1/ A thread on *framing* in NY Times coverage of Israel.
Let's look at yesterday's story on the UAE deal and Arab Israelis, to see how the words "many," "some," etc are funny — capable of rerouting a story into a narrow, preferred frame.
Here's the top of the story:
2/ It's already clear from the hed and dek how the piece is meant to come across.
We have at its heart a story about how Israel's growing relationship with the Arab opens opportunities for Israeli Arabs. But it's clearly framed as, mostly, a story about the "Palestinian cause."
3/ Note that subhead again: "MANY say they are loath to undercut the Palestinian cause."
But when you get to the actual story, "many" quickly becomes "SOME." Here's paragraph 2:
4/ "Some" certainly feels different than "many."
So which should it be?
Well, five Arab Israelis are quoted speaking positively about working with the UAE. Only one speaks of his own misgivings. One analyst is quoted speculating that a "sizeable number" will wait and see.
5/ Let's look at the story chronologically. We started with "many." It quickly turned into "some."
And then we meet Sajy Khashab, who's "unwilling to seize the chance just yet":
6/ Okay. But on the other hand, we're told, "Now SOME people feel an almost uncontrollable urge to see [Dubai] in person."
So "some" might be hesitant, but it seems "some" are downright vibrating at the idea of going.
7/ Mohammed Darawshe seems to say his fellow Arab Israelis are into the idea of visiting Dubai just as Americans love to visit New York City.
8/ An Israeli Arab soccer star, Diaa Sabia, is quoted talking about how he was received like a "king" in Dubai.
9/ Ehad Farah says "everybody" is excited. "A lot" of Arab Israeli entrepreneurs want in on the action.
10/ Nora Nseir Manassa has heard from a bunch of fellow Israeli Arab entrepreneurs who want to leverage the opportunity, and she herself wants to do so:
11/ So far, then, "many" seems to better describe those eager to enjoy the new relationship.
The story shifts to practical matters: Loans. Competition. Jobs. Then we hear of the "some" again—with the lens focusing on the same hesitant man from the top of the story, Khashab.
12/ We're told that unnamed "experts" (another word that can have a funny role in a news story—which experts?) say "a sizeable number" of Arab Israelis might spurn the UAE on ideological ground. "Others" prescribed waiting and seeing. An economist underscores the latter point:
13/ But Darawshe, who earlier said Israeli Arabs want to visit the UAE, says they would seize the opportunity to work with the emirates, though perhaps after a symbolic demurring:
14/ And finally, We hear from Jeries Nakhleh, who says he's "eager" to make deals within the framework of the new relationship.
15/ So…Khashab is tapping the breaks. The economist Miaari thinks others will want to, too.
16/ But Darawshe, Sabia, Farah, Manassa, and Nakhleh are excited. One of the latter says "everybody" and "a lot" of others are excited, too. Another heard from several Whatsapp-groups-worth of people planning to leverage the relationship.
17/ As it's reported, then, this isn't really a story about how "many" are loath to undercut "the Palestinian cause" in the face of new opportunities in the gulf. "Many" seems to better describe those flashing the thumbs up.
18/ Then why did the newspaper, particularly whoever wrote the subhead, frame the story as it did? Because too many journalists there there have a fixed lens. A fixed narrative. If you say "Israel," they hear "Palestinian cause."
19/ To be fair, if they really wanted to, @halbfinger and @adamrasgon could have curated their story differently, by quoting only those who hold their nose at the Israel-UAE relationship. It wouldn't be the first time the deck was stacked against Israel:
1) In line with its recently stated policy, @TwitterSafety did at least, in this case, delete the tweet mentioned below. It had said supporters of Israel deserve to die.
1/ I have to say, "don't worry so much about celebrities with millions of followers spewing and spreading rank antisemitism, because white nationalists elsewhere are a big problem" — as if we didn't know that — strikes me as a bad take.
2/ Identity politics at its worst treats certain antisemitism as a problem on its face and more as an inconvenient distraction from another cause, and sometimes sympathizes more with those antisemites than with their victims.
3/ Here's the thing: we have enough room in our minds to fear and oppose antisemitism from Farrakhan supporters with giant megaphones AND antisemitism from white supremacists, and maybe even hold other unrelated thoughts about politics, the environment, etc, all at the same time.
1/ Omar Shakir is Human Rights Watch's director in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Read his account. Then see the video, in the reply immediately below, of what actually happened -- an attempted murderer being shot in the course of his attack.
3/ Car ramming attacks like this have been a frequent tactic by Palestinian attackers, and sometimes involved the perpetrator leaving the vehicle and continuing the attack with crowbars or knives. You can see video of an older attack, for example, here: channel4.com/news/clashes-i…
1/ I can't help but wonder: what did many of these reporters—those eager to be the arbiters of higher truth, who want to decide what gets shared and what gets concealed—what did they do when the NYT published a Der Sturmer-like cartoon? Not much.
2/ In practice, advocacy journalism rejects the idea that reporters should fully and forthrightly share the facts, so we the readers can assess and make up our minds. We're meant to trust journalists' view of what the *real* truth is. That their biases are the *correct* biases.
3/ Alas, these are the reporters who thought Valerie Plame's rabidly antisemitic comments weren't relevant to a story about her run for office. The ones who let an antisemite plug an antisemitic book by David Icke, and didn't care what their readers knew, or what Jews thought.
1/ Not only is @jstreetdotorg aligning itself with hateful voices that exploit the tragic death to promote anti-Israel propaganda, but the analogy between systemic racism and occupation stemming from military conflict is obviously facile.
2/ If we unilaterally dismantle racism, there's no more racism. Good!
If Israel unilaterally leaves the West Bank in the absence of a peace deal--several of which the PLO has rejected--Hamas sits on the hills overlooking Tel Aviv, Jewish civilians are murdered, and war erupts.
3/ To be clear: They're not murdered as a result of chaos or difficult transitions or whatever. They're murdered by antisemitic, well-armed, internationally designated terror organizations, who are open about their desire to kill Israelis and destroy the country.
Yesterday's NYT lede framing the Israeli army's battle against COVID-19 as a break from its habit of "killing people" was a psychological tell.
Today's piece on Palestinian payments to prisoners is everything wrong with the paper's coverage over time. It's this balanced:
That lopsided paragraph mirrors how the article itself handles the story. A quick-and-dirty breakdown of what it shares with readers about payments to those who violently attack Israelis. 140 words toward the top of Palestinian views, 85 sunken words for Israeli views.
The first quotation from the Israeli side is in paragraph 19 out of 21 total. The only other Israeli quote is in paragraph 20. The sterile quote is from a bureaucratic army statement.
This follows quotes much earlier in the story from Palestinian signs and three Palestinians.