|
|
May 17, 2002/Sivan 6, 5762, Vol. 54, No.35
Times boycott tactic misguided
GARY ROSENBLATT
New York Jewish Week
Exhibit A: the color photograph, front and center, at the top of Page 1 of The New York Times on May 13, was of the Salute to Israel Parade. In the background, marchers were coming up Fifth Avenue waving American and Israeli flags. More prominent in the foreground was a group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators featuring a sign that read, "End Israeli Occupation of Palestine."
Was this A) a sign of the Times' pro-Israel sentiments, giving the parade such prominent, front-page attention; B) an indication of the newspaper's anti-Israel sentiments, giving equal weight to 100,000 marchers for Israel and 600 protesters; or C) a sign of the paper's down-the-middle impartiality, showing both sides of the dispute in one dramatic photo?
A number of Jewish New Yorkers no doubt would answer B, incensed that the annual parade, which by all accounts attracted huge numbers of marchers and spectators in a peaceful but powerful statement of support for Israel, was less the focus of the photo than the pro-Palestinian demonstrators.
It seems the Times agreed. An editor's note the next day on Page 2 acknowledged, "the effect was disproportionate. In fairness," it said, "the total picture presentation should have better reflected The Times' reporting on the scope of the event, including the disparity in the turnouts."
The photo appeared on the eve of a planned 30-day boycott of the Times spearheaded by two local leaders, Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, and Fred Ehrman, a businessman active in the Modern Orthodox community. Ehrman said the Page 1 photo pleased him because it underscored his beef with the Times' coverage.
The Times has seen "a small increase in cancellations due to editorial coverage," according to Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications.
I understand the sense of anger and frustration that has led Ehrman and Lookstein to initiate this protest against the Times. But I think their boycott is a mistake - in practice and in principle.
It's one thing to point out examples of incomplete, insensitive, misleading or untrue reporting to the editors of one of the world's great newspapers.
But to advocate an economic boycott, even for a limited time, strikes me as the wrong message and a disturbing approach.
Urging people to cancel subscriptions is a boycott, and it's a dirty word to Jews for good reason. We have suffered as a result of them. And if we Jews are prepared to initiate them now, we can't attack them as immoral when they are used against us, or Israel, as they have been in the past.
What's more, we who believe in and advocate for freedom of expression negate that value when we try to use economic power to squelch a point of view with which we may disagree.
In practical terms, the proposed boycott can have a backlash effect, having less impact on profits at the Times than on its attitude toward the Jewish community, convincing editors and executives we are unreasonable and irrational.
But unless we conclude The New York Times as an institution that has no interest in providing balanced coverage, it's to our advantage to keep the dialogue going because the facts are on our side.
We need more constructive criticism, more marshalling of information, more voices speaking out for fair reporting - not a call to shut ourselves off from reporting and opinions with which we don't want to deal.
"Nothing will bounce off the ear of a reporter like the charge of total bias," said Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University.
I also worry about the tendency in our community to dismiss the media as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. Those are loaded phrases and we best use them with extreme caution. Don't apply them to The New York Times, for example, unless you're prepared to make the same charge against Ha'aretz and other liberal publications in Israel.
Here's my dilemma: As a supporter of Israel reading about the Mideast, I feel I know the truth of the situation and become upset when I see media coverage lacking in the moral equivalency I am seeking. As a journalist, though, I appreciate the difficulties of trying to present a balanced picture of a bitter, complex conflict that to an objective outsider may have more than one truth.
Whether or not the Times has an inherent bias, there are certain journalistic traits that translate into negative coverage for Israel. For example, journalists tend to favor the underdog, present photo images that create empathy for the less-armed side and, most important, obsess on symmetry rather than history or context.
The lack of moral equivalency in the press - suggesting, as the Times does often in its editorials, that Ariel Sharon's use of military force is as wrong as Yasser Arafat's use of children as homicide bombers - is exasperating. But we need to respond, not turn away.
That's not to say we should accept coverage we consider to be unfair without speaking out. And if you're fed up with the Times, don't buy it, though you'll be missing important reporting, some excellent columnists and often positive editorials.
Gary Rosenblatt is editor and publisher of The Jewish Week. Contact him gary@jewishweek.org.
|
