I pointed out that whenever Israel takes defensive military action in the Middle East, it seems to earn disproportionate coverage in the Canadian media. At the time, a number of Canadian news sources were highlighting Israeli attacks on Hamas when they had not reported the attacks by Hamas on Israel only the day before.
Let's keep it real, massive bias aside. If media is guilty of anything, and this is a universal point, it is the preference for the sensational. While I have read stories on the Hamas rocket attacks, the fact that they GENERALLY do little damage, with no casualties, translates into a minor story. For context, I believe there has been wall to wall coverage of every Palestinian suicide bombing in the last decade, so that fact should serve to undercut Jason's argument. The reason why the media perks up when Israel responds in Gaza is simple, the chances of people dying are great.
Forget about Israel for a second, and just focus on the coverage of the Palestinians. Only when Hamas and Fatah look to be on the brink of civil war, with fighting in the streets, does the media bother to cover the story. Inevitably, the story wanes, unless the bloodshed and immediate crisis continues. Coverage is directly tied to violence, and the scope dictates whether it is a bit piece or frontpage news.
Jason uses The Toronto Star to make his point about uneven coverage, but I don't think that fair to single out one or two pieces and extrapolate. When Israel moves on the Palestinians, the world media keys in because of the ramifications. This may sound harsh, but Israel airstrikes with precision munitions are far more relevant than, shot in the dark, militarily insignificant rockets, with minimal ordinance. The capacity to do real damage rests with Israel in this instance, and as such, it is only natural to focus on that potential cost.
The Gaza Strip is a third-world slum, with militants that simply don't have the resources to be a legitimate military threat to Israel. On the other hand, Israel can occupy the entire terrority in hours if it chose, which partially explains the disporportionate attention when it decides to act. The whole region can descend into chaos if Israel decides to launch a full scale assault.
Maybe the media should put more focus on Hamas rocket attacks, but from what I have read, people aren't suggesting that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself. People aren't absolving Hamas, but you can't expect the media not to cover "Palestinian deaths", as a result of Israeli response. The media will focus on the casualties, particularly civilian, and that preference manifests itself in every region of the world, no matter the ethnicity, race or circumstance. The real question isn't bias against Israel, articulated by a very biased observer, it really is a question of what makes good copy, what is a compelling "story".
15 comments:
Do you ever feel blackmailed by those who support Israel? If someone dares to report on the other side of the issue they are turning against Israel.
If they keep this up they WILL lose support.
Enough already Jason and Michelle. We all know what's going on.
People aren't absolving Hamas
I think that is what get's to me the most about these claims. There is an assumption that Hammas or whomever, is getting a free pass. Furthermore, the assumption seems to be that no one else is able to see the entire picture.
If you read the article he's referring to, in my view, it's telling Israel's story in terms of what they felt they had to do and what the result of that was. At the same time it provides context to the overall state of affairs.
To your point Steve:
Three rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel on Sunday, including one that hit an empty home. In all, more than 120 rockets have landed since Tuesday, by the army's count, none of them causing serious casualties.
Does that give Hamas the right to fire them, of course not. Does that suggest that Israel cannot or should not defend itself, again, of course not.
I think we all read media through our own bias, some more than others I guess.
Jason is a careerist bore. He is well on his way to being a national joke, and nothing he says about this or any other issue is worth taking seriously.
He thinks he will get work out of doing this sort of slimy propaganda, and probably he will. That doesn't make him worth any more of your keystrokes.
Lot's of nice anonymous posts from those who ALREADY hate Israel
What a copout argument.
I think Jason does a grand job even when he cheers for his fave.
On the other hand, good on you far and wide; stay the course and keep the good fight going. We should never be intimidated by a clearly vociferous, nay, a botulistic response, when we express concern for Palestinians as well.
Some of us do expect a higher standard than bloody murder from all of our friends.
anon
It wasn't a post meant to trash Cherniak, just the contention that a bias exists, which we have heard ad nauseum.
Please people, I doubt sincerely that this has to do with one person.
If you read this blog, you know that the author doesn't slag individuals, (except may be Baird, :), but that is not what this post is about.
It's an interesting subject and one that is tough to broach.
Personally, I'd love to see an honest debate on the issue.
Steve,
Your bang on here, I think. The funny thing about the media in Canada is how everyone feels completely justified in claiming media bias. It doesn't make any sense for so many groups, even with directly opposite agendas, to claim media bias with such self-righteous vigor.
However, you've got the main part of the issue, which is actually quite simple as far as I'm concerned: media sources are owned by corporations who want profits (or in the CBCs case, the smallest possible loss), and they get profits by giving people what they want.
That's not to say that some news sources don't have biases (all do to a degree), however I tend to think that those biases for reflect the people who consume the news source, because that's what those people want. They're a company, and they want profits, and they get profits by giving people what they want. It's not rocket science.
Beyond having their biases confirmed, people want to hear something interesting, you know, like out of the movies. They don't want to hear "Palestinians lob rockets into Israel: no one hurt, little damage" only to read the story which goes on to describe the plans to rebuild an area that wasn't badly damaged to begin with and how David had to take a different path on his walk to school. It just doesn't capture anyones attention (rightly or wrongly). That's why even in the largely pro-Israel NaPo you won't read such stories about Hezbollah or Hamas's failures, because they're relatively boring.
The more compelling a story, the more likely it is to be reported, and the media isn't going to try to "balance" the coverage if it just makes half of it unreadable for disinterest.
If people die, especially in large numbers, or if they can sensationalize it in any way (it usually helps when the person killed was extraordinary in some way), then it will get reported. If the paper can take a situation and make one group the villan and the other the hero like in the movies, well all the better.
It's really not a complicated phenomenon, it's called the profit motive. I'm surprised so many people miss it.
Knb, I should have just left out the reference :)
We actually have an analogous circumstance in Lebanon. I'm not sure I'd equate Hamas with Al Qaeda, but let's just say terrorist groups. We have the Lebanese army conducting operations to root extremists, we have the Israelis conducting operations targeting extremists. If you look at the media coverage, in both instances, we see the same slant towards civilian casualties.
In Lebanon, all the coverage speaks of the death toll, the refugees, the fact that innocents are caught in the crossfire. If you take the argument of "not to be named" blogger, the media is showing an anti-Lebanon bias. This is an extremist group, that was threatening the state, and the government is acting in self defense to prevent future bloodshed. And yet, the majority of coverage is less than sympathetic. Transpose that coverage on the Gaza Strip and it lines up, which again, undercuts some sole Israel bias.
"The more compelling a story, the more likely it is to be reported, and the media isn't going to try to "balance" the coverage if it just makes half of it unreadable for disinterest."
I think people forget that the vast majority of media is corporation, that demands profit. It's all about the story, and the various ingredients that make it compelling.
I mean it's sad to say, but video of a Hamas rocket attack that has barely brought down a garage door gets left on the editor's table, or a 2 second clip in a bigger story (which is where I saw the garage door). The media has set the violence bar higher and higher, which translates into an audience that needs more to force emotion.
I find that use of the "instigator rule" is better than trying to tell Israel where the line is in responding.
Maybe it's a garage door. Maybe it's someone's home being destroyed. Maybe it's a kid getting his arm blown off. Maybe one or two deaths are okay as long as they are old people or cranky or anti-Arab.
Hamas's armaments are not, in general, guided weapons - they have little control beyond ballistics as to whether they hit a garage door or a bus full of people (I wrote civilians but it's not like they make a distinction, and it's a good get out to be able to refer to "blue on blue" as accidental martyrs). That they haven't killed more people is down to luck (good or bad luck depending on your POV).
The Western "progressive" viewpoint is that in order to make the Middle East Omelette of Peace a few eggs (Israeli *only* on pain of angry editorials and blog comments from Anonymous Cowards) have to be broken, and I find that a view I am unable to press on the people of Israel.
"That they haven't killed more people is down to luck (good or bad luck depending on your POV)."
Mark, I can't you seriously if you are actually arguing that people want to see Israelis die.
As for the "instigator rule" well good luck unpeeling that onion, because it depends on which arbitrary starting point you use.
Steve
I truly believe that there are people out there that would rejoice in the deaths of Israelis, and who are willing to let innocent people of their own race and creed die to make it happen.
It's not a sentiment I understand, I'm sure it's not one you understand, but claiming it ain't so, not at all, *not anybody*, is just not seeing what's out there.
Is it a majority of Muslims or Arabs? Hell no. Are there Israelis who hate the other side just as much? I'm sure that there are.
The difference is the level of accountability, as shown by the Israeli reaction to the report on the Lebanon operations and the pressure brought against their government. There is at least in part some restraint on the radicals on the Israeli side.
It wasn't the case that a majority of Catholics hated Protestants in Northern Ireland either, and vice versa, but the few that did made a hell of a lot of noise while carrying out their hatred. Likewise in Israel and Palestine.
mark
Fair enough, but I don't think we need to bring that into the conversation. I'm sure we can find plenty of Israelis who would advocate wiping the palestinian people off the map, but that isn't a mainstream position.
I didn't mean to minimize the Hamas attacks, and I do understand the "luck" factor, only how the coverage is dictated by the outcome. If a rocket lands in a field, we don't hear about, lands in a garage, a bit piece, hits the bus, you know.
Post a Comment