Media Truth and Fiction
Dear Friends -
Last week I wrote (ranted?) about how to read the news. The topic arose for me because some of my typically reliable bird spotting data turned out to be entirely “false.” It was false in the literal sense of it didn’t depict the reality on the ground, but it certainly wasn’t false in the sense of being presented with the intention to deceive. This is perhaps one of the most important things to understand when consuming media: some people are wrong; others lie. Those are not the same thing, and the ability to distinguish between the two will put you well ahead of the game.
Today I’m going to weigh in with a few more observations about who does what. Read these in the context of intention, and I think you’ll come away with a much richer understanding of the now-limitless amount of information on the interwebs. To be explicit: there are definitely, no question, 100% folks out there working consciously to advance a specific agenda, and they shape their reporting to advance their message. Others just aren’t very talented or competent. After today’s Birdy Goodness, I anticipate you’ll be able to distinguish between the two pretty readily. So onward we go….
What Did They Crop Out?
Did you watch the Oscars? You might have seen the usual suspects wearing little red lapel pins as a call for ceasefire. Here’s NPR’s story about them, explaining that the pins were distributed by a group of politically active artists. The story is entirely “straight,” without discernible bias. But why do the pins sport the red hands they do? What’s the context here? Read this story from the Jewish News Syndicate; this one talks about the 2000 Intifada, the lynching of two Jews, and how anyone in Israel would react to this iconic image. You’ll immediately see how wildly out of whack NPR’s story looks. Do you now look at those actors differently? Last week I suggested that you read widely. This issue is a perfect example of why that’s necessary.
Headlines Are a Choice
This morning the BBC headlines its story, “Israeli forces raid Gaza’s al-Shifa hospital.” 100% true. What other headlines would also have been 100% true?
IDF Eliminates Hamas Military Commander
Faiq al-Mabhouh Killed by IDF
Hamas Violates Geneva Conventions
Gaza City Hospital Again Used as Hamas Military Base
The BBC could have used any of the headlines above. Of these five, only one makes the Israeli forces look barbaric. Most people of course scan headlines and don’t read full stories. The question of “why?” doesn’t fit into a headline, only “what?” So when headline writers (distinct from article writers) choose which part of a story to highlight, they have a disproportionate impact on shaping public perception.
Consistent actors
During the October 7th pogrom, Hamas filmed themselves committing murder, arson, rape, and mutilation. They took babies as hostages. Then they published the films. They’ve demonstrated very comprehensively who and what they are. Every news story you see includes a count of Palestinians killed in the war. The source is always the Gaza Health Ministry, which is of course run by Hamas. Pause. The source that journalists are citing is the same organization that committed some of the most heinous crimes in human experience. And journalists trust these numbers enough to report them? Would you give any credence to statistics from Stalin or Pol Pot?
Isolated Stories
We all know the anecdote of the goldfish swimming in its bowl, and each time it makes a circuit, it sees the same thing - and marvels when it thinks it’s seen something new. The media of the Gaza War is the same. Each episode goes through the same progression:
Israeli troops besiege a hospital
Palestinian and UN witnesses give horrific eye-witness interviews
Media report on impending catastrophes and humanitarian disasters
Israel releases footage of tunnels, weapons, evidence of hostages’ presence, etc.
And so it goes
Goldfish can be forgiven their inability to draw temporal continuity. With human babies, we play peek-a-boo to teach them that the same facts persist even after they’ve closed and reopened their eyes. Why are stories reported as if they’re brand new rather than being placed in context as “yet another instance?”
“Both” Sides
Good journalistic practice requires input from both sides on a contentious issue. Really, both sides? What if a difficult, complicated issue has more than two sides? Like they all do. The notion that something as complex as the Gaza War can be distilled down to some kind of manichaean “Palestinians good - Israel bad” or vice versa position is just absurd. Take a look at this under-reported story about Fatah’s scathing indictment of Hamas. Here’s coverage from a pro-Palestinian site. When you’re on deadline and your editor requires a minimum of two opposing sources, that’s what you put in your piece. When - if - you want to give a meaningful treatment of something complex, it’s going to require more input.
Like this Harris’s Hawk, I’m feeling the need for some serious uplift. That’ll be next week; I promise. In the meantime, click here to enjoy some gorgeous (and hilarious!) birds in this week’s Interrupted Walk video. Chag Sameach, and I look forward to learning together again next week.
Be Grounded. Fly High.
The Avian Rebbe