If you want to understand why, over the past four decades, the Middle East has seen one brutal conflict after another, despite repeated efforts by the United States to “mediate” and “make peace” among the Arabs and Israel, here is some free advice for you. : Watch American television coverage of a moment of major crisis or drama in the region, then compare what you saw with Arab or even European coverage of the same event.
That’s exactly what I’ve been doing over the past few days: following coverage of the fragile ceasefire in Gaza and the exchange of detainees between Israel and Hamas on various American television networks (mainly CNN, ABC and NBC) as well as on BBC and ManhattanTribune.
Never in my half-century of following international news have I witnessed such poor, biased and superficial journalism as that of these American television networks last week. In fact, what I saw was less journalism aimed at informing the public about current events around the world, and more reality television carefully designed and broadcast to entertain them. In contrast, ManhattanTribune and, to some extent, the BBC clearly aspired to achieve greater balance, provide in-depth analysis, include historical context and humanise all those affected by the conflict. Their efforts to provide quality journalism to their audiences have only accentuated the poor performance of American networks.
It is no wonder that the American public is so poorly informed on Middle East issues and that the US government continues to fail in its “peacemaking” efforts and regularly sends military battalions and flotillas into the region.
So here’s what struck me about the American television coverage of the Gaza ceasefire. Please keep in mind that this is not a scientific study, but a list of impressions and observations:
An overwhelming majority of American journalists covering events “on the ground” were based either in Tel Aviv or Israeli West Jerusalem, and had no direct contact with Palestinians in Gaza.
The dominant theme of American media coverage was the release of Israelis detained in Gaza (I will call them, and the thousands of Palestinians currently in Israeli prisons, both “detainees” to avoid, for the moment, the debate over who may be treated as a “hostage” or “prisoner”). American television networks have made little effort to convey Palestinian views and feelings to their audiences. It is understandable that Israeli television focuses directly on Israeli detainees, but American television should at least try to present the full story and create space for the feelings and perspectives of both societies.
The considerable time and effort expended by American hosts and correspondents to share with their audiences the powerful emotions of the families of Israeli detainees was impressive in every way. There have been repeated interviews, photo collages, video testimonies and countless moving stories about the ordeals of Israeli detainees and their worried families. Yet media coverage of the feelings of Palestinian detainees and their families, who make up half the story, has not been as intense or extensive. Israeli detainees and their families were shown as real people, with names, ages and powerful human emotions, gripped by fear and hope, doing everything possible to save their family members detained in Gaza. We got to know them and feel their pain, something the Palestinians were largely denied.
Anyone watching American news quickly learned the names of all the Israeli children detained in Gaza. Their stories, accompanied by photos and videos provided by their families, touched the hearts of everyone who watched them. For example, I was particularly moved by the report on a little girl whose father brought his dog to greet her upon her return to Israel.
Overall, American coverage of the stories of Israeli detainees in Gaza and their families represented journalism – and humanity – at its emotional and narrative best. Yet, in covering perhaps the second most important political-military event in the century-old conflict between Zionism/Israel and Arabism/Palestine (after 1947/48), one might have expected American news networks to offer their audience with facts, personalities, emotions and testimonies. social realities on both sides. One-sided coverage, even if technically competent and emotionally gripping, is not news reporting, it’s cheerleading.
The words used by American anchors, hosts and correspondents when covering these events also betrayed their prejudices. Israelis under the age of approximately 16 were still referred to as “children,” while imprisoned Palestinian youth in the same age group were predominantly referred to as “minors.” Israeli detainees were typically identified as “mothers,” “daughters,” or “grandmothers” – and rightly so. However, Palestinian detainees were mostly simply referred to as “women” or “wives” – so the public was not encouraged to view them as mothers, aunts, grandmothers and form emotional bonds with them.
Hamas personnel were almost universally referred to as “terrorists” – a nomenclature perhaps understandable for describing those who participated in an attack on unarmed civilians, but not useful or adequate for describing all members of an organization that plays a political, military and social role. in society – and represents the latest manifestation of militant political resistance against Israel and Zionism’s century of aggression and subjugation of Palestinians.
In some cases, the networks followed the minute-by-minute journeys of Israeli detainees from Gaza to their homes in Israel – recalling interviews with families and preparations to welcome them. In contrast, with very few exceptions, no serious attempt has been made to provide similar coverage of the travel of Palestinian detainees or their families – even though access to many of these families in the West Bank was possible.
Media coverage of Palestinians welcoming their returned detainees was scattered and slightly formal, while coverage of the equivalent Israeli story was repetitive, harrowing and heated.
Analysts/commentators interviewed in the United States by American networks provided additional layers of orientalist stereotypes about Palestinians and Arabs that offered little or no news value but mainly pandered to the audience’s natural entertainment instincts. public, or the chauvinistic support of the networks for American policy in the region. .
So we heard former US negotiators explain (actually, I suppose) what difficulties the Israelis would face in freeing their detained nationals, including pressure from the “Arab street.” We even heard that FBI agents were in Israel to investigate possible Palestinian crimes against American citizens. Of course, the networks did not attempt to question whether similar efforts were underway to investigate Israel’s numerous crimes against the Palestinians, including the killing of more than 14,000 people, some of whom are also U.S. citizens.
The most glaring flaw in American television coverage of recent events in Israel-Palestine was the almost complete absence of any historical context that would have helped the public make sense of the October 7 attack on Israel and all that followed. This context was needed not to justify the Hamas attack, but simply to help people understand why it happened in this century-old conflict.
Indeed, the attack on Israel cannot be fully understood and analyzed without considering the half-dozen other clashes between Israel and Hamas over the past 35 years, since Hamas’ birth. Palestinians and much of the international community insist that the historical context of this conflict must be appreciated if the wars are to end and the path to coexistence is to be opened. Israel, on the other hand, is determined to shut down any historical analysis that could explain how a land that was 96 percent Palestinian a century ago is today 80 percent Israeli Jewish. When American television presents no historical context, it explicitly sides with Israel on this central issue. He can do this as much as he wants in his opinions, but not in media coverage.
These quick observations do not constitute a comprehensive analysis of U.S. television coverage of recent events in Israel-Palestine. I am aware that American television networks also provided some moments of balanced coverage, in which Israelis and Palestinians were treated equally. However, most of the reporting I saw did not recognize the humanity of Palestinians and instead reflected the dominant Israeli view that Palestinians are less than human and that their suffering, emotions and aspirations could therefore be ignored, downplayed or presented superficially in media coverage.
All media organizations, including television networks attempting to cover this century of conflict for the American public, should aspire to practice better journalism and avoid presenting entertainment and propaganda in their news broadcasts whenever possible. .
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of ManhattanTribune.
