Matti Friedman debates Ethan Bronner on media coverage of Israel

NPR's "On the Media" hosted a discussion of media coverage of Israel:

 On the heels of this summer's war in Gaza, Jerusalem-based journalist Matti Friedman published an essay in Tablet magazine titled  “An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth.” Drawing from his experience as a reporter and editor for the AP’s Jerusalem bureau from 2006 to 2011, Matti argues that the western press is far too focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that its framing distorts our perceptions of Israel. New York Timesdeputy national editor Ethan Bronner, who covered Israel-Palestine in the eighties for Reuters, in the nineties for theBoston Globe, and for the Times as Jerusalem bureau chief from 2008 to 2012, sees the coverage of the conflict in notably different ways. Brooke moderates a debate between Ethan and Matti.

You can hear it here.



Some highlights:

MATTI FRIEDMAN: As for the America's friendship with Israel, it's undeniable of course. But, for example, America has 30,000 servicemen in South Korea, and those are American citizens who are supposed to die to protect a foreign country from attack and I would argue that is a commitment exponentially more significant than the US commitment to Israel, and yet if there has been obsessive South Korea coverage, I've missed it. I think the friendship argument is true in part but it's not enough to explain the phenomenon. There's certainly a huge amount of interest in this place because of its historical connotations, but the kind of coverage we're seeing here is not massive coverage of Biblical archeology or religion. What we're seeing is extremely critical of the actions of the Israeli government and I would argue that this interest in the Holy Land I think that there's a very thin line between that and the development of a hostile obsession with the moral failings of Jews which as we know is a very deep thought pattern in the West.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: You have both made a distinction between the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the European press and the American press. Ethan, how would you describe the difference? And then Matty.

ETHAN BRONNER: Broadly speaking, I would say that in the United States, coverage of Israel takes as a given that it is a legitimate country, that it has problems, that it has issues, that relations with its neighbors and Palestinians need to be written about, but the core question of whether Israel is a legitimate country is not asked over and over. I would say that much of European coverage gets to the question of the legitimacy of Israel as a project from the beginning and questions it. I also would say that American media coverage of Israel tends to explore Israeli society not necessarily all in a bad way, and take it seriously as a culture and as a society and that's much less true in Europe.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: I think Ethan's right. I think there's more poisonous press coverage in Europe. But I think that the difference between American and European coverage has eroded, that's been my experience. I think that you have a press corps here and it's a social group, people know each other, people move between the organizations. If we look at the Gaza coverage from the last summer, I don't think you'll see a lot of difference between coverage in the States, in the mainstream media organization and in Europe.

ETHAN BRONNER: The truth is that the coverage I've seen most closely is that of the New York Times, I haven't examined that of others, but I would say, that the New York Times coverage of whether the victims were civilians or fighters quite seriously. The notion that Hamas operates from among civilian buildings and organizations was repeated frequently in the coverage so it may be true that the locals who move between Reuters and AP are not very different, but I do think that the outlook of the organization is different. A colleague of mine from Britain who came through who wanted to write a story of the evolution of the Hebrew language told me that his newspaper said, we have no interest in this at all, you're there to cover the conflict. And that is never something that an editor would tell a reporter in Israel.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: I think the New York Times's coverage of Gaza this summer was one-sided. We saw photographs of Israeli soldiers and Israeli tanks and dead Palestinian civilians. The story that Hamas wants to be told out of Gaza is that there are no Hamas fighters. That there is no Hamas strategy and that all the dead are civilians and that is the story that media organizations including the New York Times told this summer.

ETHAN BRONNER: With regard to pictures of fighters in Gaza, first of all I don't think it's true that Hamas would like the world to think that it doesn't have fighters. I'm certain that that's not the message that they want to get out. What did happen in this war, as happened in '08-'09 and in '12 is that when the war begins, Hamas goes underground, and they're actually impossible to find. When the journalists were crossing the border from Israel, there weren't even Hamas guys to stamp their passports as there typically are. The idea that journalists in Gaza were not taking pictures because they either didn't want to send the message that there were fighters or they were afraid of the fighters I think is a misunderstanding of what happens when you operate underground in Gaza in a conflict.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: I think that would be true if we didn't have examples of reporters who did.

ETHAN BRONNER: We have very few Matty we have like four, four moments because they're rare to find, it's not because everybody else is turning away from it.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: I think one of the most striking images that came out of Gaza this summer was shot by a Indian TV crew and you can find it on YouTube. They saw in the middle of the day, Hamas crew setting up a rocket outside of their hotel. So how did these intrepid Indian journalists get this great footage?

ETHAN BRONNER: They weren't intrepid they were lucky.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: If some of the 700 reporters I think who arrived in Gaza to cover the conflict had their eyes perhaps a bit more open we would've seen more images like that. But of course the reporters in Gaza are there to report a very simple story, they're reporting a story of Israeli aggression against civilians. So they won't show things that contradict the story and they will accept the Hamas death toll and pass it on to their readers as fact, which the New York Times did too.

Friedman is, of course, correct - and the Indian reporter who broke that story says it explicitly:The reporters in the area witnessed a rocket being shot from that exact same spot, in the middle of the hotels that they were staying in, a few days earlier. They knew quite well that it was going to happen again. But they self-censored out of fear of Hamas. (Even the NDTV reporter waited until he was out of Gaza to release the video.)

Bronner is engaging in CYA journalism, not in objectively looking at how his fellow reporters do their jobs.

To see the devastating truth about how skewed the NYT coverage was of Gaza, just re-read this scathing piece by Richard Behar. Friedman's great but he didn't analyze the NYT coverage the way Behar did, and no one can refute what Behar wrote.

(h/t EBoZ)