The purpose of journalism is to report the facts. In the case of an outbreak of violence, it is incumbent upon journalists to report who fired first, why, who was targeted on each side, who died on each side, and how many were injured as a result. While there will always be an element of interpretation and selectivity in deciding which facts are the most salient and worthy of attention, the core task remains the same: First report the facts.
In the recent spike in violence between Israel and terrorists in Gaza, numerous terrorists and civilians in Gaza were killed. This was worthy of reporting. Thanks in large part to the Iron Dome missile intercept system, however, not a single Israeli was killed, despite Islamic Jihad firing literally hundreds of rockets at Israeli towns and cities. This too was worthy of reporting.
Similarly, whether a rocket strikes its target or not, each missile induces genuine panic regardless, frequently leading to second-level injuries, including falls and stress-related symptoms.
Here, all too often, the media failed.
While it’s not reasonable to expect every single article to mention the injured — short pieces by nature skip details — there certainly should have been space to mention the different categories of Israelis requiring medical attention in the more extensive coverage.
Documenting Fatalities Alone Excises Israeli Suffering
In numerous reports, casualty counts included the dead only. As a result, the numbers, already lop-sided, seemed to be totally one-sided to the point that Israelis weren’t suffering at all. Take this 15 November New York Times report from Iyad Abuheweila and David Halbfinger about an Israeli strike which killed multiple members of the same family, for example, .
Detailing fatalities alone tells only part of the story. While reporters have a right to cut out details, doing so here has the effect highlighting Palestinian suffering only, leaving readers with the false impression that Israelis do not endure any consequences of the violence.
Given the parameters chosen, it’s bizarre that the story ends with a reference to one wounded victim of the violence:
Yes, a donkey. There was space for a donkey in this New York Times report, but not to mention the wounded humans on either side of this conflict. Quite bizarre.
Arguably worse was Bel Trew’s coverage in The Independent a day previously, which gave details on how many were wounded on the Palestinian side, but misleadingly continued to say that “There were no reported casualties in Israel”.
If “casualties” means fatalities, that description is accurate. If it is taken to mean wounded or killed, then that is false. Either way, it certainly omits what most other media outlets were willing to print: That numerous Israelis were injured as a result of the rocket fire.
The New York Times and the Independent are just the most egregious on a list of occasions in which recognized media outlets managed to ignore or downplay those wounded by rocket fire emanating from Gaza.
Are Only Serious Injuries Worthy of Mention?
The same day, the Associated Press ran a piece by Fares Akram and Joseph Krauss which described the 450 rockets fired toward Israel as not causing “any deaths or serious injuries”.
In a separate report published the same day, Akram and Josef Federman wrote simply that “Three Israelis were slightly wounded by shrapnel or shattered glass.”
The Guardian’s reporting, courtesy of Oliver Holmes and Hazem Balouha, took a similar vein, mentioning only that there were “no Israeli deaths… [just] three people wounded by shrapnel or debris.”
The Daily Mail wrote of strikes “paralyzing much of southern Israel without causing any deaths or serious injuries”,
Time and again, the reports only describe part of the story, given that dozens of others were injured as a result of the panic induced by having rockets aimed in their approximate location.
This is not to say that there’s any indication of a deliberate decision to minimize Israeli suffering, much less out of malice. There’s certainly no reason to believe in a media conspiracy to whitewash Israeli suffering. Rather, the overall pattern that emerges is one in which Israelis affected by rockets are understated, and frequently not mentioned,.
Instead, they should be taken collectively as evidence that the net outcome of some reporting on the escalation of violence was that Israeli suffering was not fully detailed. In this regard, we note that setting the bar, seemingly arbitrarily, comes at the expense of telling the story fully and faithfully.
Irrespective of whether rockets land or not, whenever they approach Israeli population centers, Code Red rocket alert sirens blare to let citizens know that they have mere seconds to run for cover. In the course of rushing to find the nearest bomb shelter or relatively safe space last week, dozens of Israelis were wounded, some by falling over, others by blacking out, while others suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and related symptoms. While they may not be direct casualties of rocket fire, the spike in Israelis requiring medical care was a newsworthy aspect of the larger story and deserved coverage.
Giving too little weight to the effects of Islamic Jihad terror and its effects on Israeli society does a disservice to readers struggling to make sense of this complex and intractable conflict. Casual news consumers already unfamiliar with the severity of Islamic Jihad’s deep animus against Israel will no doubt be left in the dark as to just how profoundly it managed to disrupt life for an entire nation, how close it came to succeeding in killing Israelis, and the capacity that even intercepted rockets have to lead to injuries and the induction of severe stress symptoms.
