Whenever violence erupts in the Middle East, it’s almost certain that criticism of The News & Observer also will escalate.
So, last week, after Israel launched air strikes against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, The N&O immediately received complaints of biased coverage, mostly from readers sympathetic to the Palestinians.
“Once again, The News & Observer demonstrates a striking ability to present one-sided, decontextualized news,” wrote Rania Masri. “Police stations, hospitals, schools, mosques were attacked all amidst heavily populated urban residences. Entire families have been killed. Stop with your implicit justifications of this barbarity.”
Several writers noted the headline on the story Sunday first reporting the Israeli action: “To repay attacks, Israel hits Gaza Strip.”
“You can tell from the title that this article is going to be biased,” Ihab Asfari of Raleigh wrote to me. “It gives the reader a justification for the Israeli attack before you even start to read the rest of the article.”
N&O editors defended the coverage. Steve Merelman, front-page editor, said that first-day headline reflected the fact that the air strikes were indeed in retaliation for persistent Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli villages near Gaza. Jon Wallace, national and world editor, said the coverage fully reported the destruction of life and property inflicted by the Israeli strikes.
The N&O devoted considerable space to the attacks: dominant front-page coverage Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, with more stories inside the paper and several analysis pieces and info boxes to add context. I thought that was good coverage, so I called a couple of the complainants seeking elaboration.
Asfari said the coverage gave the impression that the Israeli strikes were justified responses to missile attacks against Israel from inside Gaza. He said the rocket attacks have been provoked by prior Israeli incursions into Gaza and an ongoing blockade of food and basic supplies. “When you read this, you assume that Hamas started it and the Israelis are retaliating,” he said. “It’s not only that Hamas is throwing rockets against Israel and Israelis are retaliating. There are children and women dying, too.”
Masri said the stories didn’t paint a complete picture of the conflict or the damage suffered by civilians in Gaza. “We’ve had four or five Israelis killed compared to nearly 400 Palestinians,” she said. “The crux of the coverage should be on the Palestinian side. I’m simply asking that where we have the greatest harm, that should get the greatest coverage.”
Their comments caused me to go back and look at the first four days of coverage. The stories — from the Associated Press, The New York Times and McClatchy News Service — provided detailed coverage of the daily events, background on the cease-fire breakdown that led to Israel’s attacks (Hamas ended the cease-fire), a profile of Hamas and analysis pieces on the diplomatic and political implications of the conflict. The daily stories reported the numbers of Palestinians killed and wounded and the catastrophic damage to property. A story Thursday reported that bombing of smuggling tunnels from Egypt into Gaza had cut off a lifeline of, not just arms, but basic living supplies such as food, fuel and baby milk.
But I do think the coverage did not adequately convey the extent of suffering and pain inflicted on ordinary citizens. That’s in some measure because the Israelis have banned foreign reporters from entering Gaza. To get the Palestinian side, reporters have had to content themselves with phone interviews from outside Gaza to Palestinian health authorities and other officials.
Dion Nissenbaum, McClatchy’s Jerusalem correspondent, gives a good account of the Israeli information blockade on his blog, at the McClatchy Web site, www.McClatchydc.com.
“In essence, Israel has transformed the entire Gaza Strip into a closed military zone,” he writes. “Reporters from every major news organization, from the BBC and CNN to The New York Times and The Washington Post to NPR and McClatchy to AP and Fox News, are being barred by Israel from going into Gaza to cover the deadliest military campaign there since Israel seized the area from Egypt in the 1967 war.” He also says it was Israel, not Hamas, that first broke the cease-fire, which Hamas subsequently refused to renew.
Of course, readers’ responses to the coverage may be colored by their personal perspectives. Asfari is a Syrian national who operates a pizza shop in Raleigh. Masri is a resident of Beirut who has lived in the United States and was visiting here during the holidays. (During the 2006 Israeli conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon, she was forced to flee her home.)
To get another perspective, I checked in with a reader, Henry Landsberger of Chapel Hill, who in the past has criticized The N&O for coverage he deemed to be skewed against Israel. He said he thought the coverage of the Israeli strikes had been fair and balanced. But when I told him that the paper was being criticized for not reflecting the human impact on Palestinians, he said, “I think that may be the case, that you have not elaborated on it. I can to some extent sympathize with those who feel that this may be somewhat underplayed.”
I have seen some good reporting from inside Gaza on the human dimension of the conflict, notably two stories in The Washington Post headlined “Hospital in Gaza City engulfed by suffering” and “Family mourns 5 daughters as civilian death toll mounts.” Both were by a Palestinian reporter stationed inside Gaza City. I wish I had read more of that kind of coverage in The N&O.
