“16
killed, thousands injured, Israeli snipers line the border,”
read
the brief notification on my phone, and on that of millions of other
conscious global citizens relying on the mainstream media for
political and global knowledge. I, along with the pro-Israel
community, cringed at each of the countless buzzing notifications
informing the world of the events transpiring at the Gaza-Israel
border in the recent weeks. We have a far greater depth of knowledge
about the complexity of the conflict than the larger populace, who
generally take less of a keen interest in the specifics of the
conflict, and we know for certain that such a headline doesn't nearly
encapsulate the Israeli narrative of the scene in Gaza. It fails to
acknowledge that at least 80% of those dead are known associates with
terror group, that the snipers exercised tremendous caution with live
rounds of ammunition, opting for rubber bullets and tear gas to
disperse the violent
demonstrations. And we know that Hamas leaders cowered behind the
crowds of civilians thrust towards the border and that they
monetarily incentivized the crowds to breach the border fence.
But
who cares? What difference does it make what we know? We each only
count for one person in a general election, each of us one pro-Israel
voice in a sea of voters under the impression--established and
reinforced by the headlines on their devices and in the papers--that
Israel fires indiscriminately into a crowd of peaceful protesters.
And
the misinformation and lack of perspective and adequate figures
relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict truly comprises much of
Israel’s
public relations nightmare. With the concept of a news cycle over a
period of time being rendered obsolete by the instantaneousness of
today’s
news, consumers absorb as much information as possible in as little
time as possible. Per the Washington
Post and the American Press Institute,
“roughly
six in 10 people acknowledge that they have done nothing more than
read news headlines in the past week. And, in truth, that number is
almost certainly higher than that, since plenty of people won't want
to admit to just being headline-gazers but, in fact, are.”
And
according to Forbes,
59% of the articles shared via social media sites are not first read
by the ‘sharer.’
Similarly,
Twitter has a CTR (click through rate) average across all of its
users of 1.64%,
meaning that less than one in fifty people elect to digest the
information beyond the headline of the article.
Media is an omnipresent force in society--particularly those news
outlets with the clout and acclaim to sway public opinion on any
given issue, where even a single sentence presented (like the lede of
an article) can have a profound impact in its connotations and
specific phrasing.
In
the immediacy of the technological age in which we live, with
notifications popping up by the minute, and the needed brevity of the
headline/lede to maintain reader-attentiveness while conveying a
hasty picture of the situation, lots can be lost in translation. This
sizeable fault in the media is much less prevalent with
other major global disputes, like the American-North Korean tensions:
It’s
common knowledge that North Korea is bad and communist, while America
is better and democratic, to put the matter simply. So when CNN
reports that Kim Jong-Un has just tested the latest intercontinental
ballistic missile, and it is capable of reaching Alaska, I
immediately understand the danger posed and am not ambivalent when
siding against North Korea.
But
for issues not so black-and-white such as the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, a simple headline can easily give off the wrong idea and
formulate an opinion one way or the other, even if it’s
not sufficiently substantiated, as is frequently the case.
As mentioned, headlines regarding events playing out in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict notoriously hold an anti-Israel
slant--unintentionally or otherwise. Coupled with readers (or not
readers,
should I say) not bothering clicking on and considering the factual
evidence, but instead relying on headlines, the already-harbored
anti-Israel sentiment by tech-savvy, short-attention-spanned
millennials and young voters can only trend upwards, shunning the
facts in favor of convenience.