Richard Landes, writing for Solomonia, describes one of the results of bias in the media - how The Media Gets the "Intifada" Wrong
The AP caption, repeated by the NYT, identifies the bloodied civilian as a Palestinian, the policeman brandishing a club – implicitly the author of the youth’s wounds – as an Israeli, and the location as the Temple Mount. I guess one out of three IDs isn’t bad for AP when it comes to the Middle East conflict, although the thrust of the errors literally transforms the meaning of the photo. What the AP did with this caption is to impose upon it the firm expectations of their Politically Correct Paradigm: since the Palestinians are the David and Israel the Goliath, then a bloodied civilian near an Israeli with a club must be the soldier’s victim. And since Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount the day before had provoked Palestinian rage to which the Israelis had responded with deadly force, the injuries must have been inflicted on the Temple Mount.
What happened differs radically. The victim, Tuvya Grossman, was an American seminary student in Jerusalem whose taxi-driver went through an Arab neighborhood of Jerusalem where rioting crowds dragged him from the car, beat and stabbed him nearly to death. He managed to escape and reach the place where this Israeli soldier protected him from his pursuers. This story here actually illustrates the Jihad Paradigm, not the Politically Correct Paradigm.
Palestinians, whipped into a rage by false rumors that Sharon had desecrated the al-Aqsa mosque, broke into wild rioting, which Israelis, as much as possible, constrained with non-lethal weapons (like this baton). The Jewish civilian here is the victim, and the Israeli David, scantily armed, stands up to the Palestinian mob...
...his subsequent retraction, and a successful lawsuit against both AP and the French paper Libération, had little impact on those who wanted to believe in Israeli villainy.
As in the case of the poison accusations of 1983, Palestinian and Arab media, like the Egyptian Government and their Post Colonial Paradigm supporters, have continued to use the picture as part of their Palestinian victim narrative. To this day, Tuvya Grossman's picture adorns a poster calling on everyone in the world to boycott Coca Cola in order to stop Israelis from killing Palestinians.
No picture better illustrates the mood of the media at the outbreak of the intifada. "Already already listening" as Werner Erhardt might have put it. The storyboard was up, they just needed the material to start pinning to it. On September 29, it was Tuvya Grossman. The next day, it was Muhamed al Durah.
Landes generously blames the media's "misinterpretation" of the event on a sort of willful stupidity , or the "problem that people have registering information that contradicts their expectations"
Knee jerk reactionary cluelessness may be part of the problem, but many are also motivated by bias, ego and a very basic desire to keep their jobs and bring in ad revenue. Like the latest news about Jen, Brad and Angelina, anti-Americanism and hatred of Israel sells papers from Paris to Syria. Contradicting readers' expectations with the truth doesn't sell soap. Neither does an admission of wrongdoing.
It doesn't sell Mecca-Cola either. Where would the boycott Coca Cola campaign be without Muhammad al-Dura?
The departure of CNN news executive Eason Jordan came swiftly after reports of his apparent claim at a forum in Switzerland that journalists in Iraq had been deliberately killed by American soldiers. Offering no evidence to support the charge, Jordan resigned under a hail of criticism.
In just months, CBS ousted senior executives held responsible for airing a disastrously flawed segment on President Bush's Air National Guard service. So, too, the New York Times and USA Today acted within months against serial falsifiers Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley, firing senior executives as well as the individual perpetrators, and instituting measures to guard against future infractions.
Far different has been the response of the influential France 2 Television network, in an infamous and unresolved case of gross misconduct by its journalists. Charles Enderlin, Israel-based correspondent for the network, and his Palestinian cameraman, Talal Abu-Rahma, are directly responsible for the calumny spread worldwide against Israel starting September 30, 2000 in the Muhammad al-Dura affair.
Enderlin's voice-over told France 2 viewers that they were seeing footage shot by Abu-Rahma at Gaza's Netzarim junction earlier that day. As images unfolded of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura cowering against his father, Enderlin stated the two are "the target of fire coming from the Israeli position. The child signals, but... there's a new burst of gunfire... The child is dead and the father is wounded."
France 2 then promptly gave the video – barely 55 seconds in length – free of charge to other media outlets. The image of the boy ostensibly shot dead by Israeli guns raced around the world. Coming as it did in the first days of the Palestinian uprising, the dramatic scenes playing continuously on television stoked the violence...
..Four and a half years later, France 2 has yet to issue any statement correcting its reprehensible and unethical al-Dura story, or to take action against Enderlin, Abu-Rahma or others with a hand in the matter.
This should concern everyone who appreciates the enormous damage caused by reckless and ideologically-driven journalism.
Many journalists believe that their job is more than reporting facts - they believe that their job is to tell us how to live our lives, to shame us when they believe we have done something wrong, and to make the world a better place. But, unlike ministers, holy men, doctors or teachers, they aren't trained for this "job". They're just kinda winging it.
Some journalists (and bloggers) do the hard, unforgiving work of investigating facts - and they often discover that their co-workers have made mistakes. The rewards for this kind of journalism are few. These whistle-blowers are rarely rewarded by the big media. Wonder why.
Like most bullies, biased journalists do bad things because they can get away with it. Media sources, unlike other products, aren't required to warn readers about the contents of their reports. Most newspapers don't have a warning like "this product contains pompous moralizing", or "gratuitious Israel bashing inside - now with extra charges of colonialism!!"
Many of these biased journalists believe that telling the truth and reporting simple facts is just too hard. It's beyond the limits of human ability and endurance - literally impossible.
Well, okay then - if it's impossible, then the concept of "news" is dead. Long live punditry. The New York Times should be be renamed New York Liberal Editorializing. We can tune into Fox Right-Wing Punditry when we want to hear from the other side.
Call it what it is.