[Update at end]
Although many of us would prefer that the New York Times would fade away into irrelevance, the unfortunate fact is that the Times is one of the very few media organs that determines the media narratives of the day. For that reason alone, as well as its proficiency as a quintessential mouthpiece of modern (il)liberalism, what appears in the pages of the New York Times still matters. Over the weekend, Nicolas Kristof wrote of The Two Israels. His op-ed piece was so unconsciously one-sided and so typically unaware of its own biases as to beg the question of what it means to be a journalist and political thinker:
To travel through the West Bank and Gaza these days feels like traveling through Israeli colonies.
You whiz around the West Bank on new highways that in some cases are reserved for Israeli vehicles, catching glimpses of Palestinian vehicles lined up at checkpoints.
The security system that Israel is steadily establishing is nowhere more stifling than here in Hebron, the largest city in the southern part of the West Bank. In the heart of a city with 160,000 Palestinians, Israel maintains a Jewish settlement with 800 people. To protect them, the Israeli military has established a massive system of guard posts, checkpoints and road closures since 2001.
...
“For years, Israel has severely oppressed Palestinians living in the center of the city,” notes B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, in a recent report. The authorities, it adds, “have expropriated the city center from its Palestinian residents and destroyed it economically.”
Ed Bialek, who contributes to a newsgroup to which I belong, asked, with appropriate umbrage, some quite reasonable questions, summing up to the key question, does Kristof (and by extension, the Times) know any history at all?
[Emphases mine-SW] How is that Nicholas Kristof writes a piece on the backpage of the Week In Review on Hebron and talks about an impractical Jewish settlement that has no right being there? How is it that he talks about Jews "stealing" the land? How is it that he paints a picture of the Jews as a completely alien presence in.a land where he implies the Palestinians are the sole indigenous population? How is it that an article such as this never even mentions the Jewish presence in Hebron for thousands of years? How is it that he fails to mention that Hebron is the site of the oldest Jewish community in the world? How is it that he never mentions that the downtown area "expropriated from the Palestinians" by the Israelis is the site of the "expropriated" historic Jewish community? How is it there is no historical context to provide an understanding of the complexities here, as if there were none? How is it there is no discussion and no mention of the Cave of Machpela? How is it that there is no mention of how and when that Jewish presence came to an end, how the Jews were "transferred" from that city?
How is it that he talks about the patient Palestinians that are only now beginning to support terror against the Jews? How is it he implies that the patient Palestinians have just put up with being pushed around by these invading, thieving Jews for too long? How is it he fails to mention the brutal massacres of Jews in Hebron in 1929 long before there ever was an Israel, long before there were ever so-called Jewish settlers?
How is it that he states that the only decent Jews are the ones documenting and condemning these colonial, these imperial Jewish settlers, these Jewish interlopers?
How is it that the demonization of Jews is consistently promoted by the Times, in one ahistorical rant after another lacking nuance and fact, masquerading as level-headed, moderate analysis while really proselytizing Jew hatred?
How is it that this editorial page still has a shred of credibility?
Using a different article, Barry Rubin discusses the distortions and outright falsehoods that have come to dominate the Western MSM narrative about the Middle East and suggests an explanation. (His article is not yet available on line but should be posted at the Gloria Center in due time):
Propaganda, Lies, and Wire Service Articles
Today, journalism students, in our course, "Absolutely Introductory Basic Rules of Journalism, we will discuss the absolutely introductory basic rules of journalism.
I don't think I'm an old fogey but in my hazy memories of the good old days I think there was a time when reporters were supposed to represent both sides of the story. I hear some gasps of amazement in the classroom. Yes, it is true. Nowadays we are more enlightened and the process goes something like this:
- Decide which side is the good guys. This can be based on your ethnic-communal background (unless you are Jewish since then you must lean over backward to prove yourself fair by supporting the other side), political ideology, or--if all else fails--which ever side is weaker. (The word "underdog" might not be PC any more so I will avoid it.)
- Slant your article completely in favor of the "good guys" because they are after all the good guys. Writing an advocacy article for them is thus a good and moral deed. There can be no compromise with evil and since the bad guys lie all the time why even bother to listen to their arguments.
Incidentally, questions of past credibility are irrelevant. If one side can be shown to have lied repeatedly that doesn't count. Pointing this out could get you accused of racism or imperialism, while the "good guys," once so designated, are allowed to lie because they are pursuing a "good cause." Governments are held to lie always, especially if they are democratic ones.
While the above is written to be humorous and is no doubt somewhat exaggerated it does give a pretty good idea about the genesis of all too many newspaper articles nowadays.
Consider, for example, Dalia Nammari, "Israel curbs Palestinian building on disputed land," AP. The article has 1,107 words long which by contemporary standards is quite long. Number of words used to explain Israel's position: 76. Number of words used to advocate the Palestinian cause? You do the math.
You will have to wait to read Professor Rubin's article to see how he fisks Dalia Nammari, but his tongue in cheek rules for journalism contain the kernel of what motivates so much of the slanted "news" reporting done today.
Journalism schools do teach advocacy as journalism. This is certainly problematic, since the MSM acts as our collective sensory apparatus. Although it is a well known fact that eye-witness accounts and identifications are notoriously inaccurate, the humility that such scientific data suggests is rarely a trait identified with the MSM. But the problems run much deeper than a mere inability to recognizes one's own limitations amongst reporters. There is a bias even deeper than the good-guys/bad guys dichotomy suggested by Barry Rubin. It goes to the basic emotional wiring of our brains and the structure of our characters.
Psychoanalysts understand that character is determined by unconscious tendencies that emerge from the earliest interpersonal interactions. Such tendencies are variously known as transferences and fantasies. Once such structures have been established, future perceptions are invariably biased in order to support the pre-existing "mental model of the world." As just one type of example, often children who are abused generalize to see the world as a hostile, potentially abusive place. As an adult they may enter a relationship with the conscious idea that the new person (the Significant Other, SO) is loving and kind, yet their unconscious tendency is to look for, accentuate, and over-value those bits of evidence that support the feeling that the SO is really an abuser. When the SO then does what all people do from time to time, neglect the person, act insensitively or angrily, or a host of other minor annoyances covered by the term "failures of empathy", this is taken as proof that the SO is untrustworthy, abusive (potentially or actually), and an object to be devalued. In worse cases, the person finds an SO who has some potential for abuse or a higher than usual tendency to insensitivity; in the worst cases, the person actually finds an SO who is overtly abusive and recreates the childhood experience of being abused. This is all done unconsciously, yet it is just these tendencies that determine whether we find the best in others or accentuate the worst.
What occurs on the individual level also occurs on the more macroscopic level. Once a template, or narrative, has been established, ie the conventional wisdom, it takes a great deal of effort for a journalist (or anyone else, for that matter) to revisit their assumptions and question the template. It is much easier to simply filter data and perceptions to avoid those that do not fit and over-value those items that fit the pre-approved idea. These tendencies are compounded when surrounded by others who also support the template and would feel extremely threatened were one of its members to question their basic operating assumptions. In such a setting, history is easily manipulated or discounted. In effect, the Kristofs of the MSM tell us, "Israel is the cruel occupier, so don't try to minimize their crimes by telling me about Jews in Hebron; that's ancient history, the poor Palestinian's plight is today."
The template, to a large extent, determines what is actually seen. Thus, a photograph of Palestinian children carrying water bottles must reflect Israel's cruel deprivations inflicted upon the Gazans rather than the more nuanced and difficult discussion that Hamas has consistently spent money on weapons to the neglect of the Gazan infrastructure.
Adding to the problem, "managed news" that is the only news that comes out of areas dominated by armed groups for whom Honor-Shame dynamics are primary; furthermore, liberal journalists have a natural and pronounced tendency to see the world divided along quasi-Marxist, Gramsciian lines. It is no wonder that Richard Landes has called his site The Augean Stables.
The combination of journalistic self-perceptions as courageous defenders and advocates for the weak and helpless, along with their intolerance of seeing themselves as fearful dupes and useful idiots, suggests that attempting to introduce historic data, attempting reasoned arguments, or even confronting them with overt Pallywood artifice, is most akin to slowly chipping away at a dam with the hope that someday soon the walls will be breached and something more akin to the truth will come rushing out. Perhaps the blogosphere, with its real-time fact checking and its army of amateur journalists and commentators, will eventually prevail, but for now, it is the Nicolas Kristofs and the New York Times editors who determine the daily story line and narrative and they will not give up their power to shape perceptions easily.
Update: Richard Landes also took exception to Nicolas Kristof's article:
PCP Runs into Opposition: Kristoff vs. Steinberg on Hebron
One of the more interesting aspects of this piece is that the “good” Israel is the human rights movements that criticize Israeli policy as opposed to the militants who fight for their perceived rights. The resounding silence of this piece is the unfortunate asymmetry of this particular phenomenon. If we apply the same standards to the Palestinians, there is scarcely a trace of a “good” Palestine, of groups that even care about the human rights of Palestinians, much less of Israelis. It’s actually quite cruel of Kristoff to praise Israel for its most severe critics and not even mention the grotesque absence of a self-critical culture among the Palestinians. Once again, Palestinian victims, Israeli aggressors, and the one bright light from Israel, those Israelis who fight Israeli aggression.
Richard includes a rebuttal by Gerald Steinberg; read the whole thing.
Recent Comments