Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East
All Previous Posts
Posts 2006 — 2007 Posts 2008 Posts 2009
June 28, 2010
Letter about KBRM reaches a wide audience
A KBRM member wrote to the Challenge Weekly (New Zealand's only weekly Christian newspaper) about the persistent anti-Israel bias in New Zealand, bringing KBRM to the attention of a large nationwide audience. It also brought a response from the Jerusalem Post in Israel. In the following phone conversation, the JPost staffer, knowing how the worldwide media has betrayed Israel, expressed enthusiasm that “a bunch of Kiwis” are taking them to task here. Here is the published letter:
Standing with Israel
I have grown up proudly as a Christian Kiwi believing that as a people we valued truth. But our country's various media and people, some calling themselves Christian, have increasingly become very virulently anti-Semitic, speaking and protesting against Israel. Sadly some Churches are also participating in this demonisation of Israel when their responsibility is praying for the ‘Peace of Jerusalem.’
It's no surprise that Israel, a tiny prophetic nation, has become the world's focus. It is the desire of many of the large Muslim Nations who surround Israel to wipe her off the face of the earth.
Recently I came across a group of committed people who have formed an organization Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East ZKBRM website] Their members monitor most of the New Zealand newspapers for one-sided, un-truthful, mis-reporting on events involving Israel. Recent example — Turkish Flotilla. They seek to inform on the missing side of the story. Including Letters to editors when news items or articles appear that are biased. Contacting Editors suggesting corrections or other remedial actions. Several articles written by members have been published. Advertisements have been placed in papers to present ‘The Missing Truth,’ Praise God for Challenge's support of Israel. Israel needs friends.
June 22, 2010
NZ Press Council approves Minto's anti-Semitic lie
On March 7, KBRM appealed to the Press Council about columnist John Minto's statement: “Some Jewish groups go so far as claiming any criticism of Israel is fuelled by anti-Semitism” (see April 22 post). Any group that would believe such nonsense would lose all credibility, so to apply this statement to Jewish groups is to tar them with a black brush. In fact there are no such groups. Examination of Minto's own list of groups that he cited in his response as “examples of the groups I was referring to” showed that none of them — repeat not one! — made such a claim. Nor was KBRM able to find such groups in an extensive web search. Ironically, however, Minto's statement itself is a perfect example of anti-Semitism. A false and derogatory charge made against Jews or Jewish groups is the very essence of anti-Semitism... Unfortunately, the Press Council did not agree:
The Press Council... has reached the conclusion that there are many responsible and thoughtful intellectuals and thinkers who agree (in summary) that there is a movement trying to suggest that criticism of Israeli actions in the Middle East can be construed as anti-Semitism... The complaint is not upheld.
In other words, it doesn't matter if the statement is false and derogatory, as long as enough people believe it. Shame on the Press Council.
June 8, 1020 (Last update June 22)
KBRM horrified at bias on flotilla ‘attack’
Emotive and one sided reporting filled NZs media during the week beginning June 2 with known Israel bashers prominent. Evidence showing Israel acted with caution and decency in handling the ‘peace flotilla’ and the Mavi Marmara was ignored and Reuters has been found to have doctored photos in removing a knife and pool of blood.
Letters flooded newspapers in an effort to counter the unbalanced reporting and a number of internet sites sprang up giving a different view one of which has Talk Gaza Flotilla (read more)
May 28, 1020
Press Letters continues its bias
Most newspapers, whatever bias may be found in their news and feature articles, manage to keep a fair letters page. Not so The Press (see posts of 8 Mar 2010 and 17 Dec 2009). The most overt expression of this bias occurred in January 2009 when the Letters editor, Michael Vance, awarded a prize (Akaroa salmon and a Croxley pen) to a letter that compared Israel's war against Gaza to the Nazis' invasion of Holland and the deportation of Jews. The latest example is described in the following letter (edited):
There you go again, with your subtle anti-Israel bias. Look at this latest episode:
On May 22,after closing your column to letters about Israel, you decided to reopen the subject, as usual, with an anti-Israel letter, “Chomsky mistreated ” (147 words). Have you ever reopened the "debate" with a pro-Israel letter?
On May 25, you published a counter letter “Right to bar Chomsky ”, after editing it down to 98 words and distorting its impact. You have done this many times in the past, and even placed inaccurate or out-of-context headlines over pro-Israel letters that have invited and elicited attack. Other letters criticising the May 22 letter were rejected. OK, despite all this, at least you can say you had one letter on each side. But you didn't stop there.
On May 26 you published a 41-word letter that was little more than a personal attack on the writer of the May 25 letter and said nothing about Chomsky. Then on May 27 you published a 52-word letter attacking her again and her claim that Chomsky is “an enemy of Israel”.
All in all you devoted four letters to the Chomsky incident, with a 3-1 anti-Israel ratio, and a word ratio of 240-98. (read more)
May 24, 1020
Misguided mission in the West Bank
In December 2009, the NZ Herald published a strongly anti-Israel article, ‘Student on a mission in the West Bank’, about the experiences of a NZ-born Palestinian activist in the West Bank. KBRM complained to the Herald and, not getting a satisfactory answer, to the Press Council. The Herald then came to life and after further correspondence: (read more)
May 21, 2010
Otago Daily Times concept of balance: 27-0
Since March the Otago Daily Times published 22 items of various types that contained criticism of Israel for construction in East Jerusalem, in addition to five items that contained other criticisms. Yet when Jerusalem officials announced a freeze on construction to enable peace talks to take place, the ODT didn't bother to report that. The KBRM chairman wrote the following letter:
In the last two months, the ODT printed at least 18 items [this was an early count] that referred to Israeli construction in East Jerusalem as an obstacle to peace negotiations. Many were large articles with banner headlines. Then when Israel agreed to a construction freeze on April 28 as a concession to get peace talks started, you didn't print the story. And on April 29 when Israel destroyed illegal Jewish buildings in a further effort to help peace talks, you didn't print that story.
The irony is, this house-building protest is only a pretext. There are deeper problems that stand in the way of peace, like the acceptance of Israel's right to exist, or the Palestinian ‘right of return’ that would destroy the Jewish state via the population bomb. Nevertheless 18 items of criticism and not a mention of the change in policy carries one-sided reporting to a new height, or rather, depth.
This letter was published on May 5, but when the editor refused to take any other remedial action, such as allowing space for articles critical of Palestinian organisations, a formal complaint was filed. (read more)
May 15, 2010
NZ Listener unleashes a low blow at Israel
The Listener magazine devoted a three-page article to the misinformed views of Antony Loewenstein, an anti-Zionist Australian Jew. Not content with that, they placed a sub-headline over the article: ‘Israel is getting away with murder and Jews who find it unacceptable should say they oppose what the country stands for, says Antony Loewenstein’. The only problem is that Mr Loewenstein did not say that. His criticisms, invalid as they were, were mild compared with this vicious caption, which is all many readers see. This elicited a complaint from the KBRM chairman:
On May 12 I wrote to you on behalf of Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East. I pointed out that the subheadline over the article ‘Cry the promised land’ did not reflect the views presented in the article. I also asked if, for the sake of fairness and balance, you would publish a similar three-page article that contained criticism of Palestinians. I even suggested the moving ‘Letter to Gaza’ by Nonie Darwish, an article that can be printed without copyright fee.
I have not heard back from you. If you do not wish to publish the Darwish article, I would very much like to know why not.
Perhaps you would consider a different article or an interview. There are other Arabs/Muslims who support Israel and criticise the Palestinians, whose names I could furnish.
While your magazine is, of course, free to be an advocacy outlet for an anti-Israel campaign, I would like to think that you are more fair-minded than that. I would also like to think that you would check facts before devoting three pages to Antony Loewenstein's misinformed views, but since it is an opinion article, I guess you don't have to do that.
However I don't think you have the right to place a prominent headline over the article that makes extreme anti-Israel statements not found in the article. (‘Israel is getting away with murder and Jews who find it unacceptable should say they oppose what the country stands for, says Antony Loewenstein’.) This is surely a violation of journalistic ethics and requires prompt and prominent remedial action, don't you think?
The article also produced several letters to the editor by KBRM members. (read more)
April 22, 2010
Minto Misses the Mark
On March 7 KBRM appealed to the NZ Press Council regarding John Minto's false and defamatory statement about ‘Jewish groups’ on the Fairfax website (see March 6 post). Mr Minto's response was shocking because of his inability to distinguish between ‘some criticism’ and ‘any criticism’. KBRM sent the following reply to the Press Council:
John Minto's response to our complaint is completely off the mark. He apparently doesn't understand the difference between the English words some and any. If Mr Minto had said ‘Jewish groups claim that some criticism of Israel is fuelled by anti-Semitism’ that would have been no problem. It is a documented fact that anti-Semitism is widespread and is increasing, and it is not only Jewish groups that make such a claim. KBRM, which is far from being a Jewish group, knows that anti-Semitism is a factor in some anti-Israel criticism. (See the Bigotry Box on our Feedback Page.) But Mr Minto didn't say that. He said, ‘Some Jewish groups go so far as claiming any criticism of Israel is fuelled by anti-Semitism’. (read more)
April 19, 2010
KBRM pays (again) to get the ‘missing truth’ published
Following extensive news coverage of Palestinian protests and criticism of Israel for building houses and rebuilding a synagogue in Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem , KBRM prepared an article presenting relevant facts omitted from most accounts. The article was submitted to all major NZ newspapers, but not published by any (although as of this posting it is still under consideration by The Press). KBRM then paid to have the following condensed version appear as an advertisement in the Sunday Star-Times, NZ Herald, Dominion Post, and Otago Daily Times:
Jerusalem: The missing truth. Recent news coverage of the Middle East has focused on Arab protests and other criticism of Israel for building or rebuilding Jewish homes and synagogues in Jerusalem. The following article, which presents important facts about this issue, was submitted to this newspaper but not accepted. This tendency of the press to print primarily one side of the story is why Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East exists — to supply the ‘missing truths’. (read more)
April 5, 2010
Free attack, paid response
KBRM's complaint to the Press Council about The Press not publishing our response to a letter (see March 8 post) was not considered. "The Council no longer accepts outright complaints about letters to the editor as we have many times over determined that it is an editor's prerogative to determine which letters to publish, which letters to edit and when to draw correspondence on a particular topic to a close." The KBRM chairman then published the response as a paid advertisement, with the following prologue:
The letter The Press wouldn't publish
The mission of Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East is to correct errors and supply missing truths about Israel and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. On Jan 20 and 30 The Press published two letters from someone who attacked and questioned KBRM and me, its chairman. I was allowed to respond to the first letter without abridgement, but The Press rejected my answer to the second letter, even though it was 44 words shorter than the 236-word attack, insisting instead that their 91-word emasculated version be used. Since the Press Council would not consider our appeal (they no longer accept complaints about letters), I am paying to publish our response. We want Press readers to know the truth about KBRM.
(Letter from March 8 post followed.)
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?(read more)
March 6, 2010
Another attack by Minto, another appeal by KBRM
The anti-Israel crowd tries hard to destroy the credibility of groups like KBRM that dare to tell the truth about Israel. An example appeared on the stuff website when John Minto wrote ‘Some Jewish groups go so far as claiming any criticism of Israel is fuelled by anti-Semitism’. KBRM asked Mr Minto three times to provide examples of such groups, with no response (see October 24 post). Then, after a formal complaint was filed with the editor of the website, Mr Minto replied that ‘numerous references’ to such groups can be found on the web... as if that proved anything. The KBRM chairman then appealed to the Press Council:
In the article ‘A dispiriting overreaction at the museum’, John Minto wrote ‘Some Jewish groups go so far as claiming any criticism of Israel is fuelled by anti-Semitism.’ This is a false and defamatory statement. I am familiar with many media-monitoring groups who have defended Israel against unfair criticism, and I don't know of one that is so foolish as to believe what Mr Minto said. His response that you can find it on the web is ridiculous. First, I did some googling as he suggested and didn't find any such thing. More to the point, everyone knows you can find all sorts of garbage on the web. If Mr Minto found such a defamatory accusation on the web, he should have checked it before stating it as fact.(read more)
March 5, 2010
New Zealand's Response to UN Report
A KBRM member wrote to Foreign Minister Murray McCully to congratulate him on not endorsing the UN's Goldstone report. Mr McCully replied in part:
The New Zealand government's decision to abstain from voting on the resolution was based on our concern about the process in which the Report was considered and on aspects of the Resolution text ....
The member wrote back with some questions, which have not yet been answered:
Dear Mr. McCully,
Thank you for your letter and the attached statement presenting New Zealand's viewpoint on the UN vote on the Goldstone and I appreciate all that was expressed although I did wonder if the following two points below could be considered by the government in light of the need for a balanced view of the situation in Israel.
1. Israel's right to defence ‘should be done in a way that avoids harm to civilians.’
Maybe this could read ‘minimizes’, not avoids. It is impossible to totally avoid such harm. During WWII according to Wiki, 4,000,000 civilians were killed by Allied forces! (read more)
February 10, 2010
KBRM appeals to Broadcasting Standards Authority about TVNZ programme
On Feb 9, TVNZ rejected our formal complaint about the ‘Bridging the Divide’ programme (see post dated November 24, 2009). Today KBRM sent the following appeal to the Broadcasting Standards Authority:
Before reading the complaint and response, we hope that BSA members will view the programme, as the imbalance is self-evident. Eleven minutes, including the critical first 7 1/2 minutes, were devoted to charges against Israel . The only rebuttal to these charges (other than a few seconds by ‘a man called Tony’) was one minute during an interview with a man who had no direct knowledge or involvement with the eviction and demolition in question! Nineteen KBRM members who viewed the programme all found it unbalanced. (While these people admittedly are ‘pro-Israel’, they are also rational, informed people who can detect bias if it is there.) Even ‘anti-Israel’ viewers would have to admit that the programme was heavily weighted toward condemnation of Israel , even if they felt the condemnation was deserved. Far from ‘bridging the divide’, this programme added to it. (read more)
January 20, 2010
Press inserts misleading headlines over KBRM letters
The Press recently reopened its letters column to what it calls ‘the debate’, following news reports of John Minto's protest against an Israeli tennis player. On Jan 12 a KBRM letter was published with a headline that did not reflect what was in the letter. This led to two letters that attacked the writer for ‘over-simplifying’. On Jan 13 another KBRM letter was published with a headline that charged Minto and his friends with anti-Semitism, a claim that wasn't in the letter. The next day The Press printed a letter that called the claim ‘ridiculous and predictable’.
It almost seemed that the two headlines were meant to invite attacks. The writers submitted the following rebuttals:
____ accused me of being simplistic and overlooking facts in regard to ‘the need for Palestinians to just accept Israel.’ The trouble is, I didn't say that — that was the headline inserted over my letter. What I said was, ‘If Gaza wants to end the Israeli 'oppression', all it has to do is accept the existence of Israel’. This is a true statement. If Gaza gave up its attacks and its aim of destroying Israel, there would be no need for Israel's partial blockade (the only act of supposed ‘oppression’).
As for overlooking facts, Mr _____'s statement that the Palestinians, ‘even Hamas’, have accepted the existence of Israel is not a fact, as the residents of Sderot can well testify. Besides these continuing attacks, there is the Hamas charter and recent statements by Hamas officials reaffirming their goal of destroying Israel. (read more)
January 15,2010
KBRM runs new advert
On the first anniversary of the Gaza War, KBRM ran a new advertisement, ‘Gaza: One year on, truths still missing.’ This was done after a corresponding article was rejected by every newspaper. One of the highlights of the advert is a new analysis of civilian casualties that provides strong evidence discrediting the Palestinian report and validating Israel's:
...According to the Palestinian report, 65% of those killed in Gaza were civilians, while an Israeli report said the number was about 30%. In this case an inconsistency in the Palestinian report — a smoking gun, so to speak — tells us which report is accurate. In the Palestinian report, among ages under 12 and over 60 the number of males and females killed were about equal, as would be expected for innocent people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. However among the ‘fighting age’ group (15-59), 1079 males were killed and only 92 females! No reasonable person could believe that these additional 987 men just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If we make the reasonable assumption that they were either fighters or supporting the fighters, the civilian casualty rate becomes 30% — the same as Israel's report!! This is a lower rate than was achieved by Allied forces in WWII — and in WWII the enemy didn't hide among civilians. As an international expert on anti-terrorist operations said, ‘The IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.’(read more)
An unreported boom in the Middle East
When the Wall Street Journal article about Palestinian prosperity (Dec. 14 post) was not picked up by any newspaper, a Kiwi who now lives in what is called the West Bank decided to write his own first-hand account. It came as no surprise that this also was not published by any NZ newspaper and therefore in order to provide the public with the missing truth the entire article is reproduced here.
The only sort of boom from the Middle East that New Zealanders usually read about these days is the sound of exploding bombs and armed conflict. Each of these ‘booms’ is usually portrayed in the media as Israel's fault, while the terrorist organisations perpetrating the terror are usually portrayed as innocent victims. Given the steady diet of negative reporting about Israel, one can hardly be surprised that the average New Zealand reader, listener or viewer believes the worst about the Jewish State in its ongoing struggle to protect itself.
However, there is another sort of boom taking place that is not so widely reported — perhaps because it shows Israel in a positive light and does not fit the stereotype perception of the ‘poor Palestinians’. I am referring to the economic boom that is happening in West Bank areas... (read more)