|
israelnationalnews.com
Two Israeli news agencies recently flaunted how blatant political agendas skewed their news. |
In several ways, a
recent report by an online Israeli news service about another Israeli news service fails to make either organization look good.
First came a statement at the recent Haifa Radio Conference that in 1999 and 2000 Israel Broadcasting Authority journalists slanted the news in an attempt to build public support for a military withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
The Israeli Army had been in Lebanon for years to provide what was locally called a "buffer zone" or security zone between northern Israeli communities and the Hizbullah-run communities of southern Lebanon. There was growing public opposition to the army's presence there. Then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak (now back on the scene) pulled the soldiers out.
According to the report on Israel National News (more on them in a second), former Israel Broadcasting Authority news editor Dr. Chanan Naveh said: "Three broadcasters and I ... pushed in every way possible the withdrawal from Lebanon towards 2000. In our newsroom, three of the editors had sons in Lebanon, and we took it upon ourselves as a mission -- possibly not stated -- to get the IDF out of Lebanon... I have no doubt that we promoted an agenda of withdrawal that was a matter of public dispute."
That's bad enough. But then, Israel National News (INN, known locally as "Arutz Sheva," headquartered in the West Bank and closely affiliated with the Israeli settler movement), crowed over the revelation using its own slanted terminology: "It is widely accepted that the withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000... and the lack of attention paid to the northern border since then led to the Second Lebanon War of last summer and its accompanying 160 military and civilian casualties."
I don't believe that assumption is "widely accepted," nor do I think it is even accurate.
INN has always called the decision to remove Israeli communities from Gaza the "expulsion." Granted, the government's terminology of "disengagement" was rather 1984-ish, but "expulsion" is a loaded term.
Of course, there are few terms in Israeli political discourse -- either in Hebrew or in English -- that aren't loaded. Are the Israeli communities "settlements" or simply towns? Is it the "West Bank" or "Judea and Samaria" -- terms evoking the biblical heritage that "settlers" want to promote.
This is not the forum for an extended discussion of Israeli media. In brief, though, American-style standards of "balance" and "fairness" (themselves debatable notions in 2007) simply aren't applied here.
Nevertheless, bragging about outright slanting of coverage to reach a preferred end, and finger-wagging from the other side, won't cover anyone in glory.
