is a surprising find. On th other hand the authors declaration about what is serious enough to merit the tag of antisemitism seems self serving and short sited.

[pelsar]

2. I liked it...

just exposing the problems of covering the conflict....how no matter what you write, how you write it, where your writing from affects the written word-and the limitations of the newspaper.

and i will add my own comment...what a reporter sees and writes is also very very limited. Whereas they are running around waiting for the news to happen, the day to day life, full of interactions both good and bad, humane and inhumane continue in such a way that only those who are there day to day just being there see them and experience them....and most of it is not newsworthy but for the individual it sometimes can be seared in their memory

[samilib]

3. Good find.

I wonder when the media will become the news people they are really meant to be.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chomskypirate]

5. The ADL takes on Right Wing hack Novak

Letters to the Editor
The Washington Post April 18, 2005


To The Editor:

While Robert Novak describes Rep. Henry Hyde as a staunch supporter of Israel, Novak's own bona fides as an Israel basher remain unquestionable ("Walling Off Christianity," April 18). Mr. Novak refuses to accept the explanation provided to Rep. Hyde by Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres that responsibility for the sorry state of Christians in the Holy Land rests with the Palestinian leadership.

But here are the facts: Palestinian terrorists have used church properties as a safe haven and for munitions storage. Palestinian Muslims are buying Christian land through low-interest mortgages in an attempt to force Christians out of the region. Palestinian leadership created an atmosphere that necessitated Israel's drastic measures to protect its citizens from terrorism, including the need to erect a temporary barrier to prevent the incursion of suicide bombers.

Since Israel remains the sworn enemy of many in the Palestinian community, it is easier for them to pin the blame on Israel rather than turning the lens on their own society. Mr. Novak ignores such facts, which focus on the major source of the reality facing Palestinian Christians. These facts can also be applied to Christians living under Muslim rule in the region.


Sincerely,

Abraham H. Foxman
National Director