Up-Load dot com Inconstant content

BBC: bias or blasé?

Inherent bias makes the media go round

Much print and electronic press has been devoted to discussions of whether news media, particularly the British Broadcasting Company, perpetuate an anti- (or pro-) Israel bias. The seldom stated, but often whispered truth of the matter is that all newsreporting is inherently biased— towards the story that's most dramatic and conflict-oriented. Dispassionate observation in reporting, while it may have greater grain of accuracy, doesn't sell: "just the facts" can read as dry as a technical paper. So news writers inject narrative drama. Holding to the tenet that good story-telling is a good conflict, journalists aim to make their reports more interesting by framing it as a struggle between individuals or groups.

While this is in part a conscious effort, I'd suggest it's also (1) the inevitable consequence of the mainstream mindset that believes everything is a "two-sided" controversy; and (2) a culture that promotes greater acceptance for and identification with a perceived weak "under-dog," versus rejection and disassociation from a strong "over-dog."

Dr. Andrew Cline's excellent Rhetorica site (and blog) identifies a taxonomy of such structural biases. He even takes on the issue of alleged bias in Israeli reporting, as presented in an editorial in New York's Jewish Week.

But while he describes what he terms "narrative bias," he fails to point out another pervasive psychology in traditional media: news, unlike editorial, hangs its public reputation on the notion that it is-- as one such outlet likes to claim-- "fair and balanced." Let us assume that a particular service has as its aim, reporting on actual reality when publishing or broadcasting (for example) "all the news that's fit to print"— as opposed to just making things up (ala the Weekly World News.) But, in order to claim honesty, journalists themselves need, as a core belief, to hold what they report as truthful and unbiased. Thus if presented with a contrary opinion or evidence of a bias, such journalists experience a form of cognitive dissonance. When told that a print or broadcast story is inaccurate or outright wrong, the initial response is to disbelieve the evidence, portraying the critics as themselves having an agenda.

In effect, once a story's been written from their perspective , the journalist must buy into their own version of reality and dispute contrary views.

Don't dis the dissonance

The theory of self-delusion caused by "cognitive dissonance" was developed Dr. Leon Festiger in the 1950s . Festiger claimed that when faced with a situation or opinion that doesn't fit into pre-existing beliefs, people find themselves psychologically distressed, and their minds subconsciously create ways to relieve that distress. The easiest of which is to disbelieve the reality of the situation, or change the understanding of it to fit into the framework of the pre-existing one.

But cognitive dissonance guides not only the reaction after a newstory is run, but while it is being developed, too. When choosing supporting "authority" for a particular angle on a story, reporters can unconsciously self-select those facts and opinions that fit the mold of their pre-held belief. In science, this is known as fudging the data to prove a hypothesis. Followers of Kuhnian philosophy of science also hold this as "operating within a paradigm" where anything contrary is completely overlooked.

A worthwhile and fuller discussion of such "critical blind spots" in our world view appears at the parchment-backgrounded Sourcetext.com.

Islamic empowerists or Islamic apologists

Take for example, this immediately-post-9-11 Salon article on "The media's Islamic blind spot" which senior writer Eric Boehlert bases entirely on four Islamic "experts" -- consisting of the spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamic scholar at Wake Forest, and two Georgetown professors (one in Islamic history, the other in Christian-Muslim relations.)

Boehlert proposes the startling hypothesis that, "[T]he bad news, according to the experts, is the mainstream American press has largely been ignoring what many experts see as the root cause fueling Islamic terrorism: America's own foreign policy." Now, not only is that an exceptionally poorly written sentence, it's also laden with enormous rhetorical problems. These four supposed "experts" (a term he uses repeatedly) never actually address what the "mainstream American press" covers; what the connection of Islamic terrorism is to American foreign policy or how it is qualified as the "root cause." (hint: that's because they're Islamic experts, not press or terrorism experts) None of these obvious questions are answered by Boehlert, who presents, as a given, that the evil US is to blame for terrorist attacks against it.

What becomes more startling is how much such a position of "blame the victim" gained currency worldwide— the article has been reprinted widely, and distributed on numerous Islamic sites.

Precepts and process

Consider the news about Israel by a typical news outlet such as, in this case, the BBC. I've taken the current and past headlines from the BBC's "In:Depth: Israel and the Palestinians" as available from their RSS feed:

The stories focus on the "conflict" while adopting these set of background precepts, which start from the general acceptable, and build towards the core of writers like Boehlert's claim that the US is to blame for its foreign policy relationship with Israel:

1. There are only two sides to the conflict, which are the Israelis (i.e. Jews) and the Palestinians (i.e. Arabs);
2. The conflict between the two has arisen because both parties claim a single piece of land;
3. The Israelis, with an organized state and heavily armed military, are the dominant power;
4. The Arabs with a disorganized leadership and unconnected groups of militants are the "underdog";
5. Israel occupies land that belongs to the Arabs;
6. Israel has no claim to the land, because it was not legally authorized to be on it by the UN.
7. This occupation takes the form of military, social and psychological oppression;
8. The Israelis oppress the Arabs because they are afraid of them;
9. The Israelis are responsible for the suffering of the Arabs on the "occupied land";
10. The Arabs are fighting back in the only way they can, because of their military inferiority;
11. Israel's response to terrorism is excessive and needs to be restrained;
12. Israel is an immoral country with rampant corruption and a bad member of the United Nations;
13. Israel is a militaristic and dangerous society;
14. US support of Israel, financially and politically, is the cause of antipathy against US interests.

When read together, these seem pretty damning and clear bias against Israel; and there's just enough of a grain of truth in them to allow the anti-Israel world view to foster. The articles the BBC publishes reflect numerous examples of these precepts, without views to contradict the consistent idea that "Israel is at fault."

Below are the articles (14 Feb 04)

Palestinian farmer is shot dead (#3, 5, 7, 8, 9)
Israeli troops shoot dead a Palestinian farmer driving to work in the West Bank, Palestinian witnesses say.

Israel soldier charged over death (#5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13)
An Israeli soldier is charged with the manslaughter of a British peace activist shot in the Gaza Strip last year.

Mrs Arafat accuses Sharon of leak (#4, 12)
Suha Arafat says the Israeli Prime Minister leaked reports of a probe into her financial transactions so as to distract from his own corruption allegations.

Israel to miss hearing on barrier (#6, 11, 12)
The Israeli Government says it will not give oral evidence at a UN court hearing into the legality of its security barrier.

Qurei calls for action on barrier (#6, 11, 12)

The Palestinian PM begins a European tour by calling for urgent international talks on Israel's West Bank barrier.

Israeli court hears barrier case (#6. 9, 12)
Israeli human rights groups present sweeping arguments against the controversial West Bank barrier.

Draft looms for ultra-Orthodox (#13)
Israel moves to end the exemption of ultra-Orthodox Jews from military service.

Sharon's separation plan (#11, 14)
The United States has told Israel they will oppose any plans to separate itself from Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. What do you think of his ultimatum?

Q&A: What is the West Bank barrier? (#2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11)
The West Bank 'security fence' has long been a political hot potato.

Q&A: Sharon's Gaza plan (#5, 6)
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dropped a political bombshell when he announced plans to evacuate Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip. BBC News Online looks at the key issues.

Israel's Golan options (#5, 6)
Israel considers whether to respond to a Syrian offer for talks about the status of the Golan Heights.

Palestinian suicide attacks (#4, 10)
Palestinian suicide attacks aim to kill and injure as many people as possible, and create the greatest amount of fear.

Arafat: Obstacle or key to peace? (#4, 14)
Could a peace settlement ever be reached without the man who has been sidelined by the US and Israel?

Palestinians languish in Israeli jails (#7, 8, 11)
Israel holds thousands of Palestinian prisoners whose treatment is a matter of human rights concern.

Contradictions of Israel's Arabs (#8)
Richard Miron explores the contradictions of Israeli Arabs, whom Ariel Sharon wants to join a future Palestinian state.