PressEthic

In searching for examples of media bias for this week's class, I came across an excellent piece on Aljazeera's website, which critiques the bias apparent in US and British media coverage of the recent Israeli-Lebanese conflict. Habib Battah, identified by Aljazeera as a "Lebanese writer" (he's an experienced print and broadcast journalist, with a BA in journalism from UT Austin), cites numerous, specific examples of the subtle double-standards that, as he argues, are all too apparent in American and British media's reporting from Israel and Lebanon during this summer's turmoil.

Mr. Battah's well-documented instances of bias (mainly in American broadcasts) speak for themselves; for example:

"After four weeks of devastating Israeli air raids across Lebanon, American news network NBC began its Nightly News bulletin with its anchorman, Brian Williams, asking: 'Does the US really have any influence in this war?'

Hours earlier on sister network MSNBC, anchorwoman Chris Jansing seemed to be at a similar loss. 'Can anything be done to stop the violence?' she asked.

But to an American audience, the thought of a Syrian or Iranian news anchor posing the same questions would be fit for a comedy skit.

After all, the Syrians and Iranians wield an obvious 'influence' over the course of the conflict according to the NBC channels, which like CNN, Sky and many other Western new organisations reported relentlessly on claims that Hezbollah's rocket imports were made possible through the help of its two 'rogue' allies.

But where was the parallel analysis of multi-billion dollar weapons shipments bound for Israel from the United States? Most Western broadcasters reported religiously on the number of rockets fired at Israel each day of the month-long conflict, often comparing fresh figures with those of previous days and weeks, even peppering the audit with analysis and commentary.

Absent however was almost any accounting of the daily tonnage of US-manufactured munitions dropped from an unknown fleet of US-manufactured jets levelling an untold number of Lebanese homes and villages.

On American television screens, the US role in this conflict was a relatively sanitised one, pictured as diplomatic rather than military; seen across negotiating tables and in visits to foreign capitals -- a far less sinister role than that repeatedly attributed to the Iranians and Syrians over allegations of their financial and logistical support.

In fact, so penetrating was the alleged connection that some channels, such as Bloomberg Television, began referring to Hezbollah on second reference as merely 'the Syrian- and Iranian-backed group'. But why did Bloomberg not choose to identify Israel, the largest official recipient of US foreign military assistance for decades, as 'the US-backed state'?

In another example, US and British media reports are shown to be rife with assumptions that subtly favor Israel:

"Another case in point was Israel's attack on a UN post, killing four observer troops, on July 26. Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, quickly condemned the strike as 'apparently deliberate', noting 'a co-ordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long-established and clearly marked UN post'. ... But these multiple claims seemed to be of little consequence to the CNN military analysts back home. A retired US Air Force general employed by the station dismissed the controversy outright, saying the Israeli strike was simply 'a screw-up, a major screw-up'.

Assumptions over Israel's intentions were not limited to analysts but also to senior journalists, such as Tim Marshall, Sky's foreign editor, who confidently labelled the attack as 'inadvertent' and 'an accident waiting to happen' on the same evening as it had occurred. It was almost as if Marshall were pre-empting the Israeli government's apology and denial of wrongdoing, which would not come until the next day."

And there are still more bald-faced examples of bias (see a pattern emerging here?):

"The vast disparity between Lebanese civilian deaths and those of Israeli civilians remained formulaic throughout the war, but the TV generals seemed to tell a different story, constantly using the adjective 'indiscriminate' to describe Hezbollah's rocket attacks and 'very accurate' in describing Israel's tactics and weaponry."

"...Hezbollah was claiming victories of its own, but at times it seemed as if the American media were too busy reflecting their government's viewpoint to have noticed.

The TV generals dutifully relayed Israel's daily claims of destroying rocket launchers and medium-range missiles by shading overhead maps with digital pens. But rarely did they discuss Hezbollah's attacks on scores of Israeli Merkava tanks in what was seen as valiant effort at resisting one of the world's most powerful military machines."

"When Blitzer began to discuss that day’s events on the battlefield, he, like dozens of other American broadcasters, spoke of Hezbollah rockets landing in 'Israeli neighbourhoods'. Israel on the other hand, retaliated by bombing 'Hezbollah strongholds'.

But in reality, these strongholds were also neighbourhoods and support among their residents for Hezbollah could not have been any less than Israeli citizens' support for their own military. If Hezbollah areas cannot be considered neighbourhoods, then why not refer to Israeli neighbourhoods as 'Israeli military strongholds'?"

"...Blitzer conducted one of two CNN interviews with the grieving wife of an Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hezbollah. But where were the parallel interviews with the families of Lebanese held by the Israelis?"

"In a show that aired on MSNBC during the first week of the conflict, Chris Matthews illustrated daily life in Haifa by comparing it with a city in California; 'very modern', he explained. Cosmopolitan Beirut, on the other hand, where the nightlife rivals any capital in Western Europe, did not get a mention in the entire show."

It's hard to argue with such compelling and clear cut evidence of media bias.

Given this, Mr. Battah's early thesis that when "viewed as part of an overall package, the [media's] assumptions appear to reflect US foreign policy" sounds less like paranoid, conspiracy-mongering and more like an devastatingly accurate assessment of the news broadcast to Americans.

Shame on us -- and on our media, which caters to the demands of its audience -- for wallowing in such complacency and ignorance.