“Now is the
time to cool it”
(Statement by
Aidan White, General Secretary of the International Federation for
Journalists, 20.10.2000)
In October 2000, the International Federation of
Journalists (IFJ) called on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to stop
attempting to manipulate the media in the battle for public opinion
inside and outside the region. Mr. White also called on journalists
to ensure that they act professionally and do nothing to prejudice
the intentions of other journalists in circumstances that are
potentially dangerous for all.
The al-Aqsa Intifada has provoked charges and
counter charges of media bias and incitement. Israelis accuse the
Palestinian media of inflaming the Palestinians with hatred against
Israelis, while the Palestinians say the Israeli media are defending
murder and the use of excessive force in response to street assaults
and demonstrations. Computer technology, including the availability
of inexpensive digital cameras, has contributed to a barrage of
images that amount to little more than digital press releases. It is
increasingly difficult to maintain perspective in a time where
“instant” news and “live” coverage have priority. In the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the historical context is critical to
understanding the present situation. Journalists have a
responsibility to provide that background.
During this intifada, political leaders have made
decisions under the pressure of live news reports. Journalistic bias has
changed the course of events. When Palestinians witness Israel’s
response to the uprising on the Arabic language satellite television
station Al-Jazeera, they
become enraged. Israelis are frightened by the street demonstrations
presented in Israeli media, making them believe that the Israeli
army should take stronger measures.
Charges of media bias flare in moments of crisis.
Military strategies are accompanied by sophisticated media
strategies. The principal weapons are images. From the perspective
of a human rights organisation, the last few months have tested the
ability of journalists to remain fair – on both sides. PHRMG feels
that it is relevant to discuss the question of alleged media bias
and incitement in a broader context. The recent media coverage of
the al-Aqsa Intifada presents a significant human rights
challenge. The media
can choose to assume a role in peace-building. The ways in which they forge
the image of the “self” and the “other” can have a major affect on
the escalation of violence against civilians. The following example
illustrates the problem addressed in this
report.
“I am now
standing in Psagot, with my back to the killers” (Correspondent Nitzan Chen, Israeli Channel
1
, reporting live from the settlement of
Psagot).
The media have become instruments of the confrontation,
intensifying hatred and hostilities. There is hard bitterness
provoked by two images.
The shooting of a Palestinian boy and a cheering mob
celebrating the deaths of two Israeli soldiers were met with outrage
on the respective sides and served to harden positions on both
sides.
A problem emerges when comparing Israeli and Palestinian
news coverage. Although
the Israeli press is ostensibly free, and claims to be so, such is
not the case on the Palestinian side. That fact has been
documented thoroughly in several independent reports during the
period of Palestinian Authority rule. This report examines specific
incidents and cases in order to analyze how the print media
have covered the al-Aqsa Intifada It focuses primarily on
issues of incitement and the coverage of human rights
issues.
Israelis simply assume that Arab journalists are biased
and Arabs assume the same of their Israeli counterparts. These
accusations are rarely made out loud and making them simply seems to
be a waste of time.
Such accusations wouldn't have the same psychological effect
as accusing American journalists. PHRMG finds this attitude worth
discussing. Palestinians consider Jewish journalists to be biased
because of their religion. While Israelis consider Palestinian
journalists biased because of their religion. As we have seen, religion is
insufficient to question their professionalism, although extremist
papers on both sides often have shown marked bias.
Even though many of the charges of bias are overblown or
unfounded, some journalists do not even aspire to fair reporting.
Additionally, charges of bias often are used as a “tool in the
arsenal of increasingly sophisticated ‘spinmeisters’ associated with
all sides in the Arab-Israeli dispute”. During
the 1990s, public opinion became increasingly important in
Palestine, as Palestinians are increasingly exposed to un-censored
international and local news and information.
This report analyzes the Israeli and Palestinian
print news coverage of several incidents that occurred during the
first months of the intifada. This report focuses on news articles,
and to a lesser degree on editorials or analyses. The papers
examined include The Jerusalem
Post
, Ha’aretz
,
Ma’ariv
and Yediot
Ahronot
on the Israeli side. On the Palestinian
side al-Ayyam, al Hayat al-Jadida,al-Quds and AMIN (Arab
Media Internet Network), were chosen. Obviously AMIN is not a print
newspaper, but has been included because the Palestinian media do
not enjoy press freedom. AMIN presents articles and commentaries
from well-known Palestinian columnists that have not been censored.
Chapter 2 examines the term “incitement” and details how
it is understood by both the Palestinian and Israeli side. Chapter 3
looks at Palestinian news coverage, while the Israeli news coverage
is dealt with in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 discusses the restrictions
that have been placed on journalists from both sides during this
intifada.
