12 Friday, December 7, 1984
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
MEDIA MONITOR
Reporter admits double-standard
in coverage of the Middle East
The
BY BERL FALBAUM
Special to The Jewish News
BLIND
SPOT
50%-70% OFF
ALL NAME BRANDS
• Vertical Blinds
• Levolor Blinds
• Pleated Shades
• Wood Blinds
Free Professional Measure at
No Obligation
Free in Home Design Consulting
THE BLIND SPOT
The Congress Building
30555 Southfield Rd. Suite 255
Southfield, Michigan 48076
Showroom by Appointment
6444001
Social
insecurit
Problem:
Ill-fitting, uncomfortable
dentures that slip when you
bite, chew, talk or smile.
• IA' 40016A
Solution:
Dental Implants by
Dennis C. Ormond, D.D.S.
10 W. Square Lake Rd.
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
(313)332-4100
The public periodically can
learn more about the media by the
questions they ask than the an-
swers provided in their articles.
Such was the case in the Sun-
day (Dec. 2) interview conducted
by Detroit Free Press writer Tom
Hundley with Ze'ev Chafets, the
director of the Israeli Government
Press Office who wrote a stinging
indictment of the Western media
in his recently-released book,
Double Vision.
Chafets takes the media to task
on many issues, ranging from
self-censorship of the intimida-
tion conducted by Syria and the
PLO against reporters to the
"double standard" news people
apply in judging Israel.
The Pontiac-born writer dis-
cussed his book last month at
Jewish Book Fair at the Jewish
Community Center.
Hundley, apparently unwit-
tingly, seems to agree with
Chafets when he acknowledges
that Israel is an open democracy
while Saudi Arabia is a closed
society. He asks whether each
should be judged by its own
standards.
Chafets replies with the obvi-
ous answer —.no they should not
— but Hundley's question implies
that the media have judged Israel
and Arab countries with different
yardsticks. This is an acknowl-
edgement the media have not
made in the past.
What's more, to follow
Hundley's implication to its logi-
cal concluson:
• The media and the world
should not have challenged Hit-
ler's Germany because, by its own
standards, the "final solution"
was just.
• Former Uganda dictator Idi
Amin should have escaped cen-
sure from the world because, by
his standards, atrocities were ac-
ceptable.
• The media and the rest of the
country should not have chal-
lenged the South on segregation
because "separate but unequal"
was an accepted moral standard.
• The Detroit Free Press and
other liberal newspapers should
not insist on their editorial pages
that the United States demand
enlightened human rights'
policies from dictatorships in re-
turn for U.S. support because the
lack of human rights is the norm
in these countries.
The list, of course, is endless but
fortunately this country and
much of the media have not ac-
cepted a dual standard as implied
in Hundley's perspective.
In his second question, Hundley
indicates that the media suffer
from similar censorship problems
in Moscow as in Syria and Saudi
Arabia. He then makes the follow-
ing statement: "I think most of
our readers are sophisticated
enough to understand how this
colors the news."
Again we have an admission of
a system which "colors the news."
The two Washington. Post report-
ers who replied this month in the
public letter box of Commentary
magazine to an earlier article by
Chafets on the same subject
hardly conceded this point.
Instead, they resorted to
name-calling — one of them label-
-
ing Chafets a "paid flack" (public
relations man) — none of which
contributes to the constructive
dialogue which is so sorely needed
on this issue.
But Hundley, in surmising that
the public understands the rea-
sons behind the distorted cover-
age, not only makes an important
admission — that the news is
colored — but displays an idealis-
tic naivete and a lack of under-
standing of the public-opinion
forming processes involved in
news reporting.
One can hardly expect the pub-
lic, after being fed a daily diet of
negative stories about Israel, to
conclude that this coverage is the
result of the inability of the media
to penetrate Arab countries. At
least, the public cannot come to
this conclusion without the media
reporting these facts with the
same vigor they reported on Is-
rael.
Judging each
country by its own
standards would
lead to some
horrifying
conclusions.
Further, one can hardly expect
the public to make such a sophis-
ticated analysis — lacking any
news articles on this subject —
when this same public, in many
opnion polls has judged the Bill of
Rights to be a Communist docu-
ment. Hundley has more faith in
the inherent intellectual sophisti-
cation of the public than the facts
warrant.
Hundley also expects hiS
readers to understand that the
lack of media coverage on closed
societies such as Saudi Arabia re-
sults from the inability of news-
people to gain entry to these coun-
tries when, publicly, the media
generally deny that any inequal-
ity in reporting exists. There is
somewhat of a contradiction in
what Hundley states and in the
general protests of his colleagues.
Most important, Hundley's con-
clusion ignores the important
propaganda and public-opinion
influence of the media. Even as-
suming that the public somehow
has an innate understanding of
the intricate principles which
govern Middle East reporting, the
constant and unrelenting nega-
tive headlines on Israel while its
adversaries enjoy a free ride
would surely undermine and
break down any sympathy the
public may have as a result of the
dual-reporting system in the
Middle East.
Hundley, in his two questions,
makes some very important ad-
missions — although he obviously
does so unknowingly.
What is needed now is an inter-
view with Hundley and his col-
leagues on how to overcome the
dangerous problems implicit in
the Free Press reporter's ques-
tions to Ze'ev Chafets.