Joseph Goebbels Propaganda Prize

This past week has been one of the worst I have seen in two years of watching the Post. The Post has pulled out all the stops in its campaign to convince readers that Palestinians are suffering from Israeli "oppression" while minimizing any damage to Israel and concealing the fact that Israel is fighting for its life against Palestinians forces out to destroy it.

After almost ignoring an attempted Palestinian bombing that backfired, not mentioning the rerouting of the wall, burying news of a missile attack that "slightly injured six children" (one child is in critical condition with shrapnel in his head), etc., etc., the Post finally got around to featuring "the Israeli side".

And what does the Israeli side consist of? A major story on Jews living the good life in Jerusalem ("In Israel, a Vacation from Bombs", 7/31/04, p. A20). Yes, unbelievable as it sounds, that's what they did, complete with photos of a street performer and people drinking at a bar. Get the picture? While the Palestinians are suffering under the Israeli boot, the Israelis are having a good old time of it cavorting around. ("I am now partying as hard as I can to make up for lost time", goes one quote.)

Don't get me wrong. This story, I suppose, is part of the picture. But when the Post prints page after page and photo after photo of Palestinian "suffering" and then chooses this as its rare feature article on Israel, the picture painted is very false. Where are the feature articles about Israeli hospital wards filled with wounded children?

I nominate the Washington Post for the Joseph Goebbels Propaganda award. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

Another story not reported

Headline in Baltimore Sun: "Israel alters part of barrier's route", followed by 10 paragraphs of reporting and discussion about the new route of the security fence.

The Post didn't choose to report this story. After devoting so much space to criticisms of the fence, including many a front page feature article about Palestinian hardship caused by it, they didn't find space for one word about this corrective action.

This goes beyond egregious!

There they go again...

Today's article ("Jewish Settlements, Outposts Expanding Despite Pledges") focuses attention on supposed Israeli acts that are supposedly hurting the peace process.  As usual, the Post exaggerates the problem to the point of lying.  Even if their disputed figures are correct, surely an expansion of 47 acres in the Gaza strip, with a total area of 90,000 acres, is neither "growing rapidly" or "most striking".  (Not to mention that the government says the "expansion" is actually within existing boundaries, and so is not an expansion at all.)

I also question their statement that "settlers occupy approximately 40% of the land in the Gaza Strip".  According to a Palestinian map I found on the web, the settlement area is clearly much less - perhaps about 15% (no figures were given).

And of course the Post points its finger at Israel for violating the road map but doesn't state that the Palestinians never fulfilled their FIRST obligation under the road map - to vow and take actions to end terrorism.  It is ironic that when Israel tries to do what the Palestinians should have done but didn't, by constructing a security barrier, the Palestinians only complain about it.

But the real problem, I think, is how the Post always manages to write stories critical of Israel, even when there is other news.  This is a time when other papers are writing about the political turmoil in the Palestinian Authority.  For example, today's story in the Washington Times ("Arafat gives Qureia some police powers") states that "public pressure on Mr. Arafat mounted in Gaza City, where thousands of demonstrators protested outside the parliament building to call on the Palestinian  leader to fire his nephew Moussa Arafat..."

But the Post has an agenda, and its agenda is to focus attention on anything negative about Israel that it can find or invent.

The missing part of the story

I would like to add a bit to Bob's excellent Media Alert re Monday's article "...Seven Shattered Dreams" - a truly unbelievable piece of ugly propaganda.
 
While continually referring to the Palestinian-Israeli "conflict", Moore never tells her readers what the conflict is about, leaving them to assume that it is about the occupation of the West Bank.  But it isn't!  The "conflict" is part of a 56-year-old attempt by Mideast Arabs to destroy the state of Israel - to drive it into the sea- and Israel's attempts to defend itself.  These men whose "dreams were destroyed" were fighting for terrorist organizations whose goal is to kill Jews and take over the state of Israel.  (If you don't believe it, just try to find Israel on the Palestinian maps.)  Yet this underlying cause of the conflict, its raison d'etre, is not divulged!
 
And how about the photo caption describing Sabagh as "the shyest and most withdrawn...  Israelis destroyed his home in 1992"?  Don't you want to cry?  But if you read far enough in the text, you will find that Sabagh is a car thief who used to beat up his teachers and throw rocks at them.  Some sympathetic character!
 
Finally, I note with irony that when Hatchet Molly finds it necessary to cross over to the "Israeli side", she writes an articles like the June 24th one about an exhibit by a small group of Israeli soldiers protesting Israeli "oppression" of Palestinians - the leading example of such oppression being the turning back of a wedding party during a curfew.  That's what the Post considers "the Israeli side" - not sympathetic stories about Israeli victims, such as the 4 people killed and 40 wounded by one of the poor boys in this article whose "dreams were shattered".
 
Really, it's enough to turn your stomach.

On a slow news day....

what a paper chooses to print may reveal its bias.  While the choice of what's "newsworthy" can be legitimately argued, consider the following stories from today's three newspapers in the BW area:
 
Israel to spend $11.1 million to alter part of West Bank security barrier  (Baltimore Sun).  Israel will spend $11.1 million to change completed portions of its West Bank barrier... to try to ease Palestinian conditions, Defense Ministry officials said yesterday...
 
U.S. faults Gaza bomb probe (Washington Times).  The State Department criticized the Palestinian Authority yesterday, sasying it had failed to carry out a serious and credible investigation into a bombing that killed three Americans...
 
no headline (World in Brief - Washington Post).  Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon offered a powerful ultra-Orthodox Jewish party a place in his ruling coalition, his latest atteempt to shore up a government weakened by his plan for withdrawal from the Gaza strip...
 
So, while the Baltimore Sun thought Israel's committing $11 million to reduce hardship to Palestinians was newsworthy, while the Washington Times thought US criticism of the Palestinian Authority was newsworthy - the only "newsworthy" Mideast item the Washington Post could find was a negative-slanted article that many would see as a criticism of Israel.  Does the word "bias" come to mind?

The headlines tell the story

In this case, the headlines in the Washington Post and Washington Times tell the story of who's biased. Compare:

The Times ran 18 paragraphs of an AP dispatch under the headline:
U.N. Middle East diplomat scolds Arafat.
To me, this indeed captures the gist of the story.

The "comPost" had only an "In Brief" article under the headline:
Remarks by U.N. Envoy Have Palestinians Angry.
They didn't even say what the remarks were!! Nor does the article contain any quotes, direct or indirect, from the UN official. Both the headline and the text proclaim the Palestinian point of view. (See alert on home page for more on this story.)

Unfortunately, comparatively few people in Washington read the Washington Times, while the majority who read the Post, which surely includes most government leaders, get only part of the story. How tragic!

Post sees no evil again

Palestinian children continue to be taught to kidnap and murder Jews and the Post misses the story ...again....and its an old story.

As coBlogger, Robert Samet, writes in our media alert:

This is a story that should be told by any news organization interested in a truthful and balanced presentation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian children between the ages of 7 and 15 are attending summer camps in Gaza to train them to be terrorists.

As Israpundit noted, even the NYT reported about the youth terror camps...four years ago on Aug 2, 2000...during the period of Camp David II.

.....and no doubt the deep thinkers at the Post will continue to cycle their intellectual violence to their journalist integrity.

Wilson's Prevarication Story Buried by comPost on Page 9

Instapundit links to Roger Simon to reveal more biased Post (and NYT) reporting.....surprised?


And Roger Simon observes that the media outlets who were pimping Wilson's story last year are virtually ignoring its collapse:

What's interesting about both these stories is how under-reported they are by the mainstream media. They don't fit their narrative. (And don't call that "liberal." It's not to me. It has nothing to do with the liberalism I grew up with. Find another word or... better yet... don't find a word at all. Deal with the facts--or the absence therof, as the case may be.) A couple of days ago the Washington Post had a story on page nine about Mr. Wilson's serial prevarications. I asked at the time how many stories supporting him had appeared on the front page of that another papers when his initial (now bogus) allegations occurred--and what their response will be now. Patterico has some of the answers, at least as far as the LAT is concerned. It would be interesting to compare them to the WaPo and the NYT.

I notice some on here have claimed that some media are not biased. I wonder how, in the light of this nonsense, they can believe that.


As Evan Thomas admitted, the press has an agenda here: they're doing whatever they can to help Kerry and hurt Bush. The country? Worry about that later, if at all.

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?

There they go again

Another photo of a grieving Palestinian woman over a dead terrorist. Anybody keeping score? Palestinian widows 21, Jewish widows 0??
Would they dare show even one photo of an Iraqi widow grieving for a "militant" killed by US forces? And remember, the Iraqi "militants" are fighting to expel us from Iraq; Palestinian "militants" are fighting to expel Jews from Israel.

Wrong photo

In regard to the photo of the grieving Arab widow of a terrorist (7/7/04, p. A13), please note that there is no accompanying photo showing grief for the Israeli soldier killed in the anti-terrorist action. He is not even identified until half-way through the article!
If a U.S. soldier had been killed in a similar action in Iraq, would the Post DARE to show a photo of the grieving widow of an Iraqi terrorist, and not one of the dead soldier's family? If a policeman were killed in a shootout with a gang, would the Post DARE to print a photo of a gangster's grieving widow and not of the policeman's?
I believe this lopsided and unfair treatment arises from the Post's fundamental misconception that the "militants" (as they call them) are only trying to liberate the West Bank and Gaza, rather than their real (and acknowledged) goal of destroying Israel. How a supposedly major news organization can believe this is beyond me, but they keep printing it in their articles, and thereby keep brainwashing the public into believing it also.

Is Intimidation Affecting The Integrity of The Post's Reporting?

To expand upon Peter Vardon's question as to whether threats and intimidation are affecting the integrity of The Post's reporting, consider this.

We already know that The Post rarely reports any news that casts a negative light on Palestinians. We've recently complained that The Post will not report on the lawlessness prevailing in the territories arising out of Arafat and the PA's refusal to rein in the terrorists. The Post even refuses to report on nascent uprisings breaking out among Palestinians in protest over the terror inflicted on them by the terrorists and the PA's refusal to rein the terrorists in.

Suddenly, on Saturday, July 3, 2004, The Post ran a Reuters article about the public lynching (by machine gun) of a Palestinian in the town square of Qabatiya in the West Bank who was accused of being an Israeli informant and of molesting his own daughters. The reporting of this event cast a terribly unflattering portrait of Palestinians in describing the pure sport (to them) in which they carried out this murder. The article describes how four Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades members asked the crowd a la ancient Roman ampitheatre style what they should do with the accused, and the crowd, numbering in the hundreds, screamed for his death. (Alleged Israeli Informer Killed in West Bank, 7-3-04, A15)

I suppose it would be pure speculation to suggest that Molly Moore and John Anderson were afraid to report on this terribly ugly event. Maybe John and Molly took some time off to do the grocery shopping and didn't turn on the t.v. or radio. Still, one rarely sees The Post run full wire service articles on events in Israel or the disputed territories, and the fact that this story of ugly Palestinian brutality wasn't written by The Post's own people on the scene may provide a window into the fear and intimidation in which these Post reporters ply their trade.

NY Post Discovers Threats of Violence Cause Washington Post to Compromise Integrity

In HOW MEDIA GET IRAQ WRONG By ERIC M. JOHNSON

The last sentence of this NY Post critique of the comPost's Iraq coverage summarizes what Post watchers have known about the Post for years.....they stink.

"Since I saw Rajiv Chandrasekaran's (Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post) integrity up close, I haven't believed a word he writes, or any story coming out of the bureau he runs. You shouldn't, either."

In the article, the comPost's Bennet is quoted to concede that

"the threat of violence has distanced us from Iraqis." Further, "we have relied on Iraqi stringers filing by telephone to our correspondents in Baghdad, and on embedding with the military. The stringers are not professional journalists, and their reports are heavy on the simplest direct observation."

Translation: We are reprinting things from people we barely know, from a safe location dozens of miles away from the fighting.

Bennett flatly concedes that they have a "dim picture" of what is happening in Iraq (not that you would know it from the actual news articles he approves for publication). "The people of Iraq . . . are leading their country, and ours, down an uncertain path. This is a story waiting to be told."

We know the comPost has only a dim picture of Israel....but do you think threats of violence are the cause?

Those of us who follow their coverage of Israel would be happy with the simplest direct observation by Iraqi stringers ...they couldn't be worse than the misinformed rants of Moore and Anderson.

Moore Chokes on Israeli Court Ruling - Misses Legality of Fence

Israeli Supreme Court asserts that Israeli law requires "balance between security and humanitarian considerations"....doesn't Post's reporting require balance?

In 23 paragraphs Post's Moore devotes about 17 to providing the harshest view to today's Israeli Supreme Court ruling...that portions of the fence harm local Palestinians, while she misses its deeper significance.......that the Court rules in favor of Israel's security requirements. Court rules in favor of both the legality of building the security barrier in the administered territories and for the judgment of the IDF about Israel's security needs.

Moore only barely notes that the ruling is against the erection of the fence along a small portion of the route proposed by the IDF.

Compare the JPost and Haartz articles on the Court rulings to see Moore's chokehold on balanced reporting.

Israeli Court Orders Changes in Barrier
Route Through West Bank Found to Violate Palestinians' Rights

By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 1, 2004; Page A01

JERUSALEM, June 30 -- The Israeli Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a contentious section of the barrier being built by Israel in the West Bank violates the rights of thousands of Palestinian residents by separating them from their farmland in "a veritable chokehold, which will severely stifle daily life."

Read the rest......