Once—just once—I’d like to see an article on Israel that contains no bias whatsoever. This one was pretty darned good. Look at this, it’s part of the lead, and it actually presents the story fairly. It points out that it is always Hamas that breaks the peace, not Israel, and that Israel responds militarily to being attacked:
Israel and Hamas have largely observed an unofficial cease-fire since then. But clashes sporadically flare up along the volatile border as Gaza militants fire rockets and mortars into Israel, drawing military reprisals.
Wow, that’s about the best summation I’ve ever seen the AP give this situation. And the article goes on to quote Israelis harmed by the rocket, call for UN condemnation of Hamas, and there isn’t a single quote by a Palestinian doctor about how the Israeli response killed a farmer or a fisherman or something other than a terrorist. It’s a fair description of the attack on Israeli civilians.
Until the end.
No Palestinian group took responsibility for the rocket attack. But it came at the end of a violent day.
Really? At the end of a violent day? So, what happened? Why was it violent?
Israeli tank fire wounded 11 people, including at least six militants, following an attack on an Israeli patrol. One of the wounded later died in a hospital, marking the first time in weeks someone has died in clashes.
Note the transposition of events here. Instead of pointing out that there was an attack on an Israeli patrol, the writer (or editor) starts with the Israeli response, making it look like the Israeli response came before the attack. Yes, the words say otherwise—but then, why are the events in reverse order in the paragraph? Because it minimizes the Palestinian attack. It’s a very subtle difference, but when you rewrite the paragraph, it becomes extremely meaningful. Here’s why the Israelis responded with tank fire:
The Israeli military said its tanks opened fire after the militants detonated a bomb targeting the Israeli patrol near the border and then fired mortars at the soldiers. Both Islamic Jihad and Hamas militants said they were involved in that attack.
The paragraph should have been written like this:
Militants detonated a bomb targeting the Israeli patrol near the border and then fired mortars at the soldiers. Israeli tanks returned fire, wounding 11 people, including at least six militants. Both Islamic Jihad and Hamas militants said they were involved in that attack.
See how easy it is? See what a difference the truth makes? It’s yours for free, AP. And anytime you want any more lessons on writing neutral stories, I’m happy to supply them. Oh, and one last tip: The “including at least six militants” is another subtle dig. It implies that the other five were innocent civilians. I’m quite sure the AP is using “We didn’t have 100% identification” as their excuse for using it. But if a group of men are standing around firing mortars, you can be pretty sure they’re not civilians.