Mideast news touchy for both sides
THE OMBUDSMAN


By Christine Chinlund, 5/27/2002
Boston Globe

THE PHONE CALLS had a certain symmetry: The first from a man with new evidence of what he sees as the Globe's bias against Israel, and the second from a man with new evidence of just the opposite. Both callers were long-time Globe subscribers and careful readers of the paper.


TheOmbudsman

And both had a point - at least about content, if not motive.

On any given day, the Globe's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may cast one side or the other in a more favorable light - sometimes simply because of the nature of the day's events; sometimes because deadline pressure or bullets whizzing over reporters' heads hamper reporting; and sometimes because the paper errs.

It was an error of significant omission that prompted the first reader, an advocate for Israel, to call on May 9 and direct attention to a photo in that day's paper. It showed a robot pulling a man by his leg, with the caption: ''An Israeli bomb squad robot dragged a wounded Palestinian man on a road in northern Israel yesterday.''

A wounded Palestinian being dragged through the dirt by Israeli war machinery? How heartless! But, the reader noted, a salient fact was left out: The man was a suspected suicide bomber whose explosives - or at least some of them - had detonated prematurely. That information, available in other newspapers that also carried photos of the man, cast Israel and its robot in a more sympathetic light.

''This is a major screw-up,'' said the caller. No argument there. Many other readers registered the same sentiment.

An Editor's Note on Page 2 the next day provided the missing information, but the caller was not moved: ''If a picture is worth 1,000 words, what are 10 words of correction worth?''

The second caller, a businessman of Arab heritage, also complained about something missing. Where, he demanded, was coverage of the May 11 peace rally in Tel Aviv where 100,000 Israelis called on their government to withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza, and Jewish settlements? Was the Globe bowing to Israel and ignoring the story? ''It's a real disservice to the American public to present such a biased view,'' he said.

These two calls represent only a tiny fraction of the reader complaints about Middle East coverage, but they accurately reflect the overall ratio: About half the readers say the Globe favors Israel, about half say it favors Palestinians. Indeed, there are more complaints about Middle East coverage than anything else these days.

The complaints echo what is happening at newspapers nationwide. Backers of Israel have organized campaigns to suspend or cancel subscriptions at some of the nation's largest newspapers and picketed outside several. At the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, a full-page advertisement faulted the paper for refusing to call suicide bombers ''terrorists.'' Meanwhile, ombudsmen around the country have fielded a blizzard of calls from both sides.

There are, it seems, really two battles going on - one in the Middle East and the other a shadow war of words on US soil. The hypersensitive atmosphere leaves zero tolerance for error.

In that context, it's worth examining what happened in the cases the two callers raised:

In the first, the problem began with the caption information provided (along with the photo) by Reuters news agency. Although the second sentence of the Reuters caption referred to a suspected Palestinian bomber ''in northern Israel'' whose explosives detonated prematurely, it was not clear the man being dragged by the robot was indeed that would-be bomber.

The copy editor assigned to distill the Reuters information into a Globe caption was confused. But rather than call Reuters or other wire services to clarify the situation - something night editor David Jrolf says should have been done - the copy editor presented a minimalist version, just the information known to be true, and moved on to the next task.

The Globe can't afford to take such shortcuts, especially on Middle East matters. Omission is tantamount to error. With that in mind, copy editors have been directed to, in the future, ''go the extra mile'' to make captions complete as well as accurate.

The case presented by the second caller involved no error, but a judgment. The peace rally in question was, contrary to the reader's assertion, noted in the Globe - but in two paragraphs near the end of a 34-paragraph lead story. The assistant foreign editor on duty said he decided against devoting a separate story to the event in order to keep the news focus on events unfolding in Gaza. Fair enough.

In the end, it is that kind of trade-off, based on competing news considerations, that shapes Middle East coverage. Globe missteps occasionally result in a skewed report, as the photo caption episode illustrates. But when that happens, it is sloppiness, not bias, that is the enemy of fairness.

I should note that my views are informed by having done a recent stint as foreign editor. Some may think that gives me a vested interest here; I think it affords me special insight.

I know only too well that imposing any sort of consistent slant on the news coverage of a story this unpredictable and complicated is beyond what the Globe could do, even if it wanted to. Just providing the relevant facts is challenge enough.

The ombudsman represents the readers. Phone 617-929-3020 or, to leave a message, 929-3022. E-mail: ombud@globe.com.

This story ran on page A15 of the Boston Globe on 5/27/2002.

© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.