Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Missing political story
The story that I see missing most from any U.S. News outlet is any substantial discussion of the relationship between Israel and Palestine and how that relationship affect America. When I travel abroad, I see many articles that give in depth coverage of the issues between Israel and Palestine, but I never see that coverage here in the U.S. I am actually almost afraid to post this because of how it might be interpreted, and the possible backlash. I feel that the coverage in England and Europe covers a much broader scope, and covers both sides of the story, while U.S. News covers the story from one side, and generally restricts the flow of information.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Melinda,
ReplyDeleteHaving bashed political coverage last week, and passed over this post several times in hopes others might respond, I now rise in general defense of U.S. journalism vs. that found in England, Europe -- or anywhere else in on the planet.
Although you offer many insightful observations -- and with fundamental agreement that there are clearly individual news organizations that show editorial bias on the Palestinian and Israeli issues -- I very respectfully disagree that bias is more prominent in "U.S. News" reporting.
There is no "U.S. News" -- U.S. journalism is not monolithic. Despite the rhetoric used by both left and right extremists about "mainstream media," there is a wide divergence of facts reported and thoughts expressed. The Internet further broadens the spectrum of reporting and commentary.
A Google search reveals dozens of prominent articles on the Palestinian and Israeli conflict that were subsequently cross criticized by one side or the other as biased. In some cases, articles and whole newspapers (including the NYT) are criticized as being biased by critics representing both sides of the conflict.
Wikipedia is not authoritative, but it can be a good and useful gauge of crowd-sourced viewpoints on large issues that multiple sources edit over time. Wikipedia currently has references to conflicting allegations of bias by the NYT in its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (e.g., "some have claimed that the paper is pro-Palestinian; and others have claimed that it is pro-Israel.[92][93]"
With great respect, I also disagree there is an entity (beyond the "unseen hand") that "restricts the flow of information." In a quantitative sense that might be true (e.g., highly divergent views will find few to distribute their message) but such restriction does not exist qualitatively.
IMHO, perceptions of restrictions are almost invariably teleological -- with those that claim that some tangible entity or cabal exercises such control frequently bordering on conspiratorial.
Very Respectful Cheers,
Lee
Although anecdotal, my own experience working both in Europe and the Americas is that, if anything, there is much more open and pronounced bias in European reporting on Israeli-Palestinian issues. In fact, open declaration of bias is all in vogue in some journalism circles, especially in England. Regrettably, it's making inroads across the pond... but I'll save that discussion for another day.
ReplyDeletePalestinian and Israeli issues are extremely polarizing. Words such as occupation and intifada, and even a reporter's description of throwing "rocks vs. stones," are dissected and interpreted as evidence of bias. Abominations abound on both sides, passions are more in prevalent than compassion.
IMHO, this is where the openly declared bias style of journalism does a vast disservice to readers. A journalist should never give up on the ever-elusive and absolutely unobtainable goal of objective and fair reporting -- the alternative is advocacy journalism.
Alas, advocacy journalism has the same perils as advocacy law (our current U.S. model). The goal is not the truth, but to "win."
Cheers,
Lee