 |
|
Captured Israeli soldiers Swaid Omar, Avraham Binjamin and Adi
Avitan |
As the Israeli-Hezbullah prisoner exchange
develops this week, HonestReporting subscribers are encouraged to visit our
online weblog ― www.mediabackspin.com
― for
media critiques, essential
background information, and links to important articles on the exchange that
you might otherwise have missed.
PARTISAN
EDITING AT HERALD TRIBUNE
HonestReporting has long held that media
misrepresentation of the Mideast conflict is one of the primary sources of
anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attitudes worldwide. The latest disturbing
indication: An
Italian newspaper poll found that one-third of Europeans feel Jews should
"stop playing 'Holocaust victim' games," and nearly half of Europeans believe that "Jews are
different" and have "a particular relationship with money."
In all European countries, anti-Semitic sentiment was positively correlated with
anti-Israel sentiment.
While ongoing vilification of
Israel in European media is part of the problem, veteran journalist Evelyn
Gordon has discovered yet another disturbing development: The deliberate tilting of previously balanced articles by
one prominent European newspaper ― the
International Herald Tribune. In
an article in today's
Jerusalem Post, reprinted below, Gordon finds that the Herald Tribune has
altered at least two New York Times articles on the Israeli-Arab conflict
in an
effort to make Israel look worse to the Herald Tribune's mostly European
readers. (We've added links to the original NY Times and Herald Tribune
articles, so subscribers can verify Gordon's statements.)
As Edited by...'The
Herald Tribune'
Evelyn Gordon
January 27, 2004Anyone
puzzled by the vast difference between European and American attitudes
toward Israel ought to spend some time comparing two newspapers: The
New York Times and the Paris-based International Herald Tribune.
That may seem like an odd statement, since the IHT is owned by the
Times and most of its articles are Times reprints ― or at least, so
the reader would assume, as they are credited to the Times and appear
under Times reporters' bylines.
But it turns out that IHT editors often "improve" the Times copy a
bit. The adjustments are minor in terms of the amount of text changed,
yet sufficient to give the reader a completely different understanding
of events.
I discovered this only last month, having never before thought to
compare an IHT article to its Times original. What sparked the
discovery was a piece in the IHT's December 27-28 edition, entitled
"Israeli tactics assure future bombings, Palestinians assert" and
credited to the Times. The article's main thrust was that the Israel
Defense Forces believes its two-pronged anti-terror campaign ―
construction of the separation fence and frequent raids aimed at
arresting terrorists and destroying bomb-making facilities ― has
significantly reduced the number of successful attacks.
But the article also claimed that the December 25 bombing at the
Geha Junction ended a three-month period that "seemed to be a sort of
unofficial cease-fire. In that time, Palestinian radical groups
carried out no suicide bombings."
This struck me as outrageous, since a cease-fire implies that no
attacks were attempted ― whereas, according to IDF statistics, there
were no fewer than 22 attempted suicide bombings during that time, all
foiled by Israel's security forces. But when I checked the article
on
the Times Web site in preparation for an angry letter to that paper, I
discovered the following:
The Times never referred to this period as a cease-fire.
The Times explicitly mentioned that "numerous terror attempts" had
been made during this period and were thwarted by Israel; that entire
paragraph was cut from the IHT piece.
The Times did not say that Palestinians "carried out no suicide
bombings," giving the false impression that they attempted none; it
merely said, correctly, that no bombings took place.
Moreover, the Times article carried a very different ― and far more
accurate ― headline:
"Bombing after lull: Israel still believes the worst is over."
The result is that the average Times reader came away with the
following impression: Israel's military activity produced three months
in which no Israelis were killed, despite "numerous terror attempts."
This activity is thus saving Israeli lives, and therefore potentially
justifiable.
But the IHT reader received the opposite impression: Neither the
fence nor the raids were justified, since there was an "unofficial
cease-fire" and Palestinians were not committing attacks in any case.
Moreover, since no attempts took place during this period, Israel's
activity did not save a single life.
In short, rather than preventing bombings, Israel is, as the IHT
headline asserts, "assuring future bombings" by persecuting the
Palestinians for no reason.
The IHT later published a letter from me on this subject, but again
with crucial distortions. One sentence was cut altogether: "The
version of the article that appeared in The New York Times did mention
that 'numerous' attempted attacks were thwarted during this period and
did not refer to it as a 'cease-fire.'"
Another sentence ― "according to Israeli army statistics,
Palestinians attempted to carry out 22 suicide bombings during this
time" ― was replaced by "according to one count, Palestinians
attempted to carry out more than 20 suicide bombings during this
time."
Thus the IHT cut both of the sources I cited for my assertion that
attacks were attempted ― the Times and the IDF ― and substituted an unsourced "according to one count." That leaves the reader with the
impression that I have no source ― I cannot even say according to
whose count ― and my assertion is therefore not credible.
Since this episode, I have discovered that the IHT often subtly
alters Times copy to make its readers dislike Israel more.
On January 2, for instance, the
Times ran an article stating that
in 1973, the Nixon administration considered invading three Arab
countries "if the [oil] embargo, imposed by Arab nations in
retaliation for America's support for Israel in the 1973 Middle East
war, did not end." The
IHT altered this to state that Nixon planned to
invade "if tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors continued to
escalate after the October 1973 Middle East War or if the oil embargo
did not abate."
Moreover, the IHT erased the statement ― repeated twice in the
Times article ― that the embargo was due to America's wartime support
for Israel, substituting the statement that it was imposed "to try to
pressure the United States and other Western countries to force Israel
to withdraw from Arab land."
Thus the Times reader concludes that Nixon was angered by an Arab
action, the embargo, which was retaliation for an American action ―
wartime support for an ally. Israel was clearly involved, but this was
primarily an Arab-American dispute.
The IHT reader, in contrast, concludes that Nixon's main concern
was not the Arab action, but "tensions between Israel and its Arab
neighbors"; the embargo gets only second billing. Moreover, the
embargo was aimed not at American policy, but at a mysterious Israeli
seizure of Arab land whose background ― the fact that it was captured
in a defensive war ― is never explained. In short, the entire crisis
was Israel's fault.
Very few people know more about Israel than what they learn from
the media. It is therefore not surprising that readers fed on a diet
of such subtle distortions view Israel as the villain.
Unfortunately, in Europe the IHT's behavior is the norm rather than
the exception.
――――Comments to International Herald
Tribune: letters@iht.com
Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.
HonestReporting.com
