De berichten van Associated Press worden overgenomen in honderden kranten. Ik ben het niet met ieder kritiekpunt van Barry Rubin eens, en hij legt soms wat veel zout op slakken/op veel slakken zout, maar het is duidelijk dat AP niet fair berichtte over Netanjahoe's speech. Ik heb mij bijzonder geërgerd aan de nieuwsanalyse van Guus Valk in NRC Handelsblad, die een paar opvallende overeenkomsten had met het AP bericht, al was daarin minder plaats ingeruimd voor de reacties van derden op de speech en meer voor Valks eigen gekleurde visie. Eigenlijk zijn 'nieuwsanalyses' vaak verkapte opiniestukken door de eigen correspondent.
RP
-----------
Bias Beyond Belief: The AP Can't Even Report Netanyahu's Speech Fairly
By Barry Rubin
Often, it's really hard to believe how biased and bad media coverage of Israel is. I've been watching this stuff for decades and it still amazes me. A subtle bias is one thing but when all caution or pretense of professionalism is abandoned--as it so often is--one can only gape in astonishment.
The Associated Press devoted more than 4000 words to reporting and analyzing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's main policy speech and various reactions to it. President Obama welcomed it. ("Obama welcome's Israeli prime minister's speech, June 15, 2009); the European Union called it a step in the right direction (Robert Wielaard, "EU: Netanyahu speech step 'in right direction, June 16, 2009).
[For my view of the speech, go here]
Predictably, members of his coalition government supported it (Amy Teibel, "Coalition heavyweights embrace Netanyahu speech," June 15, 2009. Yet even while reporting on Netanyahu's acceptance of a Palestinian state, the AP could not resist characterizing his government as "hawkish," supported by "hardliners." Of course, his coalition includes the Labor party and many people considered dovish but AP doesn't tell us about that.
The article also mistakenly refers to "Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the most powerful hard-liner in Netanyahu's government," which is just plain wrong. While Lieberman's style is very tough, he is not a hardliner as such, having no problem with accepting a Palestinian state or giving up territory for peace. Lieberman's reputation as a hardliner is due to his stand toward Arab citizens of Israel—and even here Lieberman has made no serious attempt to implement any new measures—not toward West Bank Palestinians. By making this statement, Teibel shows her ignorance of Israeli politics.
Similarly ignorant and biased was the AP's presentation of Palestinian reactions. The problem is not reporting what the Palestinians said—they didn't like it and this is legitimate to present—but the AP's own editorial remarks.
In Karin Laub and Amy Teibel, "Disappointed Palestinians ask for help to save talks," June 16 (as if anything any Israeli prime minister might have said could possibly have "pleased" them), the authors tell us that these leaders "stopped short of refusing to resume negotiations."
This is simply inaccurate. In fact, they have refused to resume negotiations without a freeze in settlement construction, as has been repeatedly stated by them. Strangely, even the article admits this: "Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said he would not resume talks unless Israel honored previous pledges to halt construction."
Why then make the first statement except to make the Palestinian leaders sound more moderate than they are? And the phrasing of the second is totally misleading, too. Israel said it would freeze construction if the Palestinians kept their commitments, which hasn't happened. Notice AP never tells us about what Israel demands to meet its needs or what Palestinians do to break their previous commitments.
What is really outrageous is this statement by the authors:
"Laying out his Mideast policy Sunday, Netanyahu bent to U.S. pressure and softened decades of opposition to Palestinian statehood and sought renewed peace talks."
Since Netanyahu accepted Palestinian statehood as a potential outcome of talks in 1996—13 years ago—this is part of the consistent AP misrepresentation of his positions.
Then there is this confusing and untrue statement:
"However, he removed from the negotiating agenda the fate of Palestinian refugees displaced by Israel's 1948 creation and said Israel would retain sovereignty over all of Jerusalem - -two issues previous Israeli governments had agreed to negotiate."
On Jerusalem, Netanyahu restated what has almost always been Israel's position. And what about the fate of the refugees? In fact, he and Israel have always said they should be resettled in Palestine. Can't the AP even get that right?
Often, it's really hard to believe how biased and bad media coverage of Israel is. I've been watching this stuff for decades and it still amazes me. A subtle bias is one thing but when all caution or pretense of professionalism is abandoned--as it so often is--one can only gape in astonishment.
The Associated Press devoted more than 4000 words to reporting and analyzing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's main policy speech and various reactions to it. President Obama welcomed it. ("Obama welcome's Israeli prime minister's speech, June 15, 2009); the European Union called it a step in the right direction (Robert Wielaard, "EU: Netanyahu speech step 'in right direction, June 16, 2009).
[For my view of the speech, go here]
Predictably, members of his coalition government supported it (Amy Teibel, "Coalition heavyweights embrace Netanyahu speech," June 15, 2009. Yet even while reporting on Netanyahu's acceptance of a Palestinian state, the AP could not resist characterizing his government as "hawkish," supported by "hardliners." Of course, his coalition includes the Labor party and many people considered dovish but AP doesn't tell us about that.
The article also mistakenly refers to "Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the most powerful hard-liner in Netanyahu's government," which is just plain wrong. While Lieberman's style is very tough, he is not a hardliner as such, having no problem with accepting a Palestinian state or giving up territory for peace. Lieberman's reputation as a hardliner is due to his stand toward Arab citizens of Israel—and even here Lieberman has made no serious attempt to implement any new measures—not toward West Bank Palestinians. By making this statement, Teibel shows her ignorance of Israeli politics.
Similarly ignorant and biased was the AP's presentation of Palestinian reactions. The problem is not reporting what the Palestinians said—they didn't like it and this is legitimate to present—but the AP's own editorial remarks.
In Karin Laub and Amy Teibel, "Disappointed Palestinians ask for help to save talks," June 16 (as if anything any Israeli prime minister might have said could possibly have "pleased" them), the authors tell us that these leaders "stopped short of refusing to resume negotiations."
This is simply inaccurate. In fact, they have refused to resume negotiations without a freeze in settlement construction, as has been repeatedly stated by them. Strangely, even the article admits this: "Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said he would not resume talks unless Israel honored previous pledges to halt construction."
Why then make the first statement except to make the Palestinian leaders sound more moderate than they are? And the phrasing of the second is totally misleading, too. Israel said it would freeze construction if the Palestinians kept their commitments, which hasn't happened. Notice AP never tells us about what Israel demands to meet its needs or what Palestinians do to break their previous commitments.
What is really outrageous is this statement by the authors:
"Laying out his Mideast policy Sunday, Netanyahu bent to U.S. pressure and softened decades of opposition to Palestinian statehood and sought renewed peace talks."
Since Netanyahu accepted Palestinian statehood as a potential outcome of talks in 1996—13 years ago—this is part of the consistent AP misrepresentation of his positions.
Then there is this confusing and untrue statement:
"However, he removed from the negotiating agenda the fate of Palestinian refugees displaced by Israel's 1948 creation and said Israel would retain sovereignty over all of Jerusalem - -two issues previous Israeli governments had agreed to negotiate."
On Jerusalem, Netanyahu restated what has almost always been Israel's position. And what about the fate of the refugees? In fact, he and Israel have always said they should be resettled in Palestine. Can't the AP even get that right?
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten