This Debate Needs To Take A Look In The Mirror
The Womp
By Newmatilda.com
Source:
http://newmatilda.com/2009/07/07/debate-needs-take-good-look-mirror
The Israel/Palestine issue is muddied by hate-filled comments online
and partisan pressure behind the scenes. Now those responsible need to
ask themselves if their tactics are really helping anything
Regular readers will notice that we have turned off all comments on
articles about Israel/Palestine. This is not a permanent state of
affairs but a stopgap while we develop the technical ability to
pre-moderate comments on the site. We do this reluctantly, and in
response to a handful of comment "trolls" who continue to abuse our
open comments facility.
Historically, we have erred on the side of free speech � we did not
pre-moderate comments on the site, which is rare in this litigious
age, because we wanted to promote open and diverse debate.
However we have, for the most part, been very disappointed by the
level of debate that has taken place on articles about
Israel/Palestine. We are appalled to find ourselves hosting Holocaust
deniers and racists. Such comments in no way reflect the views of the
staff of newmatilda.com. Obnoxious comments aren't limited to articles
on this issue � but Israel/Palestine does provoke a greater volume of
impassioned and divergent responses than any other.
As our comments policy says, we reserve the right to delete abusive
comments and ad hominem attacks. We do delete comments and we have
blocked repeat offenders, but sometimes offensive content slips
through. The most objectionable comments usually get posted very late
at night and very early in the morning. Now of course, we recognise
that if as a news and analysis site we don't have the resources to
monitor the comments facility effectively, we need to change the way
the site functions.
The transformation of our comments function into a slanging arena has
worked to shut down discussion and deflected attention away from those
who are trying to engage with the issues. Frustratingly, the trolls
have actively discouraged productive debate.
We firmly believe the comment trolls misrepresent our readership. In
fact, we know this to be true because we frequently receive emails of
a very different tone responding to articles on the site. We hear from
people who can't believe how few media outlets in Australia are
prepared to publish strong criticism of the Israeli Government's
actions. We stand by our decision to publish many articles on this
conflict � which is indeed more than we publish on many other
conflicts.
This is a position that is unpopular with some.
Recently a politician, federal labor MP Michael Danby, wrote an attack
on what he described as "antisemitism" on Australian websites, in
particular newmatilda.com and Crikey. (He also singled out two of our
contributors � Antony Loewenstein and Michael Brull � for special
criticism, and you can read their reply here.)
In his argument, Danby made extensive use of a "special report" by an
organisation called the B'nai B'rith "Anti-Defamation Commission"
(ADC).
In April we received a letter from Tony Levy, chairman of the ADC,
accusing newmatilda.com of displaying prejudice and imbalance in our
coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict. (You can read their letter
to us and our response here). The charges were based on a "special
report" done by an ex-editor of the Australian Jewish News, Deborah
Stone, who we believe is employed as their research director.
The report, which was sent to the ADC's members last week and is
available here looks at 18 articles published by newmatilda.com over a
three-month period at the beginning of the year.
There are two strands to the ADC's charges. Firstly, they target the
comments on the articles. We acknowledge that, like other news and
analysis outlets publishing on this issue, our site has attracted
comments from a handful of extremists. These people have expressed
views ranging from virulent anti-Israeli sentiment to anti-Palestinian
slurs � views which we in no way endorse. However, rather than being a
symptom of the tone of our coverage, as Stone claims, their presence
is a result of us giving coverage to a highly charged, antagonistic
and difficult debate.
The ADC's second charge concerns the articles we publish, however, and
it requires a more considered rebuttal. They allege that the coverage
of Israel/Palestine issues on newmatilda.com is "unbalanced and
disproportional" and unduly represents Israel as an oppressor � and it
is worth noting here that the period they have chosen to focus on is
the period in which the Israeli Government was bombing Gaza.
In the report, Stone defines three "narratives" that articles on
Israel/Palestine can fit into. The first is the "Palestinian
narrative". This narrative "characterises Israel as an oppressor",
while "the Palestinians are victims of occupation/apartheid/racism
and/or heroes of resistance. Israeli victims or security concerns are
not acknowledged".
In the second narrative � the "Israeli" narrative � "Israel is
characterized as taking defensive action against terrorism. Hamas is
described as a terrorist organization that wants to destroy Israel.
Israelis are victims of terrorism and rocket attacks. Palestinian
civilians are victims of their own leaders' attacks on Israel and the
resulting war."
And the last possible narrative is the "neutral" narrative, in which
"both narratives are presented without judgement".
Where the truth is supposed to fit into these strict options we're not
entirely sure.
In her "findings", Stone reports that 17 of the articles she has
analysed fit into the first narrative, one fits into the second, and
none in the third. She concludes that this is evidence that
newmatilda.com's "dissemination of hate and prejudice is unfair both
to Israel and to the Jewish people", and says, "As an increasing
percentage of the population relies on websites for news, discussion
and opinion formation it is essential that we bring the standards of
quality journalism to bear on this new medium". Stone appears to
believe that just because a piece of analysis is online it is
necessarily of a lower standard than one that is in print or on
television. In fact, in 2009, many qualified and experienced editors
and journalists work in this "new" medium � including right here at
newmatilda.com.
On the subject of professional journalism � no serious journalist
believes the situation in Israeal/Palestine is reducible to the kind
of "Us and Them" world that Stone presents. There is no singular
"Israeli" or "Jewish" narrative, as she must be aware. Nor is there
such a thing as a simple, unified "Palestinian perspective". Our
contributors � Israelis, Australians, Jews and Palestinians �
demonstrate this consistently. Furthermore, it is odd that a
supposedly anti-racism group would try to cast a political situation
along racial lines � a reductive and simplistic approach that seems
more consistent with the tactics of a lobby group.
Stone's study, which criticises newmatilda.com for running
"disproportional coverage" of Israel/Palestine, has chosen to focus on
the period of the Israeli Government's military operation in Gaza.
That operation, along with its aftermath, was the biggest story in the
world at the time. Here again, there is the voice of a lobby group
seeking to influence what a media outlet pays attention to,
irrespective of what is happening in the world or the desire of its
readers to see those events covered.
As part of that attempt, Stone's report is based on the premise of
"balance", which she describes in this way: "The principle of balance
in journalism requires that an equivalent coverage is given to both
sides of a conflict."
We strongly disagree.
To clarify our editorial policy here: we believe balance is desirable
where it is approriate � but we do not attempt to provide a "for" and
"against" analysis of every issue we cover. That is because we believe
that some things are simply wrong, and should not be justified on any
terms. Bombing innocent civilians is, in our minds, one of those wrong
things. The Holocaust is another.
This criticism over "balance" and others like it pick up on the fact
that at newmatilda.com we have described ourselves as providing
"non-partisan information" in the About Us section of the website. We
agree this is open to interpretation. When we said non-partisan we
meant "non-party political". We have now clarified this on the site.
Balance is not always a straightforward issue. And on that matter we
seem to be in at least partial agreement with the ADC. We noted with
interest that in none of the ADC's communication with us, (nor in
their report or on their site) have they protested about the
significant anti-Palestinian racism also present on newmatilda.com
from commenters who support the Israeli Government. This from an
organisation that purports to oppose racial discrimination.
As an ethnic lobby group, B'nai B'rith is perfectly entitled to lobby
on this issue. However, as we are an independent media outlet, such
lobbying � whether it takes place behind the scenes as in this case,
or in public � can have no role in influencing our editorial policy.
The fact that Israel-related topics are highly sensitive will not
deter us from continuing to publish articles on Gaza, on refugee
camps, on the Israel-US relationship, and on US foreign policy in the
Middle East and in general.
--
Clean Feed, it "cleans" the Internet in the same way that Ethnic
Cleansing "cleanses" the population.