Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East

January 20, 2007

After three unsuccessful attempts to get the Sunday Star-Times to publish a counter-balancing opinion (see Dec. 20 post), KBRM appealed to the New Zealand Press Council:

I represent the Disputation Group of ‘Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast ’(KBRM). We wish to lodge a complaint against the Sunday Star-Times because of an article that appeared on 10 December 2006, Page A9, entitled ‘The One That Got Away ’, because of their refusal to publish counterbalancing articles that we submitted afterward, and because of their refusal to discuss the reasons with us.

The article in question was about attempts by certain bodies to put Israeli General Moshe Ya'alon on trial for ‘war crimes ’ while he was visiting New Zealand. The basis for the ‘war crime ’ charge was an Israeli attack when Ya'alon was Chief of Staff in 2002 in which a Hamas terrorist leader and 14 innocent bystanders were killed. We believe that this article violated the following journalistic principles stated on your web site:

1. Publications (newspapers and magazines) should be guided at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance, and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission.

6. Publications should, as far as possible, make proper distinctions between reporting of facts and conjecture, passing of opinions and comment.

10. Headlines, sub-headings, and captions should accurately and fairly convey the substance of the report they are designed to cover.

It also violated the fundamental concept stated in your preamble:

‘It is important to the Council that the distinction between fact, and conjecture, opinions or comment be maintained. This Principle does not interfere with rigorous analysis, of which there is an increasing need. It is the hallmark of good journalism. ’

The article covered most of a page and contained 1583 words. There was no other news article on the page. The article portrayed the Israeli General as a war criminal, but without providing any relevant evidence or meaningful counter-argument. In fact, the charge has little merit, as you will see when you read the articles that the SST refused to publish; civilian casualties alone are not evidence of a ‘war crime. ’

Following are specific examples of our first complaint:

1. The headline reads ‘THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY ’, with ‘got away ’ in bold black letters 38 mm tall. Right off the bat the reader is told that Ya'alon is a criminal who ‘got away ’.

2. The next thing you see is a 315 sq cm (!) color photo of ‘a Palestinian mourner ’ holding up a baby that died in the Israeli attack — again presenting a graphic picture designed to sway readers' sympathies and buttress the charge of ‘war criminal. ’

3. The smaller photo of a very smug-looking Ya'alon does not soften the impression. From a quick glance at other Ya'alon photos on the web, it would appear that the SST chose the most arrogant-looking one they could find.

4. The subheadline describes Ya'alon as an ‘alleged Israeli war criminal ’, and says ‘Critics said Moshe Ya'alon should have been tried and arrested, but the government let him go. ’ While the author was careful to use the terms ‘alleged ’ and ‘Critics said ’ the message is clear.

5. An inset in large print inserted in the article also emphasizes the case against Ya'alon: ‘'This is one of the most densely populated areas on earth, and they set off a one-tonne bomb in it.' Kate Maynard, a solicitor with London law firm Hickman and Rose. ’

These five items alone take up over half of the total space (!), without even a mention or hint of a counterargument. Any reader who looks briefly at the article and sees these five leading items could not help but come away believing that Ya'alon is indeed a ‘war criminal who got away ’.

6. The first eight paragraphs are about the charge that New Zealand failed to arrest Ya'alon for ‘political reasons ’, under the assumption that he is a ‘war criminal ’. The phrase ‘war criminal ’ is used four times and Ya'alon is put in the company of ‘those guilty of mass slaughter ’ and ‘murderers ’. A reader stopping even here would still not see a hint of the other side of the story.

7. The possibility that there may have been insufficient legal grounds for an arrest is mentioned in the 9th and 10th paragraphs, but still without any rebuttal of the ‘war criminal ’ charge.

8. It's not until the 12th paragraph that the basis for the war criminal charge is given: ‘The central issue is Ya'alon's involvement in the dropping of a one-tonne bomb on the house of alleged Hamas leader Salah Shehadeb [sic] in Gaza in 2002... ’ Even here the word ‘alleged ’ is used deliberately and inaccurately; Salah Shehadeh was an acknowledged, not alleged, Hamas leader. (His name was also misspelled.) And there still is no word of rebuttal.

9. The defense against the ‘war criminal ’ charge is presented only in the 19th paragraph! In its entirety it reads, ‘In 2003, the Israeli State Attorney's Office said the attack had been proportionate to the legitimate aim of killing Shehadeb [sic]. The military had carried out the attack late at night when pedestrians would not be expected in the area. It had dropped one bomb rather than two 'because the use of two bombs would increase considerably the risk of missing the target' and hitting a building close by. ’ Not only is the space allotted to the defense grossly inadequate (68 words out of 1583), but the statements selected to illustrate the defense are ridiculously weak (especially the third one) as compared with the actual facts (see KBRM articles below).

11. The remainder of the article is devoted to legal issues, such as whether ‘such trials should be run before international tribunals such as the International Criminal Court in the Hague ’ or in New Zealand, and whether or not there was ‘enough evidence to hold him ’, without a hint that the ‘war criminal ’ charge might illegitimate or erroneous. Guilt by association is again used, with Ya'alon put in the company of Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Augusto Pinochet, an anonymous ‘Afghani torturer ’, and committers of ‘massacres ’ and ‘human rights abuses. ’

12. On 17 December the SST published a letter by David Zwartz criticizing the SST for the way it handled the legal issues. This 263-word letter was followed by two letters totaling 322 words that defended and agreed with the article.

13. On 19 December, the chairman of KBRM, Rodney Brooks, submitted a personal letter to the editor that was not published. It read as follows:

When David Zwartz (Letters to the Editor, 17/12/06) complained of bias in an SST feature article about charges that Gen. Moshe Ya'alon is a ‘war criminal ’, your defense, I'm afraid, rang hollow. Legal issues aside, do you really believe that by presenting Israel's response in three sentences in the 17th par. of a 1,600 word article under a screaming headline ‘The one that got away ’, accompanied by a 322 sq cm colour photo of Palestinians holding a dead baby — an article that used ‘war criminal ’ and ‘war crimes ’ nine times and that put Ya'alon in the company of ‘murderers ’, ‘massacre ’, ‘torturer ’ and ‘slaughter ’, you have painted a fair picture?... Yeah, right.

Non-publication complaint
Our second complaint is that the SST refused to publish counterbalancing articles submitted by KBRM that gave ‘the other side of the story ’, showing that there was little substance to the charge. The first article, ‘The One That Didn't Get Away ’, was submitted on 20 December. It presented the missing facts so that the reader could judge whether or not Ya'alon was a ‘war criminal ’. It told who Saleh Shehadeh was, what acts of terrorism against Israel he had directed, how eight (!) earlier attacks on him were aborted because of fear of civilian casualties, and how a plane was turned back in midair when it was learned that Sedaheh's daughter was with him. Most importantly, it told how the eventual attack was made only when reports were received that Sedaheh was alone in the building with two other terrorists. The SST refused to publish this article, saying only: ‘Thanks for submitting your article. I've liaised with the deputy editor but she is not interested in publishing it. ’
On 30 December KBRM submitted a second article titled ‘Are targeted killings of terrorists war crimes? ’ It was based on a recent Israeli Supreme Court ruling (unreported by the SST), and thus was newsworthy, as well as being relevant to the 10 December article. The SST did not publish this article either.

After the first rejection, a total of three (!) letters were sent to the SST asking for reasons for non-publication (see below). None of them were answered.

Summary
In summary, we believe that the SST published an unfair and unbalanced article that gave the impression that an Israeli General had committed a ‘war crime ’ and that he ‘got away with it ’ because of legal or political reasons that stopped the New Zealand government from arresting him. The overall space and balance by the SST was overwhelmingly on the side of the charges against Ya'alon, with very little space given to any defense, or even to the facts involved. No reasonable reader could come away from this article without believing that in all likelihood the General Ya'alon was indeed a ‘war criminal who got away. ’ Yet this impression was based only on opinions, comments, conjecture, innuendo, and guilt by association, with a complete lack of fairness, balance, and facts. We also believe that the SST's refusal to publish any counterbalancing material submitted by us was in violation of the NZPC principles of fairness and balance.

In accordance with the instructions on your web site, we request the opportunity to have a representative appear in person to discuss our complaint with you.

Sincerely yours,

Marion Titterton, Disputation Chairperson
Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast

After the Sunday Star-Times responded to the complaint, KBRM was asked to respond:

February 19, 2007

Dear Ms Major,

Thank you for your letter and accompanying response from the Editor of the Sunday Star Times to our complaints.

The following are our comments on the response from Donna Chisholm, Deputy Editor of the Sunday Star-Times:

With regard to our first complaint, the SST admits, and even emphasizes in the first paragraph, that Ya'alon's ‘guilt ’ as a war criminal is a matter of opinion. This is also our point; it is indeed a matter of opinion: an informed opinion. Despite the subsequent material offered to reinforce their opinion, for every voice on one side there is a voice on the other and not one shred of the evidence we provided to prove that indeed there was another side to the story was even alluded to, either in the article or in the justification of the article by the editor. In war, civilian casualties are not in themselves proof of a ‘war crime ’, nor is the use of ‘too large ’ a weapon. One must know the reason for the attack and the circumstances, including what information was available at the time. If the casualties occur because militants are operating from civilian areas, this must be taken into account and culpability apportioned. The point is, there are two sides to the story, and this article only gave one side. (I am not referring here to the legal issues; I am referring to the question of guilt.)

The SST claim that readers should know it was only opinion because it was printed under the ‘Comment and Review masthead ’ rings hollow when you look at the almost full-page article with its screaming headline ‘THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY ’ and the emotive photo. As documented in our complaint, it is clear that the average reader would come away with the overwhelming impression that Gen. Ya'alon was guilty of war crimes. This is sometimes called ‘trial by press ’. Even the byline belies the ‘opinion ’ defense; it doesn't read ‘ opinion by Anthony Hubbard ’; it says, ‘Anthony Hubbard reports ’, and ‘reports ’ is not a word one associates with ‘opinion ’.

In regard to our second complaint, the SST says the reason they didn't publish counterbalancing articles is because the ones we supplied were ‘lengthy, ’ even though they were much shorter than the original article (943 and 1216 words, respectively, vs. 1597 words, not including photos and captions). They also say they would ‘probably ’ have published a letter submitted by KBRM, and yet a letter submitted by Rodney Brooks (over his own name) was not published. On the other hand, the SST did publish a letter of some 200 words by Murray Hunter that reinforced the ‘war criminal ’ charge. (It also published a critical letter by David Zwartz that addressed the legal issues.).

As to charging us with being a ‘pressure group ’ with ‘an obvious agenda ’, we find this ironic. In this case it is clearly the SST that has an agenda, which is to establish Ya'alon's guilt — a ‘guilt ’ they firmly believe in — in the mind of the public. Our only ‘agenda ’ is to help editors produce fair and balanced reporting — a goal that we think every newspaper should agree with. It seems strange for a newspaper to resist publishing a balancing article because it is offered by a ‘pressure group ’ whose ‘agenda ’ is to provide balance.

The SST did not respond to our third complaint that there was no reply to our three attempts to discuss the reasons for rejection.

In short, we believe the SST article was designed to convict Ya'alon using the power of the press, that the SST refused to do anything afterward to present the other side of the story, and that they refused even to discuss the matter with us.

We believe that the response by the Deputy Editor actually reinforces our initial claims that:
(a) The SST did not maintain the distinction between fact and conjecture, opinions or comments — the hallmark of good journalism (NZPC Preamble).
(b) The SST did not make a proper distinction between reporting of facts and conjecture, passing of opinions and comment (Item 6).
(c) The SST was not guided at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance and did deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission (Item 1).
(d) The headlines, sub-headings, and captions did not accurately and fairly convey the substance of the report they were designed to cover (Item 10).

Yours sincerely,

Marion Titterton
Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast

KBRM

KBRM was then given an opportunity to appear in person at the final NZPC hearing. Chairman Rodney Brooks had planned to attend but was called away. Instead he submitted the following on video tape on March 12:

class="red">January 10, 2007

My name is Rodney Brooks and I'm Chairman of Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast. I very much regret that I cannot appear in person because of a family emergency, but I'm grateful that you have allowed me to be present on videotape.

I will not take time to go through our entire complaint, which was well documented in the letter written by Marion Titterton. In brief, we alleged that the Sunday Star-Times violated your guidelines by publishing an article headlined ‘The One That Got Away ’. This was an almost-full-page article that accused an Israeli general of war crimes because of civilian casualties that occurred during an attack on a Hamas terrorist leader in Gaza.

As everyone knows, the existence of civilian casualties in war, or even the use of ‘too large a weapon ’, is not proof of a war crime. Consideration must be given to the circumstances, to what was known at the time, to the role of the accused in the action, to efforts made to safeguard against collateral damage, and most importantly, to the guilt of militants who base themselves among civilian populations.

But the Star-Times article didn't go into any of that; they focused on the accusations. You will have to look at the two articles submitted later by KBRM to see the other side of the story: the eight postponements that were made for fear of causing civilian casualties, the need for immediate action, the flight that was called back at the last minute because the terrorist's daughter was with him, and the false intelligence report that ultimately led to the tragedy.

However this is not a matter of dispute. The Sunday Star-Times has admitted that the article was one-sided: they even said it could have been worse. Their defense is that it was only an opinion piece, as indicated by its position in the ‘Comment and Review ’ section. This is the core of the matter. You must decide whether this article - taken as a whole and without any subsequent attempt to show the other side of the story - violated Press Council principles.

I would now like to address the three points raised by the Sunday Star-Times in their second letter.

The first point, surprisingly, is an attack on KBRM. We are accused of being a ‘propaganda group ’ for the Israeli government and for its military. I call this ‘surprising ’ because it is not KBRM or its motives that is the issue; it is the Star-Times article ‘The One That Got Away. ’ Yet this derogatory and offensive charge must be refuted. I say to you in all sincerity that the only goal of KBRM, as stated on our web site, is that press coverage of Israel should be ‘truthful, fair and balanced. ’ Of course Israel is not beyond criticism, but we believe that criticism should be ‘balanced and proportionate ’. We want New Zealanders to see the whole truth, fairly presented, so they can make informed decisions.

When the coverage is unbalanced, as in the present article, we disseminate material to editors so that they can show ‘the other side of the story. ’ All of this is stated on our web site (kbrm.org.nz), but it is also in the hearts and minds of every member of KBRM, including me. Balanced coverage is our goal - and I believe it is your goal as well. I only wish it were the goal of the Sunday Star-Times.

To illustrate my point, here is a record of Sunday Star-Times articles about the Mideast conflict from November through February.

Date 06	Page	Title	Author	Bal.	Size (cm2)
5/11	C8	A Palestinian woman mourns...	Reuters	P
12/11	A19	Gaza attack ignites protest	AP/NZP	P
10/12	A9	The one that got away	A. Hubbard	P	1220
24/12	A9	General immune		P	39
11/2	A20	Photo: Shouldn't we be going in the opposite direction?		P	285
11/2	A20	Hamas crushes peace deal hopes	Guardian	I	176
25/2	C7	Occupied Territory	Guardian	P	1209
11/3	A23	Shield shame		P	30

Now let me explain. These balance ratings are not based on opinions or propaganda. They are an objective measure of space and emphasis given to three things: hardship, damage and blame on each side. If there is more space or emphasis on hardship and damage to Palestinians and/or blame on Israel, the article is rated P. If the converse, it is rated I. If they're equal, it gets a 0. These ratings are about as objective as is humanly possible. Of course they don't tell the whole story, but they do give a clear indication of balance.

You will note that seven articles during this period were predominantly ‘pro-Palestinian ’, in the sense just defined, while only one was ‘pro-Israel ’. The imbalance is even worse if you look at the size of the articles, which KBRM began recording in December. 2,780 sq cm were devoted to articles that were predominantly ‘pro-Palestinian ’ and only 176 sq cm to ‘pro-Israel ’ articles.

But the issue today is not the track record of either the Sunday Star-Times or of KBRM. It is the article ‘The One That Got Away ’. It is up to you to decide, in this case, which of us, KBRM or the Sunday Star-Times, is for balance and which has an ‘agenda ’.

Now to the Star-Times second claim: ‘Had a letter been submitted which was clearly submitted for publication and met our guidelines for letters, it would most likely have been published. ’ Well, such a letter was submitted - by me - and it was not published.

You will note that the subject heading was ‘Letter to the editor ’, and it was sent over my personal name, separately from any article submitted by KBRM. This letter was written after the Sunday Star-Times published a letter by David Zwartz that was mostly about the legal issues, followed by a response from the author who maintained that his article was indeed balanced. (Incidentally, please note the inconsistency between this claim and the Star-Times later contention that the article was only an opinion piece.)

Now let's look at the third point made by the Sunday Star-Times: that ‘newspapers are under no obligation to run similar-sized features to counter articles with which they disagree. ’ First, I note that the press releases we submitted were not of similar size; the first had 1200 words and the second only 950 words, compared with 1500 words in the original article. And this is not to mention the headline and photos, which alone took about as much space as our two articles put together would have taken.

---

Incidentally, when you look at the headline, please notice that the byline doesn't say ‘Opinion by Anthony Hubbard ’, it says ‘Anthony Hubbard reports. ’

But the real issue is not, as the Sunday Star-Times claims, that we ‘disagree ’ with the article. Newspapers are certainly entitled to publish opinions that anyone might disagree with. The issue is fairness and balance. The question is, did the Sunday Star-Times inform its readership of the whole story, or did it use the power of the press to convict a man in the mind of the public.

In conclusion, I maintain that the three points made by the Sunday Star-Times in their rebuttal are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with our contention that they failed to make ‘proper distinction between facts and conjecture, opinions and comment ’ (as stated in your preamble), by not being guided by ‘accuracy, fairness and balance ’ and thereby ‘misleading or misinforming readers by commission or omission ’ (Principle 1( and by using ‘headlines, subheadings, and captions that did not accurately and fairly convey the substance of the report ’ (Principle 10). Further they failed to take any corrective measures.

There are two sides to every story, and the Sunday Star-Times only told one. By refusing to publish the other side, they have ‘convicted ’ a man in the minds of their readership - a man who could well be innocent. But it is more than the guilt of one man that is at stake here. The guilt, as you well know, spills over onto an entire country, and even beyond. It has been documented that biased and unfair reporting about Israel has fostered anti-Semitic feelings and anti-Semitic violence, and this has happened in New Zealand as well. All that we ask is that the truth be told - the whole truth, in a fair and balanced way. We don't think the Sunday Star-Times has done that.

Thank you for your time.
Rodney Brooks

On March 31, KBRM was notified that its appeal was denied. Marion Titterton reported as follows:

Our complaint was not upheld. We think this excerpt encapsulates the train of thought of the council:

‘As the article was one of comment and opinion, SST was entitled to express the views it did provided the article had a reasonable basis in fact and proper distinction was made between the reporting of facts and the passing of opinions and comment. An opinion piece must be based on fact but does not need to be balanced. In the Council's view, the article was clearly an opinion piece evidenced both by the fact that it was in the Comment and Review section of the newspaper and by the contents itself, notwithstanding that reports was used in the sub-heading. The thrust of the opinion was that the Solicitor-General's decision may have been politically motivated and that the New Zealand government had welshed on its commitments. The particular complaint made by KBRM was aimed not at any factual errors but at the opinions expressed in the article. ’

It's not all bad. The council did accept that the article used suggestive language and tone that implied the guilt of Ya'alon. Nevertheless, it appears the fact that it was an opinion piece based on correctly stated facts took precedence over the fact that it could have mislead the reader.

The complaint about not publishing our letters and balancing articles was also not upheld because in their view there was no obligation on SST to publish the articles. It had published a letter criticizing it for the way it handled the legal issues. The complaint about the headlines and captions was also not upheld. The reasoning was that in an opinion piece, headlines and captions often are indicative of the opinion expressed, as these were.

The letter concludes with the following:

‘The Council, in declining to uphold the complaint, is not endorsing the opinions expressed in the article. It is recognizing the right of a newspaper and a journalist to express an opinion. ’

The following news item, prepared by KBRM, appeared in the NZ Jewish Chronicle. (A similar press release was sent to other newspapers, but to our knowledge was ignored by all.)

KBRM is clearly disappointed with the ruling since they felt they had a strong case for complaint against the publication of the article. However, since this is the first time KBRM members have involved themselves in a complaints process of this sort, the feeling is that much has been learnt from the experience which will improve the chances of success of any future proceedings. Most importantly, it may have achieved, albeit indirectly, the aims of KBRM, which is to provoke awareness by editors of our New Zealand newspapers and magazines that they are being watched and monitored on how balanced their reporting and opinion pieces are on Israel. This may have the desired effect of the media taking a more balanced approach, thus giving their readers the chance to make more informed decisions on issues pertaining to Israel, than they have had in the past.

---

Marion Titterton also wrote the following item that appeared in the NZ Jewish Chronicle:

KBRM is clearly disappointed with the ruling since they felt they had a strong case for complaint against the publication of the article. However, since this is the first time KBRM members have involved themselves in a complaints process of this sort, the feeling is that much has been learnt from the experience which will improve the chances of success of any future proceedings. Most importantly, it may have achieved, albeit indirectly, the aims of KBRM, which is to provoke awareness by editors of our New Zealand newspapers and magazines that they are being watched and monitored on how balanced their reporting and opinion pieces are on Israel. This may have the desired effect of the media taking a more balanced approach, thus giving their readers the chance to make more informed decisions on issues pertaining to Israel, than they have had in the past.

---