Defining the IDS' Anti-Israel Bias

In this entry I will respond to a comment Professor Cohen posted in response to my last blog entry. Professor Cohen wrote,

“Instead of just stating that there's an anti-Israel bias in the American press, prove it. Do the research and see if you can back up what you're saying. (And then, of course, you'll need to explain what an "anti-Israel bias" is to you.)”

When I stated that I saw an anti-Israel bias in the Indiana Daily Student in my previous blog entry, I was referencing the way which the newspaper is choosing to report on the current situation in the Gaza strip. The stories they were printing (which came from the Associated Press) did not falsely accuse or commit libel. Rather, they were shining light only onto one side of a long, ongoing story. The IDS in the last couple days has been reporting on a major event occurring in the Gaza strip, in which Israeli armed forces have entered the region and struck fire on Palestinian terrorists (and as it happened some civilians too). The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has entered the region as a direct response to Qasam missiles which have incessantly been fired into the Israeli border towns of Sderot and Ashkelon for over a year now. The IDS has taken this event and painted a one-sided picture of the situation. The photograph which appeared in today’s paper was accompanied by a caption that read “Palestinians hold up flags and march during the funeral of Mohamad Salef Shreiteh, 17, Monday in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Shreiteh was shot and killed west of Ramallah by an Israeli settler during a protest of Palestinian youths against Israel’s Gaza operations, according to Israeli police and Palestinian officials.” I ask in response to this image, why have you chosen to illustrate only the side of the Palestinian strife? The photograph in Monday’s paper painted the same image. Why then can't the IDS take a stance that shows both the Israeli and the Palestinian struggle? In times of war, there is always two or more sides to the instigating argument. Why not focus on both?

When I characterize an article as dictating an anti-Israel bias, I imply that the reporter and newspaper are choosing to report on a complex issue with a single stance. At the very least I skim through The New York Times online articles every day. As this newspaper is also reporting on the same story, I find that they project a more neutral stance. I believe that journalism in the 21st century strives for objectivity and The New York Times is our nation’s leading paper because it often achieves this goal. In reading through their reports of the situation in Gaza, I learned that Israeli civilians have been targeted by short and most recently long-range missiles (reportedly provided by Iran) ignited by Palestinian terrorists in the region. I too learn that Israel is taking forceful action against these attacks and have entered the region with armed forces. The IDF has since then murdered major Hamas leaders and in doing so, has also killed a number of Palestinian civilians. When I read the article on NYT.com, I see two paralleling stories and am forced to make my own opinion as to whether I side with the Israeli or the Palestinian cause. When I read the article in the IDS (also the one in Reuters) a bias is forced upon me so that I (as a pro-Israel American) am forced into a defensive position. I am put in this position to defend my beliefs because of a bias, and in this particular instance, an anti-Israel bias.

The articles I reference in this entry can be found at:
1. www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=49439&comview=1
2. www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=49475&comview=1
3. www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/middleeast/04mideast.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1