Many of the articles found on al-Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net) seem fair and informative. It often runs articles which focus on more international situations, rather than domestic or regional issues. Some of AJE’s practices, however, are less than newsworthy. There are two main methods to which I object: quoting your own staff, and being ridiculous about Israel.
AJE quotes its own staff. An article will lack a by-line, and then quote the al-Jazeera correspondent in that area. Many articles follow the format of an initial presentation of the facts, followed by a quote from either an “al-Jazeera correspondent" or someone else. Here is a quote from a recent article about the Fatah conference in Bethlehem:
Al Jazeera's Nour Odeh, reporting from outside the conference centre in the West Bank town, said Abbas' words were an attempt to appeal to a movement divided over how it should proceed.
"The kind of heritage that Fatah carries is based on the fact that it led armed resistance. It would have been very difficult to conceive of Mahmoud Abbas disowning that legacy," she said.
"The division in Fatah is not only generational, it is also about the tactics of the movement - where it must move forward, how it must deal with Hamas and the division, and how it must deal with Israel."
And here is another one, about Honduras’ ousted leader:
Mariana Sanchez, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Mexico City said: "Mexico is considered the big brother of Central America so it is very important for Zelaya to come here and get the support of Calderon.
"Zelaya is launching what he has called a diplomatic crusade. He needs the presidents of Latin American to continue voicing their support. He intends to go to Brazil in the next few days another very important country."
Neither of these correspondents is saying anything particularly inflammatory, but it still raises concerns that a newspaper would quote its own people.
My second main concern with AJE is its negative portrayal of Israel. Some news sources may be more pro-Palestine than pro-Israel, but AJE goes beyond the pale. I have never read an article supporting Israel in any way, or one that criticizes Palestinians or their leadership. Is it possible that Israel has never done anything good in the past year that I’ve been reading AJE? Is it possible that the Palestinians have not made a single mistake? In addition to being one-sided, AJE enjoys criticizing American politics (don’t we all!), especially as pertains to Jews.
In one alarming article, AJE reports on how the “Israel lobby” caused Charles Freeman to rescind his candidacy for a US intelligence post. Worse than quoting their own staff, AJE quotes some shmuck from The Daily Beast blog. Here’s his quote:
Max Blumenthal, a blogger and journalist for the Daily Beast website who has been following Freeman's nomination process, told Al Jazeera that his withdrawal was "a catastrophic defeat for the Obama administration".
"What happened is the Israel lobby won," he said.
"What [Freeman] said that I think is most remarkable in his statement, is that apparently the Obama administration will not be able to dictate its own Mideast policy and he places the blame for this squarely on the Israel lobby."
Blumenthal said that the Israel lobby had "been furiously emailing sympathetic reporters, smearing him [Freeman] in public" and that "political decisions came into play with respect to [Freeman's] views on Israel and essentially his appointment was torpedoed".
This was the Israel lobby's "first all-out fusillade and they succeeded because they knew that Freeman would be dispensable to political elements in the White House that needed to court the Israel lobby, needed their money for senate races", he said.
Crazy, right? It’s as if a murky group of Jews got together and had some sort of –I don’t know—conspiracy! Nowhere in the article (which you should read, if you read any of the links) does it name anyone or any organizations which might be part of this “Israel lobby.” And in case you don’t see where I’m going with this, let me spell it out for you: accusing Jews of evil conspiracies is an old form of anti-Semitism which started with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a forged “historical” document supposedly detailing a Jewish plot to take over the world.
Another article presents one Palestinian man’s amateur collection of Holocaust pictures as a museum. The so-called curator is called an “academic,” though no titles or information about his education are mentioned. Images of the Holocaust are juxtaposed with Palestinian suffering, and others suggest that Israel was created as a direct result of the Holocaust. One picture in the museum includes the caption “Make your final account with Hitler and the Nazi Germans, not with the Palestinians." This is an ignorant and outrageous statement to make: Hitler died in the 40’s, the Nazi party is banned in many places, and Germany and Israel have a warm diplomatic and economic relationship. The museum claims Palestinians are “paying” for the Holocaust. Presenting the Holocaust in such a way is a fraudulent and misleading account, and it cannot serve to enlighten or educate in an accurate way. Arab countries promote ignorance about the Holocaust, and many have never heard of it or think it was fabricated or exaggerated. I don’t think any countries deny or fail to acknowledge the suffering of Palestinians (especially at the hands of Israel,) though many Palestinians feel their plight is not sufficiently recognized. It is inappropriate and ignorant to merge the two situations without extensive context. In short, this Holocaust museum will not inspire tolerance. It also claims that Israelis visit the museum, but Israelis are not allowed into the West Bank.
The article—which meets no journalistic standards—about Israeli PM Netenyahu’s speech acknowledging the need for a Palestinian state was so inflammatory that I will have to exercise extreme restraint in not repeating it in its entirety. Here are six quotes, from each of the six sections, with their given subject:
In the tradition of victorious colonialists, Netanyahu's vision for the future emanates from a self-entitlement to rewrite history and to determine the fate of his defeated subjects.
Revisionist history
In other words, the presence of Palestinians in their lands is portrayed as an accident of history – thus annulling in one speech their history and stripping them of their legal, let alone their national, rights.
‘Jewish homeland’
Asking the Arabs and the Palestinians to recognise that Israel is the historic "Jewish homeland" is paramount to demanding that the Arab, Muslim and Palestinians themselves recant their own history, roots and identity.
Palestinian state
His demand for a "demilitarised state" is thus a logical demand, for how else can Netanyahu and Israel and its future leaders ensure the total subordination of future Palestinian generations who will be borne into a perpetual prison in the guise of statehood?
Breakdown of spirit
Netanyahu is after a moral and psychological breakdown of the Palestinian spirit. Breaking the spirit of a nation is not achieved solely through depriving Palestinians of the right to resist or of their right to self-defence, but by forcing the Palestinians to relinquish their memory.
‘Simple truth’
Netanyahu's narrative, long propagated by the Israeli right wing and extremist Zionists, is that the establishment of Israel was an exercise of the right of the Jewish people to their natural homeland - Israel bears no responsibility for the Palestinian refugees and finally there was never a problem of dispossession and occupation.
AJE’s complete rejection of Netenyahu’s speech is nothing short of tragic. Instead of appreciating Netenyahu making a bold step (for him,) AJE condemns Netenyahu, slams Israel, and dismisses the entire way negotiations work. His speech was not meant as a final offer, but as a first step towards peace. He had refused to acknowledge the need for two states for weeks, and this was the first time he admitted it. Without this speech, any kind of negotiations would be impossible. You don’t have to like everything he said, but you can’t deny how important it was for him to recognize the need for a Palestinian state.
In the next article that I will tear to shreds, AJE’s Jerusalem correspondent Jacky Rowland describes how Israel is manipulating history itself. It claims that Israel is using antiquities to redefine history in favor of the Jews (a Jewish plot??) Additionally, the same people who run one of the sites (supposedly) also buy land in Silwan, thereby “dispossessing” Palestinians (further evidence of a plot.) The article was listed in the commentary and analysis section, but it’s still offensive to anyone who is looking for legitimate reporting.
The Arab world is prone to believing conspiracy theories, and AJE (I don’t even want to know what the Arabic version is saying) capitalizes on that. It regularly refers to Israel as “Tel Aviv,” instead of by its capital Jerusalem. In addition to their blatant anti-Israel bias (try reading the series about the PLO—“History of a Revolution”), AJE simply fails multiple tests of journalism. And if this is what’s happening in English, what are they saying in Arabic? If articles about Israel lack credibility, what does that say about stories on other regions? My reaction to their stories on Israel ranges from disappointed to horrified.
No comments:
Post a Comment