Philadelphia — For my generation, the models of heroic journalists are cynics like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame, as well as the anti-military attitudes of many who covered the Vietnam War.
Now, red, white and blue is the color of much of the coverage of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Patriotism is in the air as Americans have rallied around the flag, and many journalists are not immune to the spirit of the times.
Cynicism is nowhere in sight on the major broadcast and cable networks as they cover what CNN calls “America’s New War.” Viewing on-air personalities wearing flag pins makes the Vietnam War seem centuries ago.
Print journalism, too, has reflected the spirit of support for President Bush and the war on terrorism. Even the most staid broadsheet dailies have exhibited signs of patriotism in their news coverage and editorials.
There is nothing wrong with all of this. Journalists are supposed to be impartial, but when faced with evil — such as the Sept. 11 attacks — honest men and women are obligated to call it by its right name, not obfuscate and refer to it with a fake objectivity.
While most viewers and readers find this patriotic journalism enjoyable, many media critics think it terrible. They warn that the media may be abandoning its role as watchdog of the government.
They worry that accounts of the American counterattack on Osama bin Laden and other terrorists will be even less impartial than coverage of the Persian Gulf War was in 1991. They note, with justice, that coverage of that war lacked objectivity about Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and showed adoring views of the military and its hardware.
News that reflected an unquestioning belief in the wisdom of our leaders would be a travesty, as well as bad for democracy. But to expect popular media such as television and newspapers to be completely objective about Sept. 11 or a Saddam Hussein is as unrealistic as it is absurd.
Reports on the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks — in even the best of newspapers — are bound to demonstrate little sympathy for the terrorists and their objectives. As much as American journalists pride themselves on fairness, little effort is being made to be fair to Osama bin Laden and his followers or their Taliban pals.
Different standard
All of this leads me to some conclusions about another instance where news media bias is debated: coverage of the Middle East.
Though most secular journalists I know claim these charges are unfair, the controversy persists. Most friends of Israel have long perceived what they believe is a bias in the U.S. news media against the Jewish state.
Despite a decade of concessions made by Israel to the Palestinians, the peace process has collapsed. In return for Israeli concessions that have empowered the Palestine Liberation Organization and its repellent leader, Yasser Arafat, the Palestinians have responded with bloody terrorism.
Sniper attacks on Jewish motorists are so common that they are no longer big news even in Israel. Suicide bombings by Islamic fundamentalists in Israeli cities and towns have maimed and murdered Jewish civilians much like the victims of the WTC towers and the Pentagon.
But unlike the harsh treatment afforded bin Laden’s gang in the press, Palestinian terrorists have received much more sympathetic coverage. Pictures of the bombers’ tearful though proud families are regularly shown in newspapers. Profiles of these killers, replete with rationalizations about Palestinian grievances against Israel, are commonplace.
The notion that Palestinians suffer “humiliation” at the hands of Israelis is virtually a cliché of modern journalism, though the main source of that shame appears to be chagrin at having to live with a sovereign Jewish state, not human-rights abuses.
When Israel retaliates against terrorists or attempts to pre-empt further attacks, news media show little sympathy. Whereas America’s “war” against terror is reported as justified self-defense, Israel’s countermeasures are generally portrayed as part of “the cycle of violence.”
While editorialists, as well as the U.S. Secretary of State, routinely warn Israel’s leaders to act with “restraint” against people who murder civilians and wish to destroy Israel, similar cries for American restraint against our enemies are restricted to marginal voices on the far left.
In short, the American media is not interested in being fair to bin Laden, but in being generally fair to Arafat’s Fatah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. U.S. journalists are subjective about American terror victims and judgmental about those responsible. But they are remarkably objective in reporting on those who commit similar crimes against Israel.
This basic fact accounts for much of the frustration experienced by friends of Israel when reading or viewing news of the Middle East.
Terrorism is an unspeakable crime, whether it is the murder of workers in American office buildings or mothers and children at an Israeli pizza parlor. The Islamic fundamentalists who committed both have similar aims.
Journalists who pride themselves on fairness know there are limits to how fair they are prepared to be toward murdering fiends. But until they portray those who shed Israeli blood with the same contempt displayed toward those who kill Americans, the news media will remain vulnerable to charges of bias against Israel.
Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of the Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia.
Loading ...