These headlines illustrate the failure of journalists and their editors to frame articles in a manner which focuses primarily on Hamas and Islamic Jihad violence and evokes sympathy for Israeli terror victims and the southern communities which are constantly on the receiving end of such attacks. The story they wish to tell demands that facts be molded to conform to the desired David vs Goliath narrative, operates from an assumption that Palestinians lack agency and that the only party in the conflict that matters is Israel. The facts may change, but the story remains the same.
COGAT, the Israeli authority tasked with processing such travel requests, flatly denied the Guardian claim that a young Palestinian suicide victim had been denied a travel permit to study at Hebrew University. In fact, they said he had never applied for permission in the first place.
Contrary to the Guardian Jerusalem correspondent’s claim, Hamas has not “softened” its founding charter’s rejection of Israel’s existence, nor has it abandoned its promotion of violence to achieve this end.
There hasn’t been a shortage of inflammatory, misleading and inaccurate media claims during coverage of recent Gaza riots, but the insinuation of Israeli malevolence in this Indy editorial is among the worst we’ve reviewed.
Guardian suggests equivalence between President Rivlin’s ‘greater Israel’ and Gaza protest leader’s ‘No Israel’
The Guardian’s comparison between the views of Israeli President Reuven Rivilin and those of chief Gaza protest organiser Ahmad Abu Artema is highly misleading. Unlike Abu Artema, who believes in a one-state scenario which ends Israeli sovereignty, Rivlin champions the idea of an Israeli annexation of the West Bank with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side under Israeli sovereignty and Palestinians being granted full Israeli citizenship. Abu Artema wants to end Israeli sovereignty. Rivlin wants to expand Israeli sovereignty.
In a mere one minute and twenty seconds, the Sky News clip accurately capsulizes the media’s continuous credulity when faced with Palestinian soundbites that echo the narrative of proscribed terror groups – representative of a broader institutional failure to contextualise coverage of events in the region by reminding news consumers of the malevolent aims of the Hamas tyrants who rule Gaza.
This is a cross-post from BBC Watch. The subject matter of programmes in the BBC World Service radio history series ‘Witness‘ is often tied to an anniversary on or around the time […]
This is a cross-post from BBC Watch. The October 3rd edition of the BBC World Service radio programme ‘Newshour‘ included an item concerning that day’s meeting of the Palestinian cabinet in the […]
An article in the Independent suggests that Israel denied a travel visa for a 28-year-old Gaza student who was due to begin a masters programme at Goldsmiths, University of London in Oct. However, UK Media Watch contacted a spokesperson at COGAT (Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories), who denied the claim and clarified that the student’s visa was approved for the date requested by the Palestinian Civil Authority.
We complained to Daily Mirror editors, arguing that readers were grossly misled by their decision to recycle a story from four years ago and published it as if it were current. After several emails to editors without a response, we complained to Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) under the terms of the accuracy clause of the Editors’ Code. IPSO gave the Daily Mirror an opportunity to respond to our complaint, but editors chose not to dispute our claim, and agreed to our request that they remove the entire photo series.
It’s difficult to know which is worse about this Daily Mirror photo essay: the fact that they completely obfuscated the terror dimension of Gaza’s tunnels, glorified Hamas’s abuse of children or unethically used four-year old photos while presenting them as current.
By citing just three seemingly damning words within a longer, more nuanced interview with the head of Israeli Electric about the power shortage in Gaza, the Indy journalist did what the Indy does best: taking the comments and actions of Israelis and Israeli leaders out of context to impute maximum malevolence.
The Economist is currently promoting a seven-part “special report” titled “Six days of war, 50 years of occupation”. The online version of the unattributed sixth installment goes under the title “The half-life on an occupied Palestine”. The article, quite predictably, solely blames Israel for the occupation and suggests that Palestinians have no responsibility for the ongoing conflict
I do understand Sarah Helm’s desire to paint Hamas in a positive light in her May 19 article at the Guardian. I too wish that their intentions were as positive as she seems determined to present them as being; peace between Israel and the Palestinians – the magical goal that every politician yearns for – would be so much more easily attainable.
Following communication with Telegraph editors, the erroneous claim was removed.
In addition to the false suggestion that there’s a concrete wall surrounding Gaza, the claim that “with few exceptions, no one has been allowed in or out since…2007” is absurd, as data from UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory (OCHA oPt) demonstrates.
Once again, we see how the media’s default narrative, regardless of the particulars, is to hold Israel responsible for every conceivable social and political ill within Palestinian society, while downplaying or ignoring the role its leaders plays in perpetuating their suffering.
The Times of London headline – suggesting the existence of heretofore unseen Hamas peaceniks – is absurd. There are no “hawks and doves” within the movement, but only extremists who differ slightly in their willingness to tailor their message for Western audiences.
The report (“Israel ‘blocking human rights researchers’”, March 3), by Gabriel Samuels, cited HRW’s accusation that Israel has been “preventing foreign researchers from entering the Gaza Strip to document potential abuses”, but failed to seek comment from NGO Monitor, the group most knowledgeable about the Israel related work of the group.
We have got so used to these extreme critiques of settlements, that we forget the basis on which they rest – that for a Palestinian state to exist, there must be no Jews whatsoever within its territory. This assumption is often unchallenged, but when one analyses it, it is hard to characterise it as anything other racist.