-Caveat Lector-
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:02:27 -0400 FAIR-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and news reports
MEDIA ADVISORY:
Muffled Coverage of U.N. Vote:
Media Ignores Broad Mideast Consensus
October 16, 2000
U.S. media have been ignoring or downplaying an important dimension of the
ongoing turmoil in the Middle East. On October 7, the United Nations
Security Council voted 14 to 0 for a resolution condemning Israel's
"excessive use of force against Palestinians" and deploring the
"provocation" of Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon's September 28 visit
to the Temple Mount.
The United States was the only Security Council member to abstain from the
vote, which it did after trying to soften the language of the resolution.
The outcome was generally interpreted as assigning most of the
responsibility for the violence to Israel. The conservative Times of London
editorial page called it a "stinging rebuff" (10/9/00).
The Security Council members who voted in favor of the unanimous measure
included the United States' closest allies in NATO-- Britain, Canada and
the Netherlands. Britain, America's closest ally, "in part brokered" the
resolution, according to foreign secretary Robin Cook, "and we certainly
stand by it" (Agence France Presse, 10/8/00).
NATO ally France also voted in favor, as did Argentina, which generally
votes with Washington. Permanent members Russia and China voted in favor, as
did several countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. The Associated
Press (10/7/00) described the measure as "bitterly fought-over," but
Argentina's U.N. delegate told Agence France Presse (10/7/00): "Most members
of the council have no problem with the resolution. It is a problem for the
American delegation."
Despite the broad global consensus-- minus the United States and Israel--
highlighted by the resolution's passage, coverage in the U.S. media was
scant and indifferent. When the media did report the vote, it was almost
always treated as a dilemma for U.S. policymakers rather than a statement of
world opinion. Virtually no news outlet reported which countries voted for
the measure. In a news cycle that has focused overwhelmingly on the question
of who is to blame for the current violence, the media's indifference to an
international vote on the issue is striking.
As Britain's U.N. delegate noted during the debate over the vote, the
Security Council "does not have an army, but is a judge of international
affairs and is expected to pronounce on such matters" (AFP, 10/7/00).
Information about world opinion is especially needed in the U.S., whose
government has long been internationally isolated in its staunch support for
Israeli military actions.
But important newspapers with substantial international coverage relegated
the U.N. vote to a few passing sentences within other stories-- e.g., the
Washington Post, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune (all 10/8/00) and USA Today
(10/9/00). Only three of the top 36 U.S. papers in the Nexis database-- the
New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Long Island Newsday-- devoted articles
to the vote (all 10/8/00). None of these papers' headlines mentioned Israel
by name; for example, Newsday's misleadingly vague "U.N. Measure Condemns
Violence." Although all three of these papers have full-time U.N.
correspondents, all used wire stories. None of the 36 newspapers reported
which Security Council members voted for the resolution.
A week later (10/14/00), the New York Times' U.N. correspondent, Barbara
Crossette, mischaracterized what the resolution said. She reported American
U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's vow to veto any further Security Council
resolutions after the U.S. "abstained on a resolution in the Security
Council last weekend broadly criticizing the renewal of fighting." (The
resolution actually singled out Israel.)
On television, coverage was even thinner. The only chance CBS Evening News
viewers had to learn about the resolution was from a story on the Hillary
Clinton/Rick Lazio Senate debate (10/8/00). Lazio said he was "gravely
disappointed" that the Clinton administration didn't veto the resolution.
"Mrs. Clinton agreed," added reporter Diana Olick.
NBC's Middle East coverage included some passing remarks by White House
correspondent Joe Johns (NBC Nightly News, 10/8/00) reporting that "the
disagreement over which side should bear the greatest blame spilled over to
the United Nations." Johns explained that the measure criticized Israel and
that the U.S. abstained-- but viewers were not told whether the resolution
passed, or what the vote was.
On ABC's World News Tonight (10/8/00), the vote didn't even make it into
State Department correspondent Martha Raddatz's story, but had to be
inserted by anchor Carol Simpson in a three-sentence lead-in.
The U.N. resolution got the most coverage on the Sunday morning talk shows,
where the pundits could barely contain their dismay at the administration's
failure to veto the measure. On NBC's Meet the Press (10/8/00), Tim Russert
grilled Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on the abstention. When
Albright said she "felt that it was important that we abstain on this
resolution because of the kind of language that was in it," Russert prodded:
"Well, why not veto it?" After she responded, Russert persisted: "But by
abstaining and not vetoing, it did go into force, a resolution which
condemns in effect Israel for excessive use of force."
Interviewing National Security Advisor Sandy Berger on ABC's This Week
(10/8/00), Sam Donaldson called the decision to abstain "remarkable," adding
that "perhaps not since the Falklands War" had the U.S. failed to veto a
resolution condemning one of its allies.
For the pundits, the United States' isolation in abstaining from a unanimous
U.N. resolution never came up as an issue.
As New York Times reporter Barbara Crossette noted a week after the vote
(10/14/00), "the Clinton Administration came under criticism from across the
political spectrum for abstaining, and not vetoing, the resolution last
week." Perhaps the media were hesitant to cover the unanimous U.N. vote
because it showed how isolated this domestic consensus is from world
opinion. The American public should hear from all sides in the volatile
debate over the Mideast conflict.
----------
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented example of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of
your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to us
at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
FAIR ON THE AIR: FAIR's founder Jeff Cohen is a regular panelist on the Fox
News Channel's "Fox News Watch," which airs which airs Saturdays at 7 pm and
Sundays at 11 am (Eastern Standard Time). Check your local listings.
FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 120 stations in
the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit
http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html .
Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra!
For more information, go to:
http://www.fair.org/extra/subscribe.html . Or call 1-800-847-3993.
FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its New
York office on a rolling basis. For more information, please e-mail Peter
Hart ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org , or by
sending a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name" command to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
You may leave the list at any time-- just send a message with "SIGNOFF
FAIR-L" in the body to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
list administrators: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
