We pointed out that if these absurd propositions could pass the "factuality" test, surely Dr. Ashrawi's statement about Sharon should have been, especially in the light of Sharon's own words.

No response whatsoever came from the staff.

(2) On the issue of following the line from the State Department

This is what we wrote in the report:

Epitomizing the Inquirer's deference to the official line from the State Department, in its first, and only so far, Bush administration editorial on the conflict (Feb. 8, 2001), the Inquirer noted with approval President Bush's reluctance to pursue President Clinton's hands-on involvement: "Such restraint is not unwarranted," wrote the Inquirer.

This stands in stark contrast to the Inquirer's opinion on intervention during the Clinton administration. In its November 24, 2000 editorial ("Take the chance"), for instance, the Inquirer wrote:

However slim the chances that another U.S. intervention would work, the alternative is a cycle of violence that will lead to war

In general, nothing substantial in the report was challenged: not the methodology, not the figures, not the conclusions, and not even the recommendations. (I was surprised that they did not make any such challenges.)

After the report, we went into a conversation about their editorial stand, which we argued is not based on a sober assessment of reality.

Chris Satullo started off by saying that we are "pursuing a chimera" if we thought we could attain a paradigm shift in Americans' perspective of the conflict by pushing for a more accurate coverage. (I think he meant here that pushing data and alternative pieces will not bring about the desired effect.) Our response was that paradigm shifts happen over time, when the prevailing worldview is constantly challenged and shown to be problematic, instead of allowing it to retain its "natural" character -- i.e., make people aware that the received view is a constructed world-view. Chris Satullo did not respond: the tone was that he was giving advice, and that what he was saying was coming from 8 years of experience -- he actually told us that in a day or two it will be exactly 8 years with him at the head of the page!

Chris Satullo and Robert Rosenthal claimed that "objectivity" is a contentious term and that we should not be so naïve and simplistic as to ask for objective coverage as though it were straightforward what "objectivity" meant. Our answer was that we are asking for some very basic things to be observed and not for objectivity in the abstract -- things such as showing the maps of the offers rather than repeat the highly misleading statement that Barak offered 95% of the OT; also, they could so simple things such as include in their stories the massive data reported regularly and available easily from human rights organizations and other independent sources. We pressed Robert Rosenthal on this issue, pointing out that for instance they have not shown a SINGLE map of the proposals all these 6 months. He seemed totally undisturbed by this – which irritated me -- shrugging his shoulders and saying: "well, so we didn't run the maps as often as we should have."

A startling statement by Chris Satullo was when he said that merely giving out the facts is not enough – he gave the example of stating budget numbers. How many people would be able to answer how big is the federal budget, he asked? Many would say something like 5 billions dollars. (Curious argument for justifying the absence of facts. This was a first form me and frankly, I did not expect this Orwellian twist.)

We pointed out that Robert Fisk of the Independent does not seem to have a problem with objectivity: he addresses the basics, uses common sense, and tells it as it is. Neither Chris Satullo no Robert Rosenthal had an answer to that. Mention of Fisk seemed to quiet them down a bit. (I was surprised by that.)

Several times, Chris Satullo and other members said that the task of reporting the Palestinia-Israeli conflict "is very complex". We pointed out that it is not complex at all, if one were simply to examine the facts. (I think what they mean by "complex" is that they find it a tricky business to, on the one hand not offend powerful pro-Israeli opinions, and on the other hand to maintain some contact with the truth.)

I noticed Alison Weir shaking her head in obvious disapproval over Chris Satullo's and Robert Rosenthal's statements. Many times she winced at some of the things the Inquirer people were saying. .Many times, she made some very powerful interjections, describing vividly and in detail what she saw while in the West Bank and Gaza, saying that what is going on the ground is practically the opposite of what is being reported. I was struck by how little curiosity the Inquirer people displayed. They did not seem eager to know more. They never asked her questions, as far as I can remember, although it was clear that Alison was a solid professional.

Robert Rosenthal said that many reporters on the ground report on the conflict without the "proper historical context". The clear implication here is that when a reporter starts telling it as it is, he/she is reacting emotionally and does not know how to retain their "cool". (Actually, I was personally taken aback by this very revealing statement: it vividly illustrated that he believes that things need to be framed within the prevailing myths before they can be presented for consumption.) Our only reaction was to suggest that what he calls "proper framing" is a paradigm rooted in myths. He shrugged his shoulders. Alison Weir gave a big wince and shook her head at this.

We complained about the lack of findings from what Robert Rosenthal called the work of "revisionist historians" -- e.g., Benny Morris. Robert Rosenthal answered that they have done a story or two on such "revisionism". We pointed out that what we would like are not stories ABOUT "revisionists" but rather that journalists take the 'revisionists' seriously and incorporate their findings in their stories and in the way they view the conflict. They did not respond to this.

When we urged them to take a moral stand on the occupation, Chris Satullo immediately shook his head in disapproval and replied that in general the Inquirer does not want to use moral arguments. When we pointed out that the Inquirer routinely moralizes to the Palestinians, Chris Satullo backpedaled and argued that moralizing is not the best way to proceed in this case since the aim is to sway the main audience they are addressing when they write editorials on the conflict -- the Jewish-American population. The best way to persuade/move them, he explained, is via "a pragmatic argument". But immediately after saying that, Chris Satullo added that we have shown them, via our analyses, that they have been wrong to view their main audience as the Jewish American community (what he means is the pro-Israeli crowd) -- and that they will in the future broaden their targeted audience. Which makes a mish-mash of his argument over the need to eschew taking moral stands. We let that pass and instead responded by pointing out that several compelling, and purely PRAGMATIC arguments can be made on many fronts: that it is not in the best interest of the United States to uncritically support Israel at the high risk of creating an explosive situation in the Arab world that could result in a highly destabilized region; that on purely pragmatic grounds, it is clear that violence can be dramatically reduced if Israel would withdraw its tanks; that it is clear that Arafat simply cannot unilaterally call off the violence, and that the more the violence goes, the more his authority will be weakened, and the more chaos will ensue, etc. Given that such compelling "pragmatic" and non-moralizing arguments exist, why aren't they being made? The question was met with silence.

Caught in a corner, Chris Satullo and John Timpane both came out and said clearly that they will simply not come out and call for unilateral withdrawal of IDF tanks, even if they may think that that is the best thing that should be done to tone down "the violence" -- it was clear that what they meant by that was that they were not about to incur the wrath of Jewish organizations. (I was astonished over how frank about this they were, and how unembarrassed they were to make it.)

Chris Satullo argued that there are two competing world views and that the Inquirer is not committed to one view or the other. We pointed out to him that: (1) they are in fact committed to one world view, and (2) that the mere existence of competing world views does not mean that all world-views are equally valid, nor does it absolve them from judging the merits of one world view over another. Pro-Apartheid and anti-Apartheid world-views once co- existed, but we are sure that the Inquirer did not plead neutrality just because two world-views existed.

When we further pointed out that objective sources, such as human rights organizations, independent and very respected journalists, exist and that the very words and actions of the IDF, prime ministers, etc, clearly support one world- view vs another, that massive evidence exists to negate the rickety, often outlandish, usually historically baseless pro-Israeli world-view -- Chris Satullo did not seem to have a response. The others simply listened quietly and said nothing.

A point we raised several times is our willingness to engage the pro-Israeli side in a one-on-one debate if the Inquirer was willing to sponsor such a debate. The Inquire seemed eager to sponsor such a debate. We observed that we had requested that we hold such a debate three months ago. They said they will see what they can do.

We pointed out that time and again the Inquirer has faithfully reflected the official State Department line. We pointed out for instance that the Inquirer consistently called for US active participation under Clinton, but abruptly started calling for US withdrawal under Bush. Chris Satullo answered that they have written only one editorial since the election of Bush, and so it was not fair to extrapolate the emergence of a new stand. We answered that the sudden shift is startling in and of itself, but that we shall keep a score card and see what happens. Chris Satullo grinned ambiguously at this.