GOLDSTONE'S GAZA REPORT: PART TWO: A MISCARRIAGE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Many of the discussions prompted by the release of the United Nations Human Rights Council's fact-finding report in Gaza deal with its validity. 

Commentators' opinions differ regarding its principal author Judge Richard Goldstone, some describing him as a redeemer, others as a partisan of international justice. But one discussion is traditionally ignored in the wake of reports such as Goldstone's - the role of the media in bringing them about.

Partly because the relationship between the media and international law is explored so infrequently, journalists are considered passive in the flow of information from legal experts like Judge Goldstone to news audiences. 

References to 'the PR battle' or 'the media war', heard frequently in relation to the Gaza conflict and the Russia-Georgia war, are metaphors that imagine frontlines of journalists thoughtlessly reporting this claim or that, without any mindful contribution at all. 

But the media is more active than we may realize, and journalists profoundly affect what we understand about international law. One way is through the language that journalists popularise in their reports and broadcasts.

To get an idea of the problematic nature of the media during Operation Cast Lead, I post here the blog entry at the NBC Worldblog by NBC News Producer Lawahez Jabari.  This intensely personal, highly partisan set of reflections - was entirely the product of what she saw on al Jazeera TV, supplemented with news of the al Fakhoura school bombing with 45 reported dead. She produced the news for NBC during the conflict, and NBC not only had no problem with her work, but posted this at their site.

It was now very difficult to comprehend what was really going on. What was the true goal –the mission – of the Israeli army? Are they really fighting Hamas, or are they targeting civilians? The figures would seem to point to the latter. As of Friday, more than 1,100 Palestinians have been killed since the war began on Dec. 27, including 346 children, according to the U.N. and Gaza health officials. And countless houses have been demolished and infrastructure destroyed. Meanwhile, 13 Israelis have been killed, four by rocket fire, according to the military.

If this sounds like the Palestinian narrative, HRW, Amnesty, and Goldstone, it's because it's all part of the same discourse.

Background piece from the early days of the Intifada: a guide to bad journalism.

 

From the Telegraph, a Virtual How-To Guide for Anti-Israel Bias

 

The author may not have meant it to be so, but Adrian Blomfield’s Oct. 8 article in the British Telegraph about tensions in Jerusalem could serve as a "How-To" guide for anti-Israel bias. It seems that the piece, entitled "Fears of third intifada as tension grows in Israel," includes all the elements necessary to skew public understanding of events in Israel’s capital.

1) Refer to the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa Mosque compound as Islam's third holiest site, but do not note it is the holiest ground in Judaism.

Blomfield writes:

"Down the winding alleyways of the old city and into the Arab suburbs of east Jerusalem, word spread of a planned Jewish takeover of Islam's third holiest site."

Although readers are told of the site’s holiness to Muslims, there is not one word in the article about the Mount’s unparalleled sacredness to Jews.

In fact, the one piece of information that might have hinted at its sanctity serves to further distort. "The al-Aqsa mosque," writes Blomfield, is "regarded by many Israelis as the location of the Jewish Temple the Romans destroyed in AD 70."