 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Protesting the Washington Post's double standards
[ Read and sign petition to the Post ]
THE PROBLEM
In six recent columns [March 10; March 24; April 21; May 5; May 12, June 9], Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler has addressed accusations by pro-occupation groups of alleged "pro-Palestinian bias" in the Post's news coverage of the Middle East conflict. In each of these articles, Mr. Getler accepts some of the accusations that the Post suffers from at least occasional "shortcomings" in its coverage of the conflict, all the while maintaining that the coverage is "as fair and balanced as we can make it."
By contrast, many pro-Palestinian rights groups have, over the past 20 months, complained to Mr. Getler about a clear pattern of pro-Israeli bias at the Washington Post -- both in their news and editorial coverage. And yet, Mr. Getler has yet to devote a single column to pro-Palestinian concerns. The only time that Mr. Getler has even deigned to address our concerns was in his June 9, 2002, column, in which he mentions pro-Palestinian concerns obviously simply as a way to counter the accusation that the Post is pro-Palestinian, rather than deal with the concerns on their own terms.
Why do pro-Israeli concerns deserve 6 columns, while pro-Palestinian concerns not even a full one?
THE EVIDENCE
Since the first day of the current intifada, many pro-Palestinian rights groups have meticulously archived and documented the Washington Post's treatment of the conflict on both the op-ed and news pages, and have found that there is a clear pattern of double standards at work that has not been successfully addressed by Mr. Getler or anyone else at the Post.
The evidence, substantiated by empirical studies that span 12 to 20 month periods, clearly shows the following:
(1) Since September 2000, the Washington Post has consistently framed the conflict as one in which Palestinians always "attack," while Israelis invariably "retaliate". [read more...] [ pdf format ]
(2) Since September 2000, Palestinians who intentionally target and kill Israeli civilians have always been described as "terrorists" or people engaged in acts of "terror," while Israeli civilians and settlers who did the same to Palestinian civilians have been consistently labeled as "vigilantes" -- even in the astonishing case of West Bank settlers who murdered a Palestinian family including a three-month-old infant. [read more...] [pdf format]
(3) On July 21, 2001, the Post's ombudsman wrote in his weekly column that Israeli settlers who murdered a three-month-old Palestinian infant and his family in a car ambush in the West Bank should indeed be described as "vigilantes" and not "terrorists". [read more...]
(4) Since September 2000, the Post's op-ed page has dedicated over 80% of its column space to notoriously pro-occupation voices such as George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Kelly, and Richard Cohen, to name only the most prominent, and has made a minimal effort to provide readers with a diverse offering of opinions on such a multidimensional conflict, even though we have time and again offered them dozens of well qualified, well-published, op-ed writers to tap into. [read more...] [pdf format]
(5) Since September 2000, the most blood-curdling incitement to violence and war against Palestinians in the American media has been routinely published in the Washington Post. [ read more.... ]
(6) Since September 2000, Israeli suffering has earned front-page, pictorial coverage, while Palestinian suffering has been depersonalized and relegated to the back pages. [read more...]
(7) On January 11, 2002, the Washington Post was the only major American media outlet to completely ignore the demolition of Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip which left over 500 Palestinian refugees homeless, an act that the State Department criticized and the U.N. described at the time as the most extensive Israeli incursion since the beginning of the intifada. [read moreĀ ]
These concerns and others have been repeatedly and regularly communicated directly to Mr. Getler and his newspaper, through phone calls, detailed reports, and thousands of letters (see a sample).
Yet, after nearly two years of reaching out to the Washington Post to initiate a constructive dialogue, we have yet to receive an official direct response addressing our concerns in any meaningful way.
What makes the Washington Post's unresponsiveness to our concerns all the more unacceptable is that Mr. Getler, as mentioned above, has repeatedly gone on the record over the past two months addressing the concerns of pro-occupation groups and defending the Post's coverage from their criticism only [March 10; March 24; April 21; May 5; May 12; June 9], even conceding to some of their complaints.
THE ACTION
Having tried to reason and communicate with Mr. Getler and the Washington Post for nearly two years, we find ourselves compelled to recommend the following actions.
We urge all concerned parties take the following actions until the Washington Post seriously and formally addresses the concerns raised in the 7 points above:
(1) Sign a petition calling on the Washington Post to respond, in print, to our concerns.
(2) Make phone calls and write letters to the Washington Post addressed to Mr. Getler. Use the following interface to quickly write and send a letter. The interface will also contain information on how to call Mr. Getler.
We need a more serious response from Mr. getler than a couple of paragraphs written at the last minute to blunt the actions of pro-Israeli groups.
