The media likes to boast that they are the “first rough draft of history.” Part of that claim is that they are disinterested parties just reporting the facts as they are. Rafael Broch of Just Journalism had an excellent op-ed in Ha’aretz demonstrating the falseness of that claim.
But the media is more active than we may realize, and journalists profoundly affect what we understand about international law. One way is through the language that journalists popularise in their reports and broadcasts.
The first reference to war crimes by the British press in relation to the Gaza conflict came less than 48 hours into Israel’s operation. It was a quotation from a Hezbollah militant in Lebanon, claiming the assault was a “war crime and represents genocide”.
What is most interesting is not the readiness of the journalist to include war crimes allegations in his report so soon, but that the journalist saw it fit to quote the legal judgement of an avowed enemy. Somewhere in the mind of the journalist is the logic that these soundbytes convey drama and sell papers.
And so every Israeli self-defense is subject to a filter, which suggests that each such action might well be a violation worthy of condemnation if not punishment.
Consider the other side of the coin. On Friday Israel released twenty female security prisoners in exhange for a video of captured soldier, Gilad Schalit. Schalit has been held for three years and not allowed any visits by the Red Cross. How did the Associated Press orient its story? On the plight of the prisoners!
Women make up only a tiny minority of more than 7,000 Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, but they often pay a high personal price for what has largely been a supporting role in the Palestinian uprising.
Some have raised babies behind bars, and others have watched their families torn apart in their absence.
Now notice in these opening paragraphs there’s nothing about what the women may have done to deserve incarceration. It’s as if the Israelis arbitrarily picked the women off the street.
Fatima Ziq, 41, was pregnant when she was arrested in May 2007 as an alleged accomplice in a foiled suicide bombing. She returns to Gaza City with a toddler — her ninth child — who has known only prison life.
Zhour Hamdan, 45, was a married mother of eight when she was picked up in 2003, also as an accomplice in an aborted bombing. Her husband has remarried, and her children were forced to fend for themselves.
“Our mother was the heart of our family,” said one of her daughters, Neveen, 22. “When she was arrested, our entire life changed.”
“Alleged accomplice?” Was she not tried and convicted? And the only reason she’s being released is because the action she abetted was unsuccessful. Does the article ask what kind of society impels pregnant women to be actively involved in the destruction of innocents?
As far as Zhour Hamdan, was she abandoned by husband because of her absence or on account of her age? If her husband abandoned their children too, what does that say about her husband?
But if glossing over the crimes the women were involved in wasn’t bad enough, the AP goes further:
The release of prisoners is an emotional issue for both sides.
Palestinians view the prisoners as heroes fighting Israeli occupation at great personal cost, and virtually every Palestinian family has current or former detainees in its midst.
In contrast, many Israelis see the inmates as terrorists.
Israelis “see” these inmates as terrorists? Please. They are, by definition, terrorists. They attempted to kill civilians. Their success in doing so isn’t really relevant to what they are. It’s not a subjective judgment. That Palestinian society views them as heroes, says something about the society and about the apologists who glorify the terrorism.
The Israeli public is divided over whether to release large numbers of prisoners in exchange for Israeli captives. Some argue that such releases only drive up the cost of future exchanges and increase the dangers of future attacks.
“Some argue?” Well it’s more than an argument. It’s documented that a portion of those terrorists who are released early return to terrorism and innocents again pay the price.
As Meryl noted, there have been other articles of this ilk about Gilad Schalit or more generally.
The media may claim that they report the news, but what they report is a narrative, shaped by ideology. It has the effect of shaping opinion to fit the views of “journalists” and advocating for their preferred causes. It is generally not what we would consider “news.”
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.