An Interview with Marda Dunsky

In Pens and Swords: How the American Mainstream Media Report the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Marda Dunsky takes a close look at how more than two dozen major American print and broadcast outlets have reported the conflict in recent years.  In this interview she discusses her book and examines the failures of the U.S. media and what journalists and citizens can do to insure better coverage of the conflict.nnQuestion:  Why is the issue of American mainstream media reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict important? nnMarda Dunsky: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the only major conflict in the Middle East and South Asia, but it is perhaps the one most familiar to Americans and it is among the longest running. This year marks the sixtieth anniversary of the seminal year of 1948, when the state of Israel was established to create a homeland for the Jewish people, while Palestine disappeared as a geopolitical entity and half the Palestinian population was dispossessed from its homeland.nnSince 1948, Israel has been a long standing ally of the United States in the region, and the strategic benefits of that relationship have served American interests, particularly during the cold war. Since 1967, U.S. policy has played a major role in the trajectory of the conflict, with American aid to Israel totaling more than $100 billion. However the American alliance with Israel, coupled with other factors, has done much to alienate many in the Arab and Muslim worlds against the United States.nnMany polls taken in recent years throughout the region have repeatedly shown a significant and declining rate of dissatisfaction in Arab and Muslim countries with the United States. Although many people in these countries admire American democracy, American higher education, and elements of American popular culture, U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a major factor in that alienation. Other factors include the war in Iraq and long standing American support for regimes that inhibit, if not block, the democratization of these societies.nnMoreover, the United States is engaged militarily and politicaly throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds to an unprecedented degree. At the same time, the minute minority of Muslims who identify with and act according to anti-American jihadist tenets not only are motivated in part by the injustices suffered by the Palestinians in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict but also point specifically to the role of the United States in the conflict. These extremists have succeeded in threatening not only American geopolitical interests but the safety of individual Americans at home and abroad.nnFor all these reasons, it is important that Americans, most of whom get their information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict primarily through the mainstream media, can rely on the media to provide information that not only is accurate and balanced but also provides important relevant historical and political context.nnQ. What patterns of reporting exist in American mainstream media coverage of the conflict? nnMD: The reporting focuses on the empirical, to the near exclusion of the contextual. Stop-and-start diplomacy and cycles of Israeli-Palestinian violence are main features of the coverage, but two major underlying factors that connect the violence to a lack of resolution to the conflict are rarely covered.nnThe first of these, as mentioned earlier, is the very significant impact that U.S. policy has had on the conflict, particularly since 1967. The United States has granted Israel $100 billion in aid (including advanced weaponry) and has provided political and diplomatic backing for the Jewish state in the United Nations. Half the vetoes that the United States has cast in the UN Security Council have shielded Israel from international censure, particularly on the issues of territorial annexation and settlement building. American aid to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the bulk of it granted since 1994, has totaled approximately $1.8 billion, with an additional $3 billion in assistance for Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Since 1992 however, the United States has withdrawn its recognition of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return while continuing to allocate to Israel aid earmarked specifically for the resettlement and absorption of Jewish immigrants, mainly from the former Soviet Union.nnThe United States has on many occasions acted to broker diplomacy not only between Israel and the Palestinians but also between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly Egypt and Jordan. However, the American alliance with Israel, based in large part on Israel’s role in serving U.S. geopolitical interests in the region, has continued to favor Israel’s security and other needs over those of the Palestinians. This imbalance of the policy and role of the United States in the conflict are rarely acknowledged in American mainstream media reporting of it.nnThe second contextual omission is that the reporting rarely acknowledges or explains international law and consensus on two key aspects of the conflict: Israel’s policies of annexation and colonization of Arab lands and the Palestinian refugees’ right of return. International law and consensus, particularly in the form of multiple UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, clearly articulate the illegality of the Israeli occupation of Arab lands, including the settlements in the West Bank (and formerly in the Gaza Strip) and on lands in and around Jerusalem occupied by Israel since 1967; and that the Palestinians, like all other refugees, have a right to return to their homeland. While a negotiated political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would determine the actual parameters of these issues – that is, which, if any, settlements will remain, and how many refugees will actually return to Israel – their underlying basis in international law and consensus is all but absent in American mainstream reporting of the conflict.nnQ. Is American mainstream reporting of the conflict pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian?nnMD: I would not characterize mainstream reporting of the conflict as consciously or purposefully tilting toward one side or the other, per se.nnOn any given day, based on the actual events of that or the previous day, individual news reports may seem to tilt toward the Israeli or the Palestinian side. For example, in the immediate wake of a suicide bombing, the coverage may focus specifically on the pain and suffering of Israeli victims. Days later, reports may highlight the bomber’s background—which often includes direct or indirect suffering experienced by the bomber or family members due to the occupation—in an attempt to reveal his or her motivations. Both of these kinds of reports inevitably bring criticism from pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian readers, viewers, and listeners that such reporting is biased because it focuses on the suffering of one side to the exclusion of the other.nnHowever, this kind of reporting isn’t biased. It is a reflection of the ebb and flow of daily events. Over time, most mainstream media outlets tend to report the continuing story of the conflict in a way that includes the perspectives of Israelis and Palestinians. This is especially true when it comes to reporting the suffering experienced by both sides. Readers, viewers and listeners should look for balance over time in the reporting of specific media outlets as well as reporting across media—not necessarily in a single day’s report on the conflict.nnIn Pens and Swords, I have documented exceptions to this balance. One exception is reporting on Israeli settlements, which tends to balance viewpoints of Israeli settlers with those of left-wing Israelis who oppose the settlements—but rarely gives direct voice to the viewpoints of Palestinians whose lives are affected by the presence of the settlements. Another exception is reporting by American journalists who ride along with, or embed themselves with, Israeli military forces in pursuit of Palestinian suspects. This is part of a general tendency to rely primarily, if not exclusively, on Israeli military sources when reporting on inter-communal violence.nnI have included in Pens and Swords interviews with correspondents who have reported the Israeli-Palestinian story from the field for major American news outlets. In these interviews, the journalists reflect at length on their concerns about professional standards that emphasize accuracy, balance, and fairness. They also express that journalists reporting from the field, along with their editors and producers in newsrooms back home, are well aware of and sensitive to charges of biased coverage. The correspondents say that when criticism has journalistic merit, it is heeded.nnIt is important that journalists analyze their reporting for bias based on what it actually contains, and there are many indications that reporters, editors, producers, and ombudsmen for media outlets do this routinely when it comes to reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, Pens and Swords emphasizes that it is also important to analyze the coverage for the bias inherent in what is missing from it, as detailed earlier.nnQ. What can be done to improve the reporting?nnMD: Pens and Swords outlines four practices that the media could adopt to establish a new way of reporting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The first of these is to “reframe the frame” used to define the conflict by acknowledging and analyzing the impact that U.S. policy has on its trajectory, as discussed earlier.nnThe second practice is that journalists should focus less on achieving superficial balance by relying on an “Israelis say, Palestinians say” formula for reporting the conflict’s core issues. Instead, correspondents should broaden the parameters of mainstream media discourse by expanding their pool of sources who can analyze key elements of the conflict, including nonpartisan experts on international law and consensus. Journalists can also tap documentary sources, such as relevant UN resolutions and documents as well as Congressional Research Service reports on U.S. policy toward the conflict.nnThird, journalists should reconsider the role of audience reaction to critical coverage of the conflict. Particularly during periods of intense inter-communal violence, the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian media audiences in the United States bring significant pressure, in different measures, to bear on media outlets over perceived biases in coverage. Journalists should indeed, as mentioned earlier, pay attention to criticisms that have journalistic merit —especially those that question factual accuracy of the reporting. But news organizations should be guided first and foremost by their journalistic principles and ethics and should not concede or self-censor in response to negative audience reaction.nnFourth, the media should rethink the concept of journalistic objectivity as it relates to reporting the conflict and focus instead on fairness, accuracy, and contextual depth. Journalists should consider a critical approach to reporting not only the observable daily developments of the story but its historical and political underpinnings as well. Using their own code of professional ethics and within their own professional forums, journalists who report, edit, and produce news coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should take the time to discuss among themselves how the coverage can be improved.nnFinally, the American news-consuming public also has a role to play. Improved mainstream media reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not happen overnight. Americans interested in the conflict should supplement the information they get about it through the media with other credible sources that contribute contextual depth and dimension to understanding the conflict. This will enable and empower readers, viewers, and listeners to challenge news outlets to provide more complete and contextual coverage.