It's About TIME
By Jim Miles
ccun.org. May 29, 2008
For the past several months I have been receiving TIME magazine.
The subscription originally started as a gift from someone unknown,
with my last name spelled wrong, lasted for a year. When it
came up for renewal, I stalled until the price came down to fifty
cents a copy, a much more reasonable price for the quality of the
magazine (I could have had another half year free if I had stalled
about a month longer). I finally renewed, not because I admire
the quality of the magazine but because, even though it is the
“Canadian” edition (it has some Canadian advertising in it) it
provides a good snapshot of Middle-American thinking.
On a different note, at least to start, I have read and am reading a
series of books on how American news presents a biased content on
foreign affairs.[1] Natural for sure, but it is also
surprisingly vacant of critical analysis of what the Washington
“sources” and the Washington “experts” are saying, with the same
applied to Israeli sources and experts. In general the
criticisms of American media representation can be divided into
several categories. First is the lack of context: news is
provided that catches the attention, but seldom if ever provides
background information to indicate why that particular activity is
occurring. Along with a lack of background is the lack of what
could be called foreground analysis, a critical commentary or
questioning of the validity of sources and the manner in which their
information is worded. Another feature is the choice of language,
choices that make Americans almost always the rational modern mind
with the ‘other’, whomever they are, being the irrational,
fanatical, backward mind. Finally is the tricky concept of
balance: while writers try for balance, their choice of whom
they speak with on both sides of the issue often destroys any true
balance in the reporting.
Leading from the latter statement is the idea of objectivity, an
ideal that truly cannot be achieved as the very choice of ‘facts’
will determine the outcome of the argument. No writer can
avoid that, and no writer should pretend that they can. It
would be better to acknowledge the limitations in all reporting and
accept that balance-objectivity is very difficult to attain.
It is the force of well-referenced argument that makes for the best
critical writing, with the writer hopefully willing to accept a
change in viewpoint as different ‘facts’ and ideas are presented.
Now let me tie this mini-thesis on biases in writing with the
renewed TIME subscription. The current edition contains two articles
on Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which demonstrate the above bias
concerns.
Hamas in Palestine
The first article by Joe Klein[2] in its overall summation is
reasonable in that it calls for the current crop of presidential
candidates to talk to Hamas as “…there is a need to keep all
[communication] channels open in that insanely complicated region.”
But if that is put into context, one has to consider also that
“dialogue” in the form of negotiations has been ongoing for decades,
and has done no more than allow Israel time to continue with its
occupation to the final goal of establishing colonial settlements in
Palestinian territory and reducing the demographic threat of a large
and growing Palestinian population. Further favourable context could
introduce the idea of the so far limited success, but success none
the less, in South Africa and Northern Ireland.
The latter idea reflects also on Klein’s statement “This [talks] is
not to suggest that Hamas is even vaguely reputable, even if it did
win a fair and free election.” The reader then needs to
consider the American election of 2000 for some context and
comparison of “repute” and “free and fair” as well as consider the
history of Hamas. Hamas’ origins were mainly civic, as they
provided for education, health, employment and other social services
and infrastructures when Israel as an occupier provided none and the
Palestinian Authority was being less then effective.
Klein then continues to argue that talks “should be a reward for
good behaviour” a rather disingenuous statement considering they did
win the election fairly, had them abrogated by all the Western
“democracies”, and have held to several long truces that the
Israelis did not respond to. His next statement speaks to
that: “good behaviour” is “a real cease fire – for starters, the end
of rocket attacks from Gaza.” This statement is either
wilfully ignorant or simply ignorant. Hamas has at times
offered a truce (hudna) to Israel and has been consistently
rejected. [3]
Further, while rocket attacks on civilians are terrifying, in
context they are an asymmetrical response to the Israeli attacks of
occupation and suppression using American missiles and aircraft and
other war craft that are supported by a $3 billion dollar a year
“aid” package. Perhaps to be a “real cease fire” the IDF
should also disengage from both Gaza and the West Bank and actually
cease construction of settlements as they often promise in their
“dialogue” with the Americans. Sure, the IDF withdrew from
Gaza, but they remain omnipresent along all borders and in full
control of air, sea, and land space, as well as controlling water,
food, and fuel resources.
In sum, Klein’s article carries a valid point for the U.S. domestic
election process but presents Hamas very much out of context – with
a strong bias in favour of Israel – in its foreign policy. The
next article on Hezbollah carries the same imbalance.
Hezbollah in Lebanon
Andrew Butters writes an article that reaches a fair summation in
its header caption, that Hezbollah’s “easy victory in the battle for
Beirut leaves the U.S. yet again on the losing side of an Arab
conflict….” [4] Once again in context though, that statement
conceals the very obvious idea as to whether the U.S. should even be
there in the first place, and it also tends to support the idea that
the U.S. is not concerned about whether it supports a democratic
society or not as long as the U.S. “wins”, however one might define
a win.
This article is even more biased than Klein’s Hamas position.
In consideration of balance, Butters describes Hezbollah’s victory
using “Shi’ite militiamen who number in the thousands and are armed
by Syria and Iran.” He continues saying they “survived” a
battle against the much larger Israeli army which itself is supplied
and armed in large portion by the U.S. as indicated above.
For comparison and context, he does admit that the U.S. provided
$300 million to the police and military in Lebanon, but that pales
in comparison again to the annual support provided to Israel.
An article on Hezbollah[5] would not be complete without a
discussion of Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, their “fire-breathing leader”.
For context, I may as well add Muqtada al-Sadr and Mamoud
Ahmadinejad to make it a trio – certainly lots of rhetoric, but also
lots of flexibility and clever manipulations, and yet none of these
people has ever attacked a country in a pre-emptive manner or in any
manner with the idea of conquest in mind. Hezbollah, as with
Hamas, rose from the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon,
eventually driving them out of the country. Similarly,
Hezbollah provided civic structures that the Lebanese government
obviously could not and the Israeli occupiers had no intention of
doing. Certainly Hezbollah contains “militants” but then so does
much of American society, with its global spanning military and
nuclear pre-emptive war policies – not to mention Hilary Clinton –
the wannabe “fire-breathing leader” of the Democrats promising to
obliterate Iran in a nuclear holocaust (a statement that surely
excited the American Jewish lobby as well as the Christian
apocalyptic right.)
Nasrallah has been described as “spoiling for a fight” (“Bring ‘em
on,” says Mr. Bush) and that “Israel…was drawn into a war with
Hezbollah that cost 1,600 lives mainly on the Lebanese side.”
Context? There have been ongoing Israel intrusions across the
border ever since their retreat in May of 2000 and background
reading on the 2006 war clearly demonstrates that Israel was quite
ready to find a pretence to attack and was not “drawn” into anything
– what they were not ready for was the organizational skill and
armaments that Hezbollah had mustered. As for the casualties,
mostly civilian in Lebanon, mostly military in Israel, the
implication is that it is Hezbollah’s fault – after all Israel was
“drawn” into this war – but the reality reflects again Israeli
brutality against civilians, civic structures, and the use of
advanced weapons systems supported by the U.S.
In an attempt at balance, Butters does quote significantly from
Bilal Saab, “a Lebanon expert at the Brookings Institute”. One
of his quotes is interesting as a matter of context and comparison,
“They’re [Hezbollah] in control in Lebanon without having to
actually run the state,” as if the U.S. does not apply the same
policy in its imperial militancy around the world. The Israeli
Vice Premier is also quoted, using the expected language of
“terrorist organization” to describe Hezbollah’s control of Lebanon,
saying as well “its government has become irrelevant.” Some
observers might think he was talking about the Israeli occupation of
Palestine. The final quote comes from a Lebanese ‘survivor’
Walid Jumblatt, initially in opposition to Nasrallah. What is
missing for context and a true balance is a spokesperson from
Hezbollah, not Nasrallah, and not one of the more intense street
fighters, but someone from the organizational level within
Hezbollah.
Read critically
If Klein and Butters were attempting to truly place their stories
within the proper context, they did not succeed. Their
opinions represent for the most part the standard view of the
Washington consensus that in simplest terms sees Israel as a heroic
and brave victim, under attack from Hamas and Hezbollah as full on
terrorist organizations. Neither recognizes American financial
aid and armaments aid to Israel; neither recognizes the severity of
the Israeli occupation of Palestine or previously of Lebanon; and
neither recognizes the civic structures and organization that
created both groups under Israeli occupation, an occupation illegal
under the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.
It might be asking the average reader a bit much to read through
TIME with a critical thought process, especially if all other news
sources carry the same bias, as they tend to do with the American
media conglomerates. The use of language, the consideration of
context, the appearance of balance, the comparisons that can be made
against the U.S.’s own actions and foreign policy should all be part
of a reader’s active engagement in reading the news from any source.
[1] see Noam Chomsky/Edward S. Herman, Manufacturing Consent (1988);
Richard Falk/Howard Friel, Israel-Palestine On Record (2007); and
Marda Dunsky, Pens and Swords (2008).
[2] Joe Klein. “Hamas Hysteria,” TIME Canadian Edition, May
26, 2008. p.12.
[3] see Mishal and Sela, The Palestinian Hamas (2006) and Tamimi,
Hamas, A History From Within (2007) for further background material
on this topic.
[4] Lee Butters. “Welcome to Hizballahstan,” TIME Canadian
Edition, May 26, 2008. pp. 20-21.
[5] see Miles, Entangled Insurgencies – Hezbollah and Hamas,
Palestine Chronicle, June 18, 2007.
Jim Miles is a Canadian
educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and
book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles’ work is also
presented globally through other alternative websites and news
publications.
|
