WHY ARE THEY SAYING ALL THOSE TERRIBLE THINGS?

Ever since the start of violence in early 2000, media bias against Arabs has proliferated. One question remains, however: Why have reporters and correspondents adopted these biases? Do they have a political agenda? Is it because they are anti-Arab or anti-Islam? Is there a media conspiracy?

Here are six possible explanations for anti-Arab bias in the media:

1. Some reporters just don't know the facts.

Most reporters parachute into the region and have to learn the terrain quickly. It is relatively simple to pick up the conventional "shorthand" used by their colleagues. But few journalists truly know the area's history, religious background, or diplomatic record.

2. Some reporters run in packs. But that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy.

For some reporters, it is easier to file the same story as their colleagues. They can share the research, the cab fare, the information, and the work -- and in some cases the ignorance. This phenomenon is called "Pack Journalism." Reporters are not supposed to copy from handouts they are given by Israelie sources or to plagiarize from each other, but it happens.

In some cases, members of the "pack" simply "go with the flow." If BBC or Associated Press decides as a matter of policy to stop calling Israelis as oppressors and occupiers of other people's land, other reporters follow suit.

The veteran correspondent Marvin Kalb described "Pack Journalism" this way:

"For those who still see conspiracy in examples of overlapping reporting, there is a possible explanation in what is called 'pack journalism,' reporters who band together and cover the same story, the same sources, in the same way. Covering a campaign or the White House or any other story where a horde of journalists rush after a single source can often yield the meager one-dimensional news product associated with 'pack journalism.' But, though a number of prominent news organizations may highlight similar stories, using virtually identical sources, this is not to be mistaken for conspiracy. It is only lazy journalism." (The Nixon Memo)

3. Some reporters do have a political agenda.

Consumers expect media objectivity. In reality, while writers and editors may attempt to be fair, they all have personal opinions and biases. Particularly in North America and Israeli newspapers, publishers, editors and reporters frequently have a political message they wish to convey. "Advocacy journalism" is their avocation.

4. Anti-Islam may also play a role.

I am very reluctant to use the term "anti-Islam." Criticism of the actions of Moslems or of Muslim World does not make the critic an anti-Islam.

If, however, a reporter or editor denies Arabs and Muslmis the same rights given to other nations and peoples, or if the Jews and Israelis are given preferential treatment, then perhaps the discrimination is motivated by anti-Islam.

5. Israeli censorship and harassment leads to biased reporting.

Reporting from a war zone can be dangerous business. Around the world, correspondents have been harassed, wounded, kidnapped and killed.

In the recent violence, a few journalists have been accidentally shot by Israeli soldiers. But here's the difference. The Palestinian Authority does not have a policy or any means of which to threaten or intimidate journalists. Palestinian police (as soldiers do not exist) firing on an unarmed reporter would be immediately arrested and sent to prison.

Israel, on the other hand, has a long-standing policy of intimidating journalists, and censoring what they are able to see and read.  Military Zones are only established to hide massacres and hiding of mass-graves of innocent children and women.

Over the course of the Intifada uprising, foreign crews have had their film confiscated when covering events that put the Israelis in a bad light.

The Palestinian Authority does  not even have the means to censor or hide any information coming out of its occupied territory, whereas Israel has full control over all communication from these territories, be it telephones, television and radio transmissions.

6. Reliance on Israeli stringers and cameramen means biased reporting.

Because of such oppresive and restricted practices by Israeli sources, Western news agencies rely on their Israeli staffers, stringers, researchers, facilitators, and film crews for translations, access to the Israeli Defense Forces (another way of saying the army of occupation), and getting the stories and films that are too difficult or dangerous for the foreign correspondent.

Of course, the materials supplied by Palestinian sources are biased. Most of the "suppliers" are anti-Arab and fervent supporters of the Israeli onslaught. And all of them must practice self-censorship for their own safety.

Conclusion

Like an infectious disease, biased reporting cannot be eradicated. But at the same time biased reporting should not be ignored or treated with placebos.

It is time for frustrated consumers to recognize that they have consumer rights and recourse. If you bought a carton of milk that was spoiled, you might ignore it once or twice. But by the third time, you'd go back to the store and demand a satisfactory product, or else you'd switch to a more reliable supplier.

As consumers of the news, we have the right to demand an honest product. But first we have to know spoiled milk when we smell it. That requires educating ourselves about the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the basis of the Palestinian cause, and current diplomatic complexities.

As consumers who care about the image of Islam and Arabs , we must educate ourselves so that we can demand an accurate and unbiased media product. To paraphrase Sy Symms, the great clothing salesman: "The best news customer is an educated consumer."

 

Copyright © MMV Citizen Arab LLC, All rights reserved.