(Jon beat me to the punch as I was typing this, but I think it's ok to post as-is regardless.)
I think I found the source of Jon's complaint: http://world.std.com/~camera/ CAMERA (Committe for Accuracy in Middle-East Reporting in America) is a media watchdog group that polices US media to detect and correct what it considers a pervasive and nearly universal anti-Israeli bias in reporting and coverage of issues dealing with the Middle-East and the state of Israel. From their site: "Anti-Israel bias can be found everywhere from college radio stations to network television, from community newspapers to national magazines, and, of course, on the internet. In recent years misinformation about the Middle East has also surfaced in encyclopedias, professional reference works, geography textbooks, travel guides, and even dictionaries." CAMERA appears to consider this problem intermittent at most mainstream news sources but chronic at National Public Radio. Their charges are summed up in a full-page ad (the latest of several over the years) that was published in the NY Times last August, which can be seen here: http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/alert/nprad0801.pdf There is also extensive coverage and documentation on their web site. Here is the response of one NPR affiliate, but CAMERA claims it's a distorted and deceptive report: http://www.wnyc.org/new/talk/onthemedia/transcripts_122201_middleeast.html In the wake of CAMERA's complaints, some prominent contributors withdrew their support of local NPR affliates, most notably in Boston but also in Chicago and perhaps some other cities. I've had a hard time finding coverage of this issue any any mainstream news source except NPR and on the CAMERA web page (but maybe I'm not using the right search cues) so using the word "Uproar" to describe this issue strikes me as a little bit overblown. Still, CAMERA clearly believes that NPR has a long-term anti-Israel bias. On the other hand, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) "http://www.fair.org/activism/npr-israel-quiet.html"; has just the opposite complaint, that NPR plays up violence committed by Palestinians against Israelis while glossing over Palestinians killed by the Israeli military. So what's a guy to believe? CAMERA, in my opinion, suffers from a critical credibility defect that stems from the nature of its charter. It assumes that the objective, moral truth regarding the Middle East is pro-Israel by definition and that any reporting which deviates from this truth is by definition evidence of anti-Israel bias. They make no attempt to ascertain whether any non-Israeli point of view is accurately conveyed, at all -- it's not their business. Moreover, they believe that the US media is universally riddled with anti-Israel bias. Since CAMERA operates from these premises, I think their name, which implies that "accuracy" is a priority, is deceptive at best. So, while CAMERA may be able to point out some genuine defects in particular stories, because they only look at one side of any story, they cannot claim to be in any way unbiased themselves. Although they can compile a laundry list of cases in which news sources allegedly fail to properly represent the "mainstream Israeli" point of view, they cannot in any way claim to evaluate a news source for its overall honesty and objectivity because they do not attempt to look at the overall picture, by their own admission. For example, at no point does CAMERA attempt to compile a list of what Palestinians would consider inaccurate reporting by the US media. I submit that unless CAMERA treats both sides of the conflict evenhandedly itself, it cannot honestly claim to present an accurate evaluation of anybody else's journalistic integrity. FAIR, by contrast, does not focus specifically on the Middle East, but on the state of the news industry itself. Conservatives may accuse FAIR of a strongly liberal bias that (in America) would be equated in some quarters with a pro-Palestinian point of view, but since FAIR is not a one-issue organization, I think they can lay far greater claim to objectivity on this issue than can CAMERA. Personally, I think that NPR's coverage of the Middle East tries very hard to be neutral, which means that they are going to anger partisans on all sides. On the other hand, I also think that all TV and radio reporting of the news suffer from the shallowness of sound-bite syndrome, which means that any given report will likely fail to present the full story in any given situation. In this respect NPR is no different from ABC or FOX or CNN, though I admit I prefer NPR to all of them. However, I wouldn't want to rely solely on NPR, or any one source, for all my news coverage of any serious topic. Finally, I think that Israel's predicament is unique among western states. On the one hand, because it is a product of the west we expect it to behave with the restraint and diplomacy and inclusiveness that we believe characterizes Western Civ in general. On the other hand, because Israel's founding happened as one of the last gasps of colonialism it's stuck in a position where it must use 19th century tactics to survive while being judged by 21st century standards of decency. From the point of view of media coverage, I think it's impossible for a state in Israel's position to present a wholly sympathetic face to the world. No other politically stable western state has to worry about its very survival, so we find it hard to put ourselves in Israel's shoes. And so we get caught in our own double standards. On the one hand, we want Israel to resemble our self-image of Western Civ - peaceful and tolerant - so we are sometimes shocked by Israel's tactics simply because we are not ourselves at war (9/11 notwithstanding). On the other hand, many practices of Arafat and his Arab allies are clearly abhorrent while we nevertheless feel pity for people unfortunate enough to be ruled by them. Fairness requires a soft heart and a hard head, and it's nearly impossible to apply both to all situations at all times. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
