Let us compare and contrast two news articles with a similar subject, and see the differences.
First, the headline: Israeli Troops Kill Hamas Fighter
Compared to: Palestinian infighting in Gaza kills 4
Note that Israeli troops killed the Hamas “fighter,” while the Palestinians killed by other Palestinians were killed by the vague cause of “infighting.” It’s a perfect example of the language used to describe what Israel does, and what the Palestinians do, in nearly every case. I swear the AP must have it in their Middle East stylebook.
Now let’s look at the ledes. First:
Israeli troops killed a Hamas gunman early Wednesday in a battle in southern Gaza, Palestinian officials said.
The gunman was hit by tank fire near the town of Khan Yunis during an Israeli military incursion, according to Dr. Moaiya Hassanain of Gaza’s Health Ministry. Hamas, the Islamic group that rules Gaza, confirmed that one of its fighters had been killed.
Three other Palestinians were wounded, Hassanain said. It was not immediately clear if they were civilians or militants.
Compared to:
A clash between Hamas security forces and members of a large Gaza clan affiliated with the rival Fatah party left four people dead on Wednesday, a Hamas official said.
Two of the dead were Hamas security officers and two were from the Heles clan. More than 20 people were wounded from both sides, said Ihab al-Ghusain, a spokesman for the Hamas security forces.
The violence erupted when clan members opened fire at the security forces, al-Ghusain said. The force later arrested a number of “outlaws” who were on their way to send reinforcements to the clan, he added.
Do you see the difference in language? The Hamas/Fatah battle that led to four deaths and 20 injuries is a “clash.” The Israeli battle was a “battle.” Israeli troops “killed” the Hamas “fighter.” The “clash” didn’t kill four Palestinians—it “left four people dead.” The wounded were not identified as civilians or “militants” or “clan members.” In the article about the IDF, the AP specifically said they didn’t know if the wounded were civilians, thus implying that civilians may have been hurt in the “battle.” They did not point out any such information about the wounded in the Hamas/clan “clash,” only that “more than twenty people” were wounded “from both sides.” (We’ll come back to that in a minute.)
And yet, the bias keeps on building.
Local residents said rocket propelled grenades and heavy machine guns were used in the clashes. Ambulances were heard whizzing throughout Gaza city.
In a heavily-populated city, filled with civilians, Hamas and Fatah used RPGs and machine guns. Twenty-plus people were wounded in the action. And the AP couldn’t identify whether or not some of those twenty people (from both sides!) were civilians.
I was going to guess that a large majority of them were. But wait, I don’t have to guess! Ma’an News (a Palestinian news service that has its own amusing bias) has the answer:
The battle began when members of the family threw explosives and fired at the police, immediately killing one officer and injuring two others. In the ensuing fighting, two civilians were killed and 30 people were wounded, including 14 police officers.
Muawiya Hassanein, director of ambulance and emergency services in the Palestinian Health Ministry, said that some of the injured were in critical condition, including a woman named Dalia Hillis and a man named Ahmad Abu Ni’ma.
Isn’t that interesting. The AP didn’t report any civilian injuries, nor did they report that two of the dead were civilians. And if you subtract the fourteen police officers from the number of wounded, that leaves sixteen wounded civilians.
Let me repeat that: Sixteen wounded civilians. And the AP couldn’t determine whether any of the casualties of the Hamas/Fatah clan “clash” were civilians, nor could AP so much as hint that there might have been civilian casualties.
This is how Israel gets its horrible reputation in the world. The mass media play up every single Israeli-caused casualty, and play down all of the Palestinian-on-Palestinian violence. All of it. The news media refuse to correct stories even after they are proven false. I seriously doubt the Mohammed al-Dura hoax exposure will get any publicity after the judge in France makes a ruling (assuming he is a man of honor and that France 2 actually gives him the full, unedited tape of the incident).
Because that doesn’t fit the narrative. The narrative is that the evil, cruel, racist, violent Zionist army is callously killing and wounding Palestinian civilians while going after “terrorists.” Palestinians killing Palestinians, murdering civilians with RPG and heavy machine gun fire—well, that just doesn’t get noticed much.
Except by us.
Biased journalism is bad journalism, but I sometimes wonder whether rancid reporting is bad because it’s biased, or biased becasue it’s so bad. You point out how “infighting” causes Muslim deaths when Muslims are slaughtering the innocent, but “Israel soldiers” are fingered as the culprits who snuff Palestinian “fighters”. I agree that this is clear bias, but I would also point out that journalists tend to ascribed motives to inanimate objects even when the writer isn’t pushing some agenda.
A case in point is a newpaper article I read some time ago in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The reporter pointed out that this was the second time an out-of-control SUV had come crashing through the doors of the newly completed symphony hall. Thenceforth, whenever my wife and I went to the little Mexican restaurant across from Bass Hall, we reminded each other to stay on the look-out for SUVs gone postal.
My point (if I have one) is simply that, like that Startle-Gram reporter who ascribed recklessness to rogue SUVs, we too can make the mistake of anthropopathizing journalists. By projecting our impression of their writing, we oft credit them with rationality they don’t possess. It’s my considered opinion that coherent thought among journalists — especially at the NY Times — is an even more dubious theory than man-made global warming. (And you can take that to the bank. No bias here.)
Good article Merryl, the Bias of the media especially the Media conglomerates is astounding. Unfortunately, where you may have expected the ‘information age’ to help provide more News outlets/reporters with access to primary sources, the truth is the Media, driven by cost cutting has become lazy and simply just another consumer of News agency feeds.
Each time an obviously biased article comes out of AP, Reuters, AFP and the elk instead of appearing in one paper it appears in a thousand. You wonder if sub editors are even reading the crap they print.
Mr Bagel