Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East

Kiwis for Balanced Reporting On The Mideast New Zealand Media bias

August 10, 2010

In The Press, ad hominem is OK, response not

The Press is the third largest daily paper in NZ and the largest in the South Island. It also contains the most biased letters column. (See posts of 21/12/09, 17/10/09, 29/9/09, 23/9/09, 7/8/09, and 25/4/09.) In the latest example of bias, the editor unnecessarily abridged a pro-Israel letter, then published a vicious ad hominem attack on the writer that was abetted by the abridgment, but did not permit her to respond to the personal attack. This led to the following complaint by KBRM to the editors:

Hi, Coen (cc Andrew),
You once said you would “keep a close eye” on the letters column. I know complaints about letters are a nuisance to you, but just take a look at this latest example of Michael Vance's bias and see if you don't agree that he has gone way beyond the pale of good journalism. In summary:

  1. He shortened a pro-Israel letter by over 50% even though it was well within the limit, thereby reducing its effectiveness and impact.
  2. He then published a childish ad hominem attack on the writer that took 50% more space than her abridged letter and contributed nothing of substance to the debate.
  3. He then refused to permit the writer to defend herself against the attack that he himself had aided and abetted by emasculating her first letter.

Please take the time to read the following detailed account:

On 5 August ____ submitted the following 111-word letter in response to a Press editorial that criticised Israel :

What a waste of time for Sir Geoffrey Palmer to head an inquiry into an incident where all the facts are not only known, but have been video-taped. This video-tape (Google ‘passengers attacking’, in quotes) was taken by the Israeli Defence Force and shows clearly that the attempted peaceful boarding of the Turkish ship was met by violence.
It was only after ten Israeli soldiers were wounded or captured that Israel used armed force (as any nation would in such a circumstance). Further, it is known beyond doubt that Israel offered to send all humanitarian aid to Gaza after the cargo was inspected for arms.
What more is there to know?

Even though the letter was well within the limit, Michael shortened it by more than 50% to the following version, which was published on 6 August:

What a waste Geoffrey Palmer heading an inquiry into an incident where all the facts are known.
A videotape (Google ‘passengers attacking’) shows clearly that the attempted peaceful boarding of the Turkish ship was met by violence. It was only after 10 Israeli soldiers were wounded or captured that Israel used armed force.

Note the elimination of key information, such as Israel's offer to send the aid to Gaza and the IDF source of the video tape. As usual, there was no indication that the letter was abridged. The author complained about the emasculation of her letter, without receiving a response — but this is par for the course in Michael's world.

Bad as this was, it got worse three days later when the following letter appeared:

____ says “all the facts are known” about the attack on the Turkish ship delivering aid to Gaza . It seems ____ has come to this conclusion simply by watching footage on the internet.
Well, silly me. Let's stop training police forces, lawyers and judges, lets scrap the UN and international criminal courts because ____ has a better solution: she will investigate instances of international criminal activity by watching footage on Youtube and then astound us with her insightful findings.

This letter is nothing more than an ad hominem attack and contributes nothing of substance to the discussion. One can only wonder why Michael Vance would choose to print such a vile personal attack, and to add insult to injury, to allow it 50% more space.

The writer then protested to Michael as follows:

Hi, Michael, once again you have allowed a personal attack on me to substitute for informed debate, and allowed the person more words than you allotted me to do it in.
Shame on you.

She also submitted a short 34-word response to the vicious attack and — would you believe it? — Michael refused to publish it:

What a shame that __ (August 9th) felt the need to descend to sarcasm and personal ridicule instead of contributing something factual and meaningful to the flotilla debate. This is, of course, the last resort of those bereft of rational argument.

I also wrote to Michael about this:

Michael, I know not if ___ has submitted a letter in her own defence, after being attacked in such a personal way, or if you published it. (I am now out of the country.) If not, I hope you will publish the following. It was reprehensible of you to publish such an infantile ad hominem letter in the first place, but I hope you will at least have the decency to permit a defence.

Here is my submitted letter. It is only 89 words long, well within your limit. If you feel the need to shorten it, please let me know. I do not give permission to do your own abridgment.

The vicious attack on ____ (9/8/10) was entirely undeserved. I know ___ and she is an intelligent woman who is very well informed about the Middle East . To accuse her of “simply watching footage on the internet” is not only false, but shows more about ____'s ignorance than it does about ____'s knowledge. The facts presented in ____'s letter about Israel 's role in the flotilla incident are well-documented. It is too bad that some people, in their rush to accuse Israel , ignore these facts.

So far my letter has not been published.

____ and I were not the only ones outraged by what Michael Vance had done. Here is a letter from another KBRM member whose carefully-reasoned letter on another subject had been rejected. When she asked Michael how she could make her letters more acceptable he replied only that each letter is considered on its merits. ____'s letter led her to send the following sarcastic response:

Dear Mr Vance,
Thank you for your courteous email. I appreciate the obvious time and care you put into answering my question so thoughtfully.

I can completely understand that, unlike ____'s recently published letter, my letter did not merit publication in your newspaper. Although I did express doubts about a recently formed activist group, unlike ____, I completely failed to make an insulting personal attack on the intelligence of an individual I do not know, I was overly light on sarcasm, and I did make specific reference to more than one current international event.
In my next letter to The Press, I will try to remember that making personal insults and dripping sarcasm are considered more meritorious in a letter to the editor at The Press, than commenting seriously on the current events your paper publishes.
Thank you for this fascinating and helpful demonstration of editorial judgement in action.

Finally, here is an unsolicited opinion from still another KBRM member:

Why does Vance allow such letters with a personal attack like this, in fact it is disgusting, perhaps he needs it pointed out to him that these sort of letters should not be printed. It doesn't show him in a very favourable light.

And remember, Coen, this is the same Michael Vance who twice inserted misleading headlines over pro-Israel letters that also invited unfair attacks. This is also the same Michael Vance who once awarded a weekly prize to a letter that compared Israel's “brutality” with the Nazi's.

I hope you will agree that what Michael has done is, from a moral point of view, unconscionable, and from a journalistic point of view, unacceptable. The Press is too good a newspaper to have this bad a letters column. Can't you do something about it? Please,