Palestine Media Watch
  Home | Mailing list | Forum | Links | Contact us  
Giving voice to Palestinian perspectives
  
 

If you wish to comment on this report to the Philadelphia Inquire, you may send a letter to: inquirer.letters@phillynews.com. Or you may call: (215) 854 - 5060.

You may contact Palestine Media Watch by sending an email to: pmwatch@zworg.com

  
 
 

 

 

Coverage of the Middle East Crisis

In The Op-ed Pages

The Philadelphia Inquirer

 

 

10/6/2000 – 01/13/2001

 

 

 
A Palestine Media Watch Report

 

 

 

 

Analysis by Dr. Ahmed Bouzid

President

Palestine Media Watch

http://www.pmwatch.org

 

 

 

 

© January 31, 2001

 

 

 

   

Introduction.. 4

1.0     Definitions.. 4

Pro-Israeli.. 5

Balanced.. 6

Pro-Palestinian.. 8

2.0       Letters to the editor.. 10

2.1     The Letters Staff.. 10

2.2     Analysis.. 10

2.3     Staff accessibility and responsiveness.. 11

2.4     Conclusions.. 11

3.0     Editorials.. 12

3.1     Editors and the editorial board.. 12

3.2     Analysis.. 12

3.2.1        Portraying the victims.. 12

3.2.2        Adopting the official Israeli line.. 14

3.2.3        Mentions.. 16

3.3 Conclusions.. 17

4.0     Columns.. 18

4.1     The Editors and the editorial board.. 18

4.2     The columns.. 18

4.3     The columnists.. 19

4.4     Column breakdown.. 19

4.5     Analysis.. 20

4.6     Staff accessibility and responsiveness.. 21

4.7     Conclusions and recommendations.. 22

5.0       Tony Auth Cartoons.. 23

5.1     Tony Auth.. 23

5.2     The Cartoons.. 24

October 12, 2000.. 24

October 15, 2000.. 25

October 26, 2000.. 25

December 29, 2000.. 26

December 31, 2000.. 26

January 7, 2001.. 27

5.3     Analysis.. 27

6.0     Trudy Rubin Columns.. 29

6.1     Trudy Rubin.. 29

6.2     Overall stand.. 30

6.3 Analysis.. 30

The victims.. 30

Responsibility for crisis/violence.. 33

The crackdown on uprising.. 37

The Settlements.. 38

The Right of Return.. 38

The International community.. 39

Peace Proposals.. 40

Assassination Policy.. 41

6.4 Mentions.. 42

UN resolutions/findings.. 42

Findings and reports by human right organizations.. 42

Palestinian casualties.. 42

That Israel is an occupying force.. 42

6.5 Summary and conclusions.. 43

7.0 Summary and conclusions.. 45


Introduction

 

 

This report details the findings of an analysis conducted by Palestine Media Watch of how the Middle East crisis has been covered by the opinion pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer between October 6, 2000 and January 13, 2001.

 

Our aim in writing this report is to raise the Philadelphia Inquirer’s awareness of its own editorial coverage of the Middle East crisis.  Our aim is not to characterize or label the Inquirer, but to examine its product and the quality and variety of what it is offering its readership.

 

If you wish to contact Palestine Media Watch, please send email to:

 

pmwatch@zworg.com

 

If you wish to contact The Philadelphia Inquirer, please send email to:

 

Inquirer.letters@phillynews.com

 

 

1.0 Definitions

 

Three key terms will be used throughout this report to qualify editorials, columns, and cartoons: “pro-Israeli”, “pro-Palestinian”, and “balanced.”  This section spells out what we mean by the three terms.

 

By and large, it has been remarkably easy to classify any given column to one of the three categories.  “Pro-Israeli” columns are readily identifiable, since they reflect a well-defined world-view from which “pro-Israeli” columns very rarely deviate: (1) Palestinians are primarily to blame for the violence, (2) Barak has offered major concessions, (3) Palestinians should accept Barak’s concessions, (4) Palestinians have no right of return, etc.  Beyond that, “pro-Israeli” columns are striking in how they leave from mention very important issues, such as the killing of children, civilians from their homes, the use of live ammunition against civilians, effect on hospitals, the economic hardship endured by Palestinians, etc.

 

What is remarkable is how very little that is new, informative or original can be found in a  “pro-Israeli” column.  This is the more remarkable since more than 80% of opinion print space has been given to “pro-Israeli” expressions.  That is, the same narrow story has been told, again and again, throughout these 13 weeks, with little variation on the message, tone, the facts or the nature of the discourse.

 

“Pro-Palestinian” columns tend to stress some basic realities that “pro-Israeli” columns ignore: mainly, they highlight the illegal character of Israeli actions, the reality on the ground, and characterize Israel as the aggressor rather than the victim. 

 

“Balanced” columns by and large avoid faulting either side, or when faulting, both sides ate taken to task.  “Balanced” columns tend to stress the morally obvious, the legal sound, and some very basic, given factual realities

 

Below are the stands taken by the three camps on some key issues.  Note that the “key issues” vary from one category to the other. 

Pro-Israeli

 

Arafat:

 

Israel:

 

Peace Process:

 

Barak:

 

 

The US: should always side, unconditionally, with Israel

 

The Intifadha:

 

 

 

Sharon's visit: was simply an opportunity the Palestinians were waiting for

 

The Palestinians’ Right of return:

 

Jerusalem:

 

The subtext

 

 

Balanced

 

Palestinian suffering:

 

Violence: neither side can win with guns

 

UN: Resolution 242 must be basis of conflict resolution

 

Arafat:

 

Settlements:

 

Israel reaction to uprising:

 

Peace Process:

 

 

 

 

The subtext

 

 

Pro-Palestinian

 

 

Right of return:

 

·        Palestinians have a legitimate right to return to their homeland

·        Israel should accept responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem

 

Settlements:

·        Israel should evacuate all occupied territories

·        Israel has continuously built settlements in direct violation of Oslo

·        Building of settlements has accelerated under Barak

 

Peace process:

·        Negotiations should continue

·        Negotiations have collapse because of Israeli intransigence

·        The US is not an honest broker: it stands squarely with Israel

·        Barak did not offer “far-reaching” concessions

·        Israel has kept political prisoners in jail in violation of Oslo

 

Sharon/Sharon’s visit:

·        Ariel Sharon’s provocations were intentional

·        Ehud Barak was trying to pressure Arafat when he allowed Sharon’s visit

 

Palestinian suffering:

·        Palestinians are enduring severe economic hardships

·        Palestinians are under military occupation

·        Curfews and movement-limiting actions hurt Palestinians a great deal

·        Palestinians need true sovereignty

 

Israeli crackdown:

·        There is a need for an independent inquiry into the violence

·        Israel has reacted with disproportionate violence

·        Ratio of killings: 10-1

·        The harsh crackdown will only strengthen Palestinian resolve

 

International law/human rights:

·        UN resolution 242 should be basis of peace

·        Israel repeatedly violates international law

·        Frequent mentions of Universal Declaration of Human Rights

·        Israel sniper assassination of Palestinian leadership is illegal an immoral

·        Israel repeatedly violates basic human right principles/Geneva convention

·        Frequent mentions of human right reports

 

 

Jerusalem:

·        Al-Aqsa is important for Muslims

·        Jerusalem should be an open city

·        Barak has pursued a policy of Judaicization of Jerusalem

·        The political conflict should not be turned into a religious war

 

 

2.0    Letters to the editor

 

The Philadelphia Inquirer published 38 letters to the editor on the Middle East crisis between October 6, 2000 and January 13, 2001.  This section provides a quantitative analysis of those letters.

 

 

2.1 The Letters Staff

 

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Letters editor is Kevin Ferris.  On one occasion when we tried to contact Mr. Ferris, Mr. Vernon Clark was filling in for the vacationing Kevin Ferris.

 

2.2 Analysis

 

The 38 letters on the Intifadha have been classified in this report into one of the following categories: “pro-Israeli”, “pro-Palestinian”, or “balanced”. 

 

Each letter’s column length was measured in centimeters to assess approximately the amount of space it occupied. For instance, on October 6, a “pro-Israli” letter 7.5cm in length was published, while an 8.0 “pro-Palestinian” letter was published that same day.  All letters had the same column width. 

 

 

Date

Pro-Israeli

Pro-Palestinian

Balanced

Oct 6

7.5/8.5/4.5/8.0

8.0/8.5/7.2

-

Oct 7

10.8

-

-

Oct 13

5.5/10.5/3.7

9.3/8.0/4.5

14.5/2.8

Oct 20

24.2

13.2

-

Oct 25

8.7/8.7

-

-

Oct 30

-

16.0/5.2

-

Nov 22

9.0/17.3/10.0

6.0/10.0/2.0

-

Dec 3

-

-

9.6

Dec 18

13.1/10.2

-

-

Dec 23

-

12.8

-

Jan 5

7.6/9.3/11.7

9.3/5.9/12.3

-

 

 

 

 

Totals

188.8 (19)

138.2 (16)

26.9 (3)

 

53.35%

39.05%

7.60%

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Quantitative breakdown of letters

 

 

An important observation to make is that 4 of the 19 “pro-Israeli” letters to the editor were published with the affiliation of the writers explicitly stated:

 

 

There were no “pro-Palestinian” or balanced letters with any official affiliations.  Palestine Media Watch president, Ahmed Bouzid, has published two letters in the Inquirer, but neither showed his position or affiliation.

 

2.3 Staff accessibility and responsiveness

 

The letters staff has been accessible and responsive.  Kevin Ferris has been consistently prompt in responding to our email queries. On the two occasions that we have called to complain about stories, Mr. Vernon Clark, who was filling in for Mr. Ferris on that day, and later Mr. Ferris himself, listened patiently and attentively and engaged us in conversations.

 

2.4 Conclusions

 

We would like to commend the Inquirer’s letters editor and his staff for doing a good job in offering their readers a chance to read letters from both sides of the issue. 

 

We also would like to express our appreciation for their accessibility and responsiveness.  We hope the Inquirer will persevere in this path.

3.0 Editorials

 

The Philadelphia Inquirer published five editorials on the Middle crisis since October 3, 2000:

 

October 3, 2000 – “Peace under fire”

October 13, 2000 – “Don’t give in to war”

November 24, 2000 – “Take the chance”

December 12, 2000 – “Turning point in Israel”

January 13, 2001 – “A legacy lost”

 

This section examines in some detail the content of those editorials. 

 

3.1 Editors and the editorial board

 

The editor of the editorial page is Chris Satullo.

 

The members of the Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board, as published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, are:

 

John Timpane – Commentary page editor

Kevin Ferris – Readers’ editor

Vernon Clark – Assistant Editorial Page Editor

 

Editorial writers:

 

·        Henry Brian

·        Russell Cooke

·        Cynthia Henry

·        Douglas Pike

·        Fawn Vrazo

 

3.2 Analysis

 

3.2.1     Portraying the victims

 

Palestinian deaths were mentioned in the editorial without any expression of regret.  The killing of 12-year Muhamed Al-Durra, for instance, was mentioned clinically (see 1,b below), with no expressions of outrage or compassion.  By contrast, the killing of the two Israeli soldiers in October 12, 2000, was described as a “brutal murder” (see 2.a).

 

 

1.  Palestinian victims:

 

a.  Oct 3, 2000 – “Dozens of people have been killed, and more than 1000 wounded…”

 

b.  Oct 3, 2000 – “TV coverage included live shots of a Palestinian father with his 12-year-old son cowering in the cross fire, which killed the boy and a would-be rescuer, and seriously wounded his father.  While anti-Israeli Palestinians cast him as a martyr, more likely, his death and the other’s will simply help to prolog hostilities that serve no one.”

 

c.  Nov. 24, 2000 – “… retaliatory Israeli attacks terrified Gazans and added to Palestinian casualties.”

 

2. Israeli victims:

a.  October 13, 2000 – “… yesterday’s brutal Palestinian murder of at least two Israeli reservists”

 

b.  November 24, 2000 – “… an Israeli school bus was bombed in Gaza and another bus blown up in the Israeli town of Hadera”

 

NOTES:

 

In 1.b - Note the cold, analytical tone in description of the 12-year-old’s death (his name is not mentioned).  No expression of regret over the tragic circumstances of his killing.  Contrast to 2.a, where the killing of the soldiers is described as “a brutal murder”.

 

In 1. b - Note the wholesale adoption of “cross-fire”, in compliance with official Israeli terminology.

 

In 1.b - Note how by the end of paragraph in 1.b, where boy’s death is mentioned, Palestinians are placed in a position of blame!

 

In 2.a – Again complying with official Israeli terminology, the soldiers are described as “reservists”, notwithstanding the loud protests to the contrary on the Palestinian side. 

 

In 1.c - Attacks on Gazans described as “retaliatory” – again, in compliance with official the Israeli language

 

In 1.c - Contrast to 2.b, where we are told that school buses were attacked, along with the name of a town where one of the buses was bombed

 

3.2.2     Adopting the official Israeli line

 

 

The Inquirer expressed very rarely any opinions that deviated from the official Israeli line.  On item after item, the Inquirer echoed faithfully the official rendering of the crisis, who is to blame, and how the conflict should be resolved.

 

a.   Ariel Sharon’s culpability in the 1982 Sabra and Shatilla massacres:

 

Oct. 3, 200 -- “Palestinians despise Mr. Sharon, who notoriously failed to protect Palestinians from being killed in Labanese refugee camps in 1982.” 

 

NOTES:

 

·        Independent reports clearly show active involvement of the IDF in facilitating the Christian militiamen’s actions.

 

b.   The Soldiers killed were merely army reservists:

 

Oct. 13, 2000 – “yesterday’s brutal Palestinian murder of at least two Israeli reservists….” 

 

NOTES:

 

·        This editorial was written the day after the killing – i.e., no investigation having been conducted yet to determine whether or not Palestinian claims that they were assassination squad members were correct.

 

 

c.   Palestinians should not think that Israel is weak:

 

October 13, 2000 – “Many Palestinians drew false hope from Israeli’s decision this year to withdraw from Southern Lebanon after years of guerilla attacks on their troop.”

 

NOTES:

 

 

d.   The International community has nothing to offer:

 

Oct. 13, 2000 – “Mr. Arafat must be told firmly that the international community will not endorse a unilateral declaration of independence.”

 

November 24, 2000 – “Neither the Europeans nor the United Nations – the current preferred choices of the Palestinians – have much to offer.”

 

December 12, 2000 – “Palestinian demands that responsibility for the bloodshed be assigned wholly to Israel.”  What Palestinians want is an impartial investigation.

 

NOTES:

 

·        We are never given anything resembling even a partial explanation as to why the international community should have no say. 

 

e.   Israel is merely retaliating against aggression:

 

Nov. 24, 2000 – “… retaliatory Israeli attacks terrified Gazans and added to Palestinian casualties.”

 

 

f.   Barak has been generous

 

Oct. 3, 2000 – “… the peace-seeking flexibility that Mr. Barak showed at Camp David.”

 

Oct. 13, 2000 – “Mr. Barak, whose courageous peace proposals at camp David were rebuffed by Mr. Arafat….”

 

January 13, 2001 – “[The] violence of the Palestinian uprising… has soured Israeli voters on the concessions offered by Mr. Barak.”

 

g.   The Proposal offered the Palestinians is wonderful

 

 

January 13, 2001 – “The proposals, much of which Israeli leader Ehud Barak seemed prepared to accept – proposed a Palestinian state on 95% of the West Bank and Gaza…”

 

January 13, 2001 – “[Palestinians] refuse to recognize the magnitude of the Clinton proposals.”

 

h.   Arafat is to blame for the conflict:

 

Oct. 3, 2000 --- “… the peace-talk impasse is primarily due to the rigidity of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat.”

 

Oct. 3, 2000 – “… Arafat should have exerted himself against the growing violence.”

 

Oct. 13, 2000 --- “Mr. Barak, whose courageous peace proposals at Camp David were rebuffed by Mr. Arafat.”

 

Oct. 13, 2000 – “There is plenty of blame to go around.  Much – but not all – lies with Mr. Arafat.”

 

January 13, 2000 – “And Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat is unwilling to confront his emotional public with harsh realities.  This is tragically shortsighted”

 

3.2.3     Mentions

 

The following table summarizes the number of times some key points and issues were raised in the five editorials.

 

 

Description

Number of times

UN resolutions mentioned

0

Human right report findings mentioned

0

Arafat blamed

5

Barak blamed

0

Barak praised

3

Arafat praised

0

Palestinian death toll is 10 times more than the Israeli toll mentioned

0

 

 

Noteworthy is a total absence of any mention of the various UN resolutions passed by the United Nations condemning Israel’s use of military force against civilian populations. 

 

Equally noteworthy is the total absence of any mention of reports issued by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Peace Now, B’tselem, etc., that squarely place the blame on Israeli forces for using excessive military force on civilians, condemn the killing of children, decry the economic blockade by Israel on the Palestinians, decry the practice of assassination, decry Israeli violence against journalists, and strongly challenge the official Israeli line.

 

3.3 Conclusions

 

The five editorials written by the Philadelphia Inquirer between October 3, 2000 and January 13, 2001, strongly reflect the official Israeli stand on the Middle crisis.  In what they mention, how they mention it, and what they fail to mention, the editorials remained closely faithful to the official Israeli position and displayed very little that is original on what the root causes of the crisis are, why the violence has persisted, and what may be done to bring the conflict to an end.  The editorials completely ignored a wealth of facts, readily available, from the United Nations, independent journalists, and dozens of respected human rights groups who have published detailed reports on the crisis considering its various social, political, economic, and humanitarian dimensions.

4.0 Columns

 

This section provides a breakdown of columns on the Middle East crisis published by the Philadelphia Inquirer between October 6, 2000 and January 13, 2001.

 

4.1 The Editors and the editorial board

 

The editor of the editorial page is Chris Satullo.

 

The members of the Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board during this period of analysis are:

 

John Timpane -- Commentary page editor

Kevin Ferris -- Readers’ editor

Vernon Clark -- Assistant editorial page editor

 

Editorial writers:

 

·        Henry Brian

·        Russell Cooke

·        Cynthia Henry

·        Douglas Pike

·        Fawn Vrazo

 

4.2 The columns

 

The Philadelphia Inquirer published 22 columns on the Middle East from Oct. 6, 2000 to January 13, 2001, the first of which was published on October 10, 2000.

 

 

10/09/00 – “As bad as we Imagine” by Helen Schary Moto

10/10/00 -- "Peace or bloodshed in Mideast?" by Daniel Pipes

10/14/00 -- "Arafat stoking trouble in push for statehood" by Galina Vromen

10/14/00 – “Barak should show he really wants peace” by Michael Tarazi

10/18/00 -- "Passion and peace in the Middle East" by Trudy Rubin

10/18/00 -- "The way a settlement might look" by Mubarak Awad/Abdul Aziz Said

10/25/00 –- “The Children’s crusad” By Trudy Rubin

10/27/00 -- "Facing a hard reality" by Trudy Rubin

10/29/00 -- "How can there be peace" by Morton A. Klein

10/29/00 -- "Facing a hard reality" by Trudy Rubin

11/01/00 -- "Spiraling toward a war" by Trudy Rubin

11/03/00 -- "Another bombing in Israel" by Trudy Rubin

11/05/00 -- "In a Jerusalem market, views are hardened" by Trudy Rubin

11/06/00 -- "Dodging bullets" by Lillian Swanson

11/12/00 -- "Despair at a new level" by Trudy Rubin

11/17/00 -- "Palestinians deserve U.S. support" by Susan Abulhawa

11/26/00 -- "Two paths Middle East mustn't taken" by Trudy Rubin

12/03/00 -- "Choice for Barak to adopt peace plan" by Gershon Baskin

12/11/00 -- "Be My Guest" by Daniel Pipes

12/15/00 -- "Arafat hoping a new lineup creates support" by Trudy Rubin

12/29/00 -- "Clinton Plan - last chance for Arafat" by Trudy Rubin

01/08/01 -- "Stumbling steps toward the end" by Gwynne Dyer

 

 

 

4.3 The columnists

 

 

Trudy Rubin

11

Daniel Pipes

2

Susan Abulhawa

1

Gershon Baskin

1

Gwynne Dyer

1

Morton A. Klein

1

Helen Schary Moto

1

Galina Vromen

1

Lillian Swanson

1

Mubarak Awad/Aziz Said

1

Michael Tarazi

1

 

4.4 Column breakdown

 

Pro-Isr = “Pro-Israeli”

Pro-Pal = “Pro-Palestinian”

 

Date

Type

10/09/2000

Pro-Isr

10/10/2000

Pro-Isr

10/14/2000

Pro-Pal

10/14/2000

Pro-Isr

10/18/2000

Pro-Pal

10/18/2000

Pro-Isr

10/25/2000

Pro-Isr

10/27/2000

Pro-Isr

10/29/2000 (Rubin)

Balanced

10/29/2000 (Klein)

Pro-Isr

11/01/2000

Pro-Isr

11/03/2000

Pro-Isr

11/05/2000

Pro-Isr

11/06/2000

Balanced

11/12/2000

Pro-Isr

11/17/2000

Pro-Pal

11/26/2000

Pro-Isr

12/03/2000

Pro-Isr

12/11/2000

Pro-Isr

12/15/2000

Pro-Isr

12/29/2000

Pro-Isr

01/08/2001

Pro-Isr

 

 

 

 

Space

 

 

No. columns

%

Pro-Israeli

17

78%

Pro-Palestinian

3

13%

Balanced

2

9%

 

Gaps

 

 

Weeks

Longest gap between pro-Israeli columns

1

Longest gap between pro-Palestinian columns

7

 

 

 

 

Note: It has actually been 10 weeks now since the last “pro-Palestinian” column was published (11/07/2000).

4.5 Analysis

 

The Philadelphia Inquirer provided approximately 6 times more space for “pro-Israeli” columns than it did for “pro-Palestinian” columns.  It published a total of 3 “pro-Palestinian” columns during the whole 13 weeks covered by this study.

 

The Philadelphia Inquirer column page has clearly failed to provide its readers with a balanced offering of opinions on the Middle East crisis.  The reader instead was treated to a narrow point of view that strongly reflected “pro-Israeli” opinions, with little space for, and large gaps between, “pro-Palestinian” columns.  By contrast, no more than two weeks separated consecutive “pro-Israeli” columns, sometimes with more 4 “pro-Israeli” columns appearing in a single week.

 

This stands in stark variance with John Timpane’s public statements of October 4[1], on the Inquirer’s policies, where he states:

 

I am looking, always, for a nice mix of things: international, local, different generations. I make sure not to go back to the same topic too often in the course of a month. No topic is out of bounds, and we have no topics that we consciously avoid. (See below)

 

We submit that a ratio of 6-1 between “pro-Israeli” columns and Palestinian columns is not “a nice mix of things."

 

We also submit that publishing 4 “pro-Israeli” columns, without a balancing “pro-Palestinian” column, in a row in a single month (e.g., 12/03-12/29) is at variance with Mr. Timpane’s statement, "I make sure not to go back to the same topic too often in the course of a month."

 

4.6 Staff accessibility and responsiveness

 

 

Palestine Media Watch submitted to John Timpane, Commentary Page editor, dozens of pieces during the period of this study.  Authors submitted ranged from high ranking, internationally known Palestinian officials and activists -- Hanan Ashrawi, Daoud Kuttab, Mustapha Barghouti, among others --- to scholars, students, and other articulate advocates of the Palestinian cause.

 

All submissions were ignored by Mr. Timpane.  Mr. Timpane moreover never acknowledged any of our submissions and never answered any of our queries.

 

In our one attempt to get in touch with Mr. Timpane by telephone (December 29, 2000), Mr. Timpane angrily admonished the President of Palestine Media Watch for "wasting our staff’s time" and abruptly terminated the conversation.

 

John Timpane’s reaction to Palestine Media Watch’s initiative to establish contact was clearly at variance with his public statements of October 4, where he states:

 

"Get in touch by repeated e-mails and phone calls, and we **will** get connected."

 

 

 

4.7 Conclusions and recommendations

 

The Philadelphia Inquirer should provide its readers with as many varied opinions on the crisis as it can spare in its opinion pages.  The readership should be given an opportunity to hear all sides of the conflict.  The Inquirer should provide equal access to its pages for "pro-Israeli”, “pro-Palestinian”, and “balanced” opinion pieces.

 

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s opinion staff should be more responsive to queries and suggestions.  We are well aware that the opinion page staff faces a mountain of material through which it needs to wade every day, but several dozens of email queries and submissions sent out across many weeks without a single response makes communication with the opinion page staff very difficult.  The only email communication we received from John Timpane was an admonishment about how we were not following procedure, sent to us after several weeks and dozens of emails.  We would have gladly followed whatever procedure Mr. Timpane prefers to better establish a working relationship with him and his staff had he explained to us the procedure from the outset. 

 

We hope that in the future the Inquirer will offer greater access for Palestinian voices to its opinion pages and staff.

5.0    Tony Auth Cartoons

 

The Philadelphia Inquirer published 6 cartoons on the Middle East by Tony Auth. 

5.1 Tony Auth

 

The following is a short biographical summary on Tony Auth found at: http://www.ucomics.com/tonyauth/bio.htm

 

 

Tony Auth, born in Akron, Ohio, and raised in Southern California, has been drawing since the age of five.

He graduated from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1965 and worked for six years as chief medical illustrator at Rancho Los Amigos Hospital, a large teaching hospital affiliated with the medical school of The University of Southern California.

In 1967, while still working as a medical illustrator, Auth began doing political cartoons. He first drew a single cartoon each week for Open City, a Los Angeles weekly. After a year, he began creating three drawings weekly for the UCLA Daily Bruin. Those cartoons were used widely in other college newspapers. In 1971, The Philadelphia Inquirer hired him as staff editorial cartoonist, and he is currently a member of its editorial board.

Auth has won several awards, including the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning and the Sigma Delta Chi Award for distinguished service in journalism.

Auth's work appears five times a week in The Philadelphia Inquirer. He and his wife, Eliza, have two children.


 

5.2        The Cartoons

 

October 12, 2000

 

October 15, 2000

 

October 26, 2000

 

December 29, 2000

December 31, 2000

January 7, 2001

 

 

5.3 Analysis

 

The cartoons clearly portray a bloodthirsty (Oct. 15), heartless and manipulative (Oct. 26), irrational (Dec. 31), and peace rejecting (Jan. 7), Yasir Arafat.

 

Arafat is shown with blood on his hands (Oct. 15): that is, he is held directly responsible for the killing of Israelis (in this case two Israeli soldiers).

 

Arafat is shown as heartless and manipulative (Oct. 26): he is luring children to their deaths.

 

Arafat is shown as irrational (De. 31): he has a clear choice between heaven and hell, and yet he hesitates.

 

The last cartoon (Jan. 7), shows him as the last one to hit the peace dove with his racket, while Mr. Barak helplessly tries to run after it.

 

Yasir Arafat appeared in 4 of the 6 cartoons.  Bill Clinton appeared 3 times.  Ehud Barak once.

 

Arafat is portrayed as responsible for both Israeli deaths (Oct. 15) and Palestinians deaths (Oct. 26).

 

Palestinians are portrayed as irrational (Oct. 12, 26), destroying their own homes and throwing themselves from a cliff.

 

Notable is the absence of Israeli military forces.  For example, the October 12 cartoon does not show at whom the Palestinians are throwing stones.  And the October 26 cartoon shows Palestinians throwing themselves across a cliff into literally nothingness, rather than confronting tanks and live ammunition. The impression given is that Palestinians are inflicting pain on themselves.

 

Notable also is the absence of any depiction of Palestinian suffering.  On the contrary, the impression is given that Palestinians are the aggressors.

 

President Clinton is shown as exerting himself haplessly (Dec. 29, Dec. 31, Jan. 7) for the sake of peace.  He is shown as a neutral arbiter (Jan. 7) trying to lead the way to peace (Dec. 29, 31).

6.0 Trudy Rubin Columns

 

The Philadelphia Inquirer published 11 opinion pieces by their one columnist, Trudy Rubin, between October 6, 2000 and January 13, 2001 -- the first of which on October 18, 2000.

 

·        October 18, 2000 – “Passion and peace in the Middle East”

·        October 25, 2000 – “The Children’s crusade”

·        October 27, 2000 – “Facing a hard reality”

·        October 29, 2000 – “Key mistakes on both sides fueled Mideast disaster”

·        November 1, 2000 – “Spiraling toward a war”

·        December 3, 2000 – “Another bombing in Israel could shatter chance of renewing talks”

·        November 5, 2000 – “In a Jerusalem Market, views are hardening toward Palestinians”

·        November 12, 2000 – “In Mideast, despair at a new level as tensions rise and hope fades”

·        November 26, 2000 – “Two paths Middle East mustn’t take”

·        December 15, 2000 – “Arafat hoping a new lineup creates support”

·        December 29, 2000 – “Clinton Plan: Last Chance for Arafat."

 

This report examines in some detail the content of those columns.

 

6.1 Trudy Rubin

Foreign Affairs Columnist
From: http://home.phillynews.com/inquirer/opinion/WHOWEARE.ASP

”My father started discussing foreign affairs with me at the dinner table when I was in elementary school in Boston, and so the twig was bent. Then came Smith College and the London School of Economics. My worldview got a shaping during the Prague Spring of 1968, during a stint as guest staffer on Radio Prague's English news, where I learned firsthand about what it meant to live under/rebel against communism.

Annual visits to the Mideast since 1968, and seven years based there as a foreign correspondent, have hooked me on the region. Yearly trips to Russia (a.k.a. the Soviet Union) since 1985 and periodic visits to China have taught me about the pains of exiting communism.

Living in Philly lets me roam the Bowash corridor to talk to foreign affairs experts, with time off for old movies, collecting folk art and tending to family and friends. As globalization remolds the world, it's a pretty exciting time to be writing a twice-weekly column (called Worldview) and unsigned editorials on international affairs.

 

6.2 Overall stand

 

Out of the 11 opinion pieces published by Ms. Rubin, 10 can

be classified as on balance more sympathetic to Israelis than to Palestinians. 

 

Only one column, “Key Mistakes on both sides fueled the Mideast disaster” (Oct. 29) can be considered relatively balanced in its analysis.

 

6.3 Analysis

 

 

The victims

 

Israelis

 

Ms. Rubin extensively quoted a wide range of Israeli voices: government officials, writers, intellectuals, activists, as well as regular civilians.  Indeed, three of her columns (Oct. 27, Nov. 3, Nov. 5) focused primarily on how Israeli civilians were coping with the crisis.

 

Time and again, Ms. Rubin gave ample space for quotes from regular Israeli civilians.  Non-activist Palestinian civilians were given no quote space.

 

Israeli feelings were described compassionately and in vividly human terms: words such as “soul”, “dream”, “confusion”, etc., were used. 

 

Israeli civilians were by and large portrayed as feeling confused, betrayed, afraid, and understandably angry.

 

Full, specific names -- sometimes friendly nick names -- were used to describe Israeli civilians, with physical descriptions and background information spelled out in detail, drawing vivid portraits that bring their humanity to life. 

 

On several occasions, Ms. Rubin frequently used “my friend” to refer to some Israeli civilians she quoted.  We could find only 1 instance of “my friend” in reference to a Palestinian. (Oct. 29)

 

Also notable is the total absence of “scare” quotes when describing Israeli feelings.  Ms. Rubin frequently used scare quotes when describing the Palestinian perspective.

 

 

Nov. 12, 2000 – “On the Israeli side, doves thought they were close to a final peace deal, so its total collapse has upended their worldview.  One Israli architect friend who fought in three wars told me, ‘I feel like everything I worked my whole life has collapsed, and I haven’t got the strength to start over.”  Many centrists, who came reluctantly to accept the idea of a Palestinian state over the last five year, now feel equally duped.”

 

November 5, 2000 – “When we stopped into the Levy brothers’ tiny storefront sweets and wine store, their buddy Lenny, whose father escaped to Israel from Iraq, exploded at the idea of continuing negotiations with Yasir Arafat.”

 

Oct. 27, 2000 – “At Omer Golan’s high school, a handsome white stone and glass building, principal Hanich Greenberg has taken a pistol out of a gun locker and now wears it tucked into the back of his belt.  The 60’ish Greenberg, a bear of a man with a thick shock of white hair, is trying to figure out how hackers got into the school’s Web site and left an English message: ”Two words for you Israeli pigs – ‘Allah akhbar’” (Arabic for God is great).

 

 

The vivid impression created is of threatening Arabs invading the peaceful lives of peace loving Israelis with whom we are encouraged to identify on a basic, human level.

 

Palestinians

 

Ms. Rubin seemed to be aware of the fact that hardship on Palestinians is the main cause behind their uprising.  (Oct. 29)

 

However, aside her October 29, 2000 piece, Ms. Rubin by and large neglected to stress this reality as the main factor fueling the unrest. 

 

Ms. Rubin gave very scant details about the actual day-to-day hardships suffered by Palestinians. 

 

Very few mentions were made of closures or curfews.

 

Ms. Rubin did quote Palestinian voices.  However, virtually all of her quotes came from Palestinian officials and leaders. 

 

The couple of quotes we were able to find from civilians were from youngsters throwing stones or frantic adults trying to stop them.  

 

We could not find any quotes from a man-in-the-street Palestinian civilian going about their daily life.

 

Ms. Rubin very rarely mentions the various civilian Palestinian groups, human rights organizations, and other political voices.

 

Palestinian suffering was by and large described clinically, in general terms, en masse, rather than at a human level. 

 

Scare quotes were used many times to distance the writer/reader from the Palestinians.

 

In the one instance where Ms. Rubin focused on Palestinian civilians (Oct. 25, 2000), she chose to write about stone-throwing Palestinians in the heat of a funeral, followed by an account on stone throwing teenagers.

 

 

Nov. 12, 2000 – “The Oslo process – which held out the prospect for a Palestinian state as its endgame – actually left the Palestinians worse off during its interim stages.”

 

Nov. 12, 2000 – “On the Palestinian side, moderates who believed in a two-state solution now feel marginalized and are quick to lay blame on “bad faith” by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.  Much more disturbing, one hears ugly rhetoric on the Palestinian street about killing Jews that is worse than anything I have heard in decades, even in the refugee camps of Lebanon in the 1980.”

 

Oct. 29, 2000 – “Palestinian rage: Both sides underestimated it.  Drive around the West Bank and it’s easy to understand why things were boiling.”

 

Oct. 18, 2000 – “Those powerful religious emotions have now fused with nationalism in an elixir that excites Palestinian crowds.  It is the ‘threat’ to Al-Aqsa, magnified by Arab cable TV stations across the region… challenging moderate Arab leaders who fear the power of these passions.”

 

Oct. 18, 2000 – “Yet Islamic groups on the West Bank and within Israel have fanned these fears with campaigns to ‘save Al-Aqsa’.  (Every archeological dig, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s 1996 opening of an underground tunnet exit, fueled their paranoia.)”

 

October 18, 2000 – “This fed historic Muslim conspiracy theories about Israeli government plots to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque.  But such canards are simply untrue, as Arafat must know.”

 

October 18, 2000 – “every archaeological dig, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s 1996 opening of an underground tunned exit, fueled their paranoia.”

 

 

Responsibility for crisis/violence

 

Palestinians

 

Ms. Rubin blames mainly Yasir Arafat for the uprising.

 

Mr. Arafat is portrayed as greedy, manipulative, irrational, and cowardly.

 

Mr. Arafat is portrayed as able to bring a stop to violence if and when he wishes.  The continuation of the uprising is attributed to his strategy of “trying to ride the violence to a better deal“ (Nov. 12, 2000)

 

Mr. Arafat’s political realities are acknowledged.  However, they are reduced to a clash between Fatah and radical terrorist groups. (Nov. 3, 2000) 

 

Mr. Arafat’s complex political realities, moreover, are never presented as evidence of Mr. Arafat’s limited room to maneuver.  Instead, Ms. Rubin points them out only to call on Mr. Arafat to clamp down on them.

 

On several occasion, Ms. Rubin places the burden of “choosing” war or peace squarely on Mr. Arafat’s shoulders. By contrast, Israeli aggressions are depicted as unfortunate tactical blunders at worst.

 

Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian leadership are portrayed as irrational, while the Israeli leadership is portrayed as rational.  We are never given a coherent, rational thesis explaining why Palestinians refuse to accept Mr. Barak’s offers. 

 

Stone-throwers are portrayed as instigators, going out of their way to provoke the IDF.

 

 

October 18, 2000 – “Instead, the Palestinian leader fanned, or failed to calm, religious and national passions until these passions destroyed the Oslo negotiating process and may even devour Arafat himself.”

 

December 29, 2000 – “The biggest obstacle to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is not what you think….  The gap is psychological.  It’s about whether the Palestinians are ready to make a realistic compromise and get on with building a new future.”

 

December 15, 2000 – “None of this will work unless the Bush team can persuade moderate Arab leaders to disabuse Arafat of illusions that he can win Israli concessions without making his own – and tamping down the violence.”

 

November 12, 200 – “The impatience exploded shortly after Arafat rejected Barak’s proposals for final status at Camp David summkit in July.”

 

November 12, 2000 – “The Palestinian leader bears responsibility for failing to inform his people that pos-Camp David talks still had potential – even after violence erupted.  And he bears much blame for trying to ride the violence to a better deal than he could get at the table.”

 

November 3, 2000 - “This time only two people were killed.  But one more bomb will blow up any illusions about restarting peace talks.  If that’s what Yasir Arafat wants, he’d better redefine his new and dangerous relationship with radical Islamist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.”

 

October 29, 2000 – “Arafat’s sin was to offer no counterproposal at Camp David, and give the impression it was a total failure.”

 

October 29, 2000 – “But by heating up the Jerusalem issue, he made more likely the upheaval sparked by Ariel Sharon several weeks later.”

 

October 29, 2000 – “Arafat has chosen to ride a wave of violence that started the day after Sharon’s visit, to stoke it, and to try to use it to pressure Israel for more favorable terms.”

 

October 25, 2000 – “The Ayosh junction is way out of town; youths have to hike to the soldiers.  Yes, Israeli soldiers should be using tear gas more often than live fire or rubber bullets, but it’s ludicrous for Palestinian officials to call these ‘peaceful demonstrations’.”

 

Oct. 18, 2000 – “Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon ignited these fears with his disastrous visit to the Temple Mount that sparked the current violence. Again, Arafat has a choice: play up these religious passions as a negotiating tool, or try to damp them down.”

 

Oct. 18, 2000 – “Rabin and Barak made strategic decisions, in Israel’s self-interest, so Israel wouldn’t have to rule over three million angry Palestinians.  Where they went wrong us to think that Arafat and his public leaders would react equally rationally.”

 

Nov. 1, 2000 – “So why embark on guerilla war? Why make it almost impossible for Barak to renew talks before his government falls, and Bill Clinton leaves office.”

 

 

Israelis

 

Mr. Barak is by and large portrayed as having done the maximum that he can do.  He is portrayed as generous, trustworthy, rational, and courageous.

 

Mr. Barak’s political realities are acknowledged and discussed.  Those realities are presented to explain Mr. Barak’s limited room to maneuver and to highlight Mr. Barak’s “political courage”.

 

The failings of Israelis are presented as understandable, or sometimes even as virtues.  Mr. Barak and the Israelis, for example, are presented as having been impatient, but bold.

 

December 15, 2000 – “Barak failed – thanks to a lack of political skills and the shortsightedness of Yasir Arafat.”

 

October 29, 2000 – “The Israeli prime minister, who most wanted the summit, underestimated the need to prepare the ground.”

 

October 29, 2000 – “Barak’s worst sin was hubris – the expectation that the toughest issues could be solved in two weeks.”

 

October 18, 2000 – “True, the Israeli ideas came very late, after innumerable broken negotiating deadlines.  They were introduced too abruptly before either side has prepared its own public for compromise.  But they broke taboos and opened the door for further negotiations – even if they weren’t the final word.”

 

October 18, 2000 – “Israel was ready to discuss compromise formulas – even some form of UN Security Council control over the site.   But Arafat insisted on Palestinian Sovereignty – full stop…”

 

 

 

The crackdown on uprising

 

Ms. Rubin recognizes that the Israeli crackdown on civilians is fueling the unrest. 

 

Ms. Rubin only rarely refers to Israeli use of firepower against civilians.

 

Details about Palestinian victims are never given. 

 

No account was given of effect on hospitals.

 

No mention of scores of children killed.

 

No mention was made of civilians killed in their homes.

 

No mention was made of journalists killed.

 

No mention was made of medics killed.

 

No mention was made of sniper policy used by the IDF against stone throwers.

 

Ms. Rubin never condemned the crackdown on moral or legal terms.  At worst, the crackdown was described as merely strategically counterproductive.

 

Dec. 15, 2000 – “a tougher crackdown on the Palestinians is insufficient and will only beget more guerilla war”

 

 

The Settlements

 

Ms. Rubin recognizes that settlements are an obstacle to peace.

 

However, she never mentions that they are built on occupied, or illegally confiscated land. 

 

The settlements, when criticized, are merely described as a strategic obstacle and a logistic complication.

 

Dec. 15, 2000 – “So Bibi may have to contemplate things his likud Party never imagined, like dismantling Israeli settlements that are lodged in the middle of Gaza and the West Bank.  Otherwise, there is no way to separate hostile Palestinian and Israli populations.”

 

Nov. 26, 2000 – “Last week’s roadside attack by Palestinian gunmen on a settler schoolbus in Gaza showed just how vulnerable the 180,000 settlers in the West Bank are.”

 

Nov. 26, 2000 – “The claim that dismantling settlements would put Israel proper at risk has got it backward.”

 

Nov. 26, 2000 – “Even Israeli doves believe it would be too dangerous to dismantly settlements unilaterally; it must be part of a negotiated package.”

 

 

The Right of Return

 

Scare quotes were always used to refer to refer to Palestinians’ right of return.

 

Palestinian refugees were described as having merely “left” rather than fled or were forced out.

 

Ms. Rubin reiterates the official Israeli line that Palestinians are all of a sudden bringing up the right of return question.

 

Ms. Rubin holds, in full agreement with the official Israeli line, that Israel cannot possibly take in Palestinian refugees.

 

The refugee problem is primarily blamed on the Palestinians for bringing it upon themselves.

 

December 29, 2000 – “In return, Palestinians would have to give up the ‘right of return’ for refugees who left Israel during the 1948 war, and their descendents.”

 

December 29, 2000 – “One reason is the ‘right of return’, which Palestinians long claimed was less important than control of Jerusalem.  Now, suddenly, Palestinian officials say any compromise of that right could precipitate civil war within the Palestinian community.”

 

December 29, 2000 – “But even the most ardent Israeli doves rightly reject the idea of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees… returning to Israel proper.”

 

December 29, 2000 – “Had [Palestinians] swallowed their anger and said ‘yes’, the Palestinian refugee problem never would have arisen and their state would be 52 years old.”

 

 

The International community

 

Ms. Rubin by and large sees no mediating role for the international community, fully in agreement with the official Israeli stand.

 

The only role for the international community that Ms. Rubin cites is one of pressuring Arafat to make more concessions.

 

No explanation was given by Ms. Rubin as to why international involvement is unlikely or not welcome.

 

United Nations condemnations and other international denunciations of Israeli policies are never mentioned by Ms. Rubin.

 

The American double standard in its reaction to the Kosovo crisis vs the Palestinian crisis is not only lost on Ms. Rubin, but she in fact points out Kosovo as evidence that the international community will not and should not intervene similarly!

 

December 29, 2000 – “Israelis will unite behind Sharon, and the international community will reject a Palestinian leadership that shies from a negotiated solution.”

 

Dec. 15, 2000 - “None of this will work unless the Bush team can persuade moderate Arab leaders to disabuse Arafat of illusions that he can win Israeli concessions without making his own and tamping down on the violence.”

 

Nov. 1, 2000 – “Clearly, [Marwan Barghouti] is hoping the international community will save the Palestinians from sliding toward all-out war – by pressing Israel to return to negotiations on terms more favorable to Palestinians.  Unlikely.”

 

Nov. 1, 2000 – “Some Palestinians even hope that an international force will arrive on the West Bank to protect them, the way NATO sent troops into Kosovo.  But this is a pipe dream.  No international force will intervene in the middle of a guerilla conflict.  Not to mention that the Kosovo force was led by – the Americans.”

 

 

 

Peace Proposals

 

Ms. Rubin often wrote about the proposals and offers on the table as though their substance were known and uncontroversial.  The remaining question being simply whether or not Arafat was willing to accept them.

 

Very little room was given to specific Palestinian demands.

 

Very little room was given to specific Palestinian objections to the proposals.

 

Ms. Rubin totally ignored Mr. Barak’s repeated statements that he will never compromise on sovereignty over the temple Mount/Haram Al-Shariif.  On the contrary, she writes as though Mr. Barak has been unambiguously offering such sovereignty.

 

Any shortcomings Ms. Rubin identified in the plans offered by Clinton and Barak are stylistic rather than substantive.  In Ms. Rubin’s view, it is the manner in which Mr. Barak and Mr. Clinton have proceeded rather than what they have offered that is the heart of the problem.

 

December 29, 2000 – “Palestinians would get their key demand: sovereignty over the Temple Mount, or Noble Sanctuary, site of Islam’s third holiest mosque but also the site of ancient Israel’s temples.”

 

December 29, 2000 – “Clinton precipitated the need to choose by putting forward a last-minute plan only weeks before he leaves office.  It involves extremely painful compromises by both sides.”

 

October 29, 2000 – “Although the Oslo interim agreements gave Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority control over more than 90 percent of Palestinians, most live in handful of large cities and villages.  These are separated from one another by land controlled partially or fully by Israel – the bulk of the total land mass.”

 

Assassination Policy

 

Ms. Rubin wrote once in opposition to calls by right wing extremists for Israel to assassinate Palestinian leaders. 

 

However, Ms. Rubin never wrote explicitly in condemnation of assassinations that were actually carried out by Israel.  Her two columns since Israel began its assassination policy (Dec. 15, Dec. 29) never mentioned or condemned the practice.

 

Ms. Rubin’s opposition seems to be motivated by strategic concerns and not moral principles.  No mention is made that such practice is in violation of international law and due process.

 

 

Nov. 26, 2000 – “The Israeli government should ignore right-wing pressure to assassinate Arafat’s aides, or it will leave the Palestinian leadership field open to Islamist zealots.”

 

 

 

6.4 Mentions

 

UN resolutions/findings

 

Noteworthy is a total absence in Ms. Rubin’s columns of any mention of the various UN resolutions passed by the United Nations condemning Israel’s use of military force against civilian populations. 

 

Findings and reports by human right organizations

 

Equally noteworthy is the total absence of any mention of reports issued by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Peace Now, B’tselem, etc., that squarely place the blame on Israeli forces for using excessive military force on civilians, condemn the killing of children, decry the economic blockade by Israel on the Palestinians, decry the practice of assassination, decry Israeli violence against journalists, and strongly challenge the official Israeli line.

 

Palestinian casualties

 

There were only two specific mentions of Palestinian casualty figures. 

 

 

Oct. 25, 2000 – “Funerals have become the awful symbole of the new unrest on the West Bank, with more than 130 Palestinians shot dead…”

 

Nov. 1, 2000 – “… unless [Arafat] gets some agreement from the Israelis that makes his public believe it was worth 140 or so dead and thousand wounded.”

 

That Israel is an occupying force

 

The word “occupation” was used only once in all 11 columns. (Nov. 12, 2000)

 

Ms. Rubin also failed to describe Israel’s two-decade occupation of Southern Lebanon as an occupation.  Instead, the impression given is that Israel was a passive victim of terrorism.

 

Nov. 12, 2000 - But neither can Israel maintain an indefinite occupation of over 3 million Palestinians…”

 

Nov. 26, 2000 – “Lebanese guerillas carried out endless roadside attacks and suicide bombings against Israeli troops.”

 

 

6.5 Summary and conclusions

 

Ms. Rubin’s views on the conflict deviated very little from the official position articulated by Ehud Barak’s office.

 

 

More troubling than the close match between Ms. Rubin’s views and those officially expressed by Ehud Barak’s spokespeople, is Ms. Rubin’s omission from mention of facts and realities published from various respected groups.

 

 

7.0 Summary and conclusions

 

This report has provided an analysis of how the Philadelphia Inquirer’s opinions pages have covered the Middle East crisis between Oct. 6, 2000 and January 13, 2001.

 

The picture that emerges is one of a paper that is in strong compliance with the official Israeli line.  The editorials, columns, and cartoons deviate very little from the worldview advanced from Ehud Barak’s office or the State Department (which has always maintained an explicit policy of not contradicting the official Israeli line: i.e., “we will not tell Israel what to do”).

 

More disturbing is the very little space provided for “pro-Palestinian” voices.  Aside the letters to the editor section, which roughly allows equal space for “pro-Israeli” and “pro-Palestinian” letter, the ration between space given to “pro-Israeli” and “pro-Palestinian” expressions, is more approximately 6 to 1.

 

This report was submitted by hand to the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Editor of the Editorial Page, Chris Satullo, on January 29, 2001.  A copy was also submitted by hand to John Timpane, Commentary Page editor, and Kevin Ferris, Letters editor.  An updated copy of this report has been sent to the other members of the editorial board.

 

A follow up meeting has been scheduled with the Philadelphia Inquirer in approximately 8 weeks. 

 

A new version of this report will be published once every four weeks.
Appendix - A - About Palestine Media Watch

 

 

Palestine Media Watch is a grass-roots media watch group that monitors the American media's coverage of the Middle East.  Our web site is at: http://www.pmwatch.org.  Our mission it to closely monitor news coverage and editorial writings on the Middle East crisis by all major media outlets in the Unites States, and to protest any bias we detect in both how the news is covered and interpreted.

 

Palestine Media Watch has officers across the United States, in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, and boasts an active and growing media gadfly membership of more than four hundred people.

 

Our Advisory Board includes:

 

·   Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, former Spokeswoman for the Palestinian Delegation to the Madrid Peace Conference.  Currently, Secretary General of Miftah, the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy, Jerusalem
 
·   Dr. Norman Finkelstein, teaches Political Science at Hunter College, City University of New York.
 
·   Dr. Tanya Reinhart, teaches at Tel Aviv University.  
 

You may contact Palestine Media Watch by sending an email pmwatch@zworg.com


[1] Go to http://chat.philly.com/archive/default_timpane.asp for the full trasncript