;.l1,3,63,66,1,0,5,75,192,2,10,15,20,25,127,5,0,
;.l3,20,75,192,2,25,127,20,0,
TO:    David bar Ilan, "Eye on Media", JP; David Bedein
FROM:  STEVE AMDUR, KIBBUTZ HAON, D.N. EMEK HAYARDAN, 15170 ISRAEL
       Telephone:  972-6-757572;  FAX:  972-6-757554  
       Messsges:   972-6-757511
DATE:  
RE:    Media Bias, Newseek May 10, 1993
REF:   
------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       
Again, these notes on Media Bias, primarily in Newsweek, are sent toDavid bar Ilan, as principal writer of Eye on the Media, as rawmaterial which can be used, without compensation nor credit if need be,in subsequent articles by any writer on media bias.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsweek May 10, 1993 pp24-25; "Dreams of Peace", Jeffrey Batholet(Jerusalem), with Ghader Taher (Amman), & Wafa Bourgi (Marj-al-Zahour),also Christopher Dickey (Cairo).
                               
Photo caption:  "A need to be rid of each other:  IN GAZA, APALESTINIAN YOUTH HURLS A STONE SHORTLY BEFORE BEING SHOT AND KILLED BYISRAELI TROOPS."  (emph. added.)
Photo credited to Maya Vidon -- AFP.

I suggest that this may have been a staged incident, and thatinvestigation and follow-up are called for.

	Obviously, if the reporter & photographer staged an incident, theyshould face both dis-creditadtion and criminal charges.  If the captionis correct, an IDF account of the incident should be published; if itis false, those responsible should be dis-credited.
l2
In general, photographers should not be permitted in volatilesituations; THEY GET PEOPLE KILLED by encouraging (and sometimesstaging)  media-exploitative incidents.

l3
From the standpoint of freedom of the press, excludingphotographers is problematic but defensible; freedom ofthe press is freedom to report, not to commericallyexploit, much less inflame, a situation.  The freedom toreport is safeguarded by allowing reporters withoutcameras.  The cliche that "pictures don't lie" went outa century ago; nowadays most press photography projectsa bias.

As McLuhan pointed out, photography -- especiallytelevision photography -- is a "hot" medium -- it caninflame passions, both at and away from the scene -- ;print is a "cool" medium; more conducive to rationalreflection. 
l1

Lead photo:  Two Palestinians, one about age 14, the other, possible ayounger brother, about age 8, stand poised to throw small stones atsomething about them, possibly an IDF observation post.  Both arewithout mask and without khaiffa.  They look intent and ratherfrightened.  Two adult figures, both apparently women, stand on eitherside of the two youths, too close to have been entirely cropped out ofthe picture.  One stands with arms akimbo, apparently watching but notintervening; the other is turned aside, apparently doing somethingelse.  Another adult figure with a young person nearby,  sits in frontof a house or store in the far background.  The street is otherwisedeserted.

Remark:  That this was a staged incident is suggested by the passivepresence of adult on-lookers,  the calm seated adult figure in thebackground, the fact that the two boys are poised to throw a stone butnot photographed in the act of throwing it, and the absence of any sortof mob in the picture.
	That the street is otherwise deserted is most puzzling.  Could thebackground of the street have been added from another photo?
	Can the accuracy of the caption be confirmed:  ie, that the elderof the two boys photographed was in fact (a) shot & (b) died from beingshot?  One would like to believe that the caption is a simple lie, andthat this was a staged incident without reprecussion.
	(A blurring of the right arm and left hand of the older boysuggests that he was actually preparing to throw, not simply posing,when photographed.)

	The caption -- that the boy photographed was shot and killed -- isnot discussed in the article.  That suggests that the caption is aninvention; for such an incident would be quite newsworthy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Balance of article:

2nd photo:  file photo of Israeli soldier overlooking a Golansettlement, Jordan Rift valley in the background.  No bias, minimalsignficance.

As I've said, Bartholet should go places (preferably outside Israel.)
His articles seem to carry general teachings that go beyond reportage.
Those teachings seem to be forming a comprehensive ideologic attempt todiscredit the Israeli position.
This week we have several points:
(1) The notion of a "whole peace" is preposterous; so Israel shouldstop demanding that of Syria in exchange for complete withdrawal.
(2)  An attempt to create a moral equivalence between popular Israeliantipathy toward its Palestinian population, and the Palestiniannationalist desire to drive Jews back to Europe.

On the first point, the writer [with 4 reporters & uncreditededitor(s), the reader can't pinpoint blame for this article]
asks, with pipe-dream hyperbole, "Whole peace...does anybody knowanymore what the words mean?  Can anyone imagine what a genuine peacewould be like?"

On the second point, he writes, "the peace process is being edgedforward mainly by the desperate desire of both Israelis andPalestinians to be rid of each other, symbolized by the problem of the400 Islamic fundamentalists..."  (The phrase 'a need to be rid of eachother' is featured prominently, and with vicous if unintended irony, inthe lead photo caption "A need to be rid of each other:  In Gaza, aPalestinian youth hurls a stone shortly before being shot and killed byIsraeli troops.")

That also suggests that explusion of the 400 Hamas activists was agesture of trying to transfer the entire Palestinian population out ofthe country.  There's some truth in that:  maybe 10%, which leaves 90%falsehood.
.p

"How much does that cost?  I'll buy it."
There is currently a media-myth that immense riches await this regionis everyone will just sign a peace treaty.  With that goes theassumption that such investment is not possible without such peacetreaties.  
(This seems to be Peres' fantasy.)  

l2
(The notion that a peace treaty would presuppose a Palestinianquaisi-state that might make the warlords of Somalia look likeSwiss gendarmes, is repressed.)  
l1

Now considering that the western world has practically let the xUSSRimplode rather than bail it out, and has hitherto given thePalestinians nothing but rhetoric, one can be sceptical of (a) whatthey will contribute to this region besides meddlesome delegations and(b) what fraction of whatever aid they contribute to Palestinianorganizations will ever trickle down to its supposed goal.  
And one can ask why all these wonderful ideas can't be implemented now.
Do we now need Arafat's permission to build the Red-Dead canal?  
l2
(An historical note:  we didn't build it so that we could buildthe Lavi, and then we didn't build the Lavi so we could rebuildthe Garden of Eden or some such.  And besides, the Lavi would havecompeted with the USA Aerospace industy.) 
l1

More good news:  "Nabil Shaath, a sucessful Palestinian businessman andtop adviser to...Arafat...asks, with evident delight, 'How are we goingto entertain all the tourists who are going to come see us -- startingwith the 4 million Palestiniians who have never been to Palestine, and200 million Arabs who have never been to Jerusalem.'"
l2

Well, I suppose we could let them blow up the Huvra Synagogueagain.



                                                          
