 |
|
|
Wednesday, July 16 2008New York Times: A Year-Long AnalysisDoes a long term study of the New York Times reveal a bias against Israel? See HonestReporting's special report: New York Times: A Year-Long Analysis
TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New York Times: A Year-Long Analysis: CommentsWow, 75% of photos are sympathetic to Palestinians. With 80% of casualties being Palestinians, this means that the NYT's photos now almost mirror objective reality. Keep it up NYT, you're close to being completely objective! One thing you didn't mention is that - regarding the online edition - feature articles which are highly negative to Israel are kept on the home page two-three days (maybe more). Those which are positive or neutral appear only on the day of publication. The graphs show that there is a 17 fold greater likelihood of an active voice headline when describing an Israeli action as compared to a Palestinian action. The issues this study raises -- the tone of the headlines and photo selection -- I believe are decided in the NY headquarters and not by the bureaus. Since Ethan Bronner took over as bureau chief a few months ago, I think the papers' coverage itself has shown some modest improvement. But it'll have to work harder to earn my trust. Thanks HR for stepping back and looking at the Times in a wider way. Critic, heal thyself! It seems that you meant "Palestinian deprivation" rather than "Palestinian depravation" in the discussion of the photo of the little boy watching an Egyptian sealing the border fence. Doug is correct, HR should look at the NYT website and the way they prolong and promote "negative" article about Israel and quickly bury articles about Palestinian brutality, hypocritical behavior, internal conflict... and under-report Fauxtography and Pallywood lies. Thanks Michael. Should the Israelis try and get killed more then it would be fairer? Contrary to popular misconception, the decline of mainstream newspapers is NOT due to the effect of the Internet. Rather, it is the bizarro logic--as pointed out in this report--employed by the editors who are addressing a largely Judeo-Christian audience. This is not to suggest it should be biased. But when it is blatantly slanted it just doesn't make political or financial sense. i READ THE NYT DAILY AND AGREE THAT THE REPORTING IS NOT BALANCED. hOWEVER, I WISH YOU WOULD CHECK THE EDITORIAL PAGES. I DO BELIEVE YOU WOULD GET A DIFFERENT DESULT. fRANKLY I AM CONFUSED AS TO WHAT THEIR POICY IS. Honest reporting is first of all very honest and accurate. The old saying that "in war, the first casualty is the truth" has never been more valid. I struggle to understand the conflict by reading books like Benny Morris's "Righteous Victims" and trying to keep up with the news. The "if it bleeds, it leads" journalistic style seldom serves our quest for comprehension. NYT, it seems, makes a pretty honest effort. Thank you for your statistical study. I particularly welcomed it because ever since the second intifada, I have been struck by the two elements that you single out--the active vs. passive headlines and the pictures that are predominantly sympathetic to the Palestinian side. I recall that there were times when pictures of distressed Palestinians were the only photographic accompaniment to articles describing terrorist acts against Israelis.One of the most outstanding examples to my mind of the passive headline concerned the terror attack at Beit Lid which was something to the effect of "Bus hits pedestrians", i.e., just another traffic accident. I hope that your study will have some effect on those responsible for this bias. It would be difficult for any headline writer to say anything other than Rocket kills or Suicide attack kills, etc. for two simple reasons: 1. At the time the headline is written it is likely unknown which group is taking "credit" for the attack and 2. Unlike Israel, Palestine is not technically a nation-state with a national armed forces, so saying Palestinian forces launched or killed or what have you is inaccurate. These sort of methodical studies form the bedrock of Israel's case. The more dispassionate the better. If the Meersheimer Walt report is worth quoting studies of this nature (eg The Age Newspaper Study ) deserve equal prominence. The assumption of the article, which claims to be done carefully and statistically, and which I will believe to be so unless I hear otherwise, is that there is an equally good case for Israeli and Palestinian unnecessary pain in the current conflict, and so any excess of suggested pain on one side or the other suggests 'bias': bias suggesting unfair leaning toward or against one side. Of course, once noting that, it is clear that, were there a neuteral observer, such a case could be made; I, however, certainly don't consider myself neuteral, nor do I consider anyone else so. The papers, including the NYTimes, leaned heavily toward the State of Israel for at least its first 20-30 years, and few Jewish readers complained then that the press was one-sided. Few of us, in such an emotional issue, really want 'neutrality', we want to be supported. I have had extensive dealings with the NY Times this past year and can attest to the bias that is ingrained in the culture. The sad part is that they do not even recognize it as bias. It turns out that the person writing the headline, the person doing the pictures and the reporter are all different so the reporter has no control as to how the final work actually appears. Although the reporter tried her utmost to be balanced, she never recognized that her whole premise was biased to begin with and when they finished with the headlines, pictures and captions, it turned into a lovefest for the subject they were covering. The fact that they did not represent the other side as bigots and racists was their way of concluding that it was a balanced report. I now use this article as an instrument to clearly point out to people what bias is when reading the NY Times. It is an eye opener. How can Israel expect fair reporting by the NY Times/world press? I think that the problem goes back to the source material. The pictures and captions supplied by the NewsWires are distorted. Associated Press, Agence France Press, Reuters etc employ Palestinian protographers and caption writers who actively create stories, images and captions that serve the Palestinian cause. The pity is that the Editors in headquarters are not smart enough to spot the bias and "spike" the distorted material. . Why is not press or the world high lighting the tress on the nation of isreal, because of the unhuman cowardly acts from arab workd, for no cause, it should realise that isreal wants to live in peace with all it neighbours, but arab do not want it Wow! And I thought that the NYT is a serious and objective newspaper! How naive! Certainly, as a result of this very good and interesting analysis I will pay much more attention to the NYT coverage of this and other topics, and especially the embedded aspects of a story. a more useful study would be of how many incidents or attemts of violance against israelis go unreported. as opposed to how many incidents involving palestinian injuries caused by israelis are reported. also how many stories involving anti israel statements made by palestenians are reported. simply analyzing headlines and photographs is a very incomplete study. Replying to Shaul, who wrote today, the ownership of the nytimes has always been Jewish. If there is bias, it's not at that level. Many staff writers are also Jewish. I think the bias reflects two things, one an effort to appear un-Jewish-biased and second the availability of photos. As mentioned by another writer in a comment, there are no tear-jerking photos when no harm but monetary is done, and because Israelis take great pains to keep the country safe, there aren't a lot of horrifying photos to print. Not that I am unhappy about that!
Next
»
Post a comment[Comments are held for approval before appearing.]
|
