« Does Not Compute | Main | Hamas Spends Millions on Propaganda »

February 24, 2007

If it bleeds, it leads. And that misleads.

There's an interesting piece in Contentions (Commentary magazine's blog) about what types of stories American or British newspapers choose to report, and how that decision can skew people's preceptions of the Middle East conflict.

Hillel Halkin writes:

“Police thwart major suicide attack.� That’s not front-page news in America or England—unless, that is, it happened in New York or London. If it happened in Tel Aviv, you need at least a bomb going off, and preferably a death or two, for anyone elsewhere to sit up and take notice. And this explains a certain paradox: the more successful Israel’s army and security services are in preventing deadly acts of Palestinian terror against Israelis, the more the world looks upon the means of prevention as vindictive and unnecessary harassment of Palestinians on Israel’s part. ...

... how did Israel’s intelligence services know that someone from Jenin was on his way with a bomb? And how did they know where he was hiding so that they were able to get to him in time?

... by doing the kinds of nasty things that nice people don’t do to one another.

The world hears mostly about the nasty things. “Dozens of Israeli lives saved yesterday� doesn’t play well with the editors of the New York Times or the Guardian in London.

Posted by GI at February 24, 2007 02:11 PM


it seems the only way to understand israel is to actually feel pain. American understood this (in part) after 9/11 but has quickly forgotten. The war is too costly and too long, they now say. But the hate for both our countries has not abated and will not abate just because we wish it to be different.

Posted by: Brian at February 24, 2007 07:49 PM

Guidelines for posting

This is a moderated blog. We will not post comments that include racism, bigotry, threats, or factually inaccurate material.

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)