The Philadelphia Inquirer's Coverage of
Israel:
A 100-Day Analysis
by Michael Goldblatt, Ph.D.
Chairman of the Board,
Zionist Organization of America - Greater Philadelphia District
The Philadelphia Inquirer's Coverage of Israel: A 100-Day Analysis
by Michael Goldblatt, Ph.D.
Chairman of the Board,
Zionist Organization of America - Greater Philadelphia District
In September 1995, Jane Eisner, editor of the Philadelphia
Inquirer's editorial page, announced a startling change in the choice
of syndicated columns that the Inquirer uses: George Will, one of
the most pro-Israel journalists in the country, was being dropped;
Joseph Sobran, one of the most violently anti-Israel journalists in the
country, was being added. Among other things,Sobran wants the
U.S. to abandon Israel--"We should be out, aloof, " is how he
puts it--and has derided the attention given to "Schindler's List" as
"all this Holocaust-harping." In her announcement of the change,
Eisner herself quoted those lines from Sobran, but instead of clearly
repudiating them, claimed that his words have been taken out of
"context" and are, at worst, "indiscreet." The replacement of Will
by Sobran, and Eisner's defense of Sobran, were the impetus
for this study, which seeks to determine if Eisner's attitude was
indicative of a broader anti-Israel bias in the Inquirer's news
coverage and editorials.
I INTRODUCTION
American media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict affects
both American public opinion regarding the Mideast and U.S.
policy toward that region. Consequently, those who are concerned
about U.S.-Israel relations have taken a particular interest in
monitoring news reporting about Israel.
This study analyzes news coverage and editorials concerning
Israel that appeared in Philadelphia's leading daily newspaper, the
Philadelphia Inquirer, between June 10, 1995 and September 22,
1995. This 100-day period was selected at random.
The Inquirer has its own correspondent in Israel, Alan
Sipress, but it also frequently publishes news stories from Israel that
are provided by news services such as the Associated Press or same-
day syndicated news stories from other major American newspapers
such as the Los Angeles Times. The editors of
the Inquirer bear responsibility for their own correspondent's
reporting, although they have no influence over the quality of the
reporting in articles provided by other services. At the same time,
because it is their decision whether or not to reprint each article, the
editors of the Inquirer assume journalistic responsibility for the
contents of the article they select for publication. They also have
the right to alter an article from another source before publication; if
they choose not to alter an article, it may be taken as a statement of
the editors' endorsement of the accuracy and balance of the
article. In addition, the Inquirer's headline-writers are responsible
for the headlines both on articles from Inquirer correspondents and
from non-Inquirer sources.
Therefore, in assessing the Inquirer's coverage of Israel, this
study makes no distinction between articles from the Inquirer's own
correspondents and those authored by other sources.
II MISREPRESENTING HISTORY
Accurate historical references are crucial to providing
readers with an appropriate context in which to understand current
developments in the Middle East. The Arab-Israeli conflict is rooted
in many centuries of historical experience, from which today's
events cannot be separated.
During the period examined, the Inquirer repeatedly
published inaccurate references to Middle Eastern history, both
ancient and modern.
Readers of the Inquirer were led to believe that Israel had
been the aggressor in the Arab-Israeli wars. With regard to the
Israeli reunification of Jerusalem, for example, the Inquirer
consistently failed to explain that Israel captured the eastern part of
the city in self-defense, while repulsing a Jordanian invasion in
1967. For example, an Inquirer background "Primer on the
West Bank Settlers" asserted: "In 1967, Israel, in the course of
pummeling its Arab foes in the Six Day war, seized the West Bank
from Jordan and put it under military rule." (8/26) With Israel
"pummeling" Arabs and "seizing" land from them, readers would
hardly guess that the Arabs were the aggressors. Other
Inquirer news reports made reference to "East Jerusalem, occupied
by Israel since 1967" (7/2, 8/28, 9/5) or mentioned that "Israel
captured the eastern part of the city from Jordan in 1967 and later
annexed it" (7/4), with no further explanation as to what preceded
the capture.
The Syrian record of aggression against Israel was likewise
obscured by the Inquirer. A news report explaining the background
of the Golan Heights controversy noted that Israel and Syria "have
fought since Israel's birth in 1948" and that recent negotiations
represent "an extraordinary shift toward peace for the longtime
adversaries" (6/30)-as if both sides were equally at
fault for the fighting, and as if both sides are now, for the first time,
interested in peace. In fact, Syria has always been the aggressor,
and Israel has always wanted peace.
The Inquirer's references to the conflict between Israel and
terrorists in southern Lebanon were likewise consistently bereft of
appropriate historical
context or explanation. Syria's sponsorship of the terrorists was
never mentioned, except in a single reference to the fact that Israel
"believes" that Syria "provides weapons and other support for the
Lebanese guerrillas," as if Israel is merely speculating about it
without hard evidence. (6/24) The narrow strip of territory that
Israel maintains along the Israel-Lebanese border was
described as Israel's "self-proclaimed security zone," a term
indicating doubts as to its security value, and no reference was made
to the decades of terrorism which compelled Israel to establish the
zone. One Inquirer news report made much of the fact that "Israeli
officials acknowledged yesterday that some attacks intended for
military targets in southern Lebanon had struck civilian
areas" (6/24) -yet the article failed to explain that the terrorists
deliberately base themselves in civilian areas, thus resulting in
civilian casualties.
The Inquirer's references to the key cities in the Israel-PLO
conflict were similarly inadequate. For example, the Old City
area of Jerusalem was characterized by an Inquirer news report as
"Arab east Jerusalem," even though that part of the city has a
Jewish, not Arab, majority. (9/18) As for the population of Hebron,
in the course of just four weeks, the Inquirer repeatedly
inflated the number of its Arab residents, from 80,000 (8/9) to
100,000 (8/12) to "more than 120,000." (9/13) Hebron was
described as a "city holy to both Muslims and Jews" (9/13), when in
actuality the entire city is holy to Jews, while only one site, the Cave
of the Patriarchs, is of religious significance to
Muslims. A report in the Inquirer referred to the Cave as "a
mosque," without explaining that the Cave in fact contains both a
mosque and a synagogue. ( 8/9) Likewise, Jerusalem was
inaccurately characterized as "sacred as a religious
site to Jews, Muslims and Christians" (6/22), when in fact the city
is sacred to Jews, while certain sites in the city-but not the city as a
whole-are sacred to Muslims and Christians.
III USE OF LOADED LANGUAGE
Throughout the 100-day period surveyed, Inquirer news
reports were found to consistently employ pejorative terms that
slanted the news against Israel.
For example, Arabs who murdered or attempted to murder
Israelis were never described as "terrorists." The Hezbollah
terrorists who fired rockets into northern Israel were called
"guerrillas," "militant guerrillas" or "pro-Iranian guerrillas."(6/19,
6/24, 6/30) Terrorist attacks by Hamas and
Islamic Jihad were dubbed "military operations" (8/1) and the
perpetrators were characterized as "Palestinian militants" (7/7),
"Islamic bombers" (7/30) or simply "Palestinians." (8/26) [An
August 12 news item did refer to recent "terrorist attacks by Islamic
fundamentalist groups," and on August 22 a news dispatch called
the Jerusalem bus bombing a "terrorist attack," but instead of
calling the bombers terrorists, it called them members of the
"Islamic militant group Hamas." ]
PLO factions and members received similar kid-gloves
treatment. A member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine, a PLO faction, who stabbed to death a British immigrant
and slashed his pregant American wife, causing her
to lose the baby, was described as "a suspected guerrilla." (9-7)
(The PFLP itself was said to be "a militant Marxist group that
rejects peace with Israel"-with no reference to the fact that it is still a
member-group in good standing of the PLO. [9/6]) The PLO
members who carried out the 1974 slaughter of 21 Israeli
schoolchildren in Ma'alot were called "Palestinian guerrillas."
(8/23)
The thousands of Arabs imprisoned in Israel for murdering
Israelis also managed to avoid the "terrorist" label in the pages of the
Inquirer. News articles consistently referred to them merely as
"Palestinian prisoners." (6/19, 6/26, 6/28) Inquirer correspondent
Alan Sipress referred to "the continued detention of about 5,500
Arab prisoners in Israeli jails" (7/2), as if they were being
inappropriately "detained" (in fact, nearly all of them were convicted
of crimes and serving jail sentences) for no other reason than that
they are Arabs.
The Inquirer even used the prisoner issue to justify the PLO's failure
to extradite terrorists to Israel, as required by the accords.
"Extradition of Palestinians to Israeli jails is among the most
politically sensitive of moves for Arafat, who is still attempting to
negotiate release of current prisoners," an August 28 news report
asserted, again without any mention of the crimes for
which they are imprisoned. When PLO supporters staged a rally in
Philadelphia to demand the release of the imprisoned terrorists,
Inquirer correspondent Carol Morello noted vaguely that "Most of
the prisoners were imprisoned for offenses committed during the
intifadah," without explaining the nature of those
"offenses." (6/29)
As for Israeli victims of Arab terrorism, for some reason the
Inquirer never once reported the actual casualty toll. On July 6, July
13 and again on August 21, news articles asserted that "scores of
Israelis" had been murdered since the signing of the Oslo accords.
The actual number of deaths at that time, 125, was never
mentioned.
Pejorative language was also used to depict Jewish residents
of Judea, Samaria and Gaza in unflattering terms. On one
occasion, they were said to have "seized" land that "they say belongs
to them," (6/28), thus making them seem belligerent and, by using
the words "they say," implicitly challenging the veracity of their
position. The Jewish residents of Hebron were described by
the Inquirer's Alan Sipress as "fiercely nationalist" (9/13), a term he
did not employ with regard to nationalistic Arabs. Sipress also
dubbed the Hebron Jews "heavily armed settlers," without any
reference to the repeated incidents of Arab terrorism which
compelled them to carry arms. (9/13)
IV IMBALANCE
Many of the Inquirer articles analyzed for this study were
marred by a striking imbalance in the choice of individuals who
were quoted. For example, a June 19 report about the PLO's
demand for the release of imprisoned Arab terrorists quoted PLO
Chairman Yasir Arafat explaining why they should be
released, but did not quote any response from the Israeli side. On
June 22, the Inquirer published a report about the controversy over
moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, quoting Secretary of State
Warren Christopher in opposition to the move, but not quoting
anyone supporting it. An August 25 report, about the use
of physical pressure by Israeli police officers interrogating suspected
terrorists, quoted one sentence by then-Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin in favor of using such pressure, but then quoted two leftwing
Israelis and an Arab militant speaking against it. The opponents'
statements totalled 93 words, as compared
to Rabin's 19.
When Alan Sipress authored a general assessment of the
Israel-PLO negotiations, on August 24, he quoted three leftwing
Israelis and one Arab; no centrist or nationalist Israelis were cited.
Likewise, Sipress's September 13
feature about the Hebron controversy, which was 26 paragraphs in
length, included just one brief quote from a Jewish resident of
Hebron.
Two Inquirer reports about the Jerusalem 3000 celebrations
were similarly unbalanced. A September 1 story claimed that there
were many "critics" who were opposed to the celebrations. But the
report quoted just one, Uri Avneri, whom it described as "a veteran
peace activist." In fact, Avneri is a discredited extremist who favors
changing Israel from a Jewish state into a binational
Arab-Jewish state. But the Inquirer made no mention of Avneri's
extremism and allotted his statements as much space as those of the
Mayor of Jerusalem. A follow-up story by Alan Sipress, on
September 5, did not quote the Mayor or anyone else in favor of
Jerusalem 3000, and instead only quoted two opponents: a
PLO official and Meron Benvenisti. Sipress described Benvenisti as
"a former top city official and historian," neglecting to mention that
his latest book, published earlier this year, advocates turning Israel
into a binational Arab-Jewish state.
V USE OF EMPHASIS
TO SLANT NEWS
Many news reports in the Inquirer seemed to go out of their
way to emphasize those aspects of the news that cast Israel in an
unflattering light.
The lead of a June 26 dispatch, for example, began: "In a
violent Sunday, Israeli troops killed a Palestinian demonstrator
during a second day of protests in the West Bank and a bomber
blew up a donkey cart loaded with explosives at a military
checkpoint in the Gaza Strip, killing himself and injuring three
soldiers." Thus the article made the Israeli troops' action seem
to be more important than the terrorist suicide attack. It also sought
to make the Israeli action seem worse than it really was, by calling
the victim a "demonstrator" and failing to indicate that he was, in
fact, taking part in anti-Israel mob violence.
A report about Israel ordering the closure of three illegal
PLO offices in Jerusalem emphasized that the closure order was
"heightening tensions as negotiators struggle to finalize a deal,"
suggesting that Israel's behavior was obstructing peace. The report
could just as easily, and more accurately, have stated that "the PLO
has heightened tensions by violating Jerusalem's status
quo." (8/29) A second article on the subject charged that Israel had
launched a "double-barreled assault" and "threatened to demolish
the Orient House," the PLO's headquarters in Jerusalem. In fact,
the municipal authorities had said that they might request a court
order to demolish a small, illegally-built annex to Orient House.
(7/4)
The Inquirer's September 14 report about a clash in Hebron
likewise employed biased emphasis. It began: "Tear gas fired by
Israeli soldiers poured into a West Bank nursery yesterday, sending
11 Palestinian toddlers to the hospital, after a street clash with Arab
stone-throwers..." In fact, it was not merely a "street clash" in
which neither side was necessarily to blame. But from the phrasing
of the opening sentence, the reader immediately received the
impression that the Israelis acted cruelly. There was no way for the
reader to know that the Arab stone-throwers initiated the violence;
that the Arab attackers chose to launch their violence without regard
for the proximity of the nursery; and that the tear gas "poured" into
the nursery by accident, not by intent.
Similarly, a June 26 report began by emphasizing that
"Israeli troops killed a Palestinian demonstrator" and that the trouble
began on Saturday with several bloody clashes that injured 18,"
with no indication that the troops were responding in self-defense.
Not until the 7th paragraph of the story was it finally mentioned,
vaguely, that there had been some Arab "stone-throwing."
VI MISLEADING HEADLINES
Another disturbing feature of Inquirer news coverage during
this 100-day period was the use of headlines which downplayed the
Arab role in anti-Israel violence.
For example, a June 26 headline declared "Violence Flares
in W. Bank and Gaza," without indicating that the violence was the
result of Arab mob violence and a terrorist attack. The subheadline
added "Israeli troops killed a protester" (as if he was a peaceful
demonstrator, when in fact he was attacking Israelis) "and a bomber
struck at checkpoint" -omitting his Arab identity and placing it at the
end of the subheadline, after the point about Israeli troops
killing him.
When Arab terrorists fired rockets into northern Israel in
June, the Inquirer's headline left readers guessing as to who had
fired: "Tourist Resort in Israel Hit; 1 Killed, 7 Injured," it vaguely
announced. (6/24) When Arab terrorists blew up an Israeli bus in
Ramat Gan, killing five, neither the killers nor the victims were
mentioned in the Inquirer headline, "Peace Process
Holds Despite Blast." (7/25)
The editors of the Inquirer chose the headline "Palestinians
Blamed in Settler's Slaying," for their September 6 report about the
Arab terrorist who murdered a British immigrant and wounded his
pregant American wife. Their wording suggested that the Arabs
might not be guilty of the killing, but were merely being "blamed,"
perhaps unfairly. The Inquirer could just as easily, and
more accurately, have used a headline such as "PLO Faction Says It
Murdered Israeli," since the PFLP, far from merely being "blamed"
for the killing, had in fact boasted of its responsibility.
After terrorists involved in a Jerusalem bus bombing fled to
PLO-controlled Jericho, and the PLO refused to extradite them, the
Inquirer used the headline "Israelis Maintain Tight Seal of Jericho"
(8/28), instead of a more accurate phrase, such as "PLO Protects
Bus Bombers."
VII BIASED USE OF PHOTOS
The choice, size and placement of Mideast-related
photographs provide another means of measuring the Inquirer's
coverage of Israel.
On June 12, Inquirer readers were treated to a startling
contrast on page 3. At the top of the page was a photo of Yasir
Arafat and Secretary of State Christopher reviewing a "Palestinian
honor guard" in Jericho. Arafat and the PLO cadets appeared
orderly and respectable. Below it was a photo of an Israeli
soldier standing menacingly above a fallen Arab, with the caption,
"An Israeli border policeman brings a Palestinian demonstrator to
the ground." The Arab 'victim' was said to have "protested a ban
keeping West Bank and Gaza Arabs out of Israel." The message
could not have been clearer: PLO police have earned the
admiration of America's leaders, while Israeli police are mistreating
peaceful Arab "demonstrators."
On several other occasions during this 100-day period, the
editors again chose photos that conveyed negative images of Israelis
or sympathetic images of Arabs. On June 26, the Inquirer featured
a huge photograph, again on page 3, of a group of Arabs kneeling in
fear, with the caption describing them as "Palestinians trapped
between Israeli troops and stone-throwing Palestinians..."
Likewise, on July 6, once again on page 3, the Inquirer published a
large photo of an Israeli soldier charging at journalists with a decree
closing off the area to the media. Then,on September 19, the
Inquirer ran a page 2 photo of an Arab girl standing next
to a wall bearing a Star of David, with the caption: "A Palestinian
girl stands under a Star of David painted by Jewish settlers in the
West Bank town of Hebron..." Although no evidence was cited to
show that there was anything improper about the painting of the
star, the contrast between the innocent-looking Arab girl and the
Jewish symbol on the wall conveyed the impression of Jews
somehow mistreating Arabs.
VIII OMISSIONS
The bias in the Inquirer's coverage of Israel was often
evident not merely in what, and how, it reported the news, but in its
omission of crucial facts or its failure to report on newsworthy
events.
For example, in his September 13 feature about Hebron,
Inquirer correspondent Alan Sipress, attempting to demonstrate that
there had been "escalating violence" in the city, pointed to the fact
that five days earlier, "a Palestinian man was gunned down inside
his home in a suburb of Hebron." This was the second time the
Inquirer had referred to the killing; four days earlier,
the Inquirer ran a long story under the headline "Gunmen in Israeli
Army Garb Kill Palestinian in West Bank." (9/9)
Both articles stressed initial police suspicions that Jews might
be responsible. Sipress' article, four days after the killing, omitted
any reference to the doubts that Jews were involved. Ironically, on
the same day Sipress's article appeared, the Israeli media reported
that the police now believed it was "likely" that the killers were
Arabs. [Yediot Ahronot, September 13, 1995.] Two days later, the
Arab's body was exhumed and it provided further evidence that the
killers were not Jews; shortly afterwards, the killers were
caught and turned out to be Arabs. Yet the Inquirer never reported
that the killers were Arabs. Readers were left only with Sipress's
early, inaccurate account.
After the Ramat Gan bus bombing in July,, in which five
Israelis were killed, Inquirer correspondent Carol Morello authored
a news dispatch headlined "Most Palestinians Do Not Celebrate
Bus Bombing Deaths of 5 Israelis." Morello claimed that
"Palestinians interviewed yesterday" condemned the bombing,
although in her lengthy report (24 paragraphs), only two Palestinian
Arabs were actually quoted. (7/26) Significantly, Morello omitted
any mention of recent public opinion polls showing that substantial
numbers of Palestinian Arabs continue to endorse anti-Israel
terrorism.
Omission was again the problem in the Inquirer's coverage
of the controversy over the alleged killing of Egyptian prisoners of
war by Israeli soldiers. On August 17, Israel's respected English-
language daily, the Jerusalem Post, published a front page expose
showing that the Egyptian "prisoners" allegedly killed by Israelis in
the 1967 war were, in fact, armed combatants who opened fire on
Israeli forces, and were killed in battle. The Inquirer did not print
the Post's revelations. Instead, beginning the very next
day, the Inquirer ran four lengthy stories reporting the murder
allegations, on August 18, 26, 29 and September 1. Among the
"authorities" quoted by the Inquirer was Meir Pail, whom it
identified merely as "a military historian."
(8/18) The Inquirer omitted any mention of the fact that Pail is
associated with the Israeli fringe-left, and during the 1970s was a
leader of the radical Democratic Communist Party ("Moked").
[Jerusalem Post, December 30, 1973.]
The Inquirer's coverage of Palestinian Arab life in the
territories during this period was likewise marred by significant
omissions. There were lengthy, upbeat 'human interest' feature
stories about local Arabs setting up in the infrastructure for their
self-rule regime; the phenomenon of Arabs from the
territories marrying Israeli Arab women in order to have access to
Israeli jobs; the Palestinian Arab zoo in Kalkilya; and a Palestinian
Arab radio talk show. (7/21, 7/24, 8/27, 9/21) Yet the Inquirer
failed to report less pleasant aspects of life in the territories, such as
the PLO's shutdown of rival Arab newspapers and its torturing of
Arab prisoners (five of the victims died under torture), which have
been documented by Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem (a leftwing
Israeli human rights group), and Amnesty International. The
Inquirer ran a long report, on July 6, about Amnesty International's
latest annual report on human rights abuses around the world-yet
the article did not mention that the Amnesty report had included, for
the first time, a detailed critique of PLO abuses in the territories.
Perhaps the most significant of the Inquirer's omissions was
its consistent failure to report incidents of Arab terrorism. During
this 100 day-period, there were 52 Arab terrorist attacks, in which
13 Israelis were murdered and 145 wounded (in addition, one Arab
was murdered and one was wounded). Only 4 of the 52 attacks
were reported in the Inquirer.
IX EDITORIALS BLAME ISRAEL
During the period covered by this study, the Inquirer
published two unsigned editorials about the Israeli-PLO
negotiations. Both of them placed the preponderant blame on Israel
for problems in the negotiating process. A July 6
editorial noted that "Sticky questions of timing and logistics still have
to be resolved before the latest agreement can be signed." The three
"sticky questions" it cited were the PLO's reluctance to hold
elections while Israeli troops were still in the area; Arab fears that
"Israeli security roadblocks, which make traveling between West
Bank towns an ordeal, will stifle the ability of their new quasi-
goverment to develop an economy"; and concerns that Jewish
settlers "will try to provoke incidents that could scuttle the test
period." The Inquirer did not mention Arab terrorism -which at that
point had claimed some 130 Israeli lives since the signing of the
accords- as one of the "sticky questions" holding up an agreement.
The second Israel-related editorial during this period,
published on July 25, included a defense of Arafat's failure to crack
down on Hamas, on the grounds that a crackdown could "provoke a
bloody Palestinian civil conflict."
X A ONE-SIDED OP-ED PAGE
During the period covered by this study, the Inquirer
published nine op-ed essays concerning Israel and the Arabs. Eight
of the nine advocated pro-Arab positions (seven were pro-PLO, one
was pro-Syria). Only one of the nine opposed the PLO. Of the
eight pro-PLO op-eds, seven were authored by Inquirer editorial
board member Trudy Rubin.
Rubin's June 28 assessment of the Israeli-Syrian negotiations
had nothing critical to say about Syrian dictator Hafez Assad (the
worst she could say about him was that he is "wily," which in
Mideast terms is almost a compliment). Placing the blame for the as
yet-unsuccessful negotiations on the Israeli side, Rubin complained
about the personality of Israeli negotiator Lt. Gen.
Ehud Barak, whom she accused of failing to "get along with his
Syrian counterpart." By contrast, she wrote sympathetically of
Syrian negotiator Hikmat Shihabi, who "has U.S.-educated children,
which some believe may make him more comfortable in dealing
with negotiations where America plays an essential
part."
After a visit with Arafat, Rubin wrote on the op-ed page (on
July 19) of Arafat's supposed "fixation" with holding elections and
his alleged desire "to inject a whiff of democracy into a Palestinian
government"-phrases sure to improve Arafat's image in the eyes of
the American reading public.
Again and again in her op-eds, Rubin returned to the theme
of Arafat trying his best and Israel obstructing peace by failing to
give him a full-fledged state. Rubin would concede only that there
had been "several awful terrorist incidents" -at that point there had
actually been 422 (not "several") terrorist attacks since the accords
were signed - and "no successful terrorist episodes for 3 months."
(In fact, in the three months prior to her article, there had been 39
terrorist attacks, which succeeded in wounding 12 people. But
in view of the Inquirer's own failure to report these attacks, perhaps
Rubin's error is not so surprising.) [7/11]. The best way to stop
Hamas? "If the process produces a viable [PLO] entity," Hamas
will be "marginalized," she insisted. "Were Israel willing to clarify
up front that it was offering the Palestinians a state...this would give
Palestinian leaders full incentive to squelch Islamic radicals." (7/28)
Shortcomings in the Israel-Jordan peace process? "A successful
new Israeli pullback would make Jordan's Palestinian
population much more comfortable with a warm peace," Rubin
declared. (7/21)
After the Jerusalem bus bombing in August, a Rubin op-ed
named what she called the four "thorniest problems" remaining in
the negotiations: "how much land Israel will return to Palestinians,
whether Jewish settlers will leave, who will control Jerusalem, and
whether Palestinians get a state..." Note how her tone clearly
indicated a hope that all of those problems will be answered with
far-reaching Israeli concessions.
Several of Rubin's op-eds strongly urged continued U.S.
financial aid to PLO. The Inquirer also published an op-ed by an
Israeli official in favor of aid to the PLO, and a brief op-ed by
U.S.Congressman Jim Saxton (R-NJ) opposing such aid. In one of
her essays, Rubin at first insisted that there was no
evidence of corruption in the PLO's handling of international funds.
But then she added that if there was corruption, it should not
"surprise anyone," since "construction kickbacks" are common in
Saudi Arabia and take place in the U.S. as well. (7/12)
XI CONCLUSION
The Philadelphia Inquirer's news coverage of Israel during
this 100-day period was consistently marred by distortions,
imbalance and inaccuracies. Historical background information was
frequently misstated or withheld. Pejorative language was regularly
used to minimize Arab terrorism and erode sympathy for Israel.
Proponents of PLO positions were given ample space to make
their arguments, while pro-Israeli sources were quoted briefly or not
at all. Emphasis was placed on those aspects of the news that cast
Israel in the worst possible light. Biased headlines heaped blame
upon Israel or minimized Arab culpability. Photographs that
portrayed Israel in a negative manner, or portrayed Arabs in a
sympathetic manner, were given prominence. Arab life in
the territories was viewed through rose-colored glasses, without any
reference to PLO human rights abuses.
The Inquirer's editorials and op-eds were equally
disappointing. The unsigned editorials gave short shrift to the issue
of Arab terrorism and sought to blame Israel for problems in the
negotiating process. The op-ed page, meanwhile, was unbalanced to
the point of absurdity, with Trudy Rubin, a veteran
critic of Israel, authoring no less than seven op-eds, while critics of
the PLO were allotted just one brief op-ed during the same period.
When there is a consistent pattern of such flagrant anti-Israel
bias, in both a newspaper's news coverage and its editorial pages,
the time has come for the newspaper's publishers to thoroughly
examine the problem, determine its causes, and take urgent steps to
correct it. A failure to do so would inevitably, and justifiably, erode
the public's faith in the credibility of the newspaper.
Back to Home Page