The Arab-Israeli conflict is complicated enough for adults to fully understand, let alone children. Too many times, mainstream media fails to provide the necessary context to the story. So why has a children’s newspaper simplified recent events into this photo and caption?
Instead of publishing this image and the accompanying caption containing no context, First News may have asked why the Gaza Strip was blockaded in the first place. It could perhaps even mention how the lives of Sderot’s children have been affected by the constant Qassam rocket attacks that target schools and kindergartens, or how Palestinian children have been fed a diet of hate courtesy of the Hamas terrorist organisation.
If First News does not wish to take on the difficult task of fairly reporting the situation in the Mideast, it would be better not including such images at all. Please write to First News to express your concerns – [email protected]
GUARDIAN EDITOR APOLOGISES FOR JENIN EDITORIAL
Talking at a London Jewish Book Week affair, The Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger apologised for this editorial written in 2002 about the battle of Jenin:
Following Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, the Guardian’s editorial commented in its April 17 edition that: “Israel’s actions in Jenin were every bit as repellent as Osama Bin Laden’s attack on New York on September 11.””I take full responsibility for the misjudgment,” Rusbridger said.
And during a response to a later question, he apologized for the editorial on Jenin – unprompted.
Also referring to a series of articles in 2006 by Chris McGreal comparing Israel to South Africa’s apartheid regime, Rusbridger conceded that “apartheid” wasn’t the best choice of words. He also conceded that the usage of the capitalised word “Holocaust” in a headline pertaining to the recent mistranslation of Israeli politician Matan Vilnai’s words may have been problematic.
While we welcome Rusbridger’s apology, we wonder why it has taken him over five years to do the right thing.
JPOST EDITOR SPOTS SKY NEWS GAFFE
Watching Sky News’ newspaper review, Jerusalem Post editor David Horovitz observed:
Al Scardino firmly and confidently informed viewers that the Israeli targets coming under rocket attack were situated beyond Israel’s sovereign borders. These were areas that the international community did not consider part of Israel, he said, but that Israel claimed nonetheless. In so staggeringly misdescribing the rocketed areas, he essentially denied Israel part of its legitimacy in hitting back against the attacks. For while he did not dispute that Israeli citizens were being targeted, he depicted them as being located in, at best, contested territory.
Al Scardino also confidently asserted that at least 100 Palestinians civilians had been killed in the Israeli fire, and did not give figures for how many, if any, Palestinian gunmen and rocket-firing crew members had been killed. In so doing, he denied Israel still more legitimacy for its response to the rocket attacks, since he created the misconception among his viewers that the primary victims of Israel’s response, indeed quite possibly the only victims, were civilians.
Israeli or Arab, Jew or Muslim, leftist or rightist, whatever our positions on the central facts and the nuances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in its many guises, we’ve all watched television coverage, heard radio reports and read newspaper articles that we feel subtly misrepresent it or even blatantly skew it. But Al Scardino was not offering a debatable perspective. He was spouting basic factual untruth.
Click here to read the full article and be on the lookout for skewed reporting of the kind described by Horovitz.
