"The media," lefties say knowingly, "is pro-Israel."
As a longtime newspaper reader, I've always been shocked by this bit of conventional lefty wisdom.
In fact, I would argue that popular outrage against Israel is in large part due to the mainstream media's consistent hard-hitting coverage of Israel. The media has done two important things with its coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, two things that people sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians should be psyched about. First, the media has prioritized the issue. I know, I know: "That's because the U.S. gives money to Israel. It should be in the paper every day!" Right. And it is in the paper every day--every day for 20 years running. That's my point. (By the way, the U.S. gave $80 million to the Palestinian Authority last year, and lefties don't seem at all exercised that Hamas suicide bombers operate out of Palestinian Authority territory.)
Second, ever since the mainstream media highlighted the Shatila and Sabra massacre in September 1982--squarely laying the bloody deaths at Ariel Sharon's doorstep--the media has reported candidly on Israel's demolition of Palestinian homes, their voracious settlement policy, and their violent incursions into the occupied territories. Again, I can hear the standard lefty rejoinder: "If the news has portrayed Israeli occupation as aggressively brutal, perhaps that's because it's hard to make it look like anything else." Again, that's my point. The occupation is brutal. And the mainstream media hasn't tried to hide it.
One reason the mainstream media offers such extensive reports on Israel is that the media can. Israel is an open society with a free press, which makes it easier for reporters to offer warts-and-all coverage from Israel than from, say, Iraq, Iran, or Saudi Arabia.
To get a sampling of the candid coverage, I've gone back and looked at key events of the past 20 years. In addition to the fricking swastikas that a previous Seattle library-goer graffitied all over the foreheads of Israeli soldiers, leaders, and mourners in recent papers, here are some typical highlights from the endless daily coverage, 20 years running:
Ongoing New York Times front-page coverage of the Shatila and Sabra massacre, with gruesome photos of slain Palestinians: "Reagan 'Horrified,'" the headline reads. "He Demands Immediate Withdrawal by Israelis."
Under headlines like "Israel Bears Down... Palestinian Refugee Areas Surrounded by Troops," the daily coverage of the Intifada in the late '80s highlighted President Reagan's condemnations of Israel's "excessive force," "harsh security measures," and U.S. "frustration" with Israel. The '87 coverage also featured NY Times editorials like "Who Will Plead for Gaza?" with commentary like this: "Palestinians live in desperate poverty, without economic or political hope.... Israel's approach is to deal with the Gaza Strip in the context of overall Middle East talks--except that it resists having such talks... the only thing Israel could think to do was send in troops.... Meanwhile, Gaza bleeds."
The '96 editorial pages made no bones about disliking Netanyahu. Check out this NY Times op-ed from May of that year: "I do not know what will happen if Benjamin Netanyahu is indeed elected. But if he keeps his campaign promises, there will be no peace here. Anyone who announces to the Palestinians that at the end of the process they will receive only a very limited autonomy is holding a burning match very close to the gunpowder of Palestinian despair.... Israel has moved toward the extreme right, an Israel more militant, more religious, more fundamentalist, more tribal and more racist."
Turning to the most recent coverage, Israel's brutal occupation of Ramallah, Jenin, and the Church of the Nativity were front-page news every day, and included full-page NY Times op-eds like the May 21 analysis piece citing the Israeli settlement policy as the major obstacle to peace: "200,000 Israelis live on captured land," the pull quote states. The coverage culminated with a Newsweek cover story and photo essay on the Israeli invasion. And how about this May 12 write-up on Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon: "In 1953, he formed the '101' special commando unit, which carried out 'retaliatory operations,' according to his Israeli biography. Critics say the group attacked Palestinian civilians. He commanded paratroopers in the 1956 Suez conflict. Critics accuse him of killing civilians and Egyptian troops that had surrendered." Hard-hitting historical research from Noam Chomsky or Z magazine? Nope. The Seattle Times.
For clarification, my point is not that the media is pro-Palestinian, or even anti-Israeli. My point is that, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it's weird that most people assume the mainstream media is "pro-Israel." The mainstream media has consistently thrown the spotlight on Israel's brutal tactics and taken Israel to task on editorial pages. I wonder why people don't see that?
