Newspeak

Published July 28, 2014
The writer is a member of staff.
The writer is a member of staff.

EVERY once in a while, something comes along to shatter the cocoon of one’s carefully cultivated cynicism. In this case it’s an editor’s note that preceded a Washington Post article.

These are usually reserved in cases of egregious screw-ups by the paper in question, but this one was different. It read: “One reporter sent to cover the protest, Britain Eakin, is an intern who has written opinion pieces elsewhere that sharply criticise Israel in the conflict. The Post should not have sent her to cover the protest and, had it known of her writings, would not have done so.”

The story in question was about a protest against Israeli policies held in Washington and was, to a normal eye, pretty standard fare. Did it have the Israeli ambassador’s version? No, but then he wasn’t at the protest. As for the other writing Ms Eakin has done, defenders of the Post’s action point out an editorial she wrote, replete with stats and quotes, in which she says the near 80pc civilian casualty rate “should call into question Israel’s claim that it’s waging a war of self-defence”. I know, the anti-Semitism just leaps off the page. (Editor’s note: This is sarcasm).


Some in the media strive to paint Israel as the victim.


But let’s acknowledge that the Post didn’t actually change or drop the story itself, and that this note, disgraceful and shameful as it is, is probably a victory for some harassed editor in the Post’s offices.

While we’re at it, let’s have a moment of silence for those in the mainstream media who are trying so hard to find equivalence in an assault in which one-third of the victims are children. It’s in this backdrop that they have to somehow paint Israel as a victim, a white lamb among the dark wolves, and that requires semantic gymnastics on an Olympic scale.

Here’s a gold medal finalist in that category. When four children were killed by Israeli shelling on a Gaza beach, the New York Times posted this fairly straightforward headline on social media: “Four young boys killed while playing on Gaza beach”. Apparently this was unacceptable. Because by the time it got to print it had become: ‘Boys drawn to Gaza beach, and into centre of Mideast strife’. Now the beach is some kind of siren, drawing children into the amorphous arms of strife. It wasn’t Israel, you see, it was the Mideast. Artillery didn’t kill them, a geographical designation did. But while mainstream media was busy covering itself in glory, social media decided to go for shame. Thus the Twitter trend #NYTHistory was born, with satirical gems like;

“Thousands of natives turn out to appreciate British crowd control methods at Jallianwala Bagh” and “Drawn to stake, Joan of Arc finds herself in centre of fiery death”.

Indeed it was on social media that the marked contrast between the views of the reporters on the ground and the coverage of their parent organisations became stark. So stark, in fact, that it often got those reporters in trouble, despite struggling to couch their very human revulsion in neutral, journalistic language. Take the case of NBC’s Aymen Mohiyudin, who witnessed the above-mentioned artillery strike. Soon after, he tweeted: “just spent 45 min see family relative after relative learn that their children have been killed in #Israeli shelling of #Gaza port #horror.”

The tweet was soon deleted and, surprise, surprise, NBC told him to leave Gaza and that his beat would be covered by another reporter. No reason was given, though outrage soon compelled the organisation to reverse the decision. There are hundreds more examples, like when Israeli fatalities are highlighted in huge bold letters and the hundreds of Palestinians are ‘others’, worthy only of a small font. Put that in your talking points next time a philosophy student brings up ‘othering’.

It’s a cliché to say that the first casualty of war is the truth, but it rings true. Except here the legitimacy of Western mainstream media itself, and the sacred trust of its consumers, have been murdered.

While the tear ducts remain dry at that former prospect, the sad part is that, in the future, the work of upstanding journalists will be called into question simply because of the organisation they work for. Anyone choosing to deny or avoid uncomfortable truths will simply be able to cry ‘propaganda’ and, let’s face it; there will be no real reply to that.

On the other hand, ‘new media’ (Salon, Vice, Buzzfeed and Huffington Post) has emerged as an increasingly legitimate and trusted voice. Of course, there are issues with such sources, both in terms of reach and resources. More, social media in particular is prone to misreporting and rumour-mongering. But in this vacuum, the slightest hint of oxygen is welcome. Media barons across the board should know that nature simply does not tolerate vacuums for very long.

The writer is a member of staff.

zarrar.khuhro@gmail.com

Twitter: @ZarrarKhuhro

Published in Dawn, July 28th, 2014

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.