HonestReporting regretfully presented its third annual
Dishonest Reporting "Award," its yearly recognition of the
most skewed and biased coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.
IGNOBLE AWARD WINNER: REUTERS
With over 200 news bureaus worldwide, Reuters stakes its
claim as "the largest international multimedia news agency."
Though Reuters' own editorial policy claims the agency's
reporters "do not offer subjective opinion," and intend
merely "to enable readers and viewers to form their own
judgment," in fact Reuters' coverage of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict is flagrantly biased against Israel.
Some examples from 2003:
* In January, Reuters blamed Israel for "killing" Palestinian
suicide bombers: "Iraq has paid millions of dollars to
families of Palestinians, including those of suicide bombers,
killed by Israeli forces since the start of the uprising in
September 2000."
* On Nov. 18, two Israeli soldiers were killed outside
Bethlehem and a number of Palestinians were wounded in Gaza.
Reuters had pictures of both events, but journalists who
subscribe to Reuters' photo service were encouraged to
publish the Palestinian victims in this email: "Dear User of
the Reuters Pictures Archive,/ Please find below a single
picture presentation showing two Palestinians rushing a
wounded Palestinian to hospital in the Rafah refugee camp in
the southern part of the Gaza strip, November 18, 2003 :
* When Palestinian terrorist groups announced a hudna with
the PA, Israel was not a party in the agreement, and the
official road map demanded a full disarming of terror groups
-- not a temporary hudna cease-fire. Yet Reuters took the
opportunity to vilify Israel with the headline: "Israel Pours
Scorn on Truce With Militants"
And when Israel did show flexibility for Palestinian demands,
above and beyond the roadmap's requirements? On Nov. 3,
Reuters reported that Israel reinstated 15,000 Palestinian
work permits, and included this comment in a news report:
150,000 Palestinians [previously] made a living in Israel, so
Sunday's restoration of 15,000 Israeli work permits is still
only a drop in the ocean.
Actually, 15,000 was fully 10 percent, and a risky loosening
of anti-terror policy. Even the Palestinian official quoted
by Reuters called it "an important step."
* * *
The previous examples are specific to particular articles,
but Reuters' anti-Israel bias extends to general editorial
policy on terminology and headlines:
REUTERS' TERMINOLOGY:
Reuters' refusal to use the term "terrorism" or "terrorist"
reached new levels of absurdity this year. In November,
Reuters released a list of "Worst guerrilla attacks since
September 11" that omitted terror in Israel entirely.
But beyond distancing itself from the term "terror," Reuters
regularly legitimized Palestinian terrorist groups and their
murderous acts by ascribing to them a worthy (though false)
motive -- the pursuit of independence: "The military wing of
the Islamic militant group Hamas claimed responsibility for
the attack in a statement faxed to Reuters. Hamas has
spearheaded a 28-month-old Palestinian militant uprising
against Israel for a state in Gaza and the West Bank." (Feb.
15)
Or take this Oct. 3 Reuters photo caption: "Members of the
Islamic movement Hamas burn the Israeli and the U.S. flag
over a model of the Star of David during a march through the
streets of the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza and vow to
continue the three-year-old uprising for statehood."
Hamas makes it perfectly clear in their official charter that
their goal is the destruction of the State of Israel, and not
merely an independent Palestinian state. Legitimate
liberation struggles do not target innocent civilians in a
systematic manner. Yet Reuters persists in this charade,
justifying the horrific terrorist acts.
The terminology even reaches articles addressing Israeli
perspectives. After the tragic space shuttle explosion in
February, Reuters described Israelis' sadness over the death
of astronaut Ilan Ramon: "The launch of Ramon's space flight
had virtually erased news of the country's woes, spreading
space fever among Israelis embittered by a Palestinian
uprising for statehood, a scandal-plagued national election
and a domestic recession."
Israelis were not embittered by an "uprising for statehood."
They were, as always, prepared to offer Palestinians a state.
They were embittered by relentless Palestinian terror.
Reuters refuses to use the term "terrorist" because (as
global news editor Steven Jukes states) "one man's terrorist
is another's freedom fighter." But by continually using the
term "uprising for statehood" to describe the terrorist wave,
Reuters chooses to present them as freedom fighters. So much
for journalistic neutrality.
REUTERS' HEADLINES
In July, HonestReporting released a study of one month of
Reuters headlines on the conflict. Some findings:
-- In violent acts by Israelis, "Israel" was named in 100% of
the headlines, and the verb was in the active voice in 100%
of the headlines, i.e.: "Israeli Troops Shoot Dead
Palestinian in W. Bank" (July 3)
-- But in violent acts by Palestinians, the Palestinian
perpetrator was named in just 33% of the headlines, and the
verb was generally in the passive voice, i.e.: "Bus Blows Up
in Central Jerusalem" (June 11)
That is, in the world of Reuters headlines, when Israel acts,
Israel is always perpetrating an active assault and the
Palestinian victim is consistently identified. But when
Palestinian terrorists act, the event just "happens" and
Israeli victims are left faceless.
Moreover, Reuters presents Palestinian diplomats as pursuing
peace, but frustrated by their obstinate Israeli
counterparts: "Palestinians Urge Israel to Free Prisoners"
(July 4) "Israel Sets Tough Terms for Prisoner Release" (July
6) "Israel Fumes at U.S. Opening to Doves, Steps Up Raids"
(Dec. 3)
The overwhelming message from Reuters headlines is
tendentious indeed: Israel is the aggressor, and Palestinians
are hapless victims.
* * *
Though maintaining that "the integrity, independence and
freedom from bias of Reuters must be upheld at all times,"
Reuters' news reports indicate that the agency has clearly
taken sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ceasing to
provide neutral information, Reuters has instead become a
sort of world ambassador for Palestinian factions, operating
via the ubiquitous Reuters news wire.
And for this, the Reuters "news service" deserves the
Dishonest Reporting "Award" for 2003.
DISHONORABLE MENTION (in alphabetical order)
ASSOCIATED PRESS
The world's largest wire agency regularly featured pro-
Palestinian editorializing in straight news stories, factual
mistakes, and coverage that downplayed Palestinian
terrorism:
* In late April, a Palestinian suicide bomber struck a
crowded Tel Aviv nightclub. The attack came just hours after
the Palestinian Legislative Council confirmed the nomination
of Mahmoud Abbas as the new Palestinian Prime Minister. The
AP headline: "Bomb Mars Historic Day For Palestinians."
(Actually, the bomb "marred the day" for three dead Israelis
and their families.)
* In May, AP began using the term "bystanders" to refer to
Israeli victims of Palestinian terror: "In 93 suicide attacks
since the current violence erupted in September 2000, 357
bystanders have been killed." (May 18) A "bystander" is an
individual peripheral to the central action in a given event.
AP's term masks the true, civilian target of nearly all
Palestinian terror.
* In one week in March, an Iraqi killed five American
soldiers by blowing himself up in a taxi, while in Netanya, a
Palestinian ignited his explosive belt at the entrance to a
cafe, causing 50 Israeli casualties. AP listed the Iraqi
attack among other historical "terror attacks against the
U.S. military," but called the Netanya attack the work of a
"Palestinian militant."
* On numerous occasions, AP called Palestinian terrorists
"revenge bombers" -- Israeli anti-terror strikes were said to
"trigger" "revenge bombings" or "revenge attacks." For
example: "Generally the militant group Hamas carries out
revenge attacks -- as it did this week, when a suicide bomber
killed 17 people in a Jerusalem bus blast." (June 13) This
term paints Israel as the source of the conflict, and denies
the sworn, documented commitment of Hamas and other terrorist
groups to destroy Israel regardless of Israeli actions.
BBC
This year, the Beeb (the 2001 Dishonest Reporting "Award"
laureate) was brought to its knees by domestic controversy,
but found time to promote and broadcast a film that makes the
outrageous claim that Israel used nerve gas against
Palestinians in the Khan Younis refugee camp. And in
September, when a terrorist killed two Israelis while they
were eating a holiday meal (and was then felled by a nearby
soldier), BBC headlined the event: "Three Dead in West Bank
Attack."
Former Palestinian Prime Minster Mahmoud Abbas authored a
book that denies the horrors of the Holocaust, but you
wouldn't know it from the BBC profile that introduced Abbas
to their readers: "A highly intellectual man, Abu Mazen
[Abbas] studied law in Egypt before doing a PhD in Moscow. He
is the author of several books." (BBC later updated the
profile to include criticism of Abbas' positions.)
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
When twin suicide bombers murdered two Israelis and injured
many others one August day, the Christian Science Monitor's
home page headline read: "Suicide attacks jolt Mideast peace
hopes; Bombings may hurt Palestinian effort to stop Israel's
barrier." The text of the article first indicated that the
bombings "threaten to undermine the Palestinian Authority's
campaign to stop Israel's barrier," and only afterward noted
that the terror attack "left two Israelis dead and 11
wounded." Apparently, the warped moral compass of CSM
determined that the most serious injury the twin suicide
bombings inflicted was not to actual human victims, but to
the "hurt" Palestinian political goals.
THE GUARDIAN (UK)
In August, Yasser Arafat made a claim to "mass arrests of
Palestinians," and The Guardian repeated Arafat's
unsubstantiated claim as fact. The Guardian noted the
hundreds of emails from HonestReporting subscribers on this
matter, then surreptitiously moved back the frame of
reference for their "mass arrests" claim, to a full month
before the date referred to in the original article. We
noticed.
THE INDEPENDENT (UK)
In January, The Independent published an editorial cartoon by
Dave Brown depicting Ariel Sharon biting into the flesh of a
Palestinian baby.
In a decision as shocking as the original one to publish the
cartoon, the British Political Cartoon Society awarded its
Cartoon of the Year for 2003 to Brown's appalling and
libelous work. (The Society deflected criticism by saying the
award was based on popular vote.)
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
In July, the LA Times made the patently false assertion:
"Along with prisoner releases, the next important element in
moving ahead with the `road map' is the Palestinian demand
that Israel withdraw from more of the West Bank." In fact,
prisoner releases are not even mentioned in the road map. And
according to the road map, the PA's obligation to uproot
terror was clearly "the next important element."
In August, after the IDF killed a Hamas leader, a Hamas
spokesman fed reporters this line: "The Zionist enemy has
assassinated the truce," so therefore "we consider ourselves
no longer bound by this cease-fire." This, despite the fact
that Hamas themselves admitted to engineering the horrific
Jerusalem bus bombing the week before. Nonetheless, the LA
Times swallowed Hamas' propaganda and issued the headline:
"Truce Ended After Israeli Airstrike."
WASHINGTON POST
A July Washington Post editorial repeatedly called
Palestinian terrorist organizations "militant groups," and
then -- sandwiched among those references -- referred to
"militant Jewish settlers." The editorial claimed these two
groups constitute "the extremists on both sides."
HonestReporting investigated, but has yet to find any cases
of Jewish suicide bombers.
After Israeli planes hit an abandoned Syrian camp, the
Washington Post opined that "Mr. Sharon prodded a country
suspected of supporting terrorism." Suspected? Since 1979,
Syria has never failed to make the U.S. State Department's
annual listing of nations that sponsor terrorism.
On April 30, the road map was delivered in Israel, and on
that very day a terrorist struck a Tel Aviv bar, killing 3
and wounding 40. The Washington Post not only failed to give
the terrorist attack headline coverage, but granted it only
one brief paragraph, buried deep in the article covering the
launch of the road map.
On the other hand, the very next day (May 2), on the front
page above the fold, The Washington Post published an article
headlined "Israeli Incursion Kills 13 in Gaza, 'Map'
Sabotaged Palestinians Say."
Some material was edited due to space limitations.
