On Monday
(April 11), Israeli Prime Minister Sharon met President Bush at Bush's Crawford
Ranch in Texas.
News coverage of this important meeting was
remarkable for the disparity between the actual content of the meeting, and
how the media represented it. Though Bush and Sharon largely conveyed mutual
support and understanding, the media described a supposed 'Texas showdown'
over the Israeli community of Maale Adumim, just to the east of Jerusalem,
which the Israeli government has recently spoken of expanding.
PRE-MEETING COVERAGE
The day began with media outlets predicting the leaders would clash over
settlements at Crawford.
Take, for example, this
CNN headline:
The
LA Times
also built up
the 'tension' and 'discord' in its pre-meeting headline:
THE MEETING ITSELF
At the actual press conference, President
Bush emphasized the following points, in this order (see
transcript here):
1) Israeli security: 'The United States
is committed to Israel's security.. (under) secure and defensible
borders.'
2) Economics: 'We discussed ways to expand
cooperation of our economies.'
3)
Gaza Plan: 'Sharon is showing visionary leadership... I strongly
support his courageous initiative to disengage from Gaza and part of the West
Bank.'
4) Growth of Democracy: 'the important and encouraging
changes taking place in the region, including a Palestinian election.'
5) U.S. support of Palestinian
state
6) Joint commitment to road map
7) Need for 'an immediate,
strong and sustained effort to
combat terrorism in all its forms'
8) Settlements: 'Israel should
remove unauthorized outposts and
meet its road map obligations regarding settlements in the West Bank...
(but) As I said last April, new realities on the ground make it unrealistic
to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and
complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.
Note that settlements were the last of eight items addressed by Bush, qualified by
Bush's reiteration that Israel's return to the Green Line is 'unrealistic'.
Then, despite reporters' efforts to foist the Maale Adumim issue onto the agenda
during the question-and-answer session, Bush repeatedly emphasized that the
real test right now is in Gaza. Said Bush, 'To me, that's where the
attention of the world ought to be, in Gaza.'
COVERAGE OF THE MEETING
But media coverage of the meeting completely
distorted its actual content. Most media outlets clung to their own speculation that conflict over settlements would characterize the meeting. For
example:
CNN: The first six paragraphs from CNN's report addressed Israeli settlements, and featured this headline:
MSNBC put this headline on
an AP report:
The AP review describes Bush 'prod(ding) Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Monday to abandon plans to expand a key Jewish settlement in the West Bank.' Where exactly, if one reviews the transcript, was Bush's 'prodding' on Maale Adumim?
Reuters' report editorialized that 'the two leaders failed to reach a consensus on the
issue (settlements) that is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict', and trumpeted this headline:
Nowhere in Bush's comments ― before, during or after the Crawford meeting ― did he ever 'caution' Sharon,
explicitly or implicitly. On what basis does Reuters promote such fiction in its headline?
So while the real focus of yesterday's meeting was an unprecedented, imminent and
painful uprooting of 21 Israeli settlements in Gaza ― which the U.S.
supports ― the media preferred to manufacture some 'tension' and 'dispute' between
the two nations over possible building of settlements.
As
Sharon said to the press afterwards, in a sarcastic tone:
A crisis was not created, what can you do? I know it's difficult to accept
that there's no conflict with the U.S.
This was a classic case of the media being more committed to its own agenda
than it was to reporting the objective facts.
Did your local media coverage also distort the content of the Bush-Sharon
meeting? If so, HonestReporting encourages you to write a letter pointing out the disparity between the documented event
itself, and the media's spin.
Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.
HonestReporting