LONDON
A report looking into news reports over the recent violence in Israel and Gaza said it finds a great amount of "euphemism" for Israeli aggressions and the "implication of a power symmetry" between Israeli forces and Palestinians.
The report called 'Media reporting on Palestine 2021' published by the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) – a project of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which promotes fair and responsible reporting of Muslims and Islam – said the media coverage during the latest violence period in Israel and Gaza was "quite problematic."
It said the media coverage of the recent violence in Jerusalem and Gaza "gained momentum on 23rd April 2021," when Israeli nationalists marching through Jerusalem chanting "death to Arabs" were met by Palestinian protestors at the Damascus Gate, in what would become the first of many flashpoints in the ensuing weeks.
"[…] we observed in the course of our media monitoring skewed the public's understanding of what was happening in Jerusalem, Gaza and other parts of Palestine […]," the report said, giving tens of examples of coverage mainly by the western media.
The spike in coverage occurred between the 9th and 10th of May 2021, when Israeli police stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque as tens of thousands of Muslim worshippers prayed on the 27th Night of Ramadan, Laylat ul-Qadr (the Night of Decree), according to the report.
"Despite Israeli police firing tear gas, rubber bullets and stun grenades which injured hundreds of worshippers, and Palestinians were defending themselves with rocks and stones, the majority of the media used labels such as "clashes," "conflict," "scuffles" or "skirmishes" to describe the Al-Aqsa attacks and subsequent violence," it said.
"These terms have not only become a euphemism for Israeli aggressions but also imply a power symmetry between the two sides. Shifting the blame away from Israel and its forces' acts of violence can also be seen through the use of language used in the media, especially passive sentence structures which remove the actor from the narrative."
Giving a report by the Agence France Presse (AFP) as an example, the CfMM report says the headline was misleading:
"One Agence France Presse (AFP) headline, in particular, is a good example of the kind of language used by many journalists and headline writers, containing a number of faux pas in just one headline: "Hundreds wounded in Jerusalem clashes." Apart from using the term "clashes," the headline also fails to clarify that the hundreds who were "wounded" were Palestinians, or that they were "wounded" by the Israeli police." Given that only eight out of ten people read beyond the headline, the danger of ambiguity or omission of facts or details is self-evident."
"This style of writing is not new. Centre for Media Monitoring's analysis on the reporting of Palestinians in Gaza between 2018-2019, found 182 occasions where the main reason behind conditions faced by Palestinians was either obscured or omitted," the report added.
"News agencies (AFP, Reuters and Associated Press) accounted for the majority of these articles (143). Given the leading role news agencies play in foreign news coverage and the frequency with which broadcasters and newspapers use their stories (sometimes verbatim), it is incumbent on news wires and to report accurately."
The report also quotes CfMM analyst Faisal Hanif from an article by the Middle East Eye as saying: "Israeli aggression is, "mostly reported as a response to Palestinian violence or impending violence."
"In 21 separate headlines on wire-agency stories where Israeli soldiers had shot and killed Palestinian protesters, the role of the offensive actor (Israel) was diminished or omitted."
"Some examples include a Palestinian teen who was 'killed in clashes,' a Palestinian who 'dies from wounds in border unrest,' and an 'exchange of fire on Gaza border' which kills a Palestinian. Reprisals by Palestinians are more emphatically described, where the Palestinian actor 'stabs' and 'kills'; the knife doesn't take on a life of its own, like 'Israeli gunfire.'"
In another example of media bias, the report also mentioned Emily Wilder, a Jewish journalist who advocates for Palestinian rights and who was dismissed from her job at Associated Press (AP) on 21st May 2021, quoting from one of her social media posts:
"'Objectivity' feels fickle when the basic terms we use to report news implicitly stake a claim," she wrote, "Using 'Israel' but never 'Palestine,' or 'war' but not' siege and occupation' are political choices — yet media make those exact choices all the time without being flagged as biased."
The report said: "To date, the IDF bombardment of Gaza has killed at least 248 Palestinians, including 65 children."
"On the Israeli side, 13 people, including two children, have been killed. Neither the technology, weaponry, nor fatalities are equal. Yet, language such as "Palestinian militants" essentialises all Palestinians as violent aggressors.
"This skewed focus on Palestinians as the aggressors, with Israel acting in "self-defense," or framing Israeli military action as a "retaliation" equalizes not only the two sides but also justifies the disproportionate military response used by the IDF. World leaders exacerbate this narrative through their repeated declarations of Israel having the right to defend itself."
The CfMM said their aim with the report is to "establish an accurate timeline of events which has led to this latest violence, explain the main media narratives that are skewing public perception of the issue, outline how to complain to media outlets about any such coverage and make recommendations to media outlets for more balanced language, imagery and reporting."
The CfMM said in its conclusion that the report "outlines many of the main ways in which the media can impact public understanding of the violence occurring in Jerusalem and Gaza currently in May 2021."
"Unfortunately, these events are not an isolated occurrence but have a long history, and it is our hope that the information presented herein will be relevant and useful for any potential future events as well."
It said: "The examples given are not exhaustive, but were chosen as they are the most common and are widely used to influence public opinion. It is our aim that the explanations and recommendations above will help grassroots activists and community members to challenge problematic media narratives, whether that is through making effective complaints via established channels and regulatory bodies, through social media campaigns, or through contributing the media reports as community representatives."
