 |
Richard L. Benkin is an independent author and activist. He has penned manuscripts on the Temple Mount; East European Jewish Life; and Miriam, the true hero of Exodus. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania and lives with his wife and daughter in suburban Chicago.
|
|
|
|
By Richard L. Benkin
June 20, 2003
Political correctness in the press certainly is annoying. When it leads to unbalanced coverage, especially with regard to Israel, it is more than that. But when it leads editors and others either to miss or dismiss important points - especially with regard to Israel - it becomes an obstacle to peace by giving encouragement to the forces that oppose it. We have seen blatant examples of this just in the last couple weeks; three bits of information given passing mention at best, and never probed for their serious implications.
On June 8, 2003, an article appeared in local U.S. papers. The source of the information was the Associated Press (AP), but the, editing, placement and headline writing was done by the local press. The headlines emphasized the recent Hamas terror attacks, Israel's response, and their impact on President Bush's Middle East road map. The Chicago Tribune, for example, placed the piece under a headline reading "New violence clouds talks in Mideast." (As per usual, it actively failed to identify the Arab perpetrators by using the passive voice.) Ignored by the headline, buried toward the very end of the article, and not foreseen by any previous material in the piece, was the following quote from Palestinian Authority (PA) Foreign Minister, Nabil Shaath. "We either reach a voluntary cease-fire... or there will be no deal with Israel or road map." The placement of this quote would indicate its low level of newsworthiness. Yet, what if Shaath's counterpart, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, made a similar statement. Had Shalom said that Israel would reject the road map unless the Jewish communities in Hebron, Gaza, and elsewhere voluntarily disband, we could expect a flood of front page news articles, editorials, and reprinted vitriol.
President Bush has made an end to terror a basic condition for the peace process - and even Arab leaders echoed his sentiments. Yet, the PA's top diplomat has declared unambiguously that the PA is willing to forego the U.S.-led effort - tell the American president to take his bat and ball and go home - rather than clamp down on terror. But the mainstream U.S. media have failed to feature the statement with any prominence; nor was the point picked up in any follow up articles or editorials. Political correctness evidently trumps good journalism.
There was an early-morning CBS Radio report on U.S. activities in Iraqi villages about a week after that. The American soldiers had been raiding the villages in an attempt to find terrorists and their weapons. Since the Iraqi War was declared over and won, the terrorists have been responsible for the deaths of over 40 U.S. soldiers. An extended discussion between the anchor and reporter ensued, in which the former asked his colleague on the scene to tell us how "the Iraqi people felt" about these raids. The reporter responded that the Iraqis were very angry about it all, particularly those Iraqis in whose homes no weapons or terrorists were found. "What did they think would happen?" The anchor asked. The reporter's comment was immediate. They said such efforts would only increase "popular resistance" against the United States and lead to more attacks on U.S. soldiers.
The report easily could have been about an Israeli raid on Arab homes in Gaza. The language used to describe the U.S. action was almost the same. Of course, CBS did not describe the Americans' attackers as "militants" or "activists." About the only other thing missing was an Arab "witness" commenting on how his people were being "humiliated." Yet, neither in that report or in subsequent commentaries was the parallel ever drawn by the mainstream media. And that is a shame, because it is important that Americans understand on a visceral level that their country and Israel are fighting a common enemy in the same war on terror.
Two days later, the media carried another article, based on an AP feed. This one dealt primarily with Israeli efforts against Hamas and the attempted truce (hudna) being discussed among the Arab factions in Egypt. This article, too, contained something significant buried near its end. The U.S. State Department emphasized that it is not taking part in the Egyptian mediation. In fact, said the Department's official spokesman, ''I'm not encouraging their meetings.'' Was I reading correctly? This is the same State Department with a decades-long antipathy towards Israel. (When President Truman announced his intention to recognize the new state, his Secretary of State threatened to resign and run against him; and things have gone downhill since then.) This same State Department never met a negotiation it didn't like.
The U.S. State Department has taken a consistent position favoring talks over action in the Middle East - especially when that action is Israeli. Yet, here it is "not encouraging" talks with Hamas. At the same time, Secretary of State Colin Powell is traveling the globe reiterating that hard-line position against Hamas. Now, this could be part of a State Department effort to contrast "good" Arabs with "bad" ones. But it also could represent a change of position or balance of power within the U.S. administration. Unfortunately, we will not know; not if we just read the mainstream media, at least. For they would prefer to ignore any issues that might conflict with their own versions of political correctness, rather than inform or stimulate their readers.
When President Bush castigated Israel for its recent attacks on Hamas - he was "concerned" that they did not help his peace process - the popular backlash in the United States was tremendous and immediate. Feeling its sting from all sides of the political spectrum, Mr. Bush quickly retracted his comments in a major address in Chicago the next day. Since then, the president has been consistent in citing the Arab terrorists as obstacles to peace and his own road map. Clearly, the president was reacting to the unambiguous sentiment of the American people in support of Israel's right to self-defense.
When will the U.S. media catch up to the people?
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
