How NGO information flows to media in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The impact of the "Halo Effect"
The Israel-Palestinian conflict coverage mainly relies on information from NGOs. This flow of information significantly shapes global media narratives.
From journalists who switch jobs between NGOs and media organizations to bans on quoting or using watchdogs such as NGO monitor and its director Prof Gerald Steinberg as a source, understanding the flow of information from NGOs to media is imperative to understand the conflict of interest that are driving the narratives.
Data Collection
NGOs on the ground collect data, witness events, and release reports. These reports often serve as primary sources for international media. Journalists rely on NGOs for access and insights they can't independently verify. For example, during conflicts, numerous reports from NGOs about civilian casualties are widely cited in the media, even when independent verification is challenging due to access restrictions.
Underreporting of Hamas Tactics
During conflicts, Hamas' tactics, like embedding military infrastructure in civilian areas, are underreported by the different NGOs and United Nations. This selective reporting leads to a skewed understanding of the conflict's complexities.
For instance, the use of schools and hospitals for storing weapons or launching attacks is often not highlighted, leading to a one-sided portrayal of Israeli military responses.
Role of Major News Agencies
Major news agencies like the Associated Press (AP) pick up these reports. Given AP's vast reach, its stories get syndicated worldwide.
If AP gets it wrong, the mistake can echo across global media, shaping public perception inaccurately.
For instance, an AP report based on an NGO claim about a misfired rocket causing casualties could later be corrected, but the initial, incorrect story had already spread widely. These scenarios happen more often than most people realize, once some news was read by someone, the correction is usually never seen by that person.
Disproportionate Coverage
Despite lower human tolls compared to other conflicts, media focus remains intense around the Israeli-Palestine conflict, driven by editorial decisions and NGO narratives.
For example, conflicts in Syria and Yemen have resulted in far higher casualties and humanitarian crises yet receive comparatively less media attention.
Extensive Staff
Israel is extensively covered by more than 40 AP staffers, surpassing coverage in larger countries or more deadly conflicts. This skew can create an impression of Israel's actions being uniquely egregious. For instance, AP has fewer reporters in conflict zones like the Democratic Republic of Congo, despite ongoing violence there affecting millions compared to Israel. This editorial choice is influenced by a combination of factors, including historical ties, political interests, and the ease with which NGOs can provide information that supports certain narratives. As a result, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can dominate headlines, even when other conflicts might warrant more attention given their scale and humanitarian impact.
Journalists' Dual Roles
In Israel, many journalists have connections to NGOs or have worked with them in the past. This dual role—working as both a journalist and an NGO member—can introduce biases into the reporting process. Journalists who have spent time in NGOs might have firsthand knowledge of the conflict, but they may also carry with them the ideological stance or perspectives of the organization. This could impact how they report on the conflict, subtly shifting narratives in favor of certain viewpoints or diminishing other aspects of the situation. Furthermore, the revolving door between the media and NGOs can lead to a lack of fresh perspectives, with the same ideas and narratives circulating in both spheres, further reinforcing particular biases.
NGOs as Unquestioned Sources in Media
NGOs often provide crucial data, but they are rarely questioned by media outlets. Many journalists rely heavily on NGO reports, assuming that these organizations, particularly those with a humanitarian focus, have the best interests of the affected populations at heart. However, NGOs can sometimes have their own political agendas or narratives, especially if they are aligned with specific causes or factions. Media outlets, driven by deadlines and the need for timely reports, may overlook the need for independent verification, resulting in a portrayal of the conflict that may not be fully accurate. This blind trust in NGO reports can create a skewed understanding of the situation, especially if claims made by these organizations are not adequately scrutinized.
Simplified Narratives
The media often simplifies complex issues, and this is especially evident in the portrayal of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Palestinian civilians are frequently depicted as victims, while the Israeli military is shown as the aggressor. While the human suffering on both sides is undeniable, this simplistic narrative often fails to account for the broader context, such as the political dynamics within Palestinian territories or the role of Hamas in perpetuating violence. By focusing mainly on the humanitarian crisis, media outlets may neglect to address the factors that fuel the conflict, such as the internal Palestinian divisions or the external support that Hamas receives from countries like Iran.
Editorial Decisions Impacting Perception
AP editors often chose not to publish a significant story such as ceasefire deals or controversial actions by Palestinians and terrorist organizations, as it contradicted the prevailing narrative of victimization of the Palestinian populations.
Editorial biases thus shape public understanding profoundly. For example, omitting stories can lead audiences to believe that one side is uninterested in peace.
Oversimplification of Geopolitical Dynamics
The framing of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a two-state solution issue oversimplifies broader geopolitical dynamics. The conflict's portrayal often ignores the wider regional context and Islamist influences.
For instance, the role of Iran in funding and arming groups like Hamas and Hezbollah is a crucial aspect that often receives no coverage in mainstream narratives.
Historical Patterns of Bias
Historically, Jews have been used as symbols for societal ills. This pattern persists, with Israel now often framed as the primary villain in modern media narratives, reflecting deep-seated biases. For example, some media outlets are often criticized for using headlines and images that evoked classic antisemitic tropes.
The Ban on NGO Monitor
Around 2008, AP bureau’s chief in Jerusalem gave explicit orders to reporters to never quote NGO Monitor or its director, professor Gerald Steinberg, something that according to a reporter from AP was the only person they have ever subjected to a ban.
This decision reflects ongoing debates about media bias and narrative framing in coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The ban underscores broader concerns about journalistic integrity and balanced reporting, particularly regarding how information is curated and presented to the public.
Consequences of Misreporting
Misreporting and biased coverage is leading to misguided policies and perceptions. The gap between reality and its portrayal in media is having significant consequences for international relations and public opinion. Distorted coverage is influencing foreign aid policies and diplomatic stances, leading to actions that can exacerbate rather than resolve the conflicts.
Understanding the flow of information from NGOs to media, and the biases involved, is crucial for critically consuming news about the Israel-Gaza conflict.
