NPR refuses to change its ways
Today's Jerusalem Post featured a very interesting opinion piece by Andrea Levin about NPR's continued pro-Arab stance after years of fundraising campaigns and federal subsidy. Unfortunately, the article cannot be accessed on the Post's website if you aren't a member, but I would be glad to paste the contents right here on this blog for all who are interested.
More static on American public radio
>
> ANDREA LEVIN, THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 20, 2005
>
> It's fundraising season at America's National Public Radio. For Israelis
unfamiliar with the network, NPR is a producer and distributor of
noncommercial news, talk and entertainment programming. It is a privately
supported, not-for-profit membership organization serving 760 independently
operated, noncommercial public radio stations.
> NPR has earned a reputation for both the quality of its programs and for a
long-standing bias against Israel. But is that now beginning to change?
> A review of its coverage in early 2005 offers few signs of positive
change. Instead, the tilt toward the Arab narrative continues. Gestures of
accountability, including sporadic corrections and quarterly
self-examinations of its Middle East reporting amount to little more than PR
damage control.
> NPR's Peter Kenyon, for instance, declared on March 9 that "most observers
believe under international law all Israeli settlements in the occupied
territories are illegal." Who these "observers" are, and how Kenyon tallied
their views in order to conclude that "most" consider settlements illegal is
unclear.
> The round-up of guest interviewees was also numbingly familiar - with, for
instance, no fewer than nine interviews in eight weeks with
Palestinian-Jordanian journalist Rami Khouri, editor-at-large of Lebanon's
Daily Star. An outspoken advocate of Arab views, Khouri, for example, argued
on March 8 that Hizbullah is "a very impressive, legitimate, even heroic
resistance movement," and he dismissed any menace the group poses to the
Jewish state. "Hizbullah," he declared, "is not a big threat to Israel."
> Neither Khouri nor the NPR host mentioned Hizbullah's declared dedication
to Israel's destruction, or Israeli estimates that 13,000 Iranian-supplied
artillery and short-range Hizbullah rockets are trained on northern Israel,
some in reach of major population centers.
> Nor are any references made to Hizbullah's anti-Semitic rhetoric, widely
disseminated on the group's Al Manar television station. Omitted too are
Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah's rants against Israel, which he terms the
"cancerous entity," an "ultimate evil," and a "predatory beast." Excluded
are rantings such as: "Throughout history the Jews have been Allah's most
cowardly and greedy creatures."
> Among others repeatedly invited to comment on events was Khaled al Maeena,
editor of Saudi Arabia's Arab News, who has written that Israel "commits
mass murder against Palestinians" and has railed against the monitoring
group MEMRI for its exposes of Arab anti-Semitism.
> Robert Malley, an outspoken proponent of the view that Israel was
insufficiently forthcoming at the Camp David/Taba talks in 2000/2001 when it
offered the Palestinians a state on more than 95 percent of the West Bank
and Gaza, has made frequent NPR appearances. So too author Patrick Seale, a
notorious apologist for the late Hafez al-Assad.
> In each of these and other similar cases, the guest speaker was presented
as a neutral commentator.
> During this same time, NPR's Robert Siegel spent several weeks in Israel,
reporting from the region and filing at least 14 stories. Although he was
there during the February 25 terrorist attack on a Tel Aviv nightspot, he
did not cover the breaking story, nor did he do a follow-up on the victims.
> But there were predictable segments with Hanan Ashrawi, Nabil Sha'ath and
Saeb Erekat. There were familiar paired segments of Israeli and Palestinian
students, and predictable NPR laxity in challenging blatant Palestinian
falsehoods.
> When Arab students recited a litany of distorted allegations about Israel,
Siegel interjected one apologetic corrective - noting that contrary to a
Palestinian student's claim that Israel had failed to open checkpoints or
release prisoners: "By Palestinian standards a very small release, but a few
hundred people have been released so far." >
> To the ludicrous claim that "during the Oslo period there was no bombings,
there was nothing," Siegel was silent, failing to remind listeners that Oslo
spawned unprecedented terror bombings. In fact, Palestinian attackers killed
some 250 Israelis between Yasser Arafat's arrival in the territories in July
1994 and his launching of the September 2000 terror war.
> But Siegel does not just fail to counter distortions; he himself presents
Palestinian views as fact. On March 1, for instance, he declared that "one
of the real obstacles of the moment... is the security barrier..." He added:
"In many parts, it is pretty - although the word is disputed - it sure is a
wall."
> But in Jerusalem's view, "one of the real obstacles of the moment" is the
ongoing failure by the Palestinian Authority to eradicate the Hamas and
Islamic Jihad terrorist infrastructure, and the fence is a monument to the
Palestinians' refusal to control the killers in their midst.
> Nor is it accurate, or professional, of Siegel not to report that the
security barrier is actually 95 percent fence and 5 percent wall.
> So early 2005 has been more of the same on NPR. Americans who care about
factual, balanced and unbiased reporting should keep this in mind when
they're asked to send a check.
> The writer is executive director of CAMERA, Committee for Accuracy in
Middle East Reporting in America.
After reading it, it has become pretty clear to me that NPR consistently chooses to ignore accuracy and objectivity in its reporting on Middle East issues (I can't really speak on behalf of other world or domestic reporting, although I am fairly confident it takes a left-wing stance on its stories overall). Certain generalizations that are made are very unprofessional in my opinion, like in the case of Peter Kenyon saying that "most observers believe under international law all Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal." And the makers of Outfoxxed, a left-wing documentary that bashes Fox News, have the nerve to criticize right-wing generalizations in reporting. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Fox News either. In fact, I probably rely on more traditionally liberal media sources like The New York Times for news, but I think it is very important for ordinary citizens to realize when an outlet is compromising accuracy for bias.
NPR has a duty to its listeners to provide objective news. Its own website spells out how it is funded by a combination of public donations (86%) and assistance from The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (14%), which is kept afloat by Congress. No matter how one slices it, a portion of American taxpayer money is being allotted to this station, and accordingly it should work a little harder to improve the quality of its reporting. How is it that an Arab journalist from Lebanon's Daily Star can get on NPR and say such things like Hizbullah is a "very impressive, legitimate, even heroic resistance movement," and that it is not a "big threat to Israel"? At least get an opposing viewpoint and let the audience make up its mind. But to consistently invite these types of people while excluding others is just plain sloppy.
More static on American public radio
>
> ANDREA LEVIN, THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 20, 2005
>
> It's fundraising season at America's National Public Radio. For Israelis
unfamiliar with the network, NPR is a producer and distributor of
noncommercial news, talk and entertainment programming. It is a privately
supported, not-for-profit membership organization serving 760 independently
operated, noncommercial public radio stations.
> NPR has earned a reputation for both the quality of its programs and for a
long-standing bias against Israel. But is that now beginning to change?
> A review of its coverage in early 2005 offers few signs of positive
change. Instead, the tilt toward the Arab narrative continues. Gestures of
accountability, including sporadic corrections and quarterly
self-examinations of its Middle East reporting amount to little more than PR
damage control.
> NPR's Peter Kenyon, for instance, declared on March 9 that "most observers
believe under international law all Israeli settlements in the occupied
territories are illegal." Who these "observers" are, and how Kenyon tallied
their views in order to conclude that "most" consider settlements illegal is
unclear.
> The round-up of guest interviewees was also numbingly familiar - with, for
instance, no fewer than nine interviews in eight weeks with
Palestinian-Jordanian journalist Rami Khouri, editor-at-large of Lebanon's
Daily Star. An outspoken advocate of Arab views, Khouri, for example, argued
on March 8 that Hizbullah is "a very impressive, legitimate, even heroic
resistance movement," and he dismissed any menace the group poses to the
Jewish state. "Hizbullah," he declared, "is not a big threat to Israel."
> Neither Khouri nor the NPR host mentioned Hizbullah's declared dedication
to Israel's destruction, or Israeli estimates that 13,000 Iranian-supplied
artillery and short-range Hizbullah rockets are trained on northern Israel,
some in reach of major population centers.
> Nor are any references made to Hizbullah's anti-Semitic rhetoric, widely
disseminated on the group's Al Manar television station. Omitted too are
Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah's rants against Israel, which he terms the
"cancerous entity," an "ultimate evil," and a "predatory beast." Excluded
are rantings such as: "Throughout history the Jews have been Allah's most
cowardly and greedy creatures."
> Among others repeatedly invited to comment on events was Khaled al Maeena,
editor of Saudi Arabia's Arab News, who has written that Israel "commits
mass murder against Palestinians" and has railed against the monitoring
group MEMRI for its exposes of Arab anti-Semitism.
> Robert Malley, an outspoken proponent of the view that Israel was
insufficiently forthcoming at the Camp David/Taba talks in 2000/2001 when it
offered the Palestinians a state on more than 95 percent of the West Bank
and Gaza, has made frequent NPR appearances. So too author Patrick Seale, a
notorious apologist for the late Hafez al-Assad.
> In each of these and other similar cases, the guest speaker was presented
as a neutral commentator.
> During this same time, NPR's Robert Siegel spent several weeks in Israel,
reporting from the region and filing at least 14 stories. Although he was
there during the February 25 terrorist attack on a Tel Aviv nightspot, he
did not cover the breaking story, nor did he do a follow-up on the victims.
> But there were predictable segments with Hanan Ashrawi, Nabil Sha'ath and
Saeb Erekat. There were familiar paired segments of Israeli and Palestinian
students, and predictable NPR laxity in challenging blatant Palestinian
falsehoods.
> When Arab students recited a litany of distorted allegations about Israel,
Siegel interjected one apologetic corrective - noting that contrary to a
Palestinian student's claim that Israel had failed to open checkpoints or
release prisoners: "By Palestinian standards a very small release, but a few
hundred people have been released so far." >
> To the ludicrous claim that "during the Oslo period there was no bombings,
there was nothing," Siegel was silent, failing to remind listeners that Oslo
spawned unprecedented terror bombings. In fact, Palestinian attackers killed
some 250 Israelis between Yasser Arafat's arrival in the territories in July
1994 and his launching of the September 2000 terror war.
> But Siegel does not just fail to counter distortions; he himself presents
Palestinian views as fact. On March 1, for instance, he declared that "one
of the real obstacles of the moment... is the security barrier..." He added:
"In many parts, it is pretty - although the word is disputed - it sure is a
wall."
> But in Jerusalem's view, "one of the real obstacles of the moment" is the
ongoing failure by the Palestinian Authority to eradicate the Hamas and
Islamic Jihad terrorist infrastructure, and the fence is a monument to the
Palestinians' refusal to control the killers in their midst.
> Nor is it accurate, or professional, of Siegel not to report that the
security barrier is actually 95 percent fence and 5 percent wall.
> So early 2005 has been more of the same on NPR. Americans who care about
factual, balanced and unbiased reporting should keep this in mind when
they're asked to send a check.
> The writer is executive director of CAMERA, Committee for Accuracy in
Middle East Reporting in America.
After reading it, it has become pretty clear to me that NPR consistently chooses to ignore accuracy and objectivity in its reporting on Middle East issues (I can't really speak on behalf of other world or domestic reporting, although I am fairly confident it takes a left-wing stance on its stories overall). Certain generalizations that are made are very unprofessional in my opinion, like in the case of Peter Kenyon saying that "most observers believe under international law all Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal." And the makers of Outfoxxed, a left-wing documentary that bashes Fox News, have the nerve to criticize right-wing generalizations in reporting. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Fox News either. In fact, I probably rely on more traditionally liberal media sources like The New York Times for news, but I think it is very important for ordinary citizens to realize when an outlet is compromising accuracy for bias.
NPR has a duty to its listeners to provide objective news. Its own website spells out how it is funded by a combination of public donations (86%) and assistance from The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (14%), which is kept afloat by Congress. No matter how one slices it, a portion of American taxpayer money is being allotted to this station, and accordingly it should work a little harder to improve the quality of its reporting. How is it that an Arab journalist from Lebanon's Daily Star can get on NPR and say such things like Hizbullah is a "very impressive, legitimate, even heroic resistance movement," and that it is not a "big threat to Israel"? At least get an opposing viewpoint and let the audience make up its mind. But to consistently invite these types of people while excluding others is just plain sloppy.
posted by Remz Pokorny @ 2:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home