This postwas originally published on May 24, 2002.
The Times is running scared
Meryl Evans forwarded me this story, which did, indeed, bring a smile to my face. (Thanks, kiddo.) The New York Times boycott is apparently working, and working well, as are selected boycotts around the nation, including one of NPR. Jewish groups are urging a boycott of the Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times due to biased coverage of Israel. The article cites, among other things, the two skewed pictures the Times printed in the article about the Israel Day Parade–the ones that made it appear there was a much bigger crowd of Palestinian protestors than there actually was. That would be the one the Times actually almost apologized for.
Intense public reaction to coverage of the violence of the Middle East conflict has prompted unusually harsh attacks on several news media outlets and has led to boycotts of The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post.
Broadcast news operations, including CNN and National Public Radio, have also been criticized. The general manager of one public radio station, WBUR-FM in Boston, said it had lost more than $1 million in underwriting and pledges this year — nearly 4 percent of its annual budget — because some supporters of Israel encouraged people not to give.
[…] The swift communications of the Internet era apparently help fan the intensity of the criticism.
[…] James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, echoed such criticism, but said he would not encourage a boycott. To do “what the Jewish community has done, to incite their members to boycott, to feel so injured that people work themselves into a lather over press coverage does damage to the possibility of discourse,” he said.
Okay, let’s recap: The boycott is working well enough for the Times to run an article about it, and for an NPR station to lose a million dollars in pledges and contributions. The Internet is partly responsible for the boycott’s swift enaction and success. And a leader of an Arab American organization says that boycotts are a bad thing. Discourse, he says. Talk. (Not that any Arab organization would boycott Israel, no. Nor, indeed, would the enitre Arab world. Nuh-uh.)
So the obvious bias is already there–mean ol’ Jews boycott the Times, good ol’ Arab Americans–or at least their leaders–want to talk.
But here’s where the article gets really, well, boycott-worthy.
While the the pro-Israeli Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, or Camera, studies newpapers for evidence of bias, Palestine Media Watch has been monitoring the coverage of newspapers like The Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Like pro-Israeli critics, the pro-Palestian groups focus on issues of balance and equivalence and on common vocabulary. Ahmed T. Bouzid, the president of Palestine Media Watch, argued, among other things, that the word retaliation was often used about Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets, which, he said, “frames it as a reaction to something, not an action initiated by Israelis.” He said he was pushing to eliminate mediocre journalism, not charging bias.
Look at the first words of each paragraph. Notice how the pro-Palestinians are groups, but the pro-Israelis are critics. Notice that “While the pro-Israeli Committee … studies newspapers for evidence of bias [emphasis mine]”, “the pro-Palestinian groups focus on issues of balance and equivalence [emphasis mine] and on common vocabulary.”
Indeed. Look what happens when you focus on common vocabulary. Look at the stealth bias. The quote from the Palestinian group? “He said he was pushing to eliminate mediocre journalism, not charging bias.”
Un-friggin’-believable. Even in an article about media bias, the Times is biased.
The New York Times. Don’t buy it, and drop your subscription. You need to read it? It’s free on the Internet.
Indeed, hit ’em where they live, in their wallets. I never enjoyed anything so much as telling the circulation lady on the phone why I was canceling the NYTimes. “Because it’s biased,” I said. “Oh,” she said. Oh, indeed.
Every group thinks the media is biased against them. The Times probably posted those pics because it heightened the drama by showing a larger opposition – bigger conflict=bigger story.
In any case I would think that it would cast a negative image of the pro-Palestinians rather than an anti-Israel bias. I’m sure I’m not the only one who saw or heard about this pictures and thought the protesters were A-holes for protesting a parade.
Anyhow, if you’re happy that an aggressive campaign, like a boycot, is working, then you should be prepared to take the good with the bad – just like other protestors do. And unless Zogby’s or another major Arab group actually has boycotted something then it’s not really biased to report his quote.
The best way to get their attention is to cancel your subscription with an explanation. I cancelled my 30 plus year subscription to the Minneapolis Star/Trib last year when they refused to call terrorists committing crimes in Israel by their rightful name- terrorists.
Every few months I receive a call at home to re-subscribe to their rag sheet, this gives me an opportunity to explain why I cancelled to begin with, and it sure feels good!
Actually, the point of this post is that I was writing about media bias all the way back in the spring of 2002.
Take a look at any of my current media bias posts. It’s been going on for many years.
As someone said on the “record review board” on American Bandstand when Dick Clark asked if he would buy the record-
“I wouldn’t buy it, but I’d steal it”
The Times is not even worth stealing.
Meryl,
Have you read this vile piece by Buchanan? I’d love to hear your reaction.