Media in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I find it fascinating that it seemed only natural to you that by saying the media is and shouldn't be biased, I was actually saying that the media shouldn't be biased toward Israel. I was not arguing that media as a whole swings one way or another, simply that most people do not watch every news channel and that since each news channel covers news with strong leanings in one direction, it would be easy to find one's self exposed only to one side of the debate. This promotes ignorance. . On the existence of bias in the media:You may remember the “flotilla" incident in May 2010, when a boat carrying humanitarian aid arrived off the coast of the Gaza strip in an attempt to break the blockade Israel had instituted around it. After the flotilla refused to turn away, Israeli soldiers boarded the ship and (this is where the facts get fuzzy) someone attacked someone first, and several people aboard died and a few Israeli soldiers were injured. Al Jazeera, a popular Middle Eastern news source, which publishes both in Arabic and in English, first reported the event with an article entitled, “Israel attacks Gaza aid fleet; At least 19 people killed after troops storm convoy of ships trying to break Gaza siege." Quickly reviewing their assertion that the “attack took place in international waters,” the article soon moves on to review both opinions of the occurrences. It explains, “The Israeli military said four soldiers had been wounded and claimed troops opened fire after ‘demonstrators onboard attacked the IDF Naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs.'" Here, Al Jazeera makes Israel look like it feels victimized by the event. The next line of the article states that the “Free Gaza Movement, the organisers of the flotilla, however, said the troops opened fire as soon as they stormed the convoy." Thus, the reader knows that not only are opinions of the event different from others, but also that the very facts given are different, as shown by the contradiction between the Israeli military’s account and the Free Gaza Movement’s account of what happened. Al Jazeera sides with the Free Gaza Movement in the next line of the article: “Our correspondent said that a white surrender flag was raised from the ship and there was no live fire coming from the passengers." If Al Jazeera is bluntly confronting anything here, it is Israeli honesty, not Israeli actions. Al Jazeera demonizes Israeli actions, as we can see by the title of the article, but also Israeli words. A follower of Al Jazeera would not only draw from this article that Israel did a bad thing, but also that Israel’s spokespeople are liars and cowards. From this, it would be hard to remain neutral. In contrast, The Jerusalem Post is known as one of the more right-wing Israeli newspapers. It also publishes in both Hebrew and English. Its May 31 article describing the scene on the flotilla includes particularly defensive statements, including, “The soldiers responded with crowd dispersion measures,” and “At one point activists succeeded in stealing the weapon of one of the soldiers, leading to an escalation in violence." The Post addresses the dispute over ‘real facts’ in the line, “According to unconfirmed Turkish reports, 10 activists were killed and dozens more were injured." Thus far, all of the media spokespeople have expressed distrust toward others with regard to telling the whole and true story. In this case, the Jerusalem Post condemns the validity of the “Turkish reports” by the fact that they have not yet confirmed them. Here’s the clincher; the Post, like Al Jazeera, relays the Israeli armed forces report on the behavior of the men already onboard the ship. The Post’s description is,” according to defense officials, upon boarding the ships the commandos were attacked by activists with rocks, knives and metal pipes." No mention of live fire. The reporters cannot even agree on what other reporters said.It may seem like a nit-picky explication, but news sources use this kind of word-play consistently to convey certain messages.On the misuse of news coverage to pursue political agendas:An agenda can be as simple as trying to make your readers adopt your opinion. True, a known "opinion piece" is an appropriate arena for opinions, but news sources are not. If getting hard facts from the news is too boring for the American people, then I think we have other issues to worry about. I agree that news sources should do their own research, rather than relying on lobby groups. This poses a good first solution to biased media.