© 2024 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
Former AP Reporter Details Cover-Ups, Intimidation and Bias in Israel Coverage
Palestinian residents inspect the remains of Al-Basha, a building that was destroyed by an Israeli air strike in Gaza City on August 26, 2014. (Photo: Mohammed Abed/AFP/Getty Images)

Former AP Reporter Details Cover-Ups, Intimidation and Bias in Israel Coverage

"Our narrative was..."

A former Jerusalem-based reporter for the Associated Press has written a lengthy piece documenting what he says is the institutional bias that guides the mainstream media’s Israel-Palestinian coverage.

Matti Friedman was an AP Jerusalem bureau reporter and editor from 2006 and 2011 and describes himself as “a liberal” and “a believer in the importance of the ‘mainstream’ media.” But after working for years in the industry and observing the coverage of the latest round of violence, Friedman penned an article in Tablet – an online publication covering Jewish issues – in which he characterized media coverage of Israel as “a narrative construct that is largely fiction” and accused his former colleagues in the international press of being guided not by journalistic ethics, but by their political worldview.

Friedman described wildly unbalanced staffing levels of foreign news bureaus in Israel; the bias against reporting Palestinian corruption, while highlighting the issue in Israel; and concealing Hamas intimidation of reporters, while prominently highlighting any stories that Israel had censored.

Palestinian residents inspect the remains of Al-Basha, a building that was destroyed by an Israeli air strike in Gaza City on August 26, 2014. (Photo: Mohammed Abed/AFP/Getty Images) Palestinian residents inspect the remains of a building destroyed by an Israeli airstrike in Gaza City, Aug. 26, 2014. (Mohammed Abed/AFP/Getty Images)

In describing the disproportionality in the international media’s staffing for its Israel coverage, Friedman wrote:

Staffing is the best measure of the importance of a story to a particular news organization. When I was a correspondent at the AP, the agency had more than 40 staffers covering Israel and the Palestinian territories. That was significantly more news staff than the AP had in China, Russia, or India, or in all of the 50 countries of sub-Saharan Africa combined. It was higher than the total number of news-gathering employees in all the countries where the uprisings of the “Arab Spring” eventually erupted.

To offer a sense of scale: Before the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, the permanent AP presence in that country consisted of a single regime-approved stringer. The AP’s editors believed, that is, that Syria’s importance was less than one-40th that of Israel. I don’t mean to pick on the AP—the agency is wholly average, which makes it useful as an example. The big players in the news business practice groupthink, and these staffing arrangements were reflected across the herd. […]

The volume of press coverage that results, even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives—that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. […] In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.

Friedman detailed the operating assumption among foreign press emissaries in Israel:

A reporter working in the international press corps here understands quickly that what is important in the Israel-Palestinian story is Israel. If you follow mainstream coverage, you will find nearly no real analysis of Palestinian society or ideologies, profiles of armed Palestinian groups, or investigation of Palestinian government. Palestinians are not taken seriously as agents of their own fate. The West has decided that Palestinians should want a state alongside Israel, so that opinion is attributed to them as fact, though anyone who has spent time with actual Palestinians understands that things are (understandably, in my opinion) more complicated. Who they are and what they want is not important: The story mandates that they exist as passive victims of the party that matters.

Corruption, for example, is a pressing concern for many Palestinians under the rule of the Palestinian Authority, but when I and another reporter once suggested an article on the subject, we were informed by the bureau chief that Palestinian corruption was “not the story.” (Israeli corruption was, and we covered it at length.)

Israeli actions are analyzed and criticized, and every flaw in Israeli society is aggressively reported. In one seven-week period, from Nov. 8 to Dec. 16, 2011, I decided to count the stories coming out of our bureau on the various moral failings of Israeli society—proposed legislation meant to suppress the media, the rising influence of Orthodox Jews, unauthorized settlement outposts, gender segregation, and so forth. I counted 27 separate articles, an average of a story every two days. In a very conservative estimate, this seven-week tally was higher than the total number of significantly critical stories about Palestinian government and society, including the totalitarian Islamists of Hamas, that our bureau had published in the preceding three years.

At the same time, there was this glaring gap in the AP’s coverage — an omission about which TheBlaze's S.E. Cupp recently criticized the media.

The Hamas charter, for example, calls not just for Israel’s destruction but for the murder of Jews and blames Jews for engineering the French and Russian revolutions and both world wars; the charter was never mentioned in print when I was at the AP, though Hamas won a Palestinian national election and had become one of the region’s most important players. To draw the link with this summer’s events: An observer might think Hamas’ decision in recent years to construct a military infrastructure beneath Gaza’s civilian infrastructure would be deemed newsworthy, if only because of what it meant about the way the next conflict would be fought and the cost to innocent people. But that is not the case. The Hamas emplacements were not important in themselves, and were therefore ignored. What was important was the Israeli decision to attack them.

He also addressed scattered reporting that Hamas has intimidated journalists to conceal its military infrastructure and skewed the civilian casualty figures:

Any veteran of the press corps here knows the intimidation is real, and I saw it in action myself as an editor on the AP news desk. During the 2008-2009 Gaza fighting I personally erased a key detail—that Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians and being counted as civilians in the death toll—because of a threat to our reporter in Gaza. (The policy was then, and remains, not to inform readers that the story is censored unless the censorship is Israeli. Earlier this month, the AP’s Jerusalem news editor reported and submitted a story on Hamas intimidation; the story was shunted into deep freeze by his superiors and has not been published.)

But if critics imagine that journalists are clamoring to cover Hamas and are stymied by thugs and threats, it is generally not so. There are many low-risk ways to report Hamas actions, if the will is there: under bylines from Israel, under no byline, by citing Israeli sources. Reporters are resourceful when they want to be.

Freidman also wrote that stories about Israelis electing moderate governments that reached out to the Palestinians to negotiate peace were “rarely mentioned,” bringing an example from his own experience in which he said his editors decided not to publish a huge scoop:

In early 2009, for example, two colleagues of mine obtained information that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had made a significant peace offer to the Palestinian Authority several months earlier, and that the Palestinians had deemed it insufficient. This had not been reported yet and it was—or should have been—one of the biggest stories of the year. The reporters obtained confirmation from both sides and one even saw a map, but the top editors at the bureau decided that they would not publish the story.

Some staffers were furious, but it didn’t help. Our narrative was that the Palestinians were moderate and the Israelis recalcitrant and increasingly extreme. Reporting the Olmert offer—like delving too deeply into the subject of Hamas—would make that narrative look like nonsense. And so we were instructed to ignore it, and did, for more than a year and a half.

This decision taught me a lesson that should be clear to consumers of the Israel story: Many of the people deciding what you will read and see from here view their role not as explanatory but as political. Coverage is a weapon to be placed at the disposal of the side they like.

A representative from the Associated Press did not immediately respond to a request for comment from TheBlaze.

Read Friedman’s entire piece at Tablet.

Want to leave a tip?

We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
Want to join the conversation?
Already a subscriber?