Since the US elections, the journalism industry has been humbled by Donald Trump’s unexpected win. Long-held assumptions are flying out the window. Long-held practices will hopefully be re-examined. A “reality check,” after all, means you may not be in sync with reality.
How big a problem is it?
It’s coming out that journalists operated in a bubble. Blind spots were further exacerbated by a lack of diversity in the nation’s newsrooms. Editors were willfully misled by polls. We devoured and shared shallow graphics and interactive features without realizing that reality is far more complicated than a graphic artist can possibly convey. Analysts proffering what we thought was wisdom and meaning were compromised.
Adding insult to injury, fake news is now a thing.
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
I welcome the media’s soul-searching, and I’m hopeful that at least some news services will make meaningful changes in the way they cover US politics and society. But I’ve been monitoring Western coverage of Israel and the Mideast conflict for 15 years now and here’s what I wonder:
What would it take to spark Western media introspection over its Mideast coverage?
Unfortunately, the more I think about it, the more pessimistic I become. Here are three reasons why.
1. ‘All politics is local’
The news industry is currently ruminating on domestic US coverage. It’s easy to get worked up after learning the news industry let you down about issues directly impacting you, such as jobs, the economy, or health care, among others.
A systematic failure of foreign affairs coverage won’t trigger the same degree of public outrage unless there are degrees of US involvement — most notably boots on the ground. When soldiers are dying in Vietnam, Iraq, or anywhere else, the story’s certainly local for the families of all the servicemen risking their lives.
As the late Congressman Tip O’Neill put it, “All politics is local.”
2. Quantifiables
Assessing coverage of an election campaign is, in some ways, like judging sports journalism. The election eventually ends with a clear winner, a clear loser, and quantifiable numbers to crunch every which way. Period.
Not so with apprising foreign coverage, where correspondents work in an continuum, dealing with unfolding developments whose importance are often difficult to gauge in real time.
3. The nature of the beast
The number of bureaus covering the Mideast has shrunk as the news industry’s flagging income has forced cutbacks. On one hand, that means fewer news services in Israel than in recent years. That doesn’t reflect any changes in the over-reporting of Israel though, because papers simply republish material from the wires or other papers. When there’s less diversity of thought, even the foreign press corps is more susceptible to group think.
Moreover, many correspondents — before they really have a chance to really get the Mideast — move on to other bureaus or plum editorial posts back home. The resulting turnover means reporters are extremely unlikely to realize anything’s wrong.
And the Palestinian stringers who the Western news couldn’t function without? Many of these writers, cameramen, producers and fixers place their loyalty to Fatah or Hamas above their commitments to objective journalistic values.
* * *
All this being the case, there is one scenario I can think of that might provoke self-examination, and its one I hope never comes to pass. That would be the US military intervening in a conflict between Israel and either the Palestinians or Iranians (use your own imagination why), leading to an unexpected high loss of American lives.
If it ever comes to that, media mea culpas won’t be much consolation for the Israeli survivors of such an unimaginable conflict.
Related reading: Why US Election Coverage Is a Wake Up Call for Israel’s Supporters
Image of press photographers CC BY-SA Gage Skidmore;
Before you comment on this article, please remind yourself of our Comments Policy. Any comments deemed to be in breach of the policy will be removed at the editor’s discretion.
