We all (should) know that bias exists in the media. Sometimes it may be politically motivated. Sometimes it may be accidental. Sometimes details may be cut out in order to conform to editorial standards. Bias in the media is discussed quite frequently, and frankly, it is a horse that's been beaten to point where it's tender enough to eat.
But I'm not going to talk about media ethics and bias and all that. I just want to point out an example where the omission of a few minor details changes the entire tone of a story. I'm not going of the motives of the parties involved. I'm just going to talk about the empirical and tangible aspects of the reporting.
Background: French yacht Dignite-Al-Karama carrying pro-Palestinian* activists and supplies tells Greece they were sailing for Egypt. Unsurprisingly, they decide to go on a little detour to Gaza. The Israeli navy goes through their stringent protocols requiring them to contact the ship and convince them to change course and head to the Ashdod. The French yacht did not comply. They were boarded by the navy and taken to Ashdod by the navy.
For those not familiar with this sort of event, the act of attempting to forcibly enter Gaza with aid and supplies was made popular last year when six ships first had a go at it last May. They were met by Israeli commandos. A violent confrontation ensued on one of the ships, much to the disdain of the international community who didn't (and still doesn't) think too highly of Israel to begin with.
It's common practice for news organizations to provide such context in stories such as these.
In reporting on the Dignite-Al-Karama, Reuters condenses the initial flotilla incident this way:
Israel, whose marines killed nine Turkish activists when violence erupted as they stormed a Gaza-bound flotilla in the Mediterranean last year, has vowed to prevent any breach of a blockade it deems necessary to stop arms from reaching Gaza.
Whereas, the Associated Press provides a few more key details in their reporting:
Last year, Israeli naval commandos clashed with knife and club-wielding activists on a Turkish ship trying to reach Gaza, killing nine Turkish activists. Both sides have said they acted in self defense.
Adjectives can easily change the tone of a story. "Knife and club-wielding" are important because without them, as noted in the bit from Reuters, it makes Israel look as if they massacred peace activists. The word activist does tend to have a peaceful connotation about it, no?
I'm not going to get into the motives of Reuters. That would be based solely on conjecture. However, I do think it's fair to point out that Reuters has been caught twice editing photos that portrays Israel's military in a bad light.
#1: Ynet - Reuters admits altering Beirut photo
#2: Cropped photos [from Flotilla 2010]
(*If I wanted to be mean/biased, I could have called them "anti-Israeli activists".)
Posted by: |