NPR knows something about going where “news organizations prefer not to go.”
Posted on February 22 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under CAMERA , Media , NPR.Part 1
National Public Radio’s On The Media linked to Muzzlewatch as part of their conversation with Forward editor JJ Goldberg on the question, “How free are Americans to publicly criticize Israel?”
After the refreshingly candid Goldberg recognized that there is a great deal of fear to speak openly, he concluded that the amount of complaint we hear about the squelching is proof that there isn’t squelching. Huh?
It’s true that the pages of newspapers here and across the Atlantic seem to be filled with discussion about the issue these days. But it’s really only been the past few months. What we’ve really seen is an unprecedented unleashing of years of pent up frustration and anger over the depth and breadth of muzzling.
One of the things that just amazed me when I started working with Jewish Voice for Peace was the number of off-the-record conversations we’d have with rabbis, Jewish professionals, educators, politicians, synagogue leadership, you name it. Off the record, it seemed, everyone was on our side. But everyone was terrified to speak out loud their abhorrence of what Israel has done to the Palestinians. Many who had spoekn in some small way ended up feeling like featured players in the whack-the-ferret game we all played as children. They had learned their lesson. It was and is a terrible indictment of a real sickness in our community.
One of the most revealing moments in the On the Media NPR segment was the announcer’s introductory statement that “We’re about to go where many American news organizations prefer not to go.” NPR should know. They have long been public enemy number one of the almost comically hawkish media watchdog group CAMERA, which once called for congressional investigation of the respected news outlet for their “anti-Israel bias”. People I know in public radio say that over the years it’s been a huge issue of concern at NPR, and at one time, the issue.
A few years ago, the station manager of an NPR affiliate admitted in a room full of people that she simply didn’t want to touch the Israel-Palestine conflict and risk losing one penny. (The infamous case of Boston affiliate WBUR losing 1 to 2 million dollars as part of an organized campaign to protest their “anti-Israel” coverage still looms large in the minds of financially strapped station managers.) It was a stunning admission.
Depending on what market we’re in, we’re just as likely to hear the complaint that many reporters don’t want to cover the issue because they know they’re going to get it with both barrels from both sides of the issue. The hassle factor is just too high.
But in the game of media advocacy, there’s simply no comparison between the number and size of the many right wing Israeli media watchdog groups like CAMERA and Honest Reporting, and the handful of much smaller operations that document how the media is biased against Palestinians, like Palestine Media Watch and If Americans Knew.
These issues go much deeper than we can discuss here, but only journalists and editors can cop to the amount of self-censorship that goes on in newsrooms.
More later in Part 2 about the impact of threatened boycotts against major US newspapers, and how one major paper simply killed a story about anti-occupation Jews right before it was to go to print.
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I personally disagree with the premise of this piece in that there is no general “lack of coverage” regarding Israel on NPR, just a lack of anything that might be considered “critical coverage” or anything that might present a view opposed to Israel. So long as the coverage either touts Israel’s virtues or vilifies the Palestinians as a species of subhuman monsters wanting nothing more than blood, there is plenty of coverage.
Right this moment, the NPR websites lists several several Israel related stories:
1) “Israeli Ambassador Hails Quartet’s Call to Hamas” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7555508
An interview with Sallai Meridor, Israel’s new ambassador to Washington. Of course this ONLY represents the Israeli perspective of the current situation. No critical perspective.
2) “Rice, Diplomats Discuss Palestinians in Berlin Talks” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7532237
This article only address the U.S. - effectively pro-Israel - perspective regarding the Palestinian Unity gov’t. No critical perspective.
3) “Mideast Meeting Yields Little Progress” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7486692 The article just mentions that the Sunday meeting accomplished nothing. No critical perspective.
4) “Rice, Abbas Meet Ahead of Talks with Olmert”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7480100 Just mentions that Rice met with Abbas. No critical perspective.
And so it goes. The NPR website has a whole page of free transcipts of its coverage of the Israel/Palestine issue: http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=1101
So, make no mistake about it, there is no “lack of coverage” and NPR isn’t dominated by “many reporters [that] don’t want to cover the issue,” as long as the issue is completely pro-Israel.
From the radical Right: “Over the past decade, various media watchdogs have documented NPR’s bias against Israel, disproportionate airtime for pro-Palestinian spokespeople, pejorative language targeting only Israeli leaders, repeated factual errors. Clearly, criticism of Israel’s policies is legitimate and newsworthy, but NPR’s relentless effort to single out Israel in a demonizing fashion is very disturbing.” [from http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/Jacobs_on_NPR.htm in 2003] Assuming one believes that this was correct when it was written in 2003, then one can only conclude that the radical Right’s campaign of intimidation, slander, and vilification has been successful and they have silenced any pretense to critical coverage on NPR.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
No small credit to Muzzlewatch that censorship within the Jewish community is getting all this attention. It’s interesting that the word “muzzle” is now being used all over the place when people talk about the Israel-Palestine debate.
Remember: when powerful people get really angry, it means you’re on the right track.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
I’ve covered specific instances of this in public radioland:
Cheryl Halpern CPB’s Pro Israel Ideologue
Why is PBS Afraid of New Israel Fund
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
When Danielle Sheffi, a 5 year old moppet was killed by Palestinian terrorists on 4/27/02 NPR described her murder as “the killing of an Israeli settler by a Palestinian militant”.
Talk about framing!
As many people refuse to contribute to NPR because of their anti-Israel stand, as refuse to contribute becuse of their pro-Israel stand.
Perhaps that implies some balance?
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:01 am
So let me get this straight. People who disagree with some critics of Israel should muzzle their criticism, otherwise they are going to be accused of muzzling debate?
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 am
If you would like to read the most extreme reaction to censorship one could imagine, see the following:
http://www.southend.org/tiki-index.php?page=The%20AJC%20Attacks
Be forewarned, however, that you are about to read an extreme anti-Zionist rant. It was triggered by Alvin Rosenfeld’s now famous essay, “‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism” and various adverse reactions to Jimmy Carter’s “Palestine Peace not Apartheid.”
If you do not wish to see Zionism characterized as a genocidal program, you may wish to skip this piece. There is probably not much here that JVP would endorse.
Here is an example:
“In his article as well as in the radio discussion [on WBUR’s Feb. 6 On Point], Rosenfeld followed the Zionist party line when he asserted that rejection of the legitimacy of the Zionist or Jewish state results from bigotry or anti-Semitism simply because there is only one Zionist or Jewish state. Apartheid South Africa was the only Afrikaner state in the world, and the world is much better off for its absence.”
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 am
and once again Jewish Voice for Peace shows who it trusts– Alison Weir’s “If Americans Knew” and Norman Finkelstein. Both of them are darlings not only of the far left, but also of the far right, which touts them amongst its other purveyors of Holocaust denial. I had the dubious privilege of seeing Weir give a presentation; her slipshod use of data to create “facts” gives a bad name to whatever training she may have had as a “journalist”. One example– she shows a picture of the Jewish Brigade of the British Army in 1944 (the ones fighting the Nazis, as opposed to the Arabs who were siding with Hitler) and claimed that this was showed the “Zionist Army” that won the 1948 war against 5 Arab countries. Finkelstein is not a “gadfly”; he’s a liar, a failed academic, and a fraud who has been exposed as such by Dershowitz.
Also, neither CAMERA nor Honest Reporting are “Israeli”– unless you want to equate “Jewish” and “Israeli”.
It’s also interesting how you claim that “everyone” is on your side “off the record”. There are, indeed, many of us who deplore the situation between Israel and the Palestinians– but I doubt that your one sided approach of “blame Israel first, last and always” is shared by these nameless, powerless leaders of our community. And furthermore, I KNOW that the overwhelming majority of them reject JVP’s position of refusing to even accept Israel’s existence. Now–prove me wrong. And since you can’t, your assertions are both baseless and meaningless.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:55 am
NPR’s Mideast reporter, Linda Gradstein, had a lucrative sideline speaking on the pro-Israeli lecture circuit, especially with Hillel, “educating a broad cross-section of the campus about Israel from a Jewish perspective.”
http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/631
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:26 am
Around the same time that Danielle Shefi was murdered, Israel was engaged in a violent incursion into the Jenin refugee camp. According to :
The slaughter of Shefi and her family by terrorists, militants or thugs - whatever you want to call them - is a terrible tragedy and I have no doubt her surviving relatives mourn the loss still, with all their hearts.
No less heartbreaking were the losses of Palestinian lives in Jenin.
This is the violence we are working to stop.
The really sad and pathetic thing is the crass exploitation of selected deaths like Ms. Shefi’s by the far right to advance a political agenda.
I doubt that much comfort comes to her survivors by making her a poster child for settler victimization.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:45 am
Funny how the same people who claim about being muzzled also attempted to throw Linda Gradstein off the air.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:35 am
Not sure what you mean by “the same people.” Muzzlewatch and Electronic Intifada are different sites, run by different groups. Or is it all just “us and them” in your mind?
Also I don’t see anything there about throwing Linda Gradstein off the air. The authors are objecting to a reporter taking large payments from a pro-Israel interest group while reporting on on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The objection seems reasonable, especially since NPR has a clear conflict-of interest policy that states:
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
CAMERA’s criticisms were right on, at the time. I remember NPR’s coverage was almost uniformly presenting the anti-Israel view, framing, and terminology.
I had personally noticed this problem before CAMERA or other organizations began to publicize it.
Overally, this is an oddly vague blog piece. Talking to “lots of rabbi’s…” who all felt the same way but afraid to speak up? Really? Many of us encouter these people as well. They are doing such a great job of hiding their fear of speaking out against Israel, that some of them actually do speak out against Israel actions. Such a clever way of hiding their fear!
You reference “On the Media”. I listen to it often, to hear what they are saying. This is one of the most absurdly biased shows on any network. They are definitely part of the cabal that want all of us to believe that “all criticism of Israel is being muzzled”. They would preface such a conversation “going where other journalists fear to go…” because they want you to believe that they are doing something that is necessarily courageous just to criticize Israel. Alas, their criticisms, like to many, end up highly selective in presentation.
This particular blog piece is clearly effective at generating conversation, but it’s rather thin on useful facts.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
From above: “When Danielle Sheffi, a 5 year old moppet was killed by Palestinian terrorists on 4/27/02 NPR described her murder as ‘the killing of an Israeli settler by a Palestinian militant’.” Granting that this might not ideally represented, at the same time, at least it was reported on, which is more than can be said for MOST Palestinian deaths at Israeli hands. In the American press most Israel murders of Palestinian children are completely ignored: http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/
“In fact, Palestinian death has become so routine that it simmers at a level not meant to enter ‘Western’ consciousness at all. It has been a long time now since we even saw the names of Palestinian victims in The New York Times or similar newspapers, but now even death as a statistic is disappearing. If anyone wonders how terrible mass crimes occurred in the past and no one intervened, then Israel’s relentless dispossession of the Palestinians provides a case study in how this happens.” [From http://www.counterpunch.org/paulo06262003.html ]
Regardless of what one thinks of Alison Weir’s “If Americans Knew…” project or her as an individual; she has certainly hit the nail on the head regarding Israel’s desperation to keep the American public completely in the dark about its rule over the native Palestinians. Make no mistake about it, if every Palestinian death was reported at the same level that every Israeli one is, the American public in general would be utterly outraged and support for Israel would be on par with support for Sudan. Israel, and its supporters, have a vested interest in keeping the American public in the dark regarding the true nature of its occupation and oppression. Obviously this is part of the reason why they are so outraged when we Jewish dissidents raise these unpleasant truths.
Speaking of the matter of murdering children, if American public was allowed to see the truth [For example: Remember These Children 2006: http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2006.html ] support for Israel would collapse overnight.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Well, here’s another perspective on NPR:
http://www.abunimah.org/nprletters/nprindex.html
And, specificially on CAMERA & NPR:
http://electronicintifada.net/features/mediaonmedia/20010821camera.html
http://www.abunimah.org/features/990402camera.html
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/
This is actually an interesting resource. Go through the names and ages of the children listed. The vast majority of the Palestinian deaths are older teenage boys. (The Israeli child deaths are all over the spectrum in terms of ages)Only 5% of those listed are Palestinian girls. Does this indicate the use of Palestinian boys as child combatants, in direct violation of the Geneva convention? Maybe.
The main difference between the deaths on both sides- the Palestinians TARGET children and civilians. Don’t you ever wonder why their attacks aren’t directed towards infrastructure? Why buses? Why pizza places? Why discos? The targets are chosen to maximize terror and to maximize civilian casualties.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Investigative journalist Robert Friedman reported in The Nation on June 7, 1987 that CAMERA was “created specifically to keep the U.S. press in line…At least in one case, it has assigned freelance reporters to dig into the personal lives of liberal journalists whose views deviate from the narrowest spectrum of pro-Israeli opinion. CAMERA, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the rest of the lobby don’t want fairness, but bias in their favor. And they are prepared to use McCarthyite tactics, as well as the power and money of pro-Israel PACs, to get whatever Israel wants.”
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Norbert- its a 20 year old quote. And it says “in at least one case”. Could you come up with anything more convincing? Or perhaps slightly more current?
February 24th, 2007 at 12:41 am
It’s really telling that you will link to such obviously biased and in the case of the latter, anti-semitic, organizations such as Palestine Media Watch and If Americans Knew, where in the same article, you focus mainly on the organization CAMERA, yet do not link to them or to Honest Reporting, also mentioned in this article.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:13 am
I also had the misfortune of attending an Alison Weir talk. She has achieved something short of miraculous- she turned two trips taken many years ago to the Middle East into a career. An audience member had asked her about her work appearing on David Duke’s website. Weir just shrugged it off.
That is completely unacceptable.
As Progressives, we need to have a zero tolerance for racism, in whatever form it takes. Its as unacceptable to allow your intellectual property to appear on a white supremacist website, as, oh, lets say, to stand next to jihadists chanting “The Jews are our dogs”. Sometimes we need to throw political correctness to the wind and take a stand for what is right.
http://www.davidduke.com/?m=20050217
Oh, look. Even after it was pointed out to her, its still on Duke’s site.
That speaks volumes about her character.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:43 am
What utter nonsense. The article reproduced on David Duke’s website is from CounterPunch - http://www.counterpunch.org/weir02172005.html Duke simply copied it on his website, Alison Weir can hardly be held responsible for that.
The rabidly anti-Semitic and uncontestedly racist “JewWatch” website reproduces an entire page of the pro-Zionist Jewish Virtual Library (an online resource by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise) regarding the King David Hotel Bombing - http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-begin.html So does this mean that the Jewish Virtual Library and the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise is a racist anti-Jewish project?
Of course not.
No one can be held responsible if their work is stolen and reproduced by racists (or anyone else for that matter). This is just a particularly weak attempt at guilt by involuntary association. There are grounds to be critical of Alison Weir, but the fact that David Duke stole one of her articles from a third party (CounterPunch) is not one of them.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
“Alison Weir can hardly be held responsible for that.”
Its her intellectual property. It is not public domain. She could stop it with a simple call from her attorney, or a cease and desist letter as is customary. She chose not to.
Nope. Zero tolerance to racists. Zero tolerance. You are known by the company you keep.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
This is so disingenuous. In the world of blogs, the whole point is to post (not “steal”) other interesting articles and if they are correctly attributed it’s perfectly acceptable. G-d help us if the courts become jammed with people suing because an article appeared on a blog with which one doesn’t agree.
And enough with juvenile morality. I agree with Art M. that one’s ideas must be evaluated on their own merit - and not I would add on who the author had lunch with or whose blog their ideas appeared on.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
RE: Alan - Of course you’re right, I suppose my use of the term “stole” and variations thereof is a bit off. The internet is stuffed with articles that have been reproduced with or without the author’s permission and generally speaking it isn’t worth the effort launch copyright violation suits to prevent this. Even the big media firms - that have the attorneys and money to go after copyright violators - generally don’t pursue reproduction unless the outfit doing so is making a profit on the material.
RE: “More on Alison Weir Says:” I guess by your logic that means you should immediately launch an internet campaign to have all Jewish websites remove links and references to the Jewish Virtual Library and the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, since your argument make it clear that JVL & AICE are neo-Nazi organizations: “Nope. Zero tolerance to racists. Zero tolerance. You are known by the company you keep.” And once you’ve accomplished this, I’ll find some Nazi website that reproduces some Herzl, Sharon and whathaveyou so you can make sure no good Jewish group has any links to these obvious Nazis too. Just as a lark, I may reproduce your comments and put them on a website with swatikas and whathaveyou all over it, which would - by your own logic - make you a Nazi too.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
I’d add to the comments that have already been made about Alison Weir that it would be worth checking to see if the article is indeed her intellectual property before making the kind of accusation “More on Alison Weir” has made. For example, it’s entirely possible that CounterPunch owns the rights to what Duke copied on his sight, and CounterPunch may have reasons other than Nazism for wanting the material it publishes to be be freely distributed on the web. Again, before making accusations, it would be worth checking their editorial policy.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:16 am
[…] As MuzzleWatch points out, National Public Radio (NPR) hosted a show on “On the Media” discussing whether Americans are truely allowed to criticize Israel. […]
March 13th, 2007 at 2:13 am
NPR is Zionist Occupied Territory, as is PBD, and CNN, and NBC, and CBS, and ALL American newspapers, TV, radio…ever other name of NPR’s ‘reporters’ is a Shapiro, or a Goldman, or a Harris, or a something-berg or Stein or…whatever.
The entire media apparatus of America and many other countries (Hungary, the UK, Argentina, Canada, etc.) is in the hands of Jews.
Through the internet they are slowly being exposed for the censorious pigs that they are.