Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East
November 1, 2009
TVNZ misleads, misrepresents and misuses interview with KBRM member
TVNZ's Sunday programme featured a 16-minute segment, ‘Across the Divide’, that purported to present a balanced version of the conflict between Israel and Arab Palestinians. The programme began with 7½ continuous minutes showing sympathetic pictures of Palestinian families evicted and houses demolished in East Jerusalem amid constant criticism of Israel. A six-month-old rent dispute was portrayed as Israeli oppression. (Note: Demolitions also occur in New Zealand, as witness a headline in the Wanaka Sun, November 12: ‘Family faces demolition’.) The only presentation of Israel's side came during a later interview with a Kiwi who lives in the nearby town of Efrat. Most of this interview was about the situation in Efrat, but one minute was given to his responses to hostile questions about the evictions (of which he had no direct knowledge). Even this was preceded by and overlaid with sympathetic images of the evicted Palestinian children. The Kiwi, who is a member of KBRM, lodged a formal complaint with TVNZ:
As the New Zealand Israeli interviewed for the above documentary, I protest most strongly about, not only the actual screened programme, but the events which led up to me being interviewed in the first place.
Several weeks prior to the TV crew arriving in Israel, Dale Owens approached me via email. He had obtained my name from our son who is currently studying at university in NZ. The whole thrust of this and subsequent emails was the stated desire of TV1 to interview a NZ family who had moved to Israel and made their home here. In fact in a lengthy (over 1 hour) telephone conversation I had with Mr. Owens he went to great lengths to explain the motives for his forthcoming trip to Israel. Mr. Owens informed me that the primary object was to do a documentary on NZ soldiers who had been in Palestine during the First and Second World Wars. He went on to explain that he thought it would be a good idea while they were here to also do something on New Zealanders who had made Israel their home. He went on to question me on my family background, my life in NZ and why we had left NZ to settle in Israel. There was a brief discussion on why we chose Efrat and associated matters but this was in the overall context of life in Israel. I told him that I knew of a New Zealander who had left NZ in the late 1940s and was a real pioneer, who would be able to recall amazing events from the earliest days of the founding of the State and who actually lived in Jerusalem. Mr. Owens expressed interest in interviewing him, time permitting, and I was left to make preliminary arrangements. There was no doubt in my mind that TV1 was interested in doing a ‘human interest’ story based on the lives of some New Zealanders who had settled in Israel.
We next made contact on 14 October after the TV1 team arrived in Jerusalem. Arrangements were made for them to come to Efrat where we live, in order to interview me and also to give them an opportunity of seeing what life was like in our town. They happily agreed to this and at no stage prior to or subsequent to the shooting of this film was there ever a hint that another entirely different agenda was planned. They spent the better part of a day with us, filming different aspects of life here, interviewing the mayor and also myself at our home.
At the end of the day my wife made a very pertinent comment. She observed that all the questions posed to me were negative or accusative in nature, which meant that I was forced to justify and negate statements. One would have expected, given the previously stated purpose of the documentary, that questions relating to our motives for moving here, living where we are and life in general would be asked. Naturally there should have been probing questions on the political aspects also but in actual fact there was almost a total absence of the former and a complete focus on the latter.
Having now viewed the documentary I must say that my suspicions and doubts were proven correct. I have gone to great length to explain to you the background to my agreeing to be interviewed. Let me state quite clearly that at no stage prior to or during the interview did I, or my wife, misunderstand the reason for TV1 wanting to interview us. It was made crystal clear that the documentary's focus was on the lives of New Zealanders living in Israel. To say that we were aghast at the end result would be an understatement. If in fact the real purpose was to show how Israelis allegedly ‘persecute’ Arabs why bother to interview me? I am not a representative of the Municipality of Jerusalem, or of the police, or any other official Israeli body. What was the reason for using me as someone who needed to justify the action of the Israeli authorities?
The documentary opened with almost 10 minutes of highly emotive, distressing scenes of mayhem, interspersed with Arab Palestinian explanations of what was being ‘witnessed’. No attempt appeared to be made to confirm the veracity of the footage or to question the accusations made against Israeli authorities. There were no interviews with Israeli officials to confirm the claims being made against them. Although the case of the evictions has been a protracted legal battle, none of the lawyers involved in the case were interviewed to verify that the statements being made as fact were indeed true.
The only viewpoint given to balance the views presented by Ms Hanoun and the New Zealand UN Official was mine, though I am not involved in the East Jerusalem property dispute, and my views were not sought, nor given, as a response to accusations made in the documentary. Although I was presented as a spokesperson of some sort, I am not. My statements were edited and used to give a false impression of presenting some sort of ‘balancing’ viewpoint, yet this was not the case.
When the interview with the other NZ veteran resident mentioned above, was cancelled owing to lack of time, I knew that something was likely to be amiss, as there was no possible way that any sort of balanced documentary could be produced with such a narrow range of people. In addition, I was suspicious about the fact that others, who had no connection to New Zealanders living here, were being interviewed. After all, if the clear and unambiguous purpose of the programme was to interview New Zealanders permanently living in Israel, why was it necessary to interview Arab Palestinians and a New Zealander working for the United Nations, who presumably is not living here permanently?
I must express my intense disappointment and dismay at the way this whole matter has played out, from the misrepresentations made to me as to the intended purpose of the documentary, and at the end result, which can only be described as an unbalanced hatchet job against Israel and by implication, of the Jewish segment of the New Zealand population. If you want to show two sides to the conflict that is a legitimate and laudable objective. Surely the fairest way to do this is to have two separate episodes, each showing their respective viewpoints. What was in fact screened was edited in such a way as to mislead viewers into arriving at only one conclusion: that Israel persecutes and discriminates against Arab Palestinians. This documentary I believe fell far short of the balanced and fair standards, which should be the hallmark of TVNZ. I personally feel humiliated and abused as a result.
A KBRM member who spent 10 years at hospitals in Jerusalem, and who knows the area and the people, had some very interesting comments to make:
I know that Arab girl who was interviewed and she is typical of young Palestinians who are articulate and very political in their attitude to their ‘suffering’. I am sure the ‘tent’ was for the camera, just as last week they showed some Arab school girls in the middle of the riot on the Temple Mount, whereas they would have been miles away from the Temple Mount — mostly in the Christian Quarter where most Arab schools are situated.
The piles of rubble were filmed in such a way as to seem huge piles but that area has been a rubbish tip for quite some time. It is the custom for women to hyperventilate and appear to swoon when they want to make a point. They do it in their homes in all sorts of situations and Muslim women are particularly good at it when there is media anywhere around! — just from experience!! I hate the deception that is conveyed in these documentaries. It is all staged for global consumption to make Israel look the ogre.
As to the ‘water shortage’, in 1998 I invited the Minister responsible for the Palestinian Authority infrastructure to speak at the E. Jerusalem hospital where I trained Arab nurses. It was illegal then but he managed to get through the Kalandia checkpoint. He gave a 2 hour discourse on demographics as the PA saw it and especially regarding water.
I didn't realise the implications so well then or I would have recorded his lecture which was in Arabic — nor did he realise I could understand him.
During his talk he told the students how the Palestinians used leaky taps wasting water, poor pipes, etc., as an anti Israel measure so that they can complain to bodies like Amnesty International and give Israel bad press. It was part of the Intifada he said. But he did say that it made water a problem for the Palestinian people also. Of course water is a big environmental issue in Israel, but Israel is careful and regulates and tries to conserve by reusing water for agriculture and recyling. There is no attempt to do this in the PA or Gaza.
Other letters by KBRM members to TVNZ follow:
Regarding the ‘Across the Divide’ program which screened on 01.11.09, I would like to express my dismay at the lack of investigative journalism done by your reporting team into the facts of the evictions in East Jerusalem.
The housing complex in question is located in the Sheik Jarra neighborhood of eastern Jerusalem. The home was originally Jewish, but its Jewish occupants were chased out during countrywide anti-Jewish Arab riots in 1929. Arabs then squatted on the property.
Authentic documentation proves the complex is owned by Jews and that Arabs have been squatting on it illegally for almost a century.
Israel's court system, not exactly a friend of Jewish ‘settlers,’ twice now ruled the property undoubtedly belongs to Jews.
The slanderous charges made by the representative of the Hanoun family (more than once!), that Israel practices ‘ethnic cleansing’ were never investigated or challenged. This libel can easily be refuted by checking the current population statistics for Jerusalem which clearly show that there are far more Arabs living in east Jerusalem in 2009 compared with 1967.
No checks were done of building permit applications or the details of the long running court disputes with tenants who were evicted because of unpaid rent. The program was not an impartial commentary on the situation in east Jerusalem, but an emotional pro-Palestinian piece that gave an inaccurate portrayal of the events in question. The emphasis made in the program that the family were evicted at gunpoint and then the showing an armed guard in Efrat overseeing work done by Palestinians was sensational and ignores the daily reality for all Israelis — that armed guards are everywhere in Israeli cities, mixed communities, check points and airports. Unfortunately it is a fact that to be a Jewish person in your own country is to be a target for assassination by your Arab neighbours. It would be more unusual to show someone doing their grocery shopping without an armed guard at the Supermarket entrance!If you take journalism seriously and earnestly desire to give a fair representation of the truth, I would encourage you to have the courage to report the facts. To do anything less is to be complicit in a lie and in this case slander.
Instead of presenting a balanced accurate view of what is happening, you spent most of the time showing Palestinian ‘suffering’ and accusations against Israel, with very little presentation of Israel's side. You showed old footage of a family being forcibly evicted because they hadn't paid their rent for 6 months and resisted eviction as if it was an oppressive act. But then, once an anti-Israel mindset gets implanted in the news media, it's hard to get rid of.
One KBRM member took a sarcastic approach, writing as follows to TVNZ:
Subject: Congratulations to the SUNDAY TEAM on its recent success at the ‘Global TV Journalist Awards’ held in Gaza last week
And... the winner this year in our very biased/half truth/no truth category goes to ..... THE SUNDAY TEAM from NZ for their programme ‘Across the Divide’.
Judges' Comments:
Congratulations to the team from down under on an excellent effort in this sought after category.
the SUNDAY TEAM showed even more bias than the BBC, something the judges thought nearly impossible. The ability to screen for over twenty minutes just one side of a story, avoiding the facts that could have brought balance and objectivity to the programme, is heartily commended. The judging committee acknowledges that this takes some doing.
The judges further commented:
A brilliant display of ‘don't confuse us with the facts’, ‘we've made up our mind journalism’ and ‘we want to ensure that viewers also come to the same twisted conclusion.’
The Judges concluded by saying they are looking forward to seeing SUNDAY's next programme entitled ‘A Triumph of Democracy’ (the story of the building of the new synagogue in downtown Gaza.)
Accepting the award for the SUNDAY TEAM, its spokesman Jonathan Quartertruth praised the efforts of all involved in the making of the programme.
TO THE SUNDAY TEAM
Seriously, fair go guys!
I had always enjoyed your programme BUT in this case you should have done so much better. You let the NZ side down. Your presentation was so biased it was hardly believable.
You asked at the end of your programme for viewers' opinions so you have mine.
I conclude by wishing you all the best and the season's greetings.