Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East
March 8, 2010
The Press giveth, The Press taketh away
After three letters appeared in The Press that attacked or criticised KBRM members, largely because of misleading headlines placed over the letters, The Press printed the KBRM responses without abridgment (see January 20 post). For a moment it seemed that a new era of fairness and balance had arrived at the Letters desk. But then the editor allowed one of the attackers to repeat his attack, but refused to print the KBRM response, even though it was 44 words shorter. This led to a second appeal to the Press Council (see December 21, 2009 post for the first):
On January 30, The Press published a 236-word (36 over the limit) letter by Alan McRobie that repeated charges against me personally and against Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East (KBRM). I submitted a 192-word response (see below) which The Press refused to publish, insisting that its own 91-word abridgment be used. We believe that this violates the fairness principle that applies to letters. The question is, can an individual or group respond to an attacking letter in its own words, provided it is within the limit (and in this case, 44 words less than the attacking letter), or must it be forced to say what the editor thinks it should say?
Principles Breached
- 12. Letters. Selection and treatment of letters for publication are the prerogative of editors who are to be guided by fairness, balance, and public interest in the correspondents' views.
We believe the principles of fairness and balance were breached by denying us a proper and equal opportunity to respond to an attack.
Chairman
Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East
Previous correspondence.
First, here is the 192-word letter that The Press refused to publish:
Submitted to The Press on February 1, 2010
To answer ___________ request for information (Jan 30), KBRM has grown in three years to 75 members. Member names are not released because of the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic element in New Zealand (see Bigotry Box at Feedback, kbrm.org.nz). One card I received was so threatening that the Postal Service attached a note suggesting I contact the police.
We have a 17-member Action Group that formulates our articles, appeals, and advertisements. We do business by email because of the geographical separation. We have no connection with any Zionist lobby. All funds for advertisements come from Kiwi pockets.
KBRM commiserates about Mr McRobie's rejected article. We also have had articles rejected, forcing us to advertise if we want to get our ‘missing truths’ across.
Despite his continued belief, I did not say, ‘all that needs to be done to end conflict in the Middle East is for Palestinians to accept the existence of Israel’. That was the headline. What I said was, ‘If Gaza wants to end the Israeli 'oppression' (i.e., the blockade), all it has to do is accept the existence of Israel.’ This is a true statement, and I'm happy to repeat it.
I apologise for the abusive letter Mr McRobie received, and will rebuke the sender if he will forward it to me. As for our advertisement, I assume he has read it by now and invite him to notify me of any errors if he finds any. They will be corrected.
Now here is the complete correspondence, beginning Jan 12 when two letters were published about an editorial ‘Protest bullies’ — one pro and one con. The pro letter was mine, as follows:
Jan 12, 2010
Just accept Israel
Congratulations on an excellent editorial (January 8). Not only is John Minto's tennis protest inappropriate, it is misdirected. As you say, there is blame on both sides. You might have added that while Israel has accepted 1.5 million Palestinians as full citizens, Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank want their territories Jew-free. So much for Minto's apartheid charge/
However, your editorial was undermined by Evans' atrocious cartoon that showed a Palestinian mother holding a dead child. The Gaza war was waged to protect Israeli children from being killed by rockets launched from Gaza by terrorists who hide among civilians. To show sympathy for Gazans killed in this war, rather than for the dead Israeli children killed by Gazan rockets, is to turn morality upside-down. If Gaza wants to end the Israeli ‘oppression’, all it has to do is accept the existence of Israel.
This was followed by two letters that attacked me because of the headline, which took my limited statement about ‘oppression’ in Gaza out of context. One was Alan McRobie's 186-word letter, that also contained false insinuations against KBRM. (Mr McRobie also had an earlier 208-word anti-Israel letter published on Jan 13.)
January 20, 2010
No solution
So Rodney Brooks, the indefatigable chair of that small group that styles itself as Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East (KBRM), thinks that all that needs to be done to end conflict in the Middle East is for Palestinians to accept the existence of Israel (Jan 12).
A simple solution to a simple problem? Highly unlikely.
Even if the Palestinians did what he proposes, an enduring legacy of hatred and grievance would remain. In many respects this would parallel what we in NZ have witnessed among Maori over many years.
Systematically over the past 60 years, a great many Palestinians have been dispossessed of their land and are now refugees.
Brooks' and the KBRM's strong support for Israel makes me wonder whether this group may be part of a wider Israeli lobby, staunch and extremely well-funded supporters of Israel, whether Israel be right or wrong, who continue to exert a dominant influence on United States policy towards the Middle East.
Does the funding needed for the KBRM to place large advertisements in our daily papers come, at least in part, from the Israeli lobby?
Alan McRobie, Rangiora
The Press allowed me to respond to both attacks in a single letter. The part dealing with Mr McRobie's letter read as follows:
January 27, 2010
Attacks unfounded
...The second letter was by Alan McRobie (Jan 20), who belittled KBRM as a ‘small group that styles itself as Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East’. We think we're pretty big, given the general anti-Israel mood in New Zealand, and our name was carefully chosen by vote. I appreciate his calling me ‘the indefatigable chair’, but I'm afraid that at 77, I'm far from indefatigable. His implication that we are part of a wider Israeli lobby is insulting and untrue. We have no connection with Israel or any Israeli group. Nor does our funding come, even in part, from anywhere other than our own pockets, along with contributions from other Kiwis who want to see the truth in their newspapers.
Finally, it is not true that KBRM ‘supports’ Israel , we support ‘truth for Israel’. Nor do we believe ‘Israel , right or wrong’. We simply believe that Israel , like any country, has the right to have the truth told about it. And I note that for all his squealing and complaining, Mr McRobie did not point out any errors in our advertisement.
When people object to truth being presented, one can only wonder about their motives.
Rodney Brooks, Chairman
Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East
The Press then gave Mr McRobie a second opportunity to repeat his attacks on me and KBRM with the following 236-word letter:
January 30, 2010
This is the letter that remains unanswered because KBRM cannot accept the watered-down 92-word response that The Press insists on. Here is the subsequent correspondence:
From: Rodney Brooks, KBRM
To: press letters
Cc: Andrew Holden
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 1:05 AM
Subject: Submitted for publication
Hi, Michael,
I'm sure you're sick of this ‘debate’, but I hope you will give me the chance to respond to Alan McRobie's direct request of me, and to answer his complaints. You don't know how hard I worked to get this down to 243 words, about the same as Mr McRobie's letter, even though it takes more words to give information than it does to ask for it.
I didn't sacrifice the honorific ‘Mr’ for the reason you stated on Saturday. If you have any other suggestions for abridgement please let me know, but please don't abridge it further without my permission.
I hope you can fit this into your Chinese puzzle.
Thanks,
Rodney
Submitted to The Press on February 1, 2010
To answer ___________ request for information (Jan 30), KBRM has grown in three years to 75 members. Member names are not released because of the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic element in New Zealand (see Bigotry Box at Feedback, kbrm.org.nz). One card I received was so threatening that the Postal Service attached a note suggesting I contact the police.
We have a 17-member Action Group that formulates our articles, appeals, and advertisements. We do business by email because of the geographical separation. We have no connection with any Zionist lobby. All funds for advertisements come from Kiwi pockets.
KBRM commiserates about Mr McRobie's rejected article. We also have had articles rejected, forcing us to advertise if we want to get our ‘missing truths’ across.
Despite his continued belief, I did not say, ‘all that needs to be done to end conflict in the Middle East is for Palestinians to accept the existence of Israel’. That was the headline. What I said was, ‘If Gaza wants to end the Israeli 'oppression' (i.e., the blockade), all it has to do is accept the existence of Israel.’ This is a true statement, and I'm happy to repeat it.
I apologise for the abusive letter Mr McRobie received, and will rebuke the sender if he will forward it to me. As for our advertisement, I assume he has read it by now and invite him to notify me of any errors if he finds any. They will be corrected.
Rodney Brooks, Chairman
Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East
From: Michael Vance (CPL)
To: Rodney Brooks, KBRM
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 10:58 AM
Subject: RE: Submitted for publication
From: Rodney Brooks, KBRM
To: Michael Vance (CPL)
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Submitted for publication
Hi, Michael,
Thanks for sending me your proposed abridgment. I appreciate that.
However, why on earth, after publishing Mr McRobie's letter of 230 words (rough est.) that both attacks me and requests information, do you want to limit me to 91 words?
Don't you know that answering charges and supplying information takes more space than making them or asking - not less space? Mr McRobie's intent is clearly to defame KBRM. But it's not enough to just say something is false, because then it becomes he-says-she-says. You have to provide evidence. I worked hard to get my letter down to the same length as Mr McRobie's.
Here are the parts you deleted and why I think they are necessary:
grown in three years to
Mr McRobie questioned my statement that we're ‘pretty bigrsquo;. The fact that we have only been around for 3+ years is relevant to this question.
(see Bigotry Box at Feedback, kbrm.org.nz). One card I received was so threatening that the Postal Service attached a note suggesting I contact the police.
It's not enough to just say there is an anti-Semitic element in New Zealand. People need to see evidence that there is good reason for members not to want their names released.
We have a 17-member Action Group that formulates our articles, appeals, and advertisements. We do business by email because of the geographical separation.
You allowed McRobie space to accuse KBRM of being ‘an informal group with no constitution, held no meetings, and conducted its discussions via email’, with the obvious implication that we are not legitimate. Why won't you allow me space to explain the truth of how we operate?
Despite his continued belief, I did not say, ‘all that needs to be done to end conflict in the Middle East is for Palestinians to accept the existence of Israel’. That was the headline. What I said was, “If Gaza wants to end the Israeli ‘oppression’ (i.e., the blockade), all it has to do is accept the existence of Israel .” This is a true statement, and I'm happy to repeat it.
You probably deleted this because I rebutted his false charge in my first letter. But now he defends that charge, saying ‘Rodney Brooks assumes too much. Contrary to his belief, my comments were not based on the headings given to his letter by The Press; they were based on his own statements, which he repeats.’ The problem is, I did not make the statement in question (‘all that needs to be done...’). If you allow him to repeat this false charge, you should allow me space to point out (again) that I never said such a thing, let alone repeated it. However, if you insist, I'm willing to remove ‘That was the headline’. (Although if Mr McRobie didn't get that the idea from your headline, where did he get it from?)
As for our advertisement, I assume he has read it by now and invite him to notify me of any errors if he finds any. They will be corrected.
I was wrong in thinking that Mr McRobie had read the KBRM advertisement at the time, but by saying ‘his assertion that I had not found any errors in the latest advertisement has no substance’, he has indirectly implied that there are errors. I would like to respond to that implication, although I can shorten the response (see shortened version below).
Having said all that, Michael, I'll offer a compromise. If you're determined to limit me to fewer words than Mr McRobie, even though I think it's wrong I can live with it, provided I select the deletions. For example, we can eliminate the sentences “KBRM commiserates about Mr McRobie's rejected article. We also have had articles rejected, forcing us to advertise if we want to get our ‘missing truths’ across.” And we can delete ‘That was the headline’, as I said. We can also delete ‘I apologise for the abusive letter Mr McRobie received, and will rebuke the sender if he will forward it to me.’ I can also shorten the reference to our advert as shown below.
This brings it down to 192 words - fewer than Mr McRobie's letter and within your 200-word guideline. I would prefer my original 243-word letter, but I'm willing to settle for this. How about it?
To answer Alan McRobie's request for information (Jan 30), KBRM has grown in three years to 75 members. Member names are not released because of the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic element in New Zealand (see Bigotry Box at Feedback, kbrm.org.nz). One card I received was so threatening that the Postal Service attached a note suggesting I contact the police.
We have a 17-member Action Group that formulates our articles, appeals, and advertisements. We do business by email because of the geographical separation. We have no connection with any Zionist lobby. All funds for advertisements come from Kiwi pockets.
Despite his restated claim, I never said, or repeated, ‘all that needs to be done to end conflict in the Middle East is for Palestinians to accept the existence of Israel’. What I said was, “If Gaza wants to end the Israeli ‘oppression’ (i.e., the blockade), all it has to do is accept the existence of Israel.” This is a true statement, and I'm happy to repeat it.
Now that Mr McRobie has read our advertisement, I hope he will let me know if he finds any errors. If there are any, they will be corrected.
Also, may I suggest a headline? Either ‘Information revealed’ (picking up on your good headline over his letter) or ‘Facts about KBRM’.
Michael, there are two issues here. Adequate rebuttal of false and defamatory charges (or in this case, insinuations), and whether a writer can, within the word limit, say what he wants to say or what the editor thinks he should say (provided it is legal and in good taste).
Cheers,
Rodney
From: Andrew Holden (CPL)
To: Rodney Brooks, KBRM
Cc: Michael Vance (CPL)
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:13 AM
Subject: FW: Submitted for publication
Rodney,
Andrew
Press