A complex world is made more complex with conflicting perceptions and ideologies. A strange dichotomy prevails in our global community today: as citizens of the world who desire to live in harmony and peace, we embrace the concept of relativity and agree to disagree; yet, when it comes to areas of knowledge such as new reporting, we want the perfect impartial account of global events. The logic here is that only after we have received the unbiased account of an event through a news source can we form our own personal opinions, which may or may not agree with anyone else’s. The truth remains however, that media bias is prevalent in all sources. The two-week long project of tracking news coverage of the Middle East reveals remarkable evidence that speaks to media bias, in general, and the manner in which Middle East is covered in various sources, in specific.The four sources that were tracked for the news coverage assessment were: (1) New York Times (print edition), (2) AlJazeera.net, (3) Economist.com and (4) BBC Radio. The aim was to select diverse sources, both in the manner of their news distribution and the region they are based in. Despite the journalistic ideal of “objectivity,” every news story is influenced by the attitudes and background of its interviewers, writers, photographers, and editors. The following sections present an assessment of the selected four sources, categorized, for the sake of clarity, into different kinds of biases.
Bias through selection and omission
A news source reveals its bias by choosing or not choosing a particular story. Some biases are explicitly legitimate: Economist.com, as the name suggests, has economic and business issues as its prime focus. Therefore the Economist editors would most like select a business-related story over a political one. While it does cover political news, its coverage of the Middle East in the last two weeks was limited in terms of the quantity of articles it published. In contrast to Economist.com, New York Times published a great volume of articles concerning the Middle East. However, when the variety of topics is analyzed, Economist.com surpassed New York Times. Most of the New York Times coverage dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (in some cases, its extension into regional conflict with other states), the War in Iraq, Terrorism, the Blackwater Incident and the visit of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. When compared to the number of articles published, the variety covered was minimal. While Economist.com did cover these topics, it also covered stories related to Lebanese Presidential Deadlock, Oil Money, and the growing Media Business. In the limited number of articles that Economist.com published, they covered a variety of different issues and usually provided more details and historical background in the articles. The third source, Al Jazeera.net provided both a good quantity of articles and a great variety of topics. It covered developmental issues such as Egypt’s strike for better work conditions, economic issues such as Morocco’s protests due to increased bread prices, environmental issues such as Lebanon’s Forest Fire and its dire effects, humanitarian issues such as Israel’s admittance of 500 Darfur Refugees in addition to all the political issues mentioned earlier. BBC Radio was limited in both its coverage quantity and variety.
The AlJazeera.net coverage of the Middle East is extensive covering a broad range of topics and assessing each topic in detail. Many of the articles go beyond just the facts and report the effect of that particular incident on the local population. When compared to the other sources, AlJazeera.net also reported more news about internal conflict in the states, providing an insider’s point of view.
New York Times reported many articles but most of the time it reported just the surface of the news. It also over-covered issues such as the Blackwater Incident and under-covered important stories such as the Future of Lebanon’s Presidency and the progress towards Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations. In most cases, it did not go into the history or other background information. Most of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict articles simply reported the number of people who died or prisoners released. While this may have been a way to avoid taking sides and being accurate, it proved inadequate in reporting the complexity of the issue/event.
BBC Radio covered very few stories about the Middle East, to name a few, Egypt’s textile strike, death of Lebanese MP, Israel-Palestinian Negotiation. In its reporting, however, BBC Radio went into detail and broadcasted various aspects of the issue and in some cases, engaged in deeper analysis of the problem. The same was true of Economist.com. Although the quantity was limited, the topics at hand were covered with extensive detail and thorough attention.
Bias by Headline and through Placement
Ideally, headlines are supposed to capture the reader’s attention and summarize the article. They are perhaps the most read part of the paper/website. However, different news sources use headlines to highlight different aspects of the story, revealing their underlying bias. For example, New York Times and AlJazeera.net both reported that Israel released 29 prisoners on October 2, and during this release Israeli security forces opened fire at the crowd to deter the surge toward Israeli side. The New York Times headline read “Israel Completes Prisoner Release as it Frees 29″ [1]The AlJazeera.net headline read “Shooting mars Gaza prisoner release”[2]. While the information provided in both the headlines captures what happened in the event, the New York Times headline reveals its bias towards Israel and, on the flip side, the AlJazeera.net headline reveals its bias towards the Gaza Strip.
The difference in reporting did not stop there. Readers also judge the importance of certain information by where it appears in the article. The information that is reported first is considered of prime importance. In the case of earlier example, AlJazeera.net opened its article saying “Israeli security forces have opened fire on a crowd of Palestinians waiting for 29 prisoners freed by Israel to cross into the Gaza Strip.”[3] In contrast, the New York Times did not mention this fact until the third paragraph of the article (after it had mentioned that Israel had freed another 57 Palestinian prisoners).”[4] The placement of ‘the shooting information’ in the article dramatically changes its impact on the reader.[5] BBC Radio can similarly affect its audience by announcing a story in the beginning of the radio broadcast as opposed to later in the program. Most of the BBC Radio discussion on the Middle East was saved towards the middle or the end of the program. Biases by Headline and through Placement reveal what the writer/editor thinks is most important and he/she can then influence to the leader to think in the same way.
Bias through Use of Names and Titles
News media’s often used labels and titles to describe people, groups, places, etc. say a lot about the source’s bias. Whether a group is described as a “terrorist organization” or “armed political party,” for example, has a clear implication. When it came time to labeling Hezbollah, news sources differed greatly. AlJazeera.net described it as “the powerful Shia group”[6]. New York Times described it as “the Syrian-backed Shiite party that Washington considers a terrorist group.”[7] Economist.com referred to it as “Shia party-cum-guerrilla army.”[8] The different labels assigned to the group by the News Source show their bias – either pro-Hezbollah (AlJazeera.net) or leaning anti-Hezbollah (New York Times and Economist.com). Similar bias was seen when the sources reported news about Hamas. AlJazeera.net called it “an armed group.”[9] In contrast, one New York Times article said the Israel and Western Powers consider “Hamas a terrorist organization and refuse to deal with it.”[10] Whether this bias relates only to the group, or it extends to the region or states (Lebanon, Gaza Strip, Syria, and Iran) is unclear. However, knowing that it is present helps the reader see the news in a more appropriate light.
Conclusion
The News Coverage of Middle East Assessment was informative and thought-provoking. While the overall quality of all sources was decent, the media bias was also prevalent: New York Times, BBC, and Economist.com were liberal but still encapsulated a western outlook, apparent in its favoritism of Israel, its hesitancy in blaming Blackwater, and its assessment of President Ahmadinejad’s visit. AlJazeera.net was predictably pro-Arab. In contrast to the other sources, AlJazeera.net addressed issues from an insider’s point of view, frequently discussing the internal conflicts in the Arab world. While the biases that exist are undeniable, what caused them is a bigger question. What comes first: bias in media reporting or the prejudicial notions that people have? This question is far from being answered. Until then, it is best to be aware that the biases exist and absorb all news with a critical and skeptical eye.
[1] The New York Times. “Israel Completes Prisoner Release as it Frees 29.” The New York Times 3 October 2007.[2] Al Jazeera. Shooting Mars Gaza Prisoner release. 2 October 2007. <http://english.aljazeera.net/News/aspx/print.htm>.
[3] Al Jazeera. Shooting Mars Gaza Prisoner release. 2 October 2007. <http://english.aljazeera.net/News/aspx/print.htm>.
[4] The New York Times. “Israel Completes Prisoner Release as it Frees 29.” The New York Times 3 October 2007.
[5] Also, AlJazeera.net reported that Israeli forces had fired at the legs of the crowd when the air shots failed to stop the surge. This actually ended up wounding 2 prisoners. The New York Times article does not include this information, revealing a bias through omission.
[6] Lebanon Parliament Set to Convene. 25 September 2007. <http://english.aljazeera.net/News/aspx/print.htm>.
[7] Naylor, Hugh. “Syria, Seeking Investors, Turns Cautiously to Iran.” The New York Times 4 October 2007.
[8] Economist.com. Who’s for President? 27 September 2007. <http://www/economist.com/world/africa/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9867448>.
[9] Janabi, Ahmed. Iraq’s armed groups form alliance. 1 October 2007. <http://english.aljazeera.net/News/aspx/print.htm>.
[10] Kershner, Isabel. “Israelis Kill Up to 9 in Gaza.” The New York Times 27 September 2007.
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.