BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Bad News From Israel

  
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
19:09 / 27.07.04
It is not unusual to hear Israel's British apologists accuse the UK media of anti-Israel bias in its coverage of the Middle East. No doubt this confuses newcomer to the debate, since those on the other side of the debate (including prominent journalists such as John Pilger, in his documentary Palestine Is Still The Issue) also claim that the news media in the UK is biased - only in favour of Israel.

So where does the real bias lie? Bad News From Israel is a recently published survey conducted by Glasgow University Media Group which brought journalists, academics and ordinary viewers together to study the influence of news on public understanding. More than 800 people were interviewed and researchers examined around 200 news programmes, focusing on BBC One and ITV News from the start of the current Palestinian Intifada.

According to their findings, British television news on the Israel/Palestinian conflict “confuses viewers and substantially features Israeli government views. Israelis are quoted and speak in interviews over twice as much as Palestinians and there are major differences in the language used to describe the two sides. This operates in favours of the Israelis and influences how viewers understand the conflict…. On top of this, US politicians who support Israel were very strongly featured. They appeared more than politicians from any other country and twice as much as those from Britain.”

As a result:

“Most did not know that the Palestinians had been forced from their homes and land when Israel was established in 1948. In 1967 Israel occupied by force the territories to which the Palestinian refugees had moved. Most viewers did not know that the Palestinians subsequently lived under Israeli military rule or that the Israelis took control of key resources such as water, and the damage this did to the Palestinian economy. Without explanations being given on the news, there was great confusion amongst viewers even about who was 'occupying' the occupied territories. Some understood 'occupied' to mean that someone was on the land (as in a bathroom being occupied) so they thought that the Palestinians were the occupiers. Many saw the conflict as a sort of border dispute between two countries fighting over land between them.

“Because there was not account of historical events such as the Palestinians losing their homes, there was a tendency for viewers to see the problems as "starting" with Palestinian action. On the news, Israeli actions tended to be explained and contextualised - they were often shown as merely "responding" to what had been done to them by Palestinians (in the 2001 samples they were six times as likely to be presented as "retaliating" or in some way responding than were the Palestinians). This apparently influenced many viewers to blame Palestinians for the conflict…

“There were also differences in the language used by journalists for Israelis and Palestinians - words such as 'atrocity', 'brutal murder', 'mass murder', 'savage cold blooded killing', 'lynching' and 'slaughter' were used about Israeli deaths but not Palestinian… TV News coverage influenced some viewers to believe most deaths had been Israeli.”

Any chance this will stop people accusing the BBC of being overly sympathetic to the Palestinians, as I've seen happen on this very website? We can only hope...
 
 
w1rebaby
21:36 / 27.07.04
Any chance this will stop people accusing the BBC of being overly sympathetic to the Palestinians, as I've seen happen on this very website?

Of course not, you crypto-French anti-Semitic terrorist sympathiser.
 
 
The Prince of All Lies
00:05 / 28.07.04
Sadly, this kind of disinformation happens everywhere, not just the UK, mates..just ask any lither from another country and you'll surely hear the same thing...
 
 
Lurid Archive
08:43 / 28.07.04
Any chance this will stop people accusing the BBC of being overly sympathetic to the Palestinians, as I've seen happen on this very website? We can only hope... - Flyboy

I very much doubt it, since claims of bias are easily made and justified. For instance, BBCWatch has just published another report detailing the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli bias in BBC coverage of the Middle East. To quote from the report,

In our first two reports we analysed BBC coverage of news in the Middle East and sought to assess its impartiality and accuracy measured principally against other sources of news. We detected considerable inaccuracy and detected a trend of antipathy towards Israel.

In our third report we analysed BBC coverage of the Iraq war and sought to assess its impartiality and accuracy by comparison with coverage of similar incidents, such as a civilian death at a checkpoint, in the Iraq war and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. We detected a marked difference in the treatment of the two stories. Considerable sympathy and understanding was shown for the difficulties facing allied troops in Iraq. That sympathy and understanding was remarkably absent in the treatment of Israeli troops.

In this fourth report we have undertaken a study of the subject matter of television documentaries on BBC1 and BBC2 over the period 4 November 2000 to 7 June 2004, corresponding approximately with the period of the present Intifada. ...

We would not expect each programme to be balanced. Each programme maker will inevitably have a point of view which they wish to get across. Some will believe that the Israelis are the real root of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, others will think that it is the Palestinians. Also some programmes are bound to give a negative impression of one side or another. ...

We have found that BBC documentaries featuring the Middle East over the last 43 Months (3.5 years) have been overwhelming negative in their depiction of Israel or positive of Palestinians, with a considerable amount of time and space being given to programme makers with views known to be antithetical to Israel.

Now, while I think there are good reasons to favour the Glasgow University report, I think it is, of course, wishful thinking to expect that anyone is really going to budge from an established position. One picks the reports and facts that support one's views.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:48 / 28.07.04
I think there are good reasons to favour the Glasgow University report

You think? Apart from anything else, the main difference between the two reports at first glance is that the duo behind BBCWatch have not thought it worthwhile to interview members of the public to ascertain what kind of impression is being generally received, preferring to make their own judgements as to whether a documentary creates a negative impression of Israel. These judgements are often rather bizarre: thus documentaries on the 'security fence' or Sabra and Shatila are classified as being "negative towards Israel" despite the fact that the authors of the report concede that "even a balanced account of the Sabra and Shatila massacre is unlikely to present Israel in anything other than a negative light"; yet a documentary on suicide bombers is also seen as being negative towards Israel (despite the fact that if anyone has really ever seen a documentary that portrayed the training of suicide bombers as a good thing, I'd be amazed), as is a documentary largely consisting of a critique of Arafat's leadership.

Interesting also that BBCWatch's report thinks that the BBC is doing Israel a disservice simply by covering the Israel/Palestine conflict more than other conflicts. Why should this be a problem in itself if Israel is not the aggressor?

But really, I don't think we need to concern ourselves too much with a report that takes the Lord Hutton whitewash seriously, nor one that is a product of a website that exists only to conduct a sustained campaign against the BBC...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:04 / 28.07.04
Sadly, this kind of disinformation happens everywhere, not just the UK, mates..just ask any lither from another country and you'll surely hear the same thing...

Not quite the same thing, I believe. For example, I've never heard even the most fervent of Israel's apologists claim that the mainstream news media in the USA is biased against Israel, because it so obviously leans the other way. However, it's generally agreed even by Israel's critics that the news media in mainland Europe is more favourable to their point of view (although it's not necessarily agreed to be favourable enough), and equally Israel's supporters are most likely to level accusations of bias against the European media. (The latter would also apply to, say, the generally left-leaning UK newspaper The Guardian.) But in the case of the UK television news media, I've seen both cases made with equal vehemence.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:47 / 28.07.04
Flyboy: Of course, I tend to agree, but I think that one has to recognise (if one wants to set up any kind of dialogue) that the supporters of Israel really do see bias. Part of this is down to the propogandised history of the creation of Israel (a land without a people for a people without a land, etc) and a denial of the treatment and conditions of the Palestinians. But there are also other elements at play. For instance, a Israel supporter would probably react to this,

Interesting also that BBCWatch's report thinks that the BBC is doing Israel a disservice simply by covering the Israel/Palestine conflict more than other conflicts. Why should this be a problem in itself if Israel is not the aggressor?

by saying that all states behave badly in the interests of security, and that given the threat that Israel faces it actually acts with moderation. The focus on Israel is then seen as suspiciously singling out a historically persecuted people. As you know, I don't agree with that analysis, but it needs to be acknowledged before it is ever going to be undermined.

Having said that, I'm not sure I really have a point, since dialogue and the undermining of myths are absurdly optimistic goals. The complete inability for the two sides in this debate to even agree on the most basic facts depresses me, and while I agree with the report you link to, I wonder if it is going to do anything more than stimulate the same circle of criticism and counter-criticism.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:00 / 28.07.04
Dialogue doesn't have to be the model for resolving a difference of opinion (I'm talking about the discussion about the conflict rather than the conflict itself). Sometimes the best you can hope for is to demonstrate how spurious someone's claims are in the hope that nobody else falls for it... When myths can no longer be effectively propogated, they wither and die. So for example, the idea that Israel is an extremely vulnerable state singled out unfairly (for doing unpalatable but necessary things that all states do) can be shown to have little basis by pointing out a) how many of the critics of Israeli policy are also fierce critics of similar policies worldwide, particularly those implemented by the USA (so picking on the most vulnerable party is obviously not their concern), and b) that the idea that Israel is in a position of weakness is a fallacy her close relationship with the world's only current superpower...
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:19 / 28.07.04
It's worth pointing out that the BBCwatch report that Flyboy links to is written by two people that, from the biographies alone, seem to already have strong links to, or interests in, the Israeli state. Trevor Asserson has written four reports critical of the BBC's stance on Israel. The fact he's approvingly linked to by such hatecore websites like honest reporting is enough for me.
 
 
w1rebaby
13:02 / 28.07.04
I've never heard even the most fervent of Israel's apologists claim that the mainstream news media in the USA is biased against Israel

Gil White goes some way in that direction, though he considers the European media and BBC to be far worse. I actually emailed him on the matter some time ago when I was still on the TENC mailing list and he first started on that theme, and his reply confirmed it (I don't think I kept the mail though).

I'm sure he's not the only one, as some people won't be happy unless Arafat is always captioned with "TERRORIST" and each report ends with "we would like to remind viewers that the Jews were granted this land by God and are only defending themselves". But the European media is always treated as uniformly more likely to criticise Israeli govt actions.

It's interesting, actually - it is frequently treated as a given within the US right that, since the media in every other country in the world is more likely to criticise Israeli actions, well, the only explanation is that every other country in the world is anti-Semitic. Stands to reason really. The point being, if you're prepared to go to those lengths to avoid thinking about other people's arguments, studies aren't going to convince you much because you're not going to read them in the first place - they're automatically biased and wrong and can be dismissed out of hand.
 
  
Add Your Reply