Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict

This article contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Please help improve the article by removing excessive quotations or transferring them to Wikiquote. Help is available. (March 2009)

This article is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict series.

History

Views of the conflict

Media coverage of the conflict

International law

Facts and figures

Related

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Arab League

Soviet Union, Russia

Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

Iran-Israel relations

Israel-United States relations

Boycott of Israel

Peace treaties and proposals

Israel-Egypt

Israel-Jordan

This box: view • talk • edit

Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been dogged by allegations of bias. These perceptions of bias, possibly exacerbated by the hostile media effect,^[1] have generated more complaints of partisan reporting than any other news topic and have led to a proliferation of media watchdog groups on both sides.^[2]

Types of bias

Bias in print and broadcast media may manifest itself in varying ways, including:

• Diction: The use of emotive words or euphemistic terminology as well as double-speak may prejudice the audience one way or another.
• Omission: The presentation of some facts but not all the facts may lead to false and biased conclusions.
• Selective reporting: Over time, the news presented through a media organization may emphasize one side of the story at the expense of the other.
• Decontextualization: News may appear without sufficient explanation of the circumstances of the events being reported.
• Placement: The consistent placement of one viewpoint in preferential locations of an article (e.g. in the headline or in the first paragraph) may increase reader exposure to one side of the story.
• Factual errors: Errors in content may mislead the reader.

Print and broadcast media may be biased for varying reasons, including:

• Coercion or censorship: Journalists may be pressured into distorting their reporting for fear of losing access or their lives.
• Lack of verification: News outlets may "parrot" as objective fact the unverified or disputed claims of one side.
• Exaggeration or sensationalism: In order to increase a publication or broadcasts's consumption, reporters may exaggerate events for the maximum emotional response.
• Prejudiced journalists: Journalists may intentionally or unintentionally distort reports due to political ideology, national affiliation, anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism, or Islamophobia.
• Forgery or falsification: Video footage, quotes, and other items may be fabricated to bias the presentation. See Pallywood for such allegations.
• Prejudiced fixers: Journalists may distort reports due to fixer ideology, national affiliation, or for-profit motives.

Diction

  Main article: Israeli West Bank Barrier

The structure shown above, described by Wikipedia as the Israeli West Bank barrier, is officially termed the Israeli "security fence" by Israel and is officially termed the Israeli "apartheid wall" by the Palestinian National Authority.^[3] Alternative Israeli terms include the "anti-terrorist fence" and the "separation barrier", while alternative Palestinian terms include the "annexation wall", the "colonization wall", and the "expansionist wall".^[3] There is no single, agreed upon term across media sources, and news outlets tend to combine one of the nouns "fence", "wall", or "barrier" with one of the adjectives "security", "separation", "anti-terrorist", "apartheid", "West Bank", or one of a few others.^[3]

Israeli sources argue that it is a "fence" on the basis that more than 97% of the structure is fenced whereas less than 3% of the structure consists of concrete walls.^[4][5][6] Israeli sources argue that the structure's purpose is security, citing the rise in Palestinian suicide bombing attacks in Israel during the Second Intifada and citing a more than 90% decrease in such attacks following the construction of the structure.^[4][6]

Palestinian sources argue that it is a "wall" on the basis that the structure contains concrete wall near key areas such as Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Qalqiliya.^[7][8] Palestinian sources argue that the purpose of the structure is not just security but also to take Palestinian land on the basis that the structure has been built within the West Bank, with 50% of the West Bank placed on the structure's Israeli side.^[7][8]

Diction, or word choice, affects the interpretation of the same set of entities or events. There is an emotional and semantic difference between the verbs died and killed, and similarly between kill and murder; murder evokes stronger negative emotions and connotes intent. In the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, various terminological issues arise. The terms "disputed territories" versus "occupied territories" reflect different positions on the legal status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The terms "security fence" and "apartheid wall," "neighbourhood" and "settlement," and "militant," "freedom fighter," and "terrorist," while used to describe the same entities, present them in a different light and suggest a different narrative. Similarly, describing an attack or bombing as a "response" or "retaliation" again places the events in a different light.

Retaliation

A study by the American organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting monitored the use of the term "retaliation" in the nightly news broadcasts of the three main American networks CBS, ABC, and NBC between September 2000 through March 17, 2002. It found that of the 150 occasions when "retaliate" and its variants were used to describe attacks in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, 79 percent were references to Israel "retaliating" and only 9 percent were references to Palestinians "retaliating". ^[9]

Emotive Language

In a study of BBC television news coverage, the Glasgow Media Group documented differences in the language used by journalists for Israelis and Palestinians. The study found that words such as 'atrocity', 'brutal murder', 'mass murder', 'savage cold blooded killing', 'lynching' and 'slaughter' were used for Israeli but not for Palestinian deaths. The word 'terrorist' was used to describe Palestinians, but in reports of an Israeli group attempting to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as 'extremists' or 'vigilantes'. ^[10]

Omission

In the context of media, an omission refers to the failure to include information. This selective inclusion of information, which results from omitting other information, may distort the presentation of events in favor of one side or the other. In the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, for example, consider the difference in overall impact between:

• An article mentioning both a Palestinian suicide bombing in Israel and an Israeli offensive in the West Bank.
• An article mentioning only the Palestinian suicide bombing.
• An article mentioning only the Israeli offensive.

According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "Critical Thinking: Can You Trust Everything You Read?" article, CAMERA explains:^[11]

"Factual errors can be errors of omission or commission. Omission means that something important was not said, and as a result, readers are misled. In errors of commission, the reporter gives information which is not true."

In its "Understanding Bias" article, Honest Reporting asks the following questions pertaining to omission:^[12]

1. "Was the reporting one-sided and imbalanced?"
2. "Was key information missing (selective omission)?"

According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups

In its "Media critique quick sheet", Palestine Media Watch asks the following questions pertaining to omission:^[13]

1. "How many times were UN reports/findings/resolutions mentioned?"
2. "How many times were Human Rights reports/findings/statements mentioned?"
3. "Did the story describe official Palestinian denials/pleas of ignorance and innocence in violent acts?"
4. "Did the story describe official Israelis denials/pleas of ignorance and innocence in violent acts?"

Lack of verification

The ethics and standards of Journalism requires journalists to verify the factual accuracy of the information they report. "Factual verification is a hallmark of good journalism"^[14] and "is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment".^[15] Lack of verification refers to a failure to perform factual verification, involves the publication of potentially unreliable information prior to or without independent confirmation of the facts, and have resulted in various scandals. In the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, for example, consider:

• The Battle of Jenin, after which early media reports claimed that Israel "massacred" hundreds of Palestinian civilians.^[16][17][18] Later investigations by the United Nations and Human Rights Watch estimated the total Palestinian death toll at 52 (with estimates of civilian deaths ranging from 22 to 26) and contradicted previous claims that a massacre had taken place.^{[19][20][21][22][23]}
• The Islamic Jihad shooting attack on Kiryat Arba in November 2002, which Western media reports described as an attack on "worshipers," resulting in international condemnations.^[24][25] According to the Jerusalem Post, Islamic Jihad "opened fire at a [sic] security forces safeguarding Jewish worshipers," and according to both Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, the twelve Israelis killed all belonged to the IDF, the Israeli Border Police, or the Hebron security force.^[26][27]

According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "Atrocities of the British Press" article, Honest Reporting writes the following with regard to lack of verification:^[28]

"One of the hallmarks of journalism is to independently verify info before printing a 'fact.' Otherwise, readers are only being treated to rumors, accusations and even propaganda. ... Though not independently verified, many media outlets devoted huge amounts of ink to unverified Palestinian tales of conspiracies, mass murders, common graves, and war crimes."

In its "Edward Said's Documented Deceptions" article, CAMERA writes the following with regard to lack of verification:^[29]

"It is unfortunate that when dealing with vilification of Israel, facts remain unchecked, accusations remain unverified, and journalistic responsibility is replaced by formulaic disclaimers."

According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups

In its "Coverage of the Middle East Crisis In the Opinion Pages and News Coverage Of the Charlotte Observer" article, Palestine Media Watch writes the following with regard to lack of verification:^[30]

"PMW found that more and more, facts are being verified by independent and Palestinian sources and witnesses rather than relying on Israeli government, Israeli military, or Israeli sources solely. PMW believes this should be a consistent practice, but is encouraged to find it happening increasingly. ... When Israelis targeted a Palestinian girls’ school and hospital, they were described as 'Jewish extremists'. Also, when Israeli military or Jewish settlers kill civilians, their death is reported as a 'mistake' or as accidental due to 'crossfire'. These Israeli statements are rarely if ever challenged or reported as verified."

Selective reporting

A pro-Palestinian webcomic -- in reference to the capture of Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit and subsequent news reports -- alleges that the media favors Israel, by allegedly devoting more attention to Israelis captured by Palestinians than to Palestinians captured by Israelis.

Selective reporting involves devoting more resources, such as news articles or air time, to the coverage of one side of the story over another. In the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, for example, consider the overall impression given by:

• A broadcast which spends eight hours interviewing Palestinian victims and only three hours interviewing Israeli victims.
• A broadcast which spends eight hours interviewing Israeli victims and only three hours interviewing Palestinian victims.

According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "Understanding Bias" article, Honest Reporting asks the following question regarding selective reporting:^[12]

"Is 'equal time' granted to both sides of the conflict, or is one side given preferential treatment -- hence lending more weight and credibility to that side's position?"

In its criticism of National Public Radio, CAMERA writes:^[31]

"...CAMERA identified 350 speakers and found a gaping disparity in the time afforded to Israeli and pro-Israeli speakers compared to that provided the Arab and pro-Arab speakers. The pro-Arab speakers received 77% more time. ... More dramatic still was the disproportionate number of segments that included only pro-Arab speakers and excluded entirely any pro-Israel voices as compared to the many fewer reports that omitted altogether Arab speakers. The Arab-speakers-only segments were almost twice as numerous (41 to 24) and four times as long (18,321 words spoken on the air versus 4,934)."

According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups

In its "Killings of dozens once again called 'period of calm' by US media" article, Electronic Intifada writes the following regarding selective reporting:^[32]

"...there is a widespread tendency in the US media to simply ignore or severely underplay violence when its victims are Palestinians, while focusing intensely on incidents when the victims are Israeli. One of the reasons for the disturbing and persistent phenomenon of devaluing Palestinian life and death, is a structural geographic bias - most US news organizations who have reporters on the ground base them in Tel Aviv or west Jerusalem, very far from the places where Palestinians are being killed and bombarded on a daily basis."

In its criticism of National Public Radio, FAIR, writes:^[33]

"The unequal treatment of Israeli and Palestinian deaths is a long-standing pattern at NPR; a FAIR study of six months of the network’s coverage (Extra!, 11-12/01) found that 81 percent of Israeli conflict-related deaths were reported, but only 34 percent of Palestinian deaths. Strikingly, NPR was even less likely to report the deaths of Palestinian minors killed; only 20 percent of these deaths were reported, as compared to 89 percent of Israeli minors’ deaths. While NPR was more likely to cover Israeli civilian deaths than those of Israeli security personnel (84 percent vs. 69 percent), the reverse was true with Palestinians (20 percent vs. 72 percent)."

Decontextualization

Decontextualization is a type of omission in which the omitted information is essential to understanding a decision, action, or event, its underlying motivations or key events leading up to it. In the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, for example, consider the effect of the following:

• An article discussing the West Bank Barrier, which does not mention the suicide bombings of the Second Intifada.
• An article discussing the 2006 Hamas Election Victory, which does not mention the corruption of Fatah.

According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "Objectivity & The Media: 7 Principles of Media Objectivity" article, Honest Reporting writes the following with regard to decontextualization:^[34]

"By failing to provide proper context and full background information, journalists can dramatically distort the true picture."

In its "How to Recognize Unfair Reporting" article, CAMERA writes the following regarding to decontextualization:^[35]

"Does the article or broadcast omit essential context and information? This tends to be a frequent problem when reporting about the Middle East. Write a letter to the editor or directly to the journalist and/or media outlet to provide the missing context."

According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups

In its "Media critique quick sheet" article, Palestine Media Watch asks the following questions pertaining to decontextualization:^[13]

1. "Were Palestinian actions described in context (e.g., 'Palestinians launched a mortar attack after Israelis bulldozed a row of houses')?"
2. "Were Israeli actions described in context (e.g., 'Israelis bulldozed a row of houses after Palestinians launched a mortar attack')?"

According to Kaminer Ray of the online Z Magazine:^[36]

"Instigation and retaliation, while both violent, are naturally judged differently. Violence is wrong, but motives are relevant. This is not 'moral equivalence,' as many like to claim without elaborating on what this term means, but rather a simple quality that infects all moral considerations, from courtroom sentencings to parental groundings. If we can state that [one side] started it, then we can do away with overtly stated moral judgments in favor of the implication that [the other side] is acting defensively, and conventional wisdom is, thus, born."

Coercion or censorship

A comic from the Israeli blog DryBones -- in reference to the kidnapping of BBC reporter Alan Johnston and to a decision by the NUJ to boycott Israeli goods -- alleges that the BBC favors the Palestinian side, allegedly as a result of intimidation.

Coercion or censorship refers to the use of intimidation or force to promote favorable reports and to confiscate unfavorable reports. In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, both sides accuse each other of coercion or censorship as an explanation of alleged bias in favor of the other side. In support of these claims, Israeli advocates point to kidnappings of foreign reporters by Palestinians, while Palestinian advocates point to media blackouts and confiscation of reports by Israelis. Additionally, both sides point to reports by both governmental and non-governmental organizations, which assess the degree of journalistic freedom in the region.

According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "Palestinian Intimidation of the Press" article, Honest Reporting writes:^[37]

"The PA's policies of intimidation, harassment and persecution of the press are standard practices. Reporters won't admit it, but the fear of physical harm or the fear of dying is a powerful motivator. What motivated Italian TV's Ricardo Christiano to congratulate and bless the Palestinian Authority, and then apologize for another Italian broadcaster filming the barbaric lynching of two Israeli reservists in Ramallah? Was it fear? Or was it identification with the PA?"

"Non-partisan sources, such as the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, Freedom House, and even Palestinian rights groups report that the Palestinian Authority routinely harasses, arrests, beats and tortures journalists who print or report items critical of the Palestinian Authority or Chairman Arafat. They all report on the pervasive phenomenon of journalists' self-censorship."

In its "Reporting Under Repression" article, CAMERA writes:^[38]

"As we have noted in the past ( 'Intimidation of Journalists' ), intimidation has also been taking place in the Palestinian Authority. Many Palestinians who were not deemed appropriately 'patriotic' have been brutally murdered as 'collaborators.' PA thugs threatened journalists and photographers with harm during the lynching of the Israeli reservists at the Ramallah police station, as well as during the widespread celebrations going on in the Palestinian territories shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Cameras were smashed, film taken, and warnings given not to provide anything to their editors that would show the Palestinians in a negative light. In September of 2002, Jerusalem Post reporter Khalid Abu Toameh was repeatedly threatened with physical harm by a PA official. Abu Toameh wrote, 'the real danger comes not from the bullets of an M-16 or AK-47 assault rifle. Rather, it comes from attempts by certain elements in the PA to intimidate journalists who are only trying to carry out their jobs in a professional manner...[There are still those in the PA who believe] that a journalist is first to be loyal to the cause...'"

According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups

In its "AP squeamish about Israeli violations of international law" article, Palestine Media Watch writes:^[39]

"Israeli military assaults on journalists are taking place with alarming frequency in the Occupied Territories. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, the West Bank won the 2003 award for 'World's Worst Place To Be A Journalist,' explaining that 'gunfire from Israel Defense Forces (IDF) was the most dangerous and immediate threat.' Since the outbreak of the current Intifada, 9 journalists have been killed by Israeli soldiers, while over 250 others have been attacked and wounded (see http://www.miftah.org/report.cfm). According to the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate in Ramallah, at least 20 press centers have been shelled, vandalized or damaged by Israeli soldiers. This systematic targeting of journalists, although seldom discussed in the American media, is a consistent component of Israel's military presence in the Occupied Territories. In April, 2002, the International Press Institute released a comprehensive account of 'chilling patterns' of Israeli violation of Press freedoms (see http://www.freemedia.at/index1.html). Reporters Without Borders has repeatedly denounced 'excessive and undue force against foreign and Palestinian journalists, who have been roughed up, insulted, targeted with weapons and harassed,' and just this afternoon released a formal statement on yesterday's incident (see http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=4768). The Committee to Protect Journalists lists hundreds of similar episodes in which reporters were beaten, arrested, threatened with violence or death, and numerous instances in which film and equipment was confiscated or destroyed. We must energetically demand that such reprehensible incidents receive greater coverage in the American media."

According to governmental organizations

United Nations

According to an United Nations press release in 2005:^[40]

"Journalists and media officials have the right to safety and security wherever they may be in the world, even in zones of conflict. However reporting on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a difficult and sometimes dangerous undertaking for journalists. According to the International Press Institute (IPI), since September 2000, there have been 562 violations of press freedom in the occupied Palestinian territory. Detention, injuries, restricted access, denial or permits, confiscations of documents and lengthy delays have constituted violations of freedom of the press. The IPI reports that 12 journalists were killed during this period in the line of duty, including 10 Palestinians. At least 478 press freedom violations were carried out by Israeli authorities; the Palestinian authorities were responsible for 30 of the reported press freedom violations. In its 2004 Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index covering 165 countries, Reporters Without Borders placed Israel's performance in the occupied Palestinian territory on rank 115 and the performance of the Palestinian Authority on rank 127."

U.S. Department of State

An United States report in 2006 wrote the following regarding press freedom in Israel:^[41]

"The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice, subject to restrictions concerning security issues. The law prohibits hate speech and incitement to violence, and the 1948 Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance prohibits expressing support for illegal or terrorist organizations."

"The country has 12 daily newspapers, 90 weekly newspapers, more than 250 periodical publications, and a number of Internet news sites. All newspapers in the country were privately owned and managed. Political parties and religious bodies owned three minor dailies designed for Orthodox Jewish readers. The 1933 Journalism Ordinance and the British Mandate Defense Regulation for the Emergency Time Period were adopted upon establishment of the state; subsequently, the ordinance was never amended. The Ministry of Interior has no authority over the military censor.According to the Journalism Ordinance, anyone wishing to publish a newspaper must apply for a license from the locality where the newspaper will be published. The ordinance also allows the Minister of Interior, under certain conditions, to close a newspaper. In 2004 the High Court heard a petition filed by ACRI challenging the ordinance. ACRI withdrew its petition after the Interior Ministry pledged to prepare legislation effectively canceling the ordinance. At year's end legislation had not been enacted."

"The Israel Broadcast Authority, the country's state broadcasting network, controls the Hebrew-language Israel Television (Channel 1) and an Arabic-language channel, as well as Kol Israel (Voice of Israel) radio, which airs news and other programming in Hebrew, Arabic, and many other languages. Both Israel Television and Israel Radio are major sources of news and information. The Second Television and Radio Authority, a public body, supervises the two privately owned commercial television channels and 14 privately owned radio stations. In February 2005 the authority prohibited advertisements for the so-called Geneva Accords in which Palestinian public figures told Israelis, among other points, 'You have a partner for a peace agreement.' The authority claimed that its regulations on television commercial ethics prohibited it from airing commercials on 'controversial issues.' A consolidated cable company and one satellite television company carried international networks and programs produced for domestic audiences."

"The law authorizes the government to censor on national security grounds any material reported from the country or the occupied territories regarded as sensitive. An agreement between the government and media representatives provides for military censorship only in cases involving issues that the armed forces believe could likely harm the country's security interests. All media organizations must submit materials covered by the agreement to the censor for approval. This agreement deals with specific military issues as well as strategic infrastructure issues such as oil and water supplies.Media organizations may appeal the censor's decision to the High Court, and they cannot be closed by the military censor for censorship violations. The military censor cannot appeal a court judgment. Foreign journalists must agree to submit sensitive articles and photographs to the military censor. In practice they rarely complied. "

"Following an intensive public debate on the role of the media during wartime, as a consequence of censorship concerning, for example, specific locations of Katyusha rocket strikes, the Israeli Press Council established a Special Committee to Examine Journalistic Ethics and Conduct During War. Its conclusions were scheduled for publication following the final committee meeting on February 2, 2007."

"All journalists operating in the country must be accredited by the Israeli Government Press Office (GPO). On September 20, ACRI appealed to the Supreme Court on behalf of a journalist residing in the Golan Heights who alleged that he had been denied a GPO card since 2003 based on political and security considerations."

"News printed or broadcast abroad may be reported without censorship. There were no recent reports that the government fined newspapers for violating censorship regulations."

The same United States 2006 report wrote the following regarding press freedom in the Palestinian territories:^[41]

"The PA does not have laws providing for freedom of press; however, the law permits every person the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and expression, and the right to express opinions orally, in writing, or through any other form. However, a 1995 presidential decree included injunctions against writing anything critical of the PA or the president. Although the PA did not restrict freedom of speech or press, members of the ruling Hamas faction restricted freedoms of speech and press."

"Working conditions for journalists in the West Bank and Gaza deteriorated noticeably during the year. Following the January Palestinian legislative elections, tension between the Hamas-led government and the Fatah movement resulted in polarization of the Palestinian press, with reduced press freedom, notably for local-level journalists. Numerous incidents against journalists, particularly those working in Gaza, included assaults, intimidation, and abduction in retaliation for reporting perceived as biased by one faction or the other."

"In April several Palestinian journalists, including Muwafaq Matar, a reporter for the pro-Fatah al-Hurriya radio station in Gaza, received death threats for their critical coverage of Hamas. Reuters reported the Palestinian Journalists' Union received complaints from seven journalists in Gaza who had been threatened by e-mail, telephone, or fax for their writings."

"On May 20, masked arsonists burned three cars belonging to the Al-Jazeera satellite station in Ramallah. According to an Associated Press report, the attack was carried out by Fatah supporters against the station for not reporting an anti-Hamas demonstration in Ramallah."

"On September 19, unknown assailants attacked three journalists, including a photographer for the pro-Fatah Al-Hayat Al-Jadida daily newspaper, during a Hamas demonstration in Gaza. Also on September 19, masked men attacked the offices of the official pro-Fatah news agency WAFA in Khan Younis in Gaza, assaulting journalist Amr Al Farra and destroying the contents and furniture of the outlet."

"There were three Palestinian daily and several Palestinian weekly newspapers. There also were several monthly magazines and three tabloids. The PA operated one television station and one radio station. There were approximately 30 independently owned television stations and approximately 25 such radio stations."

"In 2005 the PA took steps to end incitement to violence in Palestinian media; however, no additional action was taken during the year. During 2005 the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation reduced its inflammatory material, including incitement to violence."

"The Israeli occupation authorities limited freedom of expression. In East Jerusalem Israeli authorities prohibited display of Palestinian political symbols; displays were punishable by fines or prison, as were public expressions of anti-Israeli sentiment and of support for Islamic extremist groups. Israeli authorities censored press coverage of the Intifada and reviewed Arabic publications for security-related material."

"As a general rule, Israeli media covered the occupied territories, except for combat zones where the IDF temporarily restricted access. The government claimed such restrictions were necessary for journalists' security."

"Closures and curfews limited the ability of Palestinian and foreign journalists to do their jobs. Journalists complained of area closures, long waits at the Gaza border crossing, and the government's inadequate transportation provisions."

"During the year IDF soldiers beat journalists on several occasions, detained others, and confiscated their press cards in Bil'in village where there were weekly protests over construction of the separation barrier (see section 1.g.)."

"There were reports by foreign and Israeli media that the IDF fired upon journalists."

"On July 12, media reported that Ibrahim Atla, a cameraman with Palestinian public television broadcasting, was seriously injured by shrapnel from a tank shell, and two other journalists were also injured."

"On July 19, Al-Hurra reporter Fatin Elwan was struck by two rubber bullets fired by an Israeli soldier while covering the Israeli siege of the presidential compound in Nablus. Reporters Without Borders also noted that three other journalists, including Al-Jazeera television technician Wael Tantous, were injured when Israeli soldiers fired rubber bullets at local reporters covering the event."

"On August 27, according to press reports, Israeli aircraft fired two missiles at an armored Reuters vehicle, wounding five persons, including two cameramen. A spokesman stated the Israeli Air Force did not realize journalists were in the car and attacked because it was being driven in a suspicious manner."

"On November 3, Hamza Al Attar, a cameraman for Palestinian news agency Ramattan, reportedly while wearing an orange vest marked "Press" was shot in the back and critically wounded while filming a protest by Palestinian women in Beit Hanun, Gaza."

"In January 2005 Majdi al-Arabid, a journalist working for Israeli Channel 10 TV in the Gaza Strip, was shot near Bayt Lahia while reporting on IDF operations against Palestinians suspected of firing rockets into Israel. An IDF spokesperson stated soldiers were unaware journalists were in the area and fired only on Palestinian gunmen. The IDF reportedly opened an investigation; however, at year's end there was no information on the status of an investigation."

"In 2003 James Miller, a British national, was killed by the IDF while filming a documentary in Rafah in the Gaza Strip. In April 2005 a disciplinary military court acquitted an IDF officer on charges of illegal use of firearms; subsequently, he was cleared of all charges. On April 6, a coroner's court in London ruled Miller's death was an "unlawful killing." Miller's family urged the British government to seek extradition of the IDF officer who killed him."

"On May 24, Israeli authorities released Awad Rajoub, a reporter for the Arabic language Web site of Al Jazeera, reportedly after being detained since November 2005; no reason was given for his detention."

"On October 6, IDF officials arrested Reuters cameraman Emad Mohammad Bornat in the West Bank village of Bil'in and detained him for two weeks. Bornat was charged with "attacking an officer"; however, according to Reuters he was subsequently found innocent by an Israeli court."

"Rising levels of lawlessness in the Gaza Strip subjected journalists to harassment and kidnappings."

"On March 15, three foreign journalists (Caroline Laurent, Alfred Yaghobzadeh, and Yong Tae-young) were taken at the Al-Dira hotel in Gaza by unidentified gunmen. On March 16, according to news reports, all three were released."

"On August 14, unidentified gunmen in the Gaza Strip kidnapped two Fox News journalists. They were released on August 27."

"On October 24, photojournalist Emilio Morenatti of AP was abducted by unidentified Palestinian gunmen in Gaza City; he was later released."

According to non-governmental organizations

Committee to Protect Journalists

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists's 2007 Attacks on the Press report:^[42]

"A bitter power struggle between the Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah left journalists vulnerable to harassment and attack, with the slayings of two local media workers and the abduction of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston underscoring the risk. Journalists covering Israeli military operations in the West Bank and Gaza also had to contend with perennial abuses at the hands of Israeli forces."

Freedom House

Freedom House publishes an annual Map of Press Freedom report on freedom of the press. The report, first published in 1980, rates countries as either "free" (F), "partly free" (PF), or "not free" (NF). The report does not distinguish between territory under Israeli jurisdiction outside of the green line and territory under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority; it refers to these territories, collectively, as "Israel Occupied Territories and Palestinian Authority" or "IOT-PA". The findings of the report, from 1994 to the present, for states which have participated in the Arab-Israeli conflict, appear below.^[43][44]

Reporters Without Borders

Reporters Without Borders publishes an annual report on worldwide press freedom, called the Press Freedom Index. The first such publication began in 2002. The results for Israel and the Palestinian Authority from 2002 to the present are shown below, with lower numbers indicating better treatment of reporters:

Forgery or falsification

Forgery or falsification involves the intentional misrepresentation, alteration, or invention of reported information. Due to the severity of these actions, which violate the ethics and standards of journalism, instances of forgery and/or falsification are frequently cited by Israelis and their advocates and/or by Palestinians and their advocates—depending on the nature of the forgery and/or falsification—in order to support claims that the media favors the other side.

According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "Anti-Israel Venom at University of Illinois Paper" article, CAMERA criticized the student paper for using fabricated quotes:^[45]

"The University of Illinois newspaper, the Daily Illini, is making a dubious name for itself as one of America’s more recklessly anti-Israel student publications. Flouting journalistic norms that mandate accuracy, ethics and responsible sourcing it has repeatedly run false, anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic commentaries."

"'Stop turning a blind eye' (Dec 11, 2003) is on this unfortunate list. Written by Mariam Sobh, a journalism student and regular Illini columnist, the op-ed contained a grotesque, invented quote attributed to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as well as a spurious reference to another non-existent quote, by another Israeli official, supposedly from the New York Times. This is a pattern with the Illini columnist. In her zeal to vilify Israel, Sobh consistently turns to unreliable sources to prove her point. Both the extreme invective against Israel and the permissive editorial policy allowing student and community writers to use the pages of the newspaper for propaganda are apparently habitual. A year ago, on Jan 22, 2003, for example, the paper ran a virulent letter to the editor entitled 'Jews manipulate America' offering crude anti-Semitic allegations authored by one Ariel Sinovsky from Seattle, Wash. Although an editor claimed to have confirmation of the writer’s identity, university alumnus Jeff Kamen told CAMERA that students and community members searched all available databases and directories, but did not find an Ariel Sinovsky in Seattle or anywhere."

In its "Bold Distortions and Outright Lies" article, HonestReporting commented on the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies:^[46]

"A Reuters photo turns out to be an outright lie, manipulated to make damage in Beirut appear much worse than reality."

"The conflict between Israel and the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah has produced some of the most distorted and biased reporting we have seen in years. Despite evidence that Israel is taking unprecedented steps to avoid civilian casualties, some in the media have accused the IDF of using disproportionate force against a harmless civilian population. With little evidence to back up this claim, some are even resorting to outright fraud...."

For additional claims of forgery and/or falsification made by Israelis and their advocates, please see Pallywood and the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies.

According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups

In its "Please counter the Israeli PR machine" letter, Palestine Media Watch criticized the media for fabricating information or for reporting fabricated information:^[47]

"Basic facts will not only be ignored, but will be fabricated, outright, bald-faced lies will be told, and the intelligence of the American people will be shamelessly and repeatedly insulted and violated. And all along, the US media will not only simply roll over and play half-dead, as usual, but will cheerfully accept the easy, comfortable way out, never bothering to ask the obvious questions, never pointing to the decades-old record of rejection from Ariel Sharon, his open refusal to accept a viable Palestinian state, his brutality, his war crimes, and his relentless sabotaging of all chances, minor or major, at advancing political dialog. The media will again fail to connect the simple dots, will fail to look for or detect obvious patterns, never daring to stare reality right in the face, let alone break free from the mindless narrative sandbox in which they have decided to confine themselves."

In a letter to the Washington Post by Omar Barghouti, an activist of Palestine Media Watch, Barghouti criticized the Post for repeating allegedly fabricated information:^[48]

"By relying largely on Israeli Army sources, Mr. Keith Richburg and Mr. Lee Hockstader portrayed an inaccurate picture for the Israeli operation on Thursday, November 9th, against Mr. Hussein Abayat. The Israeli army wants us to believe that Mr. Abayat was a 'terror' mastermind, who 'deserved' to be killed by Israel. The Washington Post article only helps promote this distorted image."

"From the very beginning, the article calls the operation a 'targeted slaying', which in any other context would be immediately and intuitively be called assassination. The reader, as always, is given a very foggy account of the victim, Mr. Abayat, and only the Israeli-provided biographic information is highlighted. I have always complained about the convenience with which some Post journalists rely on Israeli sources, despite the fact that they were proven over and over again to be grossly inaccurate, if not altogether fabricated. A quick look at the reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights will attest to what I am saying."

Placement

Where text appears in a news article affects the frequency with which it is read and the likelihood that a reader will recall that information. Headlines, for example, are more frequently read than any other part of a news article.^[49][50][51] The first paragraph is read more frequently than the rest of the article, but less frequently than the headline.^[52] If an article is read in its entirety, the reader will most strongly recall the last paragraph, due to the recency effect, followed by the headline and first paragraph, due to the primacy effect; whereas, the reader is unlikely to recall information in the middle of the article as strongly as information placed closer to the beginning or end of the article. Along this vein, "placement" refers to allegations, by both sides, that the consistent preferential placement of the opposing point of view biases the media's presentation of the Arab-Israeli conflict in favor of the other side.

According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its page on "Headlines & Graphics", CAMERA writes the following regarding placement:^[53]

"Headlines are the first, and sometimes only, news items seen by readers and should provide the essence of a news story. While they must capture the reader's attention, headlines should always be accurate and specific. The size of a headline signals the importance of the story and its relationship to other stories, and the use of the active versus passive voice also shapes reader perceptions."

In its "New York Times Skews Israeli-Palestinian Crisis" article, CAMERA criticized the New York Times for the placement of news stories about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, writing:^[54]

"In a key period in late March and early April, as Israel suffered a wave of unprecedented Palestinian terrorism prompting the Israel Defense Forces to respond with incursions into areas under Palestinian Authority control, the New York Times presented a decidedly skewed picture of events. Reporting focused heavily on Palestinian suffering while continually minimizing the personal toll on Israelis. The number and prominence (judged by placement and size) of news stories and photographs regularly cast Palestinians as blameless victims of Israeli aggression. Israeli victims were rarely even named, much less profiled. Guest Op-Ed’s were overwhelmingly tilted toward condemnation of Israel."

According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups

In its report "Off the Charts: New York Times coverage of Israeli and Palestinian deaths," If Americans Knew writes the following regarding placement:^[55]

"Every death mentioned solely in the last two paragraphs of an article was Palestinian. There were five Palestinian deaths mentioned for the first time in the second to last paragraph, including that of a 16-year-old girl shot through the chest by the Israeli army. Also, there were five Palestinian deaths mentioned for the first time in the last paragraph. [...] Since readership diminishes the further down an article one goes, such patterns reduce readers’ awareness of Palestinian deaths."

Exaggeration or sensationalism

Sensationalism, in general, is a form of being extremely controversial, loud, or attention grabbing. In the context of the media, sensationalism refers to claims that the media chooses to report on shocking events or to exaggerate, at the expense of accuracy and objectivity, in order to improve viewer, listener or readership ratings. This criticism, also known as media circus, is proffered by both Israelis and Palestinians as a possible explanation for alleged bias.

According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "'New Rules' For Mideast Reporting" media critique, Honest Reporting writes the following regarding sensationalism:^[56]

"Every media outlet has its own stylebook, designed to be as fair and impartial as possible. These days, however, it often seems like the Palestinian Minister of Information is publishing and distributing his stylebook to dozens of newspapers and media outlets. Since September 2000, a new de facto "stylebook" has emerged for reporters covering the Palestinian violence against Israel. In some cases, the "new rules for reporting" are based on actual policies promulgated by news organizations and editors. Though elements of "pack journalism" are evident, there are probably no conspiratorial hands behind the emergence of this stylebook. For the most part, reporters and correspondents have informally, perhaps even subconsciously, adopted these guidelines. Invariably, the new rules are biased against Israel. While not a "conspiracy," an anti-Israel press "convention" has emerged, and clear biases are evident. For now, the bias appears to have had little impact on American public opinion regarding Israel. In Europe, the stronger, more strident anti-Israel tone of much of the media may be having a different impact. Following are eight new "rules" for reporters covering the Middle East, as distilled from hundreds of articles covering the recent violence:"

"Rule 1. Sensationalize the intensity and scope of Israeli military actions.
Call the Israeli actions 'aggressive,' 'devastating' or 'intensive.' Refer to Israeli incursions into Palestinian territory as 'deep,' even when they involve only 300 yards. [The New York Times, April 14, 2001]
On the other hand, refer to Palestinian mortar attacks as 'ineffective' or 'falling harmlessly,' even though the intent of the mortar teams is malevolent."

In its "Selective Quotes Distort Intent of Sharon's Gaza Withdrawal" article, CAMERA criticized Haaretz for using a sensational headline:^[57]

"The 'teaser' revealed a few selected quotes, and carried the sensational headline, 'Top PM aide: Gaza plan aims to freeze the peace process.' ... By valuing sensationalism over accuracy in its teaser, Haaretz practiced irresponsible journalism."

According to Pro-Palestinian Watchdog Groups

In its "Canada's Nearly 400,000 Muslims Concerned about Media Stereotypes" article, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs writes the following regarding sensationalism:^[58]

"Sensationalist coverage has cultivated fear of Muslims, Islam and Arabs, says Ausma Khan, a third-year law student at the University of Ottawa, and one of the estimated 150,000 Canadian Muslims with roots in the Indian subcontinent.... the [tenets] of responsible journalism are increasingly being disregarded in the pursuit of sensationalism."

In its "Issue Area: Sensationalism" webpage, FAIR writes the following regarding sensationalism:^[59]

"Profit-driven news organizations are under great pressure to boost ratings by sensationalizing the news: focusing attention on lurid, highly emotional stories, often featuring a bizarre cast of characters and a gripping plot but devoid of significance to most people's lives. From Tonya Harding to O.J. Simpson to Elian Gonzalez, major news outlets have become more and more dependent on these kind of tabloid soap operas to keep profits high."

Prejudiced journalists

Journalists may intentionally or unintentionally distort reports due to political ideology, national affiliation, anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism, or Islamophobia. Both Israelis and their advocates along with Palestinians and their advocates have pointed to these qualities—political ideology, national affiliation, anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism, or Islamophobia—as a potential explanation for the alleged bias of certain prominent journalists.

According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "Amanpour's Troubling Journalism" article, CAMERA attributed Christiane Amanpour's allegedly biased news coverage to her political ideology:^[60]

"Known for parachuting in to cover the latest global hotspot, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour is one of the most famous journalists in the world. But there have long been questions about her habit of skewing coverage to suit her own political biases."

Ira Stoll of the New York Sun, and formerly of the Jerusalem Post, attributes alleged anti-Israel media bias in part to reporters of Jewish background:^[2]

"Most deficiencies of fairness and balance, alas, aren't the result of editors deliberately placing their papers on the side of freedom, democracy, and the West and against murderous, repressive tyrants. I suspect they are instead the result of four factors: 1. Self-hatred and bending over backward by Jewish or once-Jewish reporters, editors, and owners; 2. Ordinary, innocent carelessness and mistakes that can creep in on any stories that are constructed by tired human beings working on deadline; 3. The structural imbalance that comes from journalists being able to work mostly free and uninhibited in Israel but being subject to severe restrictions in countries like Syria or Iran; 4. Lack of understanding of the underlying historical and political background."

Prejudiced fixers

An Arabic-speaking Israeli journalist, who avoids using fixers, noted that most fixers trumpet the PLO narrative of the conflict, which frequently collides with established historical facts and international law. Palestinian security forces watch carefully what is said by local residents to both foreign and local journalists. According to senior foreign news sources in Jerusalem, the vast majority of Palestinian fixers, often close friends of Palestinian employees of Jerusalem foreign news agencies, are ideologically motivated by the Palestinian cause, and encourage journalists to report exclusively on the "evils" of the Israeli occupation rather than on the lack of democratic freedoms or human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.^[61]

Frequently cited incidents

In order to substantiate claims that the media favors the other side, participants in the conflict on each side frequently cite a number of illustrative and extreme examples of controversial reporting. This section lists incidents of controversial reporting frequently cited by only Israelis and Israel advocates, by only Palestinians and Palestinian advocates, or by both sides. The list of incidents appear chronologically, according to when the incident took place. Where events took place on the same date, the incidents appear sorted alphabetically.

Shooting of Muhammad al-Durrah

On September 30, 2000, the 11-12 year-old boy, Muhammad al-Durrah, was shot in Palestinian-Israeli crossfire at the Netzarim junction.^[62] France 2, which caught the incident on tape, claimed that Israel had fatally shot the boy.^[63] After an official, internal investigation, the IDF conceded that it was probably responsible and apologized for the shooting.^[64] Al-Durrah became a symbol of the Second Intifada and of Palestinian martyrdom.^[65]

External investigations suggested that the IDF could not have shot the boy and that the tape had been staged.^[66][67] In 2001, following a non-military investigation, conducted by Israeli Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yom Tov Samia, the Israeli Prime Minister's Foreign Media Advisor, Dr. Ra'anan Gissin, along with Daniel Seaman of the Israeli Government Press Office (GPO) publicly challenged the accuracy of the France 2 report.^[68] In 2005, the head of the Israeli National Security Agency, Major-General (res.) Giora Eiland publicly retracted the IDF's initial admittance of responsibility.^[68] In order to avoid negative publicity and a resulting backlash, the IDF did not conduct its own official, military investigation until 2007.^[69] On October 1, 2007, Israel officially denied responsibility for the shooting and claimed that the France 2 footage had been staged,^[70][71] prompting criticism from Al-Durrah's father.^[72]

Both Palestinians and Israelis cite the Muhammed al-Durrah case in order to further claims that the media favors the other side. Israelis and their advocates cite the case because France 2 attributed the shooting to Israel when either side could have shot the boy. Palestinians and their advocates cite the case because of the attention the media has given to Israeli allegations that the video tape was staged.

Photo of Tuvia Grossman

The caption of the Associated Press photograph, which also appeared in the New York Times, misidentified Tuvia Grossman's nationality, misidentified the photograph's location, and implied police brutality by Grossman's Israeli rescuer. Tuvia Grossman has since become an icon of alleged anti-Israel media bias.

On September 30, 2000, the New York Times, the Associated Press, and other media outlets published a photograph of a club-wielding Israeli police officer standing over a battered and bleeding young man.^[73] The photograph's caption identified the young man as a Palestinian and the location as the Temple Mount.^[73] The young man in the picture was 20-year old Tuvia Grossman, a Jewish American student from Chicago who had been studying at a Yeshiva in Israel; the Israeli police officer in the photograph, who appears to have beaten Grossman, actually came to his rescue by threatening his Palestinian assailants.^[73][74]

On October 2, 2000, Tuvia Grossman's father sent the following email to the New York Times:^[75]

"Regarding your picture on page A5 (Sept. 30) of the Israeli soldier and the Palestinian on the Temple Mount - that Palestinian is actually my son, Tuvia Grossman, a Jewish student from Chicago. He, and two of his friends, were pulled from their taxicab while travelling in Jerusalem, by a mob of Palestinian Arabs and were severely beaten and stabbed. That picture could not have been taken on the Temple Mount because there are no gas stations on the Temple Mount and certainly none with Hebrew lettering, like the one clearly seen behind the Israeli soldier attempting to protect my son from the mob."

On October 4, 2000, the New York Times issued the following incomplete correction, which incorrectly identified the location of the incident:^[76]

"A picture caption on Saturday about fighting between Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem included an erroneous identification from The Associated Press for a wounded man shown with an Israeli policeman. He was Tuvia Grossman of Chicago, an American student in Israel, not an unidentified Palestinian. In some copies the caption also misidentified the site where Mr. Grossman was wounded. It was in Jerusalem's Old City, but not on the Temple Mount."

On October 7, 2000, the New York Times published an article about the incident and printed the following, more complete, correction:^[74][77]

" A picture caption on Page A6 last Saturday about fighting in Jerusalem gave an erroneous identification from The Associated Press for a wounded man shown with an Israeli policeman. He was Tuvia Grossman of Chicago, an American studying at a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem, not an unidentified Palestinian. In some copies the caption also included the news agency's erroneous reference to the site. The incident occurred in an Arab neighborhood of Jerusalem, not on the Temple Mount or elsewhere in the Old City."

"A correction in this space on Wednesday cited the errors incompletely and omitted an explanation of the scene. The officer was waving a nightstick at Palestinians, telling them to stay away from Mr. Grossman. He was not beating Mr. Grossman."

"An article about the incident and the photograph appears today, on Page A4. "

The Tuvia Grossman Photo appears frequently in Israeli criticisms of the media, because the photograph implied that the Israeli police officer who rescued Tuvia Grossman had beat him, it implied an Israeli perpetrator, it implied a Palestinian victim, and it conveyed the opposite of what had transpired.^{[73][75][78][79]} According to Honest Reporting's promotional videos, the pro-Israel watchdog was established in 2000 in response to this incident, which it describes as "the photo that started it all".^[80][81] Seth Ackerman of FAIR described the attention given to the photo, as well as the three NYT corrections, as disproportionate to a "plausible, though careless" assumption resulting from "garbled information from the Israeli photographer".^[82]

Battle of Jenin

On April 3, 2002, following a devastating suicide bombing on March 27th ^[83] which killed 30 Israeli civilians and wounded as many as 143,^[84][85] the IDF began a major military operation in the Jenin refugee camp, a city which, according to Israel, had "served as a launching site for numerous terrorist attacks against both Israeli civilians and Israeli towns and villages in the area".^[86] The fighting, which lasted eight days and resulted in the deaths of 52 Palestinians (including 14 civilians, according to the IDF, and 22 civilians, according to HRW) and 23 Israeli soldiers, has been interpreted quite differently by Israelis and Palestinians.^{[87][88][89][90]} In the aftermath of the fighting, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat claimed that the IDF had killed 500 Palestinians and accused Israel of committing a "massacre".^[91] Early news publications, following both IDF estimates of 200 Palestinians killed and Palestinian estimates of 500 Palestinians killed, reported hundreds of Palestinian deaths and repeated claims that a massacre had taken place.^[92][93] Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International later found that a massacre had not taken place, although both organizations charged the IDF with war crimes and human rights violations.^[94][95] The United Nations similarly dismissed claims that hundreds of Palestinians had been killed as unsubstantiated, a finding which was widely interpreted and reported as rejecting claims of a "massacre".^{[21][22][87][96]} The Battle of Jenin is still largely called the "Jenin Massacre" (Arabic: مجزرة جنين‎) by Arab and Palestinian sources.

The reporting surrounding the Battle of Jenin has been frequently criticized by both Israelis and their advocates and by Palestinians and their advocates. Israelis and their advocates frequently cite the reporting surrounding the Battle of Jenin, because "the Arab and European media hastily reported", ^[97] without proper verification, Palestinian allegations that a massacre had taken place, a claim broken by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and described by many pro-Israel sources as "The Big Jenin Lie" and by HonestReporting as "Jeningrad".^{[97][98][99][100][101][102]} Palestinians and their advocates, many of whom view a massacre as having taken place, frequently cite the reporting surrounding the Battle of Jenin for later rejecting Palestinian claims of a massacre and for ignoring claims by Amnesty International and by Human Rights Watch that the IDF had committed war crimes.^[103][104]

Gaza beach blast

On June 9, 2006, an explosion on a beach in the Gaza Strip killed seven Palestinians, including three children.^[105] Palestinian sources claimed that the explosion resulted from Israeli shelling.^[105] After a three-day investigation, Israel concluded that the blast could not have resulted from an IDF artillery shell.^[106][107] This IDF investigation was criticized by both Human Rights Watch and The Guardian for ignoring evidence.^[108][109] The IDF later conceded that the report was flawed for failing to mention two gunboat shells fired at about the time of the deaths but insisted that these shells had landed too far away from the area to be the cause of the explosion and that this omission, therefore, did not impact the report's overall conclusion that Israel had not been responsible for the blast.^[110] According to CAMERA, "many in the press [have presumed] that Israel is responsible".^[111] This incident is often cited by Israel advocates who claim that the media favors the Palestinian side, because of reports which attributed the blast to the IDF prior to the conclusion of the IDF investigation.^[111][112]

2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies

On August 5, 2006 blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs accused Reuters of inappropriately manipulating images of destruction to Beirut caused by Israel during the Second Lebanon War.^[113] This accusation marked the first of many accusations against media outlets for inappropriate photo manipulation. Media outlets were also accused of incorrectly captioning photos and of staging photographs through the inappropriate use of props. These accusations, which initially appeared in the blogosphere, were amplified by Aish HaTorah through an online video entitled "Photo Fraud in Lebanon".^[114] In response to these allegations, Reuters toughened its photo editing policy and admitted to inappropriate photo manipulation on the part of Adnan Hajj, a freelance photographer whom Reuters subsequently fired.^[115] Additionally, BBC, the New York Times, and the Associated Press recalled photos or corrected captions in response to some of the accusations.^[116] This journalistic scandal, dubbed "Reutersgate" by the blogosphere in reference to the Watergate scandal and dubbed "fauxtography" by Honest Reporting and others, is frequently cited by Israelis and by Israel advocates in order to demonstrate alleged anti-Israel bias, this time in the form of an outright forgery created by a biased local freelance photographer.^[117][118]

The Independent's "Mystery of Israel's Secret Uranium Bomb"

On October 28, 2006, The Independent published an article, by Robert Fisk, which speculated, based on information from the European Committee on Radiation Risk, that Israel may have used depleted Uranium weapons during the 2006 Lebanon War.^[119] The article prompted criticism by HonestReporting for coming to conclusions prematurely,^[120] and resulted in an investigation by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).^[121] On November 8, 2006, UNEP concluded that Israel had not used any form of Uranium-based weapons.^[122][123] Israelis and Israel advocates cite the article as an instance of "shoddy journalism", arising allegedly as a result of media sensationalism.^[124]

Films

This section discusses films with media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict as its main topic. The films presented in this section appear in alphabetical order.

Décryptage

Décryptage is a 2003 documentary written by Jacques Tarnero and directed by Philippe Bensoussan.^[125] The French film (with English subtitles) examines media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict in French media, and concludes that the media's presentation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in France is consistently skewed against Israel and may be responsible for exacerbating anti-Semitism.^[126]

Pallywood

Pallywood: According to Palestinian sources... is an 18-minute online documentary by Richard Landes.^[127][128] The film, with its title derived from the words Palestinian and Hollywood, claims that the Western media uncritically accepts and reports the stories of freelance Palestinian videographers who record staged scenes, often involving faked or exaggerated injuries, in order to elicit sympathy and support.^[128]

Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land

Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land is a 2004 documentary by Sut Jhally and Bathsheba Ratzkoff.^[129] The movie claims that the influence of pro-Israel media watchdog groups, such as CAMERA and Honest Reporting, leads to distorted and pro-Israel media reports.^[130] In its response to the movie, the pro-Israel JCRC criticizes the film for not discussing the influence of "the numerous pro‐Palestinian media watchdog groups, including, ironically, FAIR (Fair and Accuracy in the Media, which describes itself as 'A National Media Watch Group'), whose spokesperson played a prominent role in the film".^[131] According to the pro-Palestinian LiP Magazine, the movie "offers a great starting point for thinking about media misrepresentation of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and useful analysis of how language is used to manipulate public opinion," but is short on "solid statistics and facts to back up some of its blanket statements".^[132] A review in the New York Times by Ned Martel found that the film "largely ignores Palestinian leadership, which has surely played a part in the conflict’s broken vows and broken hearts. And such a lack of dispassion weakens the one-sided film’s bold and detailed argument".^[133]

Other criticisms

Some media criticisms appear less frequently than those listed in the common claims section above or are made by only one side. Such criticisms are documented and explained here.

False compromise

False compromise refers to the claim, made by some Israeli advocates and by some Palestinian advocates, that their side of the conflict is morally right and the other side is morally wrong and, therefore, attempts to balance the presentation of both viewpoints wrongfully suggests that both sides are morally equivalent. For example, Palestinian advocate Kathleen Christison writes that "a balanced position in an unbalanced situation inevitably is a miscarriage of justice. In Palestine-Israel, it is a profoundly immoral stance to maintain neutrality between powerless Palestinians (who have the ability occasionally to murder innocent Israelis but no power to regulate or save their own lives) and an overpowering, overbearing Israel possessing all the military power, controlling all the land".^[134] Similarly, in the words of Israel advocate Bret Stevens, "Moral clarity is a term that doesn't get much traction these days, least of all among journalists, who prefer 'objectivity' and 'balance.' Yet good journalism is more than about separating fact from opinion and being fair. Good journalism is about fine analysis and making distinctions, and this applies as much to moral distinctions as to any others. Because too many reporters today refuse to make moral distinctions, we are left with a journalism whose narrative and analytical failings have become ever more glaring".^[135]

Structural geographic bias

Structural geographic bias refers to the claim, made by some Palestinian advocates, that the Western media favors Israel, allegedly as a result of Western reporters living in Israel.^[136][137]

New Media and Internet

This section documents how the Arab-Israeli conflict is both portrayed and played-out on the web.

The Internet

In the words of Jerusalem Post writer Megan Jacobs, "War in the Middle East is being waged not only on the ground, but also in cyberspace."^[138] While Israeli and Palestinian advocacy websites promote their respective points of view, fierce debate over the Arab-Israeli conflict has embroiled social networking websites and applications with user-generated content, such as Facebook, Google Earth, and Wikipedia.^{[138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147]}

Facebook

Facebook is a social networking website, which allows users to connect and interact with other people online, both directly by "friending" people and indirectly through the creation of groups. Because the website allows users to join networks organized by city, workplace, school, and region, Facebook has become embroiled in a number of regional conflicts. Facebook groups such as "'Palestine' Is not a country... De-list it from Facebook as a country!" and "Israel is not a country! ... Delist it from Facebook as a country!", among others reflecting the mutual non-recognition of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have protested Facebook's listing of Israel and Palestine, respectively, as countries.^[148] This controversy became particularly heated when, in response to protests over Palestine being listed as a country, Facebook delisted it. The move infuriated Palestinian users and prompted the creation of numerous Facebook groups such as "The Official Petition to get Palestine listed as a Country", "Against delisting Palestine from Facebook", and "If Palestine is removed from Facebook ... I'm closing my account".^[138] Facebook, in response to user complaints, ultimately reinstated Palestine as a country network.^[138] A similar controversy took place regarding the status of Israeli settlements. When Israeli settlements were moved from being listed under the Israel network to the Palestine network, thousands of Israelis living in the area protested Facebook's decision.^[140] In response to the protest, Facebook has allowed users living in the area to select either Israel or Palestine as their home country.^[140]

Another controversy over Facebook regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict concerns Facebook groups which, against Facebook's terms of use, promote hatred and violence. According to former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Facebook has been used to promote anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.^[139] A proliferation of Facebook groups praising the perpetrator of the Mercaz HaRav massacre in 2008 prompted the creation of the Facebook group "FACEBOOK: Why do you support Anti-Semitism and Islamic Terrorism", which succeeded in deleting over 100 pro-Palestinian Facebook groups with violent content, by reporting the groups to Facebook.^[141][149] The group, which since evolved into the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF), took over the Facebook group "Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country" when, according to the JIDF, Facebook stopped removing such groups.^[150][151] The JIDF described the "Israel is not a country!" group as "one of the most vile, antisemitic, pro-terrorist sites on the internet" and stated that it "was the most active hate group of all----promoting hatred, violence, murder, and genocide..."^[149][150] After taking over the group, the JIDF began to remove its more than 48,000 members and replaced the group's graphic with a picture of an IAF jet with the flag of Israel in the background.^[151]

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an online, collaborately written encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Wikipedia contains articles on a wide variety of subjects, and users may create new articles. The writing of articles is organized into Wikipedia projects, called "WikiProjects". Articles pertaining to Israel are managed by WikiProject Israel, while articles pertaining to Palestine are maintained by WikiProject Palestine (this article is under the auspices of both WikiProjects). Articles on controversial subjects, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, may be the subject of editing disputes, edit wars, or neutral point-of-view disputes. The WikiProject Israel-Palestine Collaboration was established for the purpose of reducing such disputes on topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The WikiProject maintains a list of ongoing disputes and editing conflicts on articles pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Wikipedia policy requires, among other things, that all articles adhere to neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing; however, since Wikipedia articles are written collaboratively, there is no guarantee that articles will adhere to these principles, unless editors involved with the page adhere to these rules or, if necessary, seek mediation or arbitration in order to ensure that other editors adhere to these principles.

While editing conflicts occur frequently, one particular conflict, involving CAMERA and Electronic Intifada, made headlines in the Jerusalem Post and the International Herald Tribune.^[143][152] When CAMERA encouraged individuals sympathetic to Israel to participate in editing Wikipedia in order to "lead to more accuracy and fairness on Wikipedia",^[146] Electronic Intifada accused CAMERA of "orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged."^[145] The accusations led to various administrative actions on Wikipedia—including the banning of certain editors. HonestReporting subsequently responded to the incident with its own article, entitled "Exposed - Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia" which complained of "anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia" and described Wikipedia's NPOV policy as a "noble goal not always applied equally by Wikipedia users.^[144] CAMERA similarly responded to the incident with a letter entitled "The failure of Wikipedia", appearing in IHT , which described Wikipedia's Middle East articles as "often-unreliable".^[153][154] In a separate article entitled "The Wild West of Wikipedia", which appeared in The Jewish Chronicle and IMRA, Gilead Ini of CAMERA decried "Wikipedia's often-skewed entries about the Middle East", described Wikipedia's rules as "shoddily-enforced", and wrote that, following the incident, "many editors who hoped to ensure accuracy and balance ... are now banned" while "partisan editors ... continue to freely manipulate Wikipedia articles to their liking".^[155]

Watchdog groups

This is an alphabetically sorted list of media watchdog groups which monitor coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict in Western news media. While academics debate the impact of the media on public opinion,^[156] lobbying organisations view the media as essential in influencing public perceptions of the conflict and, therefore, as paramount in influencing and securing favorable public policy in relation to the conflict.^[157][158]

See also

• Media bias
• Spin
• Propaganda
• Hasbara
• Pallywood
• Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land
• Muhammad al-Durrah
• Tuvia Grossman
• 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies
• 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping
• Kidnapping of Alan Johnston
• Fadel Shana'a
• James Miller
• Jewish Internet Defense Force

Further reading

The following is a list of relevant publications sorted alphabetically by title (ignoring leading "The"s) and then by author:

• Bad News from Israel, Greg Philo and Mike Berry Pluto Press, (2004)
• Caught in the Middle by Steve Mcnally; Columbia Journalism Review, Vol. 40, January-February 2002
• Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World, by Edward W. Said (1997)
• Covering the Intifada: A Hazardous Beat; Photographers and Journalists Come under Gunfire While Reporting on the Conflict, by Joel Campagna; Nieman Reports, Vol. 56, Fall 2002
• Covering the Intifada: How the Media Reported the Palestinian Uprising, by Joshua Muravchik; Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2003 ISBN 0-944029-85-X
• Days of Rage: News Organizations Have Been Besieged by Outraged Critics Accusing Them of Unfair Coverage of the Violence in the Middle East. Are They Guilty as Charged?, by Sharyn Vane; American Journalism Review, Vol. 24, July-August 2002
• Do Words and Pictures from the Middle East Matter? A Journalist from the Region Argues That U.S. Policy Is Not Affected by the Way News Is Reported, by Rami G. Khouri; Nieman Reports, Vol. 56, Fall 2002
• Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition, by Norman G. Finkelstein (2003)
• Images Lead to Varying Perceptions: 'In Photographs in Which We, as Journalists, Saw Danger, Some Readers Saw Deception, by Debbie Kornmiller; Nieman Reports, Vol. 56, Fall 2002
• Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East by Richard A. Falk and Howard Friel London: Verso (2007) ISBN 1-84467-109-7.
• The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict by Marvin Kalb John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, February 2007
• The Minefield of Language in Middle East Coverage: Journalists Rarely Have the Time or Space to Navigate through the War of Words, by Beverly Wall; Nieman Reports, Vol. 56, Fall 2002
• Missing: The Bias Implicit in the Absent, by Marda Dunsky; Arab Studies Quarterly, Vol. 23, 2001
• The Other War: A Debate: Questions of Balance in the Middle East by Adeel Hassan; Columbia Journalism Review, Vol. 42, May-June 2003
• The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy, by Stephanie Gutmann, Encounter Books 2005 (ISBN 1-893554-94-5)
• Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, by Charles D. Smith (2004)
• Pens and Swords: How the American Mainstream Media Report the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Marda Dunsky, Columbia University Press, 2008 (ISBN 978-0-231-13349-4)
• Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy, Kathleen Christison (2001)
• Racism and the North American Media Following 11 September: The Canadian Setting, by T.Y. Ismael and John Measor; Arab Studies Quarterly, Vol. 25, 2003
• Reporting the Arab Israeli Conflict: How Hegemony Works by Tamar Liebes (1997)
• Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict: What the Headlines Haven't Told You, by Michael Rydelnik; Moody Publishers (June 1, 2004) ISBN 0802426409

References

External links

• CNN Navigates Raw Emotions In Its Coverage From Israel by the New York Times
• The Hottest Button: How The Times Covers Israel and Palestine by the New York Times
• Some U.S. Backers of Israel Boycott Dailies Over Mideast Coverage That They Deplore by the New York Times
• Journalists caught in the middle by the BBC
• NUJ under fire for Israel boycott by The Guardian
• Israel cuts links with BBC by The Guardian
• Israel to boycott Al-Jazeera TV, claiming incitement to terror by Haaretz
• Israel accuses al-Jazeera of bias by BBC
• NPR reacts to charges of anti-Israel bias in coverage by JTA
• Watching the Pro-Israeli Media Watchers by Manfred Gerstenfeld and Ben Green on JCPA
• Seven Years on the Front Lines by Honest Reporting on YouTube
• CAMERA 2007 by CAMERA on YouTube
• Are There Two Sides to Every Story? by HonestReporting on YouTube