What to do with the Press

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

Even better!

To tide you over till you get there:

Some of these efforts at balance can involve some even more volatile issues than abortion, particularly when they fall outside allowable circles of discourse in the U.S. Former CIA Middle East analyst Kathleen Christison recently wrote that state violence against the Palestinians by Israel has become so widespread and brutal that it is no longer possible to ethically treat the subject with balance.

To do so, she says, would be morally akin to providing balance on slavery, giving the pro and con of slave owning:

“Neutrality in any conflict in which there is a gross imbalance of power is probably impossible and certainly immoral. It effectively removes all restraints on behavior by the powerful party…Thinking back to some of the colonial conflicts of the twentieth century, is it possible to imagine a scenario in which peacemakers or public commentators and opinion molders ever believed these conflicts could be resolved by simply splitting the difference? … The notion of being ‘neutral’ is soothing to most people because it is ostensibly fair, it is optimistic, it is positive, obviating the need for negativity and unpleasantness.

“But a balanced position in an unbalanced situation inevitably is a miscarriage of justice. Neutrality in Palestine-Israel is no different from refusing to take a stand between slaves and slave owners, or between children and abusive priests.”

But that is exactly what is done in U.S. journalism. One can argue about whether Christison is correct about the level of savagery against Palestinians, but it’s important to ask why U.S. journalism has created a reality in its news coverage of the Palestinians that exists in the journalism of only one other nation.

One Response

  1. Thank you! That was good.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: