Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East

September 4, 2008

KBRM appeals to NZ Press Council

The following appeal was filed with the NZ Press Council in regard to the failure of the Otago Daily Times to take corrective actions:

Dear Mr. Kirkness,

Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast (KBRM) is devoted to maintaining fairness, balance, and accuracy in reporting and editorials about Mideast events, particularly in regard to Israel. These are the same values expressed in Principle #1 of the Press Council. Our present complaint is directed at the Otago Daily Times for persistent violations of these principles.

We ask you to recognise that these violations do not just affect a tiny country (smaller in size than Otago) on the other side of the world. To most people, Israel is the very symbol of Judaism and Jewish identity. Inaccurate reporting that unfairly depicts Israel in a negative light cannot help but engender anti-Semitism among some readers. Although the Jewish community in NZ is small, the desecration of Jewish graves in the Karori cemetery last year is an example of how negative reporting can impact the Jewish community.

KBRM does not claim that these violations arise from anti-Semitic bias. Negative reporting about Israel is not unique to the ODT, and it is quite possible that they arise from exposure to untruths by others. Nevertheless, a newspaper that chooses to report or editorialize on a subject has a responsibility to present the truth in a balanced and accurate manner.

Nor do we claim that Israel is beyond criticism — only that it should be balanced by criticism of Arab misdeeds that often are of greater magnitude. To do otherwise is to fail to be objective and to move into the arena of political persuasion, rather than providing information that would allow readers to form their own opinions. How many New Zealanders know about the brutal murder of a young Israeli child and her father by a Hizbollah ‘militant’ who was released in exchange for dead bodies of soldiers killed in another Hizbollah attack? Certainly not readers of the Otago Daily Times.

We believe that the Otago Daily Times has repeatedly fallen below acceptable standards of accuracy, fairness and balance, as outlined in the attached ‘Specifics of complaint’. While some of the violations listed are minor, the collective impact is overwhelming and cannot help but lead readers to form an unfair, inaccurate image of Israel. (All this is apart from the ODT's record for 2008 that shows a 4-1 imbalance between ‘pro-Palestinian’ vs. ‘pro-Israeli’ articles, as defined by space and emphasis given to damage, hardship and blame on each side — a record that might be compared with the 2-1 imbalance ratio of the other leading South Island paper: The Press.)

KBRM believes that some corrective action is needed — possibly an editorial correcting the many inaccuracies and imbalances, and that action should be taken to ensure accurate and balanced reporting in the future.

SPECIFICS OF COMPLAINT

The items of complaint are divided into three areas: Editorial-opinion, News, and Letters to the Editor. Unless otherwise noted, the Principle violated is #1: ‘Publications... should be guided at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance...’ (Numbers in blue refer to the attached copies.)

EDITORIAL-OPINION

May 22 ‘Bush's peace offering’, p. 18 [1]. Under the guise of even-handedness, this editorial put emphasis on Israel's ‘settlement policies’ and ‘cutting off fuel supplies’ as obstacles to peace, while calling on Arabs only to ‘move past their old resentments’ — a ridiculous euphemism for ‘trying to destroy Israel’. The editorial went on to say ‘While Israel applies a stranglehold on Gaza under its democratically elected, but unrecognized Hamas administration, Hamas retaliates with arbitrary and deadly rocket attacks from the territory’. Adding ‘Or vice versa’ does not convey to the reader Hamas' intention to destroy Israel, or the fact that Israel's actions against Gaza are designed to thwart these attacks.

June 30 ‘End to Gaza conflict in Arab hands’, p. 15 [2]. Following a meeting between Rodney Brooks of KBRM and Murray Kirkness, editor, KBRM submitted an article that was published intact. However it was accompanied by a photo of an Israeli tank that undercut the point of the article and reinforced the image of Israel as aggressor. (A Qassam rocket would have been a more appropriate choice). This violated Principle 11: ‘care in photographic and image selection’.

NEWS

The following six news items appeared shortly after the meeting. The first three were primarily about criticism of Israel for building houses and were given prominent exposure:

June 16. ‘Israel approves houses’, p. 8 [3]. Above-the-fold Reuters article (15 col-cm) in bold print.

June 17. ‘Rice blames settlements’, p. 9 [4]. Top-of-page Reuters article (70 col-cm) with extra-large headline.

July 31. ‘Rice begins fresh push for peace’, p. 8 [5]. Above-the-fold Reuters article (30 col-cm) starts with criticism of ‘Israeli settlement building.’

The following three items contained reports of brutal and deadly Palestinian attacks and were given very limited exposure — in one case almost infinitesimal:

July 1. ‘Israel to release gunman in exchange for soldiers' bodies’, p. 6 [6]. A key passage describing the brutality of a Palestinian attack was deleted from this below-the-fold AP article (36 col-cm), even though this was an important factor in an event of major importance. An additional six paragraphs that gave the Israeli view of the exchange were also deleted.

July 4. ‘Rampage by construction worker kills three in Jerusalem ’, p. 6 [7]. Bottom-of-page article (57 col-cm) doesn't even mention the 40 people injured until the last paragraph. Accompanying small photo (1/3 size of June 17 photo) gives no hint of the carnage, violating Principle 11: ‘care in photographic and image selection ’.

July 24. ‘Obama promises to support Israel ’, p. 8 [8]. The only space given to a bulldozer attack that wounded 16 people in Jerusalem was a two-sentence description buried deep within this Reuters article about Obama's visit to Israel.

The difference in space, headlines, placement and even font between reports of Israel building houses and descriptions of Palestinian attacks that killed and wounded people is striking.

LETTERS

It is well-known that editors are given wide latitude in their selection and editing of letters. Nevertheless, the Press Council's Principle #12 states that ‘editors... are to be guided by fairness, balance, and public interest’ in the selection and treatment of letters. The first two letters listed below attacked Israel and the KBRM article of June 30:

July 5. ‘Middle East’, p. 36 [9]. Abridged to 334 words — 184 over guideline!

July 7. ‘Middle East views not balanced146;, p. 12 [10]. Abridged to 210 words — 60 over guideline! — and given extra-large headline ‘Middle East views not balanced’.

The following letters were written in support of Israel and the KBRM article:

May 29. ‘Gaza blockade’, p. 12 [11]. Submitted within 150-word guideline, yet 14 important words (‘a nation that is not just threatened, but is under constant and immediate attack’) were deleted.

June 23. ‘Middle East’, p. 14 [12]. Letter of 139 words was followed by a 60-word rebuttal by the editor that missed the point of the letter and inserted a new inaccurate charge against Israel that it had ‘seized146; the West Bank. The result was to undercut and destroy the message of the letter in the minds of most readers.

July 10. ‘Middle East’, p. 16 [13]. Two letters defending the KBRM article were abridged to 110 words and 100 words, respectively (a total of 90 words under the guideline). In the first letter, the main message about Israel was removed, leaving only the shell that was a tribute to the ODT.

July 16. ‘Middle East’, p. 16 [14];. Submitted at 150 words with request not to alter, yet 21 important words were deleted, including the opening sentences that referred to the difference in length between pro- and anti-Israel letters. The closing phrase that told readers where they could get evidence for the statements made was also deleted.

Again, the difference in treatment of the ‘pro-Israel’ and ‘anti-Israel’ letters is striking.

BOTTOM LINE

While each of the above items could conceivably be defended as justified or as a small error, the pattern of giving greater exposure to negative news and opinions about Israel and less exposure to negative news and opinions about Palestinians is clear, and is in violation of the fairness, balance and accuracy standards of Principle #1.