Interesting Piece about Haaretz Newspaper and International Media Coverage of MidEast conflict.
The June 30th posting of Facts of Israel brings the text of a lecture delivered by Hanoch Marmari, the Ha'aretz editor-in-chief on May 27 as part of the 9th World Editors' Forum in Bruges, Belgium. “Mr. Marmari explains why Ha'aretz journalists show the Palestinian side of the story, and why sometimes they regret it.”

This is a very interesting piece. I am particularly interested in what Mr. Maramari has to say, because I’ve been a subscriber to Haaretz for many years and in the months leading up to the “Defensive Shield” operation in Passover I had been getting gradually more and more fed up with it. Although the news part of the paper generally gives good coverage to events, the opinion columns, editorials and in-depth stories are extremely one-sided. They do have a few token Right-wing columnists, such as Moshe Arens and Yisrael Harel, but there is no voice for the views held by the great majority of Israelis today, including, I believe, a large percentage of Haaretz readers, who have always tended to be Left-wing.

He has some very interesting things to say about foreign coverage of the Israel-Palestinian situation, “the intensive media coverage of the conflict is often so self-absorbed and so harmful to the region. Sometimes it is a disgrace to our profession.

[…] The media in this cruel Israeli-Palestinian conflict are like a very rich junkie, who parks his Mercedes on the high street of a slum. You can be sure that in no time at all, everyone will be out there, pushing a whole variety of merchandise.

[…] it is no simple task to assess to what extent that information reflects reality. On the day-to-day level, it is hard to argue with what the eyes see, though it is preferable to put the visual images into context. What the ears hear, particularly in the Middle East, can be seriously misleading, if it isn't backed up with additional information - or carefully attributed to its source. […] Exaggeration, disinformation and provocation are the region's stock-in-trade.”

Regarding the dissatisfaction of many Haaretz readers in recent months, he says, “As the current Palestinian intifada goes on, Ha'aretz finds itself in a crisis of confidence with some of its readers who want to regard the newspaper as a source of solidarity and consolation, and not only as a mirror, reflecting and exposing reality.” I disagree. He obviously believes that his newspaper is completely impartial, but this is not, in fact, the case. I often find that the actually choice of subjects covered in the daily in-depth stories and in the weekend magazine, not to mention the contents, are obsessive in showing the far-Left point of view. Often coverage of Right-wing or mainstream views is patronizing and condescending. Occasional articles that are supportive of government policy are not too much to ask for in normal times, all the more so, in times of war.

“As attacks proliferated and more and more innocent Israelis fell, antipathy has grown toward those reporters who continue to describe the suffering on the other side, and they are now the main target of criticism leveled against the newspaper, and are cited as the main reason for canceled subscriptions.” I personally accept the importance of the reporting of Amira Hess and Gideon Levi, who write about the ordinary Palestinian’s suffering, even if I find it repetitive and rather boring. After all, I don’t have to actually read it. But there's so much of it, every day. Enough, already! I would also appreciate to have a serious alternative mainstream view, incorporated in the newspaper.

“The newspaper has a strong network of readers and advertisers,” Marmari continues, “and can absorb the shocks, but the ongoing public storm about our coverage is worrying, forcing us to constantly and thoroughly re-examine our approach.” This is not what I’ve heard. I know of people canceling their subscriptions and getting phone calls from Marmari himself (editor-in-chief, no less) trying to persuade them not to cancel. The cancellations seem to be a serious threat to the paper.

For a while I put a lot of pressure on Bish to cancel our subscription, but he argued that although he agrees in principal, he couldn’t stomach any of the other papers (that have a tendency towards being tabloid) with his morning coffee. I’m actually glad we didn’t cancel. What can I do? I’ve been reading this paper for about 15 years now. Old habits die hard.