Love of the Land: CNNsored

CNNsored

Ben Cohen
Z-Word Blog
17 March '10

To anyone who knows the medium of television, the statement that a news program is probably the last place to have a serious discussion about a serious matter is hardly a revelation. The allotted timeframe, generally three or four minutes, precludes any in-depth analysis. Discussants are acutely aware that they have to communicate in soundbites, so rather than engaging with each other, they artfully twist the presenter’s questions into answers that emphasize the talking points they arrived at the studio with. That’s how it’s always been.

A key assumption here is that the anchor will keep a respectful distance, editorially-speaking, between his or her guests. The anchor will allow each guest equal time to speak. Whether the anchor is in passive listening mode or acting like an amphetamine-fueled interrogator, the accepted norm is that all guests will receive the same treatment.

True, this conception of the anchor’s role now seems almost quaint, a throwback to the days when journalism placed a supreme value on objectivity. Nonetheless, it remains valid, particularly when it comes to straight news shows (as distinct from the more charged talk show environments.)

Keeping the above template in mind, I want to relate what happened to me when I appeared, in my capacity as AJC’s Associate Director of Communications, on CNN International earlier this week. In a segment anchored by Jim Clancy, Jeremy Ben Ami of J Street and myself were discussing the diplomatic row between the US and Israel sparked by the announcement, during Vice President Biden’s visit to Israel, of a new housing development in the east Jerusalem district of Ramat Shlomo.

I expected a rough ride as I watched the introductory clips: Palestinian propagandist Rami Khouri, Israel Lobby author Stephen Walt and some Italian journalist I’d never heard of called Loretta Napoleoni, all waxing lyrical about the inordinate power of the Israel Lobby. There was no dissenting view.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: CNNsored

Love of the Land: Amanpour's Impulse: Smear Israel

Amanpour's Impulse: Smear Israel

Andrea Levin
CAMERA Media Analysis
21 January '10

CNN's Christiane Amanpour can't seem to help herself. Whatever the subject of the program, she's inclined to inject mention of Israel and its alleged myriad faults. An interview with Tibet's revered Dalai Lama prompted her to insert jarring comparisons of Tibet and the Palestinian "nakba." (Though with no musings on the absence of Tibetan suicide bombers.)

It happened again on January 20, 2010 while she was engaged in a heated on-air exchange involving Marc Thiessen and Philippe Sands about American use of waterboarding in interrogating illegal combatants. Thiessen claimed waterboarding doesn't constitute torture and that valuable information had been gained by the CIA through the use of enhanced interrogation techniques that prevented terror attacks. Sands countered that waterboarding does constitute torture and is ineffectual in eliciting information from prisoners.

Then, quoting directly from her statements in a previous CNN segment, Thiessen charged Amanpour with spreading false information in comparing American interrogation methods with those of the genocidal regime of the Khmer Rouge at its infamous S-21 camp where prisoners were handcuffed and submerged in water-filled metal boxes during interrogation, and where thousands died. Thiessen argued that U.S. methods caused no harm or pain to the prisoner. Hearing her own words quoted back at her and bluntly characterized as false, Amanpour became visibly agitated and uncomfortable. In the tense back and forth focused on American handling of interrogation, Amanpour abruptly and incongruously injected Israel into the debate. Here's the clip, followed by an excerpt from the transcript:

(See video and transcript)

Love of the Land: Amanpour's Impulse: Smear Israel

Love of the Land: CNN Waters Down the Israeli Response

CNN Waters Down the Israeli Response

CNN fails to provide any Israeli reaction to a flawed Amnesty report.

Honest Reporting/Backspin
29 October 09

Utilizing the "halo effect," whereby because of their humanitarian focus, non-governmental organizations are insulated from scrutiny and are regarded as above reproach by the media, Amnesty International has published a report accusing Israel of denying Palestinians access to water supplies.

Media outlets, including AP, AFP, Reuters, BBC, The Independent, Sky News, The Age and the Irish Times, were happy to promote Amnesty's allegations. The Times of London even ran with the provocative headline: Palestinians suffer under Israeli water torture.

While the above media did, at least, include some limited responses from Israeli officials, the CNN report below from Paula Hancocks did not even bother to supply any Israeli reaction whatsoever.

Send your considered comments to CNN on its feedback form, asking why Paula Hancocks has failed to carry out the most basic of journalistic norms.

Regarding Amnesty's report itself, Officials at the Israeli Water Authority told theJerusalem Post they were never given an opportunity to present information to Amnesty researchers, nor respond to the Palestinian allegations. They also say the report's figures are deeply flawed.

Moreover, NGO Monitor claims Amnesty's report was timed to boost a campaign to boycott Israel. Indeed, a US speaking tour kicks off next week with Omar Barghouti addressing the Loyola Law School in LA on the topic "Palestine: Thirsting for Justice. Israel’s Control of Water as a Tool of Apartheid and a Means of Ethnic Cleansing."

A Jerusalem Post editorial addresses the issues:

It [Amnesty' report] set out to examine the assumed victimization of the Palestinians. Thereafter, everything proceeded true to pattern. The inevitable bottom line is that the Palestinians are aggrieved. No blame is apportioned to them. The causes of the situation aren't considered. . . .

Additionally, the Israel Water Authority notes that, when all water uses are combined, it emerges that 149 cubic meters are available per capita per annum for Israelis, and 105 cu.m. for Palestinians. The difference, though not negligible, is far from Amnesty's claim of a super-acute shortage, well below the World Health Organization recommended minimum allotment. Water availability to Israelis has fallen sharply in recent decades. In 1967 it stood at 500 cu.m. - so today's figure represents a 70% drop. Until the Six Day War, Palestinians could count on a mere 86 cu.m. yearly. Their situation has improved by 22%.

Had it been given the opportunity, the Water Authority would also have highlighted that Israel supplies water to the PA well in excess of its 1995 Oslo Accords undertakings. Systematically overlooked by Amnesty, meanwhile, are Palestinian breaches of these accords - including pirate drilling, water theft and routine damage to pipelines, failures to purify waste water (despite massive contributions by donor nations), irrigating crops with fresh rather than reclaimed water, dumping untreated sewage into streams, severely contaminating Israel's Coastal Aquifer and forcing Israel to deal with PA sewage.

It is very hard to resist the conclusion that Amnesty's report was commissioned to serve a specific agenda.

See also The Issue of of Water Between and the Palestinians (pdf format), a document published in March by the Israeli Water Authority.

Love of the Land: CNN Waters Down the Israeli Response