When writing about worldwide terror, the media struggle to be
politically correct (PC) and journalistically neutral. To
most of them, this means that if there is a conflict, they
should strive to report the perspectives of both sides to the
conflict without favoring either side; to produce what they
call "balanced" reports.
Achieving this goal is easier for them when there are actions
of both sides, for example, when there is a Palestinian
terror attack and an Israeli military reprisal. Then they can
write, for example, that Palestinian militants blew up an
Israeli cafe and a dozen civilians were killed, and in
response Israel assassinated a few of the leaders of one of
the militant groups.
Sometimes this need to appear balanced drives them to absurd
comparisons. In a recent editorial, the New York Times
wrote that Hamas, by continuing its terror attacks, has
dominated its side of the conflict since Israel responds with
security measures that burden the entire Palestinian
population. On the other side, it said, the opponents of
Disengagement have dominated headlines, giving the impression
that they are in the majority. It concludes that there are
similar problems "on both sides of the security fence."
Similarly, in a recent list of "hatemongers" in the Middle
East, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman
included "the Jewish settler extremists who wrote `Mohammed
Is a Pig' on buildings in Gaza, right up there with Sheikh
Abd Al- Rahman Al-Sudayyis, a Saudi who is imam of Islam's
holy mosque in Mecca" and who declares that Jews are
subhumans who "should be `annihilated'" while "`worshipers of
the cross' and `idol-worshiping Hindus'... must be
fought."
These are clearly artificial attempts to criticize both sides
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whenever criticizing
either one. From their perspective there is legitimate
criticism of both sides, but bringing them together in the
name of balance distorts the reality.
Even the Times' strong support for Disengagement
should not make it present the actions of Hamas in murdering
innocent noncombatants as the equivalent of peaceful,
democratic protests. Hamas opposes all peaceful settlements
and advocates and carries out acts of violence against
peaceful people — including even fellow
Palestinians.
The Disengagement opponents have loudly declared that they
want no violence and have done nothing to indicate that they
are not entirely sincere.
To present the violent actions of a recognized terror group
as being as "worthy" of criticism as the peaceful protests
against the policy of a government is distortion. It is
balance that is blind to the contents of each side.
To present an objectionable religious slur by a few teenagers
as being as worthy of criticism as a speech by a prominent
cleric that openly calls for negative feelings and actions
against Jews, Christians and Hindus, is also an artificial
attempt to be balanced. Friedman wants to condemn hatred, so
he has to find both Moslem and Jewish hatred to condemn. To
call that "balance" is to formally meet a journalistic goal
by being blind to the content of what he is saying. True they
are both worthy of condemnation, but they do not balance each
other unless you close your eyes to what they are.
The simplest mistake that the media seems to be guilty of is
requiring balance at the level of actions rather than at the
deeper level of goals. For example, if Iran and Iraq are
fighting each other, it may be proper for a journalist not to
take sides. But that does not mean that if one side violates
the international rules of war then one cannot report the
violation without finding some violation by the other
side.
If one side is violating all international norms and behaving
in a morally reprehensible fashion by targeting civilian
noncombatants, that can be reported as unequivocally wrong.
No goal could justify such behavior. On the other hand a
legitimate goal is not rendered immoral by employing immoral
tactics in pursuing it. Still, writing with balance and
objectivity does not require one to be blind to what is going
on.
Israel is very careful to try to follow all international law
and guidelines. Its army employs a legal staff to make sure
that it does so in fighting its enemies. Generally it sets
standards for itself that are higher than the common
norms.
Palestinian terror organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad
declare that their tactics are in violation of all norms.
This is an objective fact and not reporting it as such is a
violation of the public's right to know.
