2004. It was the end of the Arafat era, the end of Sheik Yassin's
terror reign. The year Israel's security fence saved innumerable lives ― yet was condemned
at The Hague. Deadly Kassam rockets from the south, Ketushas from the north,
and suicide bombings in Ashdod, Beersheva, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The year
of Iraq conspiracy theories, and vicious anti-Israel material disguised as
art, science, and urbane opinion.
On one hand, the media are looking better. This year, the western press became more careful in
its reporting of the Mideast
conflict, with news stories only rarely exhibiting the overt anti-Israel
bias prevalent in previous years.
On the other hand, the bias that persists has become more subtle, implicit,
and downright libelous. For example, the media have allowed the following terminology to
gain broad legitimacy: The security fence as an 'Apartheid wall', Israel
practicing 'ethnic cleansing' of Palestinians, and a sinister 'Likud cabal' infesting Washington ― such terms have gained currency on
the pages of major newspapers, despite having no basis in reality.
Thanks for sending in your nominations. Now, without further ado, we present this year's Dishonest Reporting 'Award' winners:
 |
|
|
THE 'CAMERA SEES ALL' AWARD |
|
Winner:
While photojournalists were recording a seemingly
candid expression of Palestinian suffering alongside the security
fence, AP's
Enric Marti shot the scene from another angle, including the pack
of photographers in his frame:
This image speaks volumes about media coverage of Palestinian
life. The photographers are not merely 'capturing the scene,' but
rather creating it ― either actively (by asking the woman to
pose) or passively (allowing themselves to be manipulated by her
posing for their cameras).
The 'Award' winners in this category are the five unidentified
photographers who sent to their newsrooms the version depicted here (at right).
 |
|
|
SYMPATHY FOR TERRORISTS AWARD |
|
Winner: Barbara Plett, BBC. When Yassir Arafat's health failed in November,
BBC's West Bank reporter Plett
openly wept for the Godfather of Modern Terror. Plett's weeping revealed an
unprofessional (and, some would say, bizarre) identification with one side of the
conflict that she is employed to cover in an objective fashion.
Runners-up:
●
The
Guardian for hailing Arafat's 'undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader,'
exceeded only 'by his extraordinary courage' as a peace negotiator.
●
Syndicated columnist
Gwynne Dyer, for proclaiming that what Arafat 'did right' in his life were 'successful acts of terror' that drew attention to the Palestinian cause.
●
And Jonathan Cook, writing in the International Herald Tribune for expressing his understanding and appreciation of Palestinian terrorism as the 'surest way to get their struggle noticed.' (The IHT was also
caught altering New York Times articles to make Israel look worse,
and Palestinian terrorists look better.)
Winner: David A. Schlesinger, Reuters. In a remarkable moment of candor,
Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor, admitted that one
reason his agency refuses to use the term 'terrorist' has nothing to
do with editorial pursuit of objectivity, but is rather 'to protect our
reporters.' Schlesinger described the 'serious consequences' if
certain 'people in the Mideast' were to believe Reuters called those who detonate civilian buses and open fire on pregnant women
'terrorists.'
Runner-up: Washington Post ombudsman
Michael Getler, for rationalizing the Post's ongoing refusal to use the
'T-word' in reporting on Palestinian terror. The term 'terrorism'
is 'not helpful,' Getler explained, since using it would 'adopt the
language of one side.' Moreover, said Getler, 'Palestinians view many
Israeli actions... as terrorism.'
Winner: Neil MacDonald, Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation. In May, while delivering CBC television's lead story on the political fallout from the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses,
Macdonald shifted attention away from Iraq and toward Israel,
proposing to viewers that
the occupation of Iraq and George Bush's
unprecedented alliance with the right wing government of Israel has
placed Americans overseas in danger.
Macdonald then brought on camera a retired US diplomat
who made the outlandish claim that the Israeli Mossad was behind the
Abu Ghraib tortures.
Then in December, Macdonald did it again. Reporting on the deadly al-Qaeda attack on a US consulate in Saudi Arabia, Macdonald gratuitously dragged Israel into the story, going out of his way to find someone willing to blame America's relationship with Israel for the attack. Macdonald put one Allen Keiswetter on the air, who said
I think the principal reason is our policies on the Arab-Israeli issues. This is extremely important. We're now regarded as being very much in the pockets of Sharon. And the second reason of course is Iraq.
CBC Ombudsman David Bazay, in response to allegations of anti-Israeli bias in the May incident, declared that while Macdonald was not guilty of bias,
'editors and producers must not only avoid bias; they must avoid the appearance of bias. And, I agree, the May 4 report did expose [CBC]
to the appearance of bias.'
With Macdonald, CBC is finding it increasingly difficult to discount the allegations of bias.