Richard Landes
The latest developments from Silwan, and a brilliant spoof on the MSNM by Latma (below) prompt me to report a conversation I had last summer with a journalist who is the Middle East Correspondent for a major Western news outlet. I was speaking to him about my concern that the MSNM had behaved very badly over the previous decade, much to the detriment, not just of Israel but of the West and societies that try and guarantee the freedom of speech and the press. In particular I emphasized the skewed epistemology whereby they treated Palestinian claims as true until proven false, and Israeli claims as false until proven true, and when the evidence eventually favored the Israelis, they tended to fall silent. response was that Israeli complaints (whining) about the media being unfair is like a general who complains about rain on the field of battle. I didn’t bother pursuing the point that in no case does the rain only fall on one army alone. What interested me more was the implication of this (repeated) comment, namely that he (and apparently many others) saw the media as a force of nature, an unalterable force, immune to reason or rebuke. They would just do their thing, and let the Israelis deal with it.
I think that some of this comes from an attitude of sympathy towards the underdog. Bob Simon, in treating the Al Durah story, commented that “in the Middle East, one picture can be worth a thousand weapons.” Over time, a number of journalists (off the record) agreed with the formula: “The Israelis have all the weapons, so why not let the Palestinians have the PR victory? It’s a way of leveling the playing field.”
But what about fake stories? Like Muhammad al Durah? In subsequent years, I heard (especially European/French) journalists shrug and say, weapons of the weak, as if somehow that made it alright. In this sense, Enderlin’s response to my observation that most of the action sequences from Talal abu Rahmah were framed — “Oh, they do that all the time, it’s a cultural thing” — represents the journalist’s off-the-record Orientalist indulgence of a culture foreign to everything that Western journalism is supposed to be about.
Now, I can understand some journalists coming to this conclusion, deciding that somehow the underdog status of the Palestinians allowed them to invent what Nidra Poller has aptly called “lethal narratives” but not everyone. And yet, my friend the journalist (who few would consider a particularly nasty anti-Israel writer) tells me that a majority of the journalists stationed in Israel would be far more harsh in their treatment of Israel were it not for their editors at home.
I think I understand why he presents the MSNM as a force of nature, impermeable to change: they’re going to handicap Israel by raining on their troop positions. It’s not only the “moral” thing to do (level the playing field, side with the underdog), but it’s also a show of power. They will be the Lilliputians that tie the giant Gulliver down.
Talking to him, listening to his reasoning, to his explanations for things (like explaining the precipitous drop in Hamas’ suicide bombings in recent years as a response to the disapproval of Muslims worldwide), to his disappointment that Israel is not more in line with his own liberal/progressive thinking (alas, they reacted to suicide attacks by becoming more right-wing), to his selective empathy, I begin to realize how tight the grip of what Charles Jacobs calls the Human Rights Complex is on our journalists, and their party-buddies, the UN workers and “Human Rights” NGOs who hang together in Jerusalem. It produces the “herd of independent minds” that characterizes today’s Middle East journalism.
And of course, if you adopt this point of view, you never have to deal with the problem of what happens if you report stuff that’s not acceptable to the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims. So they can, in all good conscience, look you straight in the eye and say, “There’s no intimidation here.” Try writing some stories on the culture of genocidal hatred that has pride of place in Palestinian pulpits and airways, and see if there isn’t some pushback.
But then, that would be supplying Israel with PR weapons, and we wouldn’t want that.
All of this is a long and rather elaborate introduction to a brilliant satire put out by Latma on precisely this subject. Enjoy. Imnsho, it’s right on.
This entry was posted in Arab-Israeli Conflict, Even-Handedness, Genocide, Human Rights Complex, Intimidation of MSM, Lethal Narratives, Media, Pallywood, Top Media Analysis, journalism. Bookmark the permalink.
← Dilemmas of a fair journalist: Mackey of the Lede (NYT) uses Al Durah to distract from Silwan Pallywood
The Hypocrisies of “Post-Modernism”: On Silencing the Israeli Voice →
One Response to MSNM to Israel: We’re a force of nature, deal with it.
1.
Eliyahu says:
October 18, 2010 at 6:55 pm
but another question arises: Who is the underdog? To be sure, the PLO/PA have fewer weapons than Israel and no supersonic jets, etc. But on the other hand, Western and Communist powers have sided with the Arabs, especially since invention of the “palestinian people” notion. So the “international community,” an often bloodthirsty lot, to be sure, has long sided with Arabs –since the 1950s– and the UN and other international organizations and institutions are dominated by powers hostile to Israel. A striking case in point is the UN “human rights council” which is dominated by the anti-Israel Org of the Islamic Conference [OIC]. So Israel and its friends are almost always outnumbered in the UNHRC and the GA and the UN SC, and so on. And Israel’s enemies are supplied with advanced weapons by various and sundry great powers. And the media of powerful and influential Western states make pro-Arab, pro-PLO/Hamas/PA propaganda. This is meant to turn Western populations against Israel. So, whereas weapons cannot do everything –and that goes for Israel’s weapons too– Israel is subject to discrimination, bullying, boycotts, etc. Therefore Israel is the underdog. But the argument that that section of the Arabs called “palestinians” are the “underdog,” cleverly propounded by Western and Arab politicians and media mind benders, has been very successful. That is partly due to the clever psywar waged against Israel, not just by Arabs and Muslims but by powerful institutions and persons in the West.
No comments:
Post a Comment