How Media Bias Works

When I woke up this morning, this Washington Post article was the first article listed under the Top Stories in my Google News aggregator.

Let’s look at the structure of this article and some quotes to see the media bias and how people who just read American sources will come out in favor of Israel.

1) The article opens by saying that Israel rejected the cease-fire because it needs a guarantee that Hamas will stop firing rockets into Israel.

All the quotes in this entire article come from Israel, or the EU or the White House spokesman who are supporting Israel's position.

2) "By Wednesday afternoon local time a barrage of more than 20 rockets and mortar shells had struck southern Israel, including five that crashed in and around the city of Beersheba, about 25 miles from Gaza. There were no serious casualties reported."

Nowhere in the article does it describe the kinds of terror the entire population of Gaza is living with. They cannot leave; they are imprisoned. But we know that the Israelis have to live with the terror of rockets being fired upon them, that most of the time do not kill anyone. By including three numbers, the writer give us a sense of immediacy and factuality which makes it easier for the reader to relate to a distant place.

3) "Israel continued to pound the Gaza Strip for the fifth day from the air and from the sea, targeting Hamas outposts and the network of tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border used by the militant group to smuggle weapons, the Israeli military said. "

It does not say they have killed more that 370 people or any of the other extensive damage, especially to non-military targets. There is one number (fifth day). Many other very important numbers are noticeably missing.

The reason for the Israeli violence is made clear: targeting military installations. A justification is made clear. It says nothing of non-military casualties and damage.

4) Israel "consider[ed]" and "publicly weighed" a ceasefire. "Hamas, meanwhile, vowed to continue firing rockets."

So Israelis are very rational and civilized, but Hamas is just violent and shoots rockets for no reason. This source does not go into any of the reasons for Hamas's behavior or actions, but as noted, the article shows how Israel's (seemingly indefensible) actions are justified.

5) “Since Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlements from Gaza in 2005, rockets launched from the strip into Israel have killed 13 civilians, according to the Israeli government.”

It gives the numbers of Israeli casualties. It doesn’t say how many people the Israelis have killed. I can guarantee it’s a lot more than 13. Nowhere in the article does it say how many people in Gaza have died or the extent of the damage.

6) "Israel allowed 93 trucks into Gaza -- 50 with humanitarian supplies and the rest with commercial goods. The humanitarian shipments included flour, rice, sugar, lentils and medication -- all donated by aid groups."

Great details, and absolutely no details about the extent of the humanitarian disaster and chaos. How many people don't have electricity or water or food or basic sanitary conditions or even houses?

7) " Israel has not allowed foreign reporters into Gaza since its operation began Saturday. "

So then what kind of information is coming out? Is the Washington Post saying this to cover its ass, for not getting quotes from the other side? There are plenty of journalists and bloggers and photographers inside who are selling all kinds of information. This is the only economy right now in the Occupied Territories. If they wanted to, they could present some details and numbers and even justifications from the other side.

The New York Times article (now listed as #1 in the Google News aggregator) is essentially the same, emphasizing the diplomatic measures Israel is considering and how much humanitarian aid they're allowing in. It includes many details of rockets being fired into Israel, and hitting an "empty school". No description at all of the situation in Gaza. I have no picture what it is like there. But they do say "punishing air attacks". But they are punishing, since Gazans clearly brought it upon themselves. Again, absolutely no way of explaining their rational reasons for engaging in the actions that they do.

But they do include "Palestinian officials say that more than 370 people have been killed, among them, the United Nations says, at least 62 women and children and an unknown number of civilian men. Two sisters, ages 4 and 11, were killed in a strike in the north as concern was growing around the world that the assault was taking a terrible toll on civilians."

And then in the second page, they include the details I'm looking for: quotes from the Gazans and images. They're joking about the specific way they will be incinerated as they wait in lines for four hours to purchase necessities that are in short supply. There is no electricity, but this is "for the first time." I beg to differ with that.

And of course, they put in this quote, "When asked his view of the situation, Yousef took an unusual stand for someone in Gaza, where Israel is being cursed by most everyone. 'I blame Hamas. It doesn’t want to recognize Israel. If they did so there could be peace,' he said." That quote was in the article before the NYT found someone to give it to them. I know how that works. During the July War in Lebanon, I talked on the phone with a reporter from Fox who needed a foreign student who was really scared and thankful that their government was giving them a free ride. They already had the article written; they just needed a name to fill in.

In the New York Times, the #4 most popular e-mailed article right now is an Op-Ed entitled "Why Israel Feels Threatened". As if we need to hear the same things again and again: painting themselves as a victim. "The Holocaust is increasingly becoming a faint and ineffectual memory and the Arab states are increasingly powerful and assertive." Where does it talk about what it's like to live as an Arab in the Occupied Territories? It would be so hard to believe. Americans would say it's a lie. They wouldn't understand. They wouldn't want to be implicated in the extent of the human rights abuses. Check out alternative sources of media, like Electronic Intifada. Look at the other side. It is shocking.