Countering misplaced sympathy

Malki Roth was a proud young Australian Oleh, whose life was taken by an unrepentant murderer through a homicide bombing.  Today I was reading an email on circulation about an HBO documentary that was advertised in a form that put “attractive pictures” of the killer in place of the true focus of the story, photos of the innocent victim whose future was stolen and whose family were struck with grief that will remain with them for their entire life. 

This is not a rare occurance.  For example, SBS featured a documentary this week that was promoted as a representation of the Palestinian “Nakba”.  It is true that the media cannot bring themselves to even notice that Israel is celebrating 60 years of triumph and success, the constructive process of nation building, all the while that Palestinians are preaching death, murder, and victimisation. 

Yet another great example of selective coverage occured in today’s West Australian.   To paraphrase, that Hamas is apparantely (according to France, but not according to their own leadership) prepared to consider “statehood” on the basis of 1967 borders, this is tantamount to an indirect recognition of Israel and therefore a tremendous diplomatic achievement. 

Well, if that is the definition of peace, please excuse me for not popping the champagne cork.  It does not take an intellectual genius to understand that Hamas have an unwavering committment to the destruction of Israel and are not ashamed to admit it.  Why do our inept international media attempt to create the illusion of conciliation through editorialised reporting of a diplomatic fantasy? 

Barry Rubin writes “the main complaint of Palestinians today is still not so much that they are Israel’s victims but that so far Israel hasn’t been theirs.”  Our media just does not get it!

Here’s another great example.  An interesting article appeared by the ICJS today.  Ed Osama O’Louglin has left Israel but filed his final piece of one sided journalism in the form of an OpEd.  Citing blogs such as this one, and Israelis outside of Gaza as being unaware of what happens inside of Gaza, we can only retort that the difference between a free and oppressed society, and the values of those societies are self evident to any objective observer.  Israelis defend, Palestinians attack.  Israelis defend their border and protect the lives of their citizens.  Israeli’s search for Peace, and Palestinans reject the opportunities extended to them.  If military action is required to protect cities from rocket attacks, then that is the consequence of being a hostile neighbour. 

Ed’s report was not printed in the Sydney Morning Herald, and the ABC media watch decided to single out the “Jewish lobby” as the reason that the report was not syndicated to the Sydney daily. You can read the ABC transcript here.

The ICJS narrate as follows:

ABC’s Media Watch should be called “Media Support for bias and poor reporting” Team! If you have the stomach for it, please read the new article on our website, entitled Saying Goodbye is Hard to Do . I always thought that Ed O’Loughlin was sent to the Middle East to report news. Apparently not. Apparently his brief was to spread Palestinian propaganda because for the past five years this is what he has done with relative impunity. And Media Watch, instead of addressing the substantive issues of his biased reporting – which any first year journalism student worth his salt should be able to easily identify – chose to trot out the tired “Israel Lobby influencing editorial decision” accusation.

I agree.  It is incumbent on all of us to counter media bias relentlessly, no matter how hard that seems.  The articles in our newspapers and newscasts on TV may not be factually incorrect all of the time, but they are selective in the narrative that they present.  The demonisation of Israel is immoral and unfair, and needs to be confronted.  The ABC media watch have sided with the wrong side of this issue.  Nothing would be spiked if it were fair and balanced journalism.  The real question to be asked is why the Melbourne Age continue to publish biased reporting and why do they allow their correspondents to unfairly represent a regional conflict - swansong or not.