The New York Times Persists in Emphasizing IDF Defensive Strikes While Downplaying Palestinian Terrorism
CAMERA’s monograph, Indicting Israel: New York Times’ Coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, noted the newspaper’s consistent emphasis on Israel’s defensive military strikes while downplaying Palestinian violence. During our 6-month study, Palestinian attacks –including those that killed Israelis – were never featured prominently, but the newspaper repeatedly highlighted Israeli military actions or vandalism by radical Israelis. While 12 headlines implicated Israel for killing Palestinians none referred to Palestinians killing Israelis even though 14 Israelis were killed by Palestinians during that time. (See: Indicting Israel, Chapter 4 “Violence Double Standards”, page 57)
Well, it seems this pattern of coverage is endemic to The New York Times. Correspondent Jodi Rudoren, recently back from a speaking jaunt in the U.S., just published an item about an IDF air strike on an Islamic Jihad rocket squad about to fire missiles into southern Israel. The problem is, the article was headlined “Israeli Airstrike Kills 2 in Gaza” and introduced as follows:
An Israeli airstrike killed two Palestinian men in the Gaza Strip and wounded two children on Monday evening, according to the Israeli military and Palestinian health officials, continuing the increased violence between Israel and Gaza this year.
“Continuing the increased violence between Israel and Gaza this year?” Who is the party “continuing” the violence, the terrorists trying to launch another attack or the soldiers preventing the attack? The paragraph suggests it is the latter. And how is there any equivalence between the two? Rudoren falsely implies tit-for-tat, morally equivalent violence on both sides. The correspondent further adds to this impression by declaring:
Despite a 15-month cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, the militant Islamic movement that rules the Gaza Strip, the past two months have seen a steady simmer of strikes on both sides.
Surely a defensive air strike to thwart an imminent attack on Israeli territory cannot be considered equivalent in any way to terrorists targeting civilians, and the IDF’s protection of its civilians is certainly not the same as the Islamic Jihad terrorist group trying to inflict as many deaths and as much damage as possible on Israelis.
But with its emphasis on Israeli actions–both in the headline and lede paragraph– and by equating the terrorist attacks with Israeli defensive actions, the newspaper distorts the story of Palestinian aggression and Israeli defense.
More from SNAPSHOTS
CNN’s Amanpour Condemns “power grab” By Israel’s Prime Minister and Others
April 1, 2020
We’ve said it often, but it’s worth repeating: Anyone interested in reasonably unbiased information about Israel (at least) should avoid the broadcasts of CNN’s Chief International Correspondent and Anchor, Christiane Amanpour. In characterizing responses to [...]
Seattle Media Oblivious To Imam’s Hateful Indoctrination Condemning Jews
January 7, 2020
The Masjid Ar-Rahmah mosque teaching – that Allah transformed Jews into apes and pigs for disobeying him – delivered by Imam (prayer leader) Mohamad Joban – was posted online by mosque personnel. This December 2019 [...]
AP Distorts: Bethlehem ‘Almost Completely Surrounded’
December 10, 2019
Over two years after improving inaccurate language falsely citing Israel's security "barrier surrounding the biblical city" of Bethlehem, the Associated Press once again misrepresents. AP's Joseph Krauss and Mohammad Daraghmeh wrote yesterday ("Palestinians in Bethlehem [...]
Reuters Errs on Administrative Detention For ‘Anti-Israel Activity’
November 5, 2019
The Ofer Prison, near Ramallah (Photo by Tamar Sternthal) A Reuters article today egregiously misrepresents administrative detention, erroneously asserting that it is mainly applied to "Palestinians suspected of anti-Israeli activities," when in fact the Israeli [...]