Text And Pretext

 

Like so many Americans, I have been disenchanted with the media. More accurately, I don't believe what I see and read. John Peter Zenger risked his freedom and his life for the right to publish what he considered to be the truth. The first amendment to our Constitution guaranteed that right. It was a right that could lead to an informed public – a public that was objectively apprised of events and could practice democracy in the knowledge that they could make informed choices.

We live in a free society. We can elect representatives and we can influence their policies to some degree by the expression of our beliefs and our wishes. Indeed, our country is great because it reflects, at least in part, the attitudes of a free people.

Attitudes, however, are based on information. Some of that information comprises the views and biases of those who rear us. These color our opinions by predisposing us to accept certain ideas while rejecting others. It's a sad fact that xenophobia, racism, antisemitism, sexism are often ingrained: they are truth, “common knowledge.” The new information we seek, the ideas which we accept or reject, however, are given us by others. And to a major degree, they are the members of the media.

Unfortunately, however, we have reason not to trust the media. A Gallup Poll taken in December of last year indicated that only twenty percent of the population viewed television reporters [and, presumably, other journalists] as demonstrating a high degree of ethics. That's down from thirty-six percent in 1981 – not very impressive figure itself. But, as the press knows, notwithstanding its low credibility it's the only game in town, and people react to what it says. So even if they don't trust the source, the ideas are absorbed, becoming part of their stock of accepted facts. If they are not exposed to other ideas, they can neither react to them nor incorporate them – only to what they are told.

So if there is little mention of the abduction of Christian girls in Africa, or the killings occurring in Iraq, they cannot be of much consequence. If little space is given to the nuclear threat from Iran or the invasion of Crimea, it is not our concern. But if an inordinate amount of space is devoted to a single subject – and here I refer to the situation in Israel and Gaza – that becomes the topic which is most worthy of our attention, whether we believe everything we are being told or not.

And there is good reason for cynicism. The story from Gaza presented by most of the media – a very serious affliction of the New York Times and many other sources – is unbalanced. It includes official Palestinian government reports with the claims unchecked, stories by Hamas sympathizers hewing to the party line, reports of those who fear injury or loss of credentials for accurate reporting, and censorship of uncomplimentary reports. And only certain events may be covered, with only authorized scenes photographed. The “creation” of reality that supports the Hamas narrative is encouraged. In short, propaganda is freely mixed with news. And news that does not support the propaganda is squelched or denied.

I understand both the underlying biases and the pressure to protect sources. Truth is not merely discouraged, it is dangerous. The lives of journalists are at stake. That is the reason that the information coming from Gaza and from similar venues is limited and censored. Those who wish to stay report the story the way Hamas wants it, and the others live in fear, only describing the true situation when they are out. Even then they are often reluctant to tell the whole story out of concern for friends and colleagues still there. And all too often, those reporting from Israel find it easier and safer to report Hamas's claims rather than to risk going to the scene. It also fits their own liberal stereotypes and biases, and the wishes of their editors and advertisers. “Advocacy journalism” has become the norm.

It is also difficult to ignore the complicity of Europe and the UN. The changing demographics in Europe, with increasing numbers of Muslims, means that anti-Israeli (actually antisemitic) sentiment is rife, and there is a good market for those newspapers that tell and sell Hamas's story. No version inconsistent with the Muslim narrative is ever told, so all that the people know and believe is what Hamas tells them. Will the Europe with which we are familiar exist in twenty-five years, or will it have become “Eurabia?”

As for the UN, it is largely comprised of Muslim states and sympathetic countries around the world that either have increasing Muslim populations or are dependent on the Arab states for oil and investments. In addition, experience has shown that UN troops and organs do better in Muslim countries, and fewer are abducted or killed, when they overlook the faults of their hosts and blame Israel for all the problems that exist. That they ignore storage of rockets in UN schools and hospitals in Gaza, with the knowledge of UN representatives, while blaming Israel for destroying them, is an example, as is the use of antisemitic texts in UN schools.

The problem is gigantic, but the solution is straightforward. Tell the truth. The whole truth. A serious description of the problem – reporting what reporters who have left Gaza have seen – would be a good start. The recognition and citation of media distortions would be helpful, although it would not be surprising if no branch of the media wanted to criticize another. Facts should be checked before publication, and when this cannot be done readers should be informed that they are simply claims. It has to be clear that journalists take their responsibilities seriously if they want to earn back the trust of the public.

For if people cannot believe one set of stories reported by the media, they may question the remainder of what they are told. And that is what is happening.