I missed this when it first came out:
While fairness can't be determined solely by the numbers of pictures in a situation like this, there is one statistic worth keeping in mind: the death toll. Nearly 1,150 Lebanese died, most of them civilians [actually, we have no idea how many of the "civilians" were actually Hizbollah fighters]. This is more than seven times as many as the roughly 150 Israelis, mostly soldiers, who died, according to The Times’s latest estimates. (One factor, of course, was that Israel's population apparently had more access to shelters that offered greater protection from Hezbollah's bombs.) The death toll appeared to relate closely to what was happening in the conflict [only, as I discuss below, if the primary focus of war coverage is supposed to be short-term civilian suffering], and therefore to provide a reasonable measure for shaping — and subsequently evaluating — the coverage. Indeed, Times editors responsible for both photography and news articles had those cumulative numbers of the deaths on each side in their minds each day. "We were totally aware," said Michele McNally, the assistant managing editor for photography. "Absolutely."
This focus on the death toll led me to review the number of Times pictures depicting corpses and coffins. There were about eight times as many photographs of Lebanese as of Israelis, a ratio roughly comparable to the overall one for deaths during the conflict. "We try to reflect what happens on the ground," said Susan Chira, the foreign editor. "We are extremely conscious of the death tolls. It would be unfair to truth to do otherwise."
Estimates of the relative physical damage weren't so readily available to Times editors as the conflict unfolded. But I'm comfortable with the editors' estimates that the relative physical destruction was even more disproportionate than the death tolls. The pictures in the paper reflected that. Eight times as many pictures of physical damage in Lebanon, compared with those of destruction in Israel, appeared on Page 1. The ratio for all such photographs used in the coverage shrank to three to one, but the pictures from Lebanon that ran inside the paper tended to be larger.
What an odd way to justify the "fairness" of media coverage! For one thing, it suggests that the Times' coverage of the Iraq war has been grossly unfair to the Iraqis, or, if you prefer, the Iraqi "resistance."
For that matter, consider the "unfairness" of the Times' coverage of 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan. We certainly got more pictures of "American suffering" because of 9/11 than of suffering in Afghanistan because of NATO military action.
Sure, the Times is an American paper, and thus gives the U.S. a "home field advantage," but that just raises the question of why Israel, a close American ally, fighting Hizbollah, a sworn American enemy, doesn't get at least a less extreme version of the same sort of advantage.
For another thing, the ombudsman later acknowledges that these photos were completely acontextual, because the Times almost never carried any photos of Hizbollah forces:
Times readers got hardly any photographs of Hezbollah fighters. Photographers were actively discouraged [what a euphemism for "were threatened with death"!] from taking pictures of them, Ms. McNally said. I found only two pictures that portrayed Hezbollah fighters; both ran on Aug. 10, and both showed the difficulty the guerrillas had in crossing the Litani River after Israeli attacks had put bridges out of commission. The two fighters in the front-page photo were wounded.
Meanwhile, although Israel didn't allow photographers to accompany its soldiers in the field, the Times managed to run quite a few photos of Israeli soldiers. The ombudsman says that this was for "balance," but it strikes me as the opposite, a propaganda victory for Hizbollah. The visual image Times' readers received, after all, was of the Lebanese civilian population suffering at a far greater rate than the Israeli civilian population, with pictures of Israeli soldiers doing the damage, and no pictures of Hizbollah forces (not to mention Syrian and Iranian assistants) at all--much less pictures of them hiding among the civilian population--save for two photos of wounded soldiers, which would naturally raise the basic human sympathy of many readers.
Perhaps the most disturbing comment in the column is this: "editors had to shape their photographic coverage, however, with the knowledge that the access of Times photographers to the death and suffering on each side was not equal." It reflects a mentality, that is present in the entire column, that the essence of war is the suffering it creates on each side while the war is going on. The reasons for the war, the implications of victory or defeat for each side, the moral status of the combatants (an issue the ombudsman says is irrelevant!), and so forth, is at best a sideshow. I'd be the first to admit that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to use photographs to illustrate these complexities. But to the extent newspaper photographs play on visceral, but acontextual, emotional reactions of readers, the Times should at least be contrite about this, rather than bragging of it's "balance" because its photos reflect a given ratio of casualties. Moreover, the ombudsman acknowledges that the death toll affected news coverage as well, despite his disclaimer that the Times shouldn't consider "morality" in its coverage! [Is not the choice to focus on acontextual civilian suffering in Lebanon as the essence, or at least, an extremely important aspect, of the war itself an implicit moral choice, a choice that implicitly favors a pacifistic response to terrorism when the terrorists hide among civilians?]
UPDATE: I notice many commentors are focusing on tangential quibbles, and missing three basic points: (1) The ombudsman's explanation of the coverage, if accepted, would mean that the Times is "unfair" in virtually ever other conflict it has covered, a rather startling admission. (2) The ombudsman chose to focus on the photographs covered by the Times as an indication of objectivity, but if you follow the ombudsman's own "count", readers who relied solely on the visual saw no pictures of Hizbollah gunmen, lots of pictures of Israeli soldiers, few pictures of Israelis suffering, and many pictures of Lebanese suffering. That's only "balanced" in some sort of alternate universe. (3) The idea that the "balance" of war coverage should be determined by how well a paper covers "suffering" on each side suggests that the suffering is the most important aspect of the war. This is hardly a neutral perspective, and the Times should not pretend it is.
Ever had your house up Mr. Bernstein? Ever carried the mangled body of your child out of some wreckage?
I suspect that if you had, you too might think that the "essence of war" is the "suffering it creates on each side."
But the last point in the article is correct. The implication is to not fight back when attacked, since it might create suffering.
Check how often the pitiful photos of the Hizbollah were printed vs the pitiful photos of the Israeli homes. Check how often the Hizbollah buried themselves in with the locals as opposed to keeping the locals away from the fighting. For some reason that MSM and the ombusdmen didn't see fit to make allowances for that at all.
Mr Bernsteins analysis seems more dispeptic than insightful. Handwringing over nuances in the tone of the NYT editorial policy and microanalysis of todays "editorial outrage" says more about the writer than the newpaper. Perhaps we can expect to read about the population of angels on the head of a pin next?
It could be that the recent little war was not quite the "mission accomplished" some members of the 101st Keyboard Brigade had hoped it would be.
Uh, do you have any comprehension of the destructive potential of the modern military apparatus? Apparently not, or you wouldn't utter the above with such scorn.
The point of this article is that civilian death tolls are not an accurate yardstick for determining whether coverage is balanced. The Times reliance on such a justification is certainly novel (it's never been used for other conflicts, to my knowledge), but its disingenuous and improper. But I suppose when all you care about is the "ends" (eliminate israel vs. disarm Hizbollah) and not the means (random rocket attacks on civilians vs. targetted bombings), Hizbollah are a bunch of noble proles, spreading love and poetry.
One glaring example is the editorial cartoon that appears daily in the Gannett newspapers. Fifty percent are cartoons of President Bush doing some atrocious thing, and the rest are of some Republican following his Chief's suit. I have NEVER seen a cartoon ridiculing the "other side."
So why is the Old Gray Lady any different?
Indeed, the "home court" bias you note with respect to 9-11, is inevitable for an American paper but surely "unfair" insofar as innocent Afghani have suffered. You seem like you demand the benefit of unfairness for Israel.
Under the ombudsman's theory, Israel will only get sympathetic coverage from the Times if it lets its enemies kill thousands of Israelis.
And when you're talking about "fairness" or "balance" to war coverage, the moral standing of the parties, including who bears ultimate moral responsiblity (e.g., Hez hiding behind civilians) is certainly relevant. Or, if morality is not relevant to begin with, than that includes civilian suffereing.
I fear the real result of this dirty little war is that the state of Israel has finally lost any hope of earning long-term legitimacy in its neighbourhood: it has fought and clearly failed to win an unnecessary war, at the expense of its relatively innocent neighbours. You do not undermine Hezbolah by demolishing projects (and the project next door, while we're at it). This is not about press coverage, it's the beginning of the end of the dream of an accepted Jewish homeland in the Middle East. It may be all over by the centenary of the Balfour Declaration.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/
transcripts_072806_iknow.html
Why would US media cover the Lebanon/Israel conflict any other way than to document the suffering inflicted unjustly on civilians on both sides? If the ratio of civilian death is 7 to 1 Leb-Isr., then it makes sense to portray such suffering in those same proportions in the media, unless one has a vested interest in a certain side's cause.
What if there was 10 times as much suffering in Israel instead, but the media covered the conflict the way that DB suggests? Undoubtedly we would find him here braying on and on about how the media 'minimized Israel suffering'.
If you have ever really lived overseas then you will know that the opinion of the U.S. is really shaped by hollywood.
Many more German civilians than American Civilians suffered during World War II. Would that have justified coverage of the sort that the New York Times had of Lebanon?
Oh, wait, you say, that's different. World War II was *justified* and Lebanon wasn't. Well, OK, you're entitled to your opinion. But admit it is an opinion, and obviously one that the New York Times shares, and displayed magnificently in it's highly opinionated coverage masquerading as news.
Is the United States at war with Lebanon?
There's two good reasons for the "home team advantage", which overrides the journalist's normal responsibility to gather both sides of the story-- (1) the journalists are citizens of the nation on one side of a conflict, and owe that nation some loyalty, and (2) it is very difficult, often impossible, to cover something happening behind "enemy" lines.
Neither applies here. New York Times reporters owe no loyalty whatsoever to Israel. Nor is it difficult for the New York Times to cover what happens in Hezbollah-controlled territories.
Thus, there is no reason the New York Times shouldn't give full coverage to Israeli-inflicted casualties. Of course, they should also cover Hezbollah-inflicted casualties, and the tactics and justifications used in the conflict. (Israel will come out better than Hezbollah on those measures-- and if those aspects of the conflict are undercovered, there is a legitimate claim of media bias.) But loss of innocent life is a part of warfare, and hawks constantly want the media to ignore it so as to keep wars popular. That instict is dangerous enough when the journalists owe some duty to help their own country's war effort. It should be absolutely and emphatically rejected when the country involved is one that the journalists should owe no loyalty to.
The notion that journalists should treat democratic and non-democratic countries the same is silly.
It is true that there wouldn't have been the same suffering where not for the Israeli strikes, but the same can be said that there would have been the same suffering had the militants not used populated areas to stage their rocket attacks.
And I think we can agree that the common cause was the militants:
militants -> airstrikes -> suffering.
So should the main fair story been between the militants justifying their use of human shields versus the the suffering it caused the people of lebanon?
Making the story primarily "Israel's interests" versus killing lots of people is to give Hezbollah a pass they didn't deserve.
It is true that there wouldn't have been the same suffering where not for the Israeli strikes, but the same can be said that there would have been the same suffering had the militants not used populated areas to stage their rocket attacks.
And I think we can agree that the common cause was the militants:
militants -> airstrikes -> suffering.
So should the main fair story been between the militants justifying their use of human shields versus the the suffering it caused the people of lebanon?
Making the story primarily "Israel's interests" versus killing lots of people is to give Hezbollah a pass they didn't deserve.
It is true that there wouldn't have been the same suffering where not for the Israeli strikes, but the same can be said that there would have been the same suffering had the militants not used populated areas to stage their rocket attacks.
And I think we can agree that the common cause was the militants:
militants -> airstrikes -> suffering.
So should the main fair story been between the militants justifying their use of human shields versus the the suffering it caused the people of lebanon?
Making the story primarily "Israel's interests" versus killing lots of people is to give Hezbollah a pass they didn't deserve.
You have got to be kidding.
That is a criticism you can make of the times, if you like. But it's hardly that exceptional - quite a few people, rabid zionists aside, condemn Israel from a moral perspective. The fact remains that en extremely large number of innocent Lebanese died for no reason whatsoever. Israel is leaving, and doing a prisoner swap. Not to mention a million unexploded cluster bombs sitting around there still. But of course, the entire international community, many Israelis included, are a bunch of anti-semites. Isn't it nice to always be a victim?
Regardless, the reporting was biased. At the very least every article originating from Lebanon should have contained a rider that the reporter was unable to fully report because of intimidation.
As an aside. I wonder how many NYTs reports from Israel mentioned Israeli military censorship.
Israel has more right to attack "unprotected" (whatever the heck that means) targets than Hezbollah does to intentionally launch attacks from civilian structures and areas.
If a warring party uses civilians as shields, then that party is responsible for their suffering.
Potential is not the same as what actually happened. Israel is fully capable of flattening every city in Lebanon with WWII-style fire raids, killing tens of thousands daily. Instead, they used precision-guided munitions for the most part, making Hezbollah scramble to make sure civilians were in the way of the bombs (all the better for CNN).
Yes. I find it loathsome that Allied atrocities against Axis civilians are largely airbrushed out of mainstream histories of the conflict or otherwise minimized or justified. (See, e.g., the tendency to portray the London Blitz as equivalent to the Allied air campaign against Germany, despite the fact that the latter killed over ten times as many civilians and in its later stages was far less justifiable by any standard of strategic or tactical gain relative to civilian losses.)
Photo: Mangled Corpse of a Child Killed in Lebanon
Caption: The above incident of collateral damage was caused solely by the unlawful and cowardly hizbollah forces who secreted themselves among the civilian Lebanese population while firing rockets at innocent Israeli women and children as part of the terrorist organization hizbollahs ongoing efforts to destroy the state of Israel with the aid and assistance of weaponry from Iran (who remember is working to get nuclear weapons and will probably have to be dealt with by the United States if peace loving Americans are to protect themselves from the nutty Islamic horde [have you see the beards on those guys]). And don't forget the holocaust happened and it killed many Jews (some of whom still live in Israel) and all of this is yet another example of how Israel's neighbors want to destroy it which just goes to show that blowing apart children is perfectly acceptable provided we all view it in the proper context.
"Why would US media cover the Lebanon/Israel conflict any other way than to document the suffering inflicted unjustly on civilians on both sides? If the ratio of civilian death is 7 to 1 Leb-Isr., then it makes sense to portray such suffering in those same proportions in the media, unless one has a vested interest in a certain side's cause." (italics mine)
Ineed, Prof Bernstein "has a vested interest in a certain side's cause," aply demonstrated if we look at the ratio of the number of posts he has written about the media's treatment of Israel, versus his posts that approach legal thought.
Yes, the unbiased reader saw the increased coverage of the Lebanese civilian casualties and recognized that they might more often trump reports of soldiers' deaths on the other wise from a newsworthy standpoint. Most unbiased readers recognized that, while tragic, those Lebanese civilian deaths were "justified" (for lack of a better term) on the basis that the Party of Eric Clapton (Clapton is God) attacked first, kidnapped Israeli soldiers by crossing the Israeli border, and, unlike Iraq, posed a clear and present danger to Israeli security.
Bertsein's analogies to coverage of so many other conflicts only belies his entire lack of understanding of the many factors that go into determining whether something is newsworthy and to what extent. Right or wrong, choose to lower yourself to ad hominem attacks of liberal bias if you will, but the media has and always will consider civilian casualties more news worthy than those of soldiers.
When "one has a vested interest in a certain side's cause," the question of news value is never going to matter.
Well, let's see. Here are some things that are true, but that you did not read in the NY Times or most other press. Hezbollah is the second largest party in Lebanon's parliement, with 20 to 25% of the seats, as to about 50% held by the majority party. Hezbollah has several ministers in the government. Not only did Lebanon take no steps to disarm or control Hezbollah, but the leader of Hezbollah received approval before the war from the Lebanese PM to launch incursions from Lebanese territory into Israel at future dates to be chosen by Hezbollah unpsecified times. The war was triggered when Hezbollah gunemn entered Israel from Lebanon, killed several Isareli soldiers and kidnapped two more. For several months BEFORE the war, Hezbollah fired numerous rockets into civilian areas of Israel, with no interference from the Lebanese government. Doesn't make the war seem so unnecessary or the Lebanese seem so innocent, does it? No nation can tolerate continued attacks into its territory from a neighboring country. Israel responded to acts of war by and from Lebanon, no matter how much the Lebanese government wants to claim innocence. Yes, innocent children suffered horribly, and some died, in that war. Innocent children always suffer and die when their adults start wars. If you try to kill me and my children and then hide behind YOUR children, don't expect me to have more mercy on your children than you do -- not at the risk of my children.
Since Israel has forefeited its right to exist by fighting a war that you deem unjustified, I'm sure we'll soon be seeing you call for dissolution of China, Argentina (the Falklands), the US, Russia and a host of other nations.
"I'm sure the world is in fact more interested in Israeli-caused civilian deaths than the many times more civilian deaths caused in various conflicts around the world. Perhaps that makes these deaths newsworthy, but it doesn't make the coverage "unbiased," given that world opinion is itself very hostile to Israel."
Who said "the world is in fact more interested in Israeli-caused civilian deaths than the many times more civilian deaths caused in various conflicts around the world?" I think that belies the reader bias here. Most people would view the Israeli-caused deaths not as a measure of Israel in and of itself, but as the civilian deaths caused by a far-superior power against a less powerful enemy. Only readers such as DB bring the question of moral equivalence into the equation.
So is the argument that the US-caused civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq should get the same ratio of coverage as Israel's in Lebanon. DB seems to answer this in his original post (the "home-field" advantage) but then just dispenses with the correct answer in conclusory fashion. No. I"srael, a close American ally, fighting Hizbollah, a sworn American enemy, [should not] get at least a less extreme version of the same sort of advantage." It's not the home team. That's why American newspapers won't soon be running profiles of dead Israeli soldiers, as they do of American soldiers who die in conflict (See today's Chicago Tribune profile of recent West Point grad Emily Perez -- sorry don't know how to provide the link)
"The ombudsman pretends that the ratio of civilian casualties dictates its coverage, which is demonstrably untrue with regard to any other conflict."
So, again, DB utterly ignores the varying factors that would make a story (or stories) about civilian casualties newsworthy. I really could care less about the application of the NYT's ombudsman's explanation for the ratio in the Israel-Lebanon conflict to the US-Iraq War. Again, it's apples and oranges.
This portion of DB's original post sums it up: "The visual image Times' readers received, after all, was of the Lebanese civilian population suffering at a far greater rate than the Israeli civilian population." That's right because the fact was Lebanese civilians suffered at a far greater rate than the Israeli civilian population. Those are the facts, whether DB wants to suppress them or not. The notion that the reporting those facts somehow evinces bias is entirely unfounded, unless that bias is directed toward the reader, as in this instance.
The reasonable readers understood that the Party of Clapton started the conflict, and Israel was justified in its response, even if the facts later showed that Lebanese civilians suffered more than Israelis. That's usually what happens when a weaker power takes on the stronger. But to seek to censor those facts from the public consciousness is rather sad.
By the way, I don't think the focus of American media on American casualties is necessarily an example of or justification for press bias in favor of America or a "home town advantage." It is simply a reflection of the fact that the consumers of American media are more interested in American casualties than other casualties. (By the same token, my local paper has a "city" section that reports news in my city, not a section reporting on news from Cincinnati. I don't take that as a sign of "bias," I take it as a sign of reader interest.) Similarly, if US media caries more images of casualties in conflicts involving Israel than in conflicts in other places, that is probably motivated by American media consumers' greater interest in Israli conflicts, not by some anti-Israel agenda.
It reminds me of some unsophisticated litigants who condemn unhelpful (but truthful, accurate) testimony by others as a "lie." What they mean, of course, is that hearing this particular part of the truth might confuse a listener, and obscure the deeper, basic truth that their side is more justified. I understand such sloppiness of thought in people who are not capable of more, but I know that David doesn't fall into that category.
The fact is, Israel has a *very* capable and successful military, particularly by comparison to the militaries and militias with which it is engaged. This fact is somewhat at odds with David's (and others) tendency to see Israel as a helpless victim. Of course, a country can be relatively powerful, and *still* be the victim of injustice (e.g. 9/11). Although might does not make right, weakness *certainly* does not make right either (a fact sometimes forgotten by the NYT crowd).
Israel's supporters (dare I use the word "Zionists"?) persuade no converts if their argument is based on simply suppressing or ignoring inconvenient facts. Their strongest argument, by far, is that it is an error to believe that whoever kills the most people is the bad guy, regardless of reasons. The NYT doesn't look anti-Israel to me - it looks like it is against war and militaries generally. I agree that this is naive, but it is not bias.
Jewish ethics will never allow to see photographed the mangled corpse of an Israeli child.
Hence why Israel always loses these image wars with its amoral enemies.
(1) The ombudsman's explanation of the coverage, if accepted, would mean that the Times is "unfair" in virtually ever other conflict it has covered, a rather startling omission.
(2) The ombudsman chose to focus on the photographs covered by the Times as an indication of objectivity, but if you follow the ombudsman's own "count", readers who relied solely on the visual saw no pictures of Hizbollah gunmen, lots of pictures of Israeli soldiers, few pictures of Israelis suffering, and many pictures of Lebanese suffering. That's only "balanced" in some sort of alternate universe.
(3) The idea that the "balance" of war coverage should be determined by how well a paper covers "suffering" on each side suggests that the suffering is the most important aspect of the war. This is hardly a neutral perspective, and the Times should not pretend it is.
(1) The ombudsman's explanation of the coverage, if accepted, would mean that the Times is "unfair" in virtually ever other conflict it has covered, a rather startling omission. "
Can you give us the statistics on images shown for the dozens or hundreds of other conflicts the Times has covered to show how you know this?
As the reader bias here shows, no discussion will penetrate. As long as inconvenient facts are reported (even when the biased party's side of the conflict may well be in the right), addressing the logic behind the reporting will be ignored.
None of the "tangential quibbles" missed your three "missing" points. You just choose not to listen to the reasons why the facts you don't like (at various different periods of time during elongated news coverage) might be more news worthy than the ones you do.
Two ships passing in the night ...
Even putting that aside, a couple other indicators demonstrate that newspaper's anti-Israel bias. One, their refusal to call terrorism against Israel, and only Israel, terrorism is rather prima facie evidence. And two, why is it that their admitted and non-admitted errors always are to the benefit of Israel's enemies? You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to figure that one out.
Perhaps "jvarisco" and his fellow travelers are a little too quick to scoff at accusations of anti-semitism of certain of Israel's critics when it is Israel and only Israel that many of them see fit to "condemn from a moral perspective", not withstanding the incomparabe moral difference between it and its enemies, and many other nations of this world.
"One, their refusal to call terrorism against Israel, and only Israel, terrorism is rather prima facie evidence."
Er, no. It is not prima facie evidence of anti-Israel bias, unless the reader is unable to discern that actions taken by what are often called "militants" in news reports actually are terrorist acts. Fortunately, most reasonable readers can come to their own conclusion that a person strapping a bomb to his body and blowing up a cafe is a "terrorist" without an objective news reporter having to take a side in the matter. If RS wants to admit to be unable to come to that conclusion on his own, that's her right, I guess.
"anti-semitism of certain of Israel's critics." This post discussed the NYT coverage of the Israel-Lebanon conflict. If Richard Stevens thinks the NYT is anti-semitic, he clearly has no idea of the papers background or its readership. His comment is not even worth addressing in that regard.
"not withstanding the incomparabe moral difference between it and its enemies, and many other nations of this world."
This portion also demonstrates a failure to either read or comprehend the comments being attacked. As one of those criticizing DB's forever media bias meme, I repeatedly stated that isn't an issue of moral equivalence. Israel was aboslutely in the right in its defense and the methods use in support. All commenters like me have said (and please go back and reread the comments again) was that civilian casualties resulted from Israel's justified defense and to blame the reporting on those facts as bias is nothing more than an express and implied discomfort by those who don't like the facts that other biased individuals would view as negative to Israel.
Facts are facts. It's the news industry's job to report them. Moral equivalence has nothing to do with it. Any concern that the reporting of these facts is biased simply demonstrates the bias on the part of the reader.
Suppose some racist biker gang thugs go out on the street, grab a passing black man, poke him with a knife, just enough to draw blood, and take $5 from his pocket. Then they retreat into their clubhouse, which is heavily fortified and stocked with weapons, uttering defiance.
The police respond with a SWAT team siege, in which the building is wrecked, adjacent buildings are damaged, and innocent people are seriously injured.
Is that a 'disproportionate' response to a trivial assault and robbery? Should the bikers' crime be ignored?
My answer: absolutely not, because the police have an obligation to put down _all_ breaches of civil peace.
In the same line, a state has the right to do whatever is required, however drastic, to defend its citizens against foreign attack, however trivial.
For the NYTimes to 'balance' its coverage by ignoring the cause of the war and reporting only the casualties is dishonest and irresponsible, as Mr. Bernstein noted.