Comment

Comment by Nora Lester Murad on November 18, 2012 at 4:11am

Here's an excellent article just posted by Electronic Intifada about BBC coverage of the I-P conflict in which an independent panel found shortcomings. I highly recommending this article to anyone who is interested in media coverage, especially in Gaza: http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-assaults-gaza-bbc-repo....

Comment by Nora Lester Murad on November 18, 2012 at 2:14am

Please read this excellent Guardian article on this very topic: https://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/commentisfree/2012/nov/17/isr...

Comment by Nora Lester Murad on November 17, 2012 at 12:50pm

Well I certainly agree that providing a full reporting of a conflict includes acknowledging the various "sides" but 1) I don't see that as "balance" (because I don't think the reporter must give validity to all sides) and I also don't think all stories are about the conflict and therefore need to include other sides. For example, a story about the impact of bombing on Gazans doesn't need to have the Israeli side. So perhaps we agree, except for the word "balance" which, like the word "peace," has been too often used to damage and deny Palestinian rights, and has thus become discredited to a great extent.

Comment by Steven L. Youngblood on November 17, 2012 at 12:08pm

Dear all:

Thank you for the thoughtful comments.

Nora, your comments are very thought provoking, and I agree with Bishop Tutu's famous quote.

I am not suggesting that there is a moral equivalency between two sides in any conflict. What I would say is that, as journalists, I believe it's our job to let our readers/viewers know that there is another side, another viewpoint. This is not meant to aggrandize or validate this viewpoint, only to recognize its existence, and in so doing, offer up an explanation (but not an excuse) for actions from the other side. To ignore the "other side" is to deny reality.

Thanks again.

Comment by Nora Lester Murad on November 17, 2012 at 4:17am

Dear Steven, I hope I can express myself clearly and we can open a dialogue about the important issues you raise. At the core of your argument, you say: "Citizens in both lands deserve a sober, objective, balanced analysis of the conflict. Citizens need to know about the suffering and wrong-doing on all sides." To many who don't have the facts, your position will sound reasonable, but to me it uses bits of reason mixed in with serious distortion, and therefore leads you astray. At the core of my argument is Bishop Tutu's quote: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."

So, Israel has one of the best equipped and trained military corps in the world and the Palestinians are stateless, occupied and disperse. There is nothing "balanced" about the situation, and the reporting should not be balanced either. The two "sides" are those who are pro-peace and justice for all and those who aren't. Why should "good" reporting mean that both sides get equal time?

Question for you: Would you give the slave and the master equal, "balanced" coverage in an article about slavery? I know that Palestinians aren't slaves, but the relationship of structural inequality is the same.

I look forward to your views.

Comment by Steve Forbes on November 16, 2012 at 9:45pm

I agree with your assessment, but find nothing new about it or even regional.  Subjective sensationalistic reporting has been around a long time, predating Hearst, and the harm it causes is equivalent to that of any political travesty which is all the more exacerbated, prolonged, nurtured because of it.  Any organ that is based on promoting its own agenda, no matter how admirable it may be, creates distrust by all but the choir, or vulnerable recruit.   The most impotent (from an information perspective, and most potent in terms of deleterious effects) is the mass media, whose objective is not to inform but to draw in the audience, not to read the capsulated story in 10pt font, but to explore catalogue of half page ads, not to listen to the 30 second sound bytes of "news", but to listen to the 3 minutes of commercials in 10 minute intervals.  The only way to over come this, I think, is a Perspectus (my word) whose sole purpose is to provide (not sell) in depth, reliable, credible objective information regarding the topic and accurately reporting the positions of all factions without personal commentary or judgements.  I have been told it too idealistic, not possible, and that no one would read it. But surely I am not the only exception.

Comment by Firouzeh Afsharnia on November 16, 2012 at 7:05pm

when one side is open endedly occupied, displaced and marginalized by a much stronger power,  there is no such thing as unbiased reporting.   To say that Israeli attack on Gaza is "shameful" or that there is "continued violence" or that Jabari has been "assassinated" is to report on a fact. - a situation which is in and of itself the poster child for global injustice.