It's the pictures, stupid!

Mideast copy man: "Here's a great picture of a grieving mother at a funeral. Should I run it?"
Editor: "Is the victim an Arab or a Jew?"
Copy man: "She's Jewish."
Editor: "Then kill it."

Well, maybe it didn't happen just that way at the Post, but it sure seems it. On Monday (7/12/04) the Washington Times had a front-page article ("Bomb shows need for fence") that featured a 5"x7" color photo (also on the front page) of a woman in tears over the casket of a 19-year-old Israeli woman killed at a bus stop by a Palestinian bomb. On the continuation page there was an even larger B&W photo showing the devaastation at the scene. The Washington Post (affectionately known as the "comPost" to some) showed no photos at all with its article on p. 10. As it happens, alongside the Post article is a 5"x9" color photo of a quaint Italian town that is seeking funds for "preservation." Yet the comPost is quick to run color photos of grieving Palestinian mothers and widows (see other recent blogs).

Pictures carry a big impact. They are both larger and more eye-catching even than the headlines, and they may be all that some people see. Let's forget for the moment the many differences in the two articles, like the need for the Post to add "Sharon says" to the headline statement "Attack Shows Need for Wall", where the WT didn't. Like the placement on an inner page. Like not mentioning the young age of the woman. (If she had been an Arab, you can be sure the headline would have screamed "Palestinian teenager killed by Israelis".)

Just look at the pictures. (You really have to see the two papers side by side to see the difference in impact.) Why does the Post run so many pictures - color and often on the front page - of Palestinians grieving over "victims", even when they're acknowledged terrorists or terrorist leaders, and almost never when the victims are innocent Israeli citizens killed by terrorists? Does the word "bias" come to mind?