My goal is to recognize journalists who cut through the fog of the conventional wisdom. To be cited for an award, a journalist must
For a story of this kind that is covered by network TV news and persists on the network news for at least three weeks, I am prepared to award a prize of $10,000--more than a Pulitzer.
For a story that is ignored by TV but picked up by major newspapers and news magazines, I am prepared to award a prize of $2500.
To win a prize, a story does not necessarily have to support a pro-Israel viewpoint. "The untold story of Yasser Arafat's generous peace proposals" would meet the criteria, because the conventional wisdom is that it was Israel that made the generous offer at Camp David.
arnoldsk@us.netCNN, which has been on the defensive lately about its Middle East coverage, decided to pay some attention to the victims of suicide bombing for a change.
The mainstream press seems reluctant to pick up on stories of how the Palestinians brainwash their children into becoming terrorists. Warbloggers, such as Tal G and Charles Johnson, are making at least some Americans aware of what is going on.
The Idler talks about NPR as National Palestine Radio.
A web site called HonestReporting.com documented the bias of the BBC, which reacted defensively. Also, the Washington Post, which was subject to a one-week boycott, published this defensive reaction by its ombudsman.
my general sense remains that, despite some lapses and shortcomings, a fair-minded reader would be very well informed by Post coverage during the course of this almost two-year-old uprising.
To me, this reaction demonstrates the failure of the boycott, which I think is a strategy for losers. I believe that one can say that a fair-minded reader of only the Post would not be informed of
Lou Dobbs of CNN Moneyline may merit an award. As Matt Drudge reported, Dobbs said,
The government and media for the past nine months have called this a war against terror. So have we here. But terror is not the enemy. It is what the enemy wants to achieve. So on this broadcast, we are making a change... in the interests of clarity and honesty. The enemies in this war are radical Islamists who argue all non-believers in their faith must be killed. They are called Islamists. That's why we are abandoning the phrase, "War Against Terror". Let us be clear. This is not a war against Muslims or Islam. It is a war against Islamists and all who support them. If ever there were a time for clarity, it is now. We hope our new policy is a step in that direction.
This took great courage and immediately drew fire. But Dobbs performed a valuable service in pointing out that using the phrase "war on terror" is a way of avoiding the confrontation with our enemies. This was a fine moment in journalism.
Gary Rosenblatt sees the problem with media coverage not as anti-Israel bias but as obsession with symmetry.
The press may think it is doing its job if it presents both sides equally, but in a war of this nature reporters shirk their moral responsibility when they offer excessive balance, juxtaposing the violence of the homicide bomber and the restrained Israeli soldier. Such reporting is not exemplary journalism; it is dishonest journalism. It does not shed light on the subject; it darkens the truth.
I agree with this point--in my own recent essay I call it the problem of the Mirror Image libel. However, it is an issue that is too sophisticated to express using a boycott. That is why I am uncomfortable with newspaper boycotts.
Here is an example of a journalist examining the biased reporting in the British press of the Jenin story. UPI's Martin Sieff uses the term "media myth". See also part two and part three.
the American media do not obscure such crucial facts as that the IDF operations it so deplores are responses to suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians. That is not true in Europe – as Jean Daniel, editor of the French weekly, Le Nouvel Observateur, observed in a scathing editorial in February...he was appalled by the French media's "unprofessionalism." The media, he wrote, simply ignore the terror attacks that precede Israel's military actions; day after day, they lead the reader to conclude that Israeli troops are killing Palestinians for no reason at all.
While we wait for prize-winning stories to appear, here are some journalists and bloggers that I would like to recognize.
Ron Rosenbaum's column on a Second Holocaust
Daniel Gordon's report from Jenin, including this exchange between Sheila MacVicar of CNN and an Israeli reservist who happens to be a doctor.
"Perhaps you should ask yourself why," she said, dismissing him."I do, madam," he said, "I ask myself why. I can’t imagine it. I can’t imagine sending one’s child out to be a mass murderer who commits suicide to kill women and children."
"Well, I can explain it," said the reporter. "For me it all comes down to one word, ‘occupation.’"
"But madam," the doctor said, "Jenin hasn’t been occupied for nine years."
Ricki Hollander's dissection of coverage by the New York Times of recent events, showing a clear tilt against Israel.
Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs web log, which passes along many helpful stories. Most of the other articles on this page came to my attention through his web log. However, I take exception to Johnson's occasional crudeness--some of his anti-Arab "humor" is reprehensible.