The art of balance: the other side of the coin

Middle East, The, August-Sept, 2008 by Judith Brown

[ILLUSTRATIONS OMITTED]

In response to Adel Darwish's article in the July issue of TME, where Israel's ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, spoke of how, he believes, UK media reporting of Israel has become less objective in recent years, DR. JUDITH BROWN, adviser to the organisation Arab Media Watch, looks at the issue from a different perspective.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

THE LONG-ESTABLISHED MIDDLE conflict polarises opinion. It is difficult to have a dispassionate viewpoint. Most people would like to see a reduction in tension leading to a peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. However, depending on their experiences individuals understand, and therefore prefer, one version of events which they believe to be more truthful and accurate. Journalists are not free from these forms of influence, and unsurprisingly, this polarisation is often reflected in the British media's coverage of Israel and its relationship with the Palestinians.

The Israeli Ambassador, Ron Prosor, pointed out (TME July 2008) that Israeli affairs are more widely covered than most other countries with a similar population. There are complex reasons why this is so. Research indicates that the British media often reflects the interests of the US; in this context, Israel could be viewed as more newsworthy than countries that do not enjoy such a close relationship with America. Secondly, the media cannot be divorced from its commercial interests--it operates in a competitive space, and media outlets publish what sells newspapers and broadcast items that attract audiences. This conflict is one such story.

Another issue is location; the Middle East has more than its fair share of drama. Most news organisations have a considerable number of journalists posted to the region at any one time, making it easier to follow interesting stories arising there. Associated with this is Israel's success in attracting media organisations to base their Middle East operations in Jerusalem. This was explained by a BBC executive, who stated: "Israel is an easy place to work in journalistic terms; it is accessible." He compared this with the complex bureaucracy round in some Arab countries.

Interestingly, Israel's pole position is being challenged by Dubai, which has recently put a great deal of effort into creating an attractive working environment for the international media as part of its own commercial development. My own opinion is that since developing its media hub, Dubai gets far wider coverage in the British media than neighbouring Emirates such as Sharjah and Abu Dhabi, and indeed, often more than other Arab states. If this trend continues, international coverage of Israeli matters could decline, but this may not suit Palestinian or Israeli interests.

The Israeli ambassador cited a recent study claiming that more newspaper commentaries give a negative view of Israel than a positive one. These statistics are only relevant if compared to other national and international coverage showing that Israel is the only country depicted in this manner, but that is unlikely. Bad news often takes precedence as it is seen as more interesting. Recent topics such as corruption scandals and the siege of Gaza have been widely and sometimes negatively reported in the Israeli media; it is not surprising to find these high-profile stories in Britain. News stories may be negative or reflect different versions of 'truth', but that does not in itself imply inaccuracy, nor breach of the Editors' Code or Ofcom regulations.

Many Israeli supporters claim that the British media ignores 'terror' attacks on Israeli citizens. All military attacks cause 'terror' amongst local populations, but with no international definition of this word, it is meaningless terminology. From an alternative perspective, organisations that reflect Arab opinion believe there is more media emphasis on rocket attacks on Israel than on Israeli attacks on Palestinians. This has some credibility. For example, I read in the Israeli press that last year there were 92 Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces, but no Israeli child was killed by Palestinians during the same period. These tragic statistics were ignored by the British media. Downplaying Palestinian deaths is not a new trend. Research in 2006 round that more words were used to describe the kidnapping of one Israeli soldier than were used when reporting 20 Palestinians killed by Israel, most of them civilians. For example, the Daily Mail devoted 661 words to the kidnapping, and 167 to the deaths, and the Guardian used 826 for the kidnapping, and 393 for the deaths.

My own research shows that when 15 Palestinian children were killed by Israelis during one month in 2002,107 words were printed per child death. During this same period, seven Israeli children were killed by Palestinians, with an average of 1,070 words each. Israelis were described as innocent victims of hatred, whereas Palestinian children were frequently made to appear culpable for their own deaths; for example, a reporter might associate a death with stone-throwing. Reports often cited Israeli views of events but ignored Palestinian versions. Palestinian children were rarely named or personalised, whereas Israeli children often were.