# Posted 8:08 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DOES THE US MEDIA FAVOR ISRAEL? A SYSTEMATIC LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE: No debate about Israel and the Palestinians can go for long without arriving at the subject of media bias.

A very important question that advocates of the Palestinian cause often ask is why American public opinion tends to favor Israel so strongly even though the evidence clearly demonstrates (in their eyes) that Israel is the principal author of violence and suffering in this conflict. The question of American public opinion is so important because it is this pro-Israel sentiment that ensures American support for Israel, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House.

One answer I've come across on several occasions is that the US media pays far greater attention to the suffering of Israelis and the misbehavior of the Palestinians than to Palestinian suffering and Israeli human rights violations. It is often followed by the argument that the US media favors Israel because the Jewish lobby and its allies punish any and every public figure who questions the consensus about Israel.

This answer came up again during a discussion about the conflict that I've been having with a colleague of mine. I registered my disagreement with her answer to the ever present question, but admitted that I was not familiar with any systematic investigations of the evidence. As such, I would do my best to keep an open mind about the subject if my colleague would recommend a study of the subject with which she was familiar. (As OxBlog readers know, I never dismiss out of hand accusations of media bias.)

As a result of my request, I found myself directed to "The Illusion of Balance", a study by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) of how much attention NPR pays to the deaths of Palestinians as opposed to Israelis. The study took a close look at six months worth of transcripts for all of NPR's four main news programs. The six months in question were January through June 2001 -- the first six months of the Bush presidency, three months before 9/11, and the early months of the Al Aqsa (Second) Intifada.

In short, the study delivered a devastating indictment of NPR's coverage:

During the six-month period studied, NPR reported the deaths of 62 Israelis and 51 Palestinians. While on the surface that may not appear to be hugely lopsided, during the same time period 77 Israelis and 148 Palestinians were killed in the conflict. That means there was an 81 percent likelihood that an Israeli death would be reported on NPR, but only a 34 percent likelihood that a Palestinian death would be.

Of the 30 Palestinian civilians under the age of 18 that were killed, six were reported on NPR--only 20 percent. By contrast, the network reported on 17 of the 19 Israeli minors who were killed, or 89 percent. While 61 percent of the young people killed in the region during the period studied were Palestinian, only 26 percent of those reported by NPR were. Apparently being a minor makes your death more newsworthy to NPR if you are Israeli, but less newsworthy if you are Palestinian.

An Israeli civilian victim was more likely to have his or her death reported on NPR (84 percent were covered) than a member of the Israeli security forces (69 percent). But Palestinians were far more likely to have their deaths reported if they were security personnel (72 percent) than if they were civilians (22 percent). Of the 112 Palestinian civilians killed in the Occupied Territories during the period studied, just 26 were reported on NPR. Of the 28 Israeli civilians killed in the Territories--mostly settlers--21 were reported on NPR.

To the credit of FAIR, it posted a spreadsheet online that included all of the relevant data. Yet this same data is the study's undoing.

Let's start with the fact that NPR reported the death of 17 out of 19 Israeli minors, but only 6 out of 30 Palestinians. Who were those 17 Israeli minors? 11 of them were killed in a massive suicide bombing in Tel Aviv on June 1, 2001. 2 of them were beaten and stoned to death together in a wadi on May 8. Two more were killed in a suicide bombing on March 28. The final two were infants, one killed by a stone on June 11, one killed by a sniper (!) on March 26.

Who were the 30 Palestinian minors? One was an infant, killed on May 7 by Israeli military gunfire. His death was reported by NPR. Six were between the ages of 9 and 13, all killed in separate incidents, five by Israeli gunfire and one by shelling. Two of their six deaths were reported. The remaining 23 minors were young men between the ages of 14 and 17, all killed by Israeli gunfire in separate incidents. Three of their deaths were reported.

What do we know about these 23 young men? Some of them may have been innocent victims. Yet in guerrilla conflicts across the globe, young men take up arms to fight for causes in which they passionately believe, including many Palestinians. How many of these 23 young men armed and engaged in combat with Israeli soldiers? How many were unarmed but playing a supporting role in a combat situation?

I have no idea. The FAIR study says absolutely nothing about what these young men were doing when they were shot. Nor does it raise the possibility that they were combantants. Yet amazingly, it unequivocally describes these young men as civilians without any evidence to confirm that status.

While we are on the subject of civilians, let us take a look at the assertion that NPR only reported 22% of Palestinians civilian deaths, as opposed to 84% of Israelis. Let's look at the Israeli side first. 61 of the 77 Israelis killed in the first six months of 2001 were civilians. (It is worth noting, however, that 7 of the soldiers killed during that period were victims of a Palestinian man who used a bus to ram a group of soldiers hitching rides by the side of a road. An additional soldier was killed by the same suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed so many teenagers.)

35 of the 61 Israeli civilians were killed in incidents that resulted in the death of more than one Israeli civilian. This distinction is important because there is an old saying in journalism that "If it bleeds, it leads." Gore makes the front page. Ever obedient to that rule, NPR reported the death of all 35 Israeli civilians who died in twos or more. Moreover, at least 33 of those 35 died as victims of suicide bombings or other attacks in which the attackers very purpose was to slaughter civilians. That addendum is essential, because it indicates there was no moral ambiguity, only terrorists and victims.

In the case of the Palestinians, there was considerable ambiguity. As noted above, FAIR has a very unusual approach to determining who is a civilian. Only those Palestinians serving in the official PA security services are listed as non-civilians. 36 of them lost their lives in the first 6 months of 2001. Since a total of 148 Palestinians were killed, that leaves 112 listed by FAIR as civilians. 30 of those were the minors mentioned above, leaving 82 adults.

Although FAIR provides no evidence to support its assertion that these 82 were non-combatants, the age and gender of the fallen tell a very interesting story. Only a handful of the 82 were women. More than 50 were men between the ages of 18 and 30. Another 20 or so were between 30 and 50, along with a handful who were older.

In short, this is the demographic profile of a fighting force. If the Israelis killed indiscriminately, the casualties should not be overwhelming young and male. Again, it bears repeating that I don't know how these men died. Everything I know comes from the spreadsheet provided by FAIR. In fact, it is entirely possible that Israeli soldiers used disproportionate force to dispel rock-throwing crowds or even peaceful protesters and that many of the Palestinian deaths were unnecessary.

But the problem here isn't what I don't know. It is what FAIR argues without the evidence to back it up. In addition to suggesting that NPR discounts the value of young Palestinian lives, FAIR suggests that NPR intentionally balances the number of Israeli and Palestinian deaths it covers so that "NPR can claim it is simply 'reporting both sides'." Finally, FAIR suggests that NPR does so because of its "fear of appearing anti-Israel."

But the data tell a different story. What NPR covered most was terrorism -- the intentional murder of civilians, especially when more than one was killed at a time. One might argue that a focus on terrorism is not the best way to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that is very different from arguing that the US media devalue Palestinian life and fear the retribution of the Jewish lobby.

Now, the exposure of this one study doesn't put to rest the issue of media bias. This is just one sample of the evidence and how it is (mis)intepreted. But it serves as a good illustration of how media criticism may expose the bias of the critic more than that of the media.

Labels: Israel, Media, Palestinians

(14) opinions -- Add your opinion