Chris At Home

LGF has a great piece on how news organizations work. He postulates that the high-margin, high service media bought by Gulf States influences coverage around the world:

Anything involving Israel is a favorite with Gulf Arab states for showing to their viewers. Could this be the reason why Israel receives such a disproportionate amount of particularly negative coverage especially and increasingly ever since the early 1970’s? HonestReporting is usually unable to decide which is most biased: AP or BBC. As the BBC is often using APTN footage, the difference is minor. A significant twist to what is seen, concerns what is not seen. Footage such as the Palestinian mob joyfully lynching two Israeli reservists in Ramallah in October 2000 is held by APTN’s library: any attempt to license this film for reshow is carefully vetted. Requests for the use of “sensitive clips” are referred directly to the Library director. This is not the case with clips that paint Israel in a bad light. Likewise, the re-showing of Palestinian celebrations on 9/11 is considered “sensitive”.

The way in which raw footage such as APTN’s is compiled into a news report and sent round the world has also been analyzed. The Second Draft gives a comprehensive view of how editing can make all the difference. APTN is the gatekeeper that sits between you and the actual event. You will never see what the editors at APTN see before they compile your evening news. What do you think is cut out?

That is original reporting. Go read.

Update: More, from AmSpec:

I was often a lone voice of dissent in the New York newsroom when I tried to point out to my colleagues the blatant bias in our reporting on Israel's struggle against Palestinian terrorism. My case was bolstered one day when the front page of Reuters' internal website featured a picture of our editor-in-chief, Geert Linnebank, meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Accompanying the photograph was an item boasting about how glowingly Assad spoke of Reuters, which he viewed as a great source of news on the Middle East. After that, I joked that our brochures should include the tagline, "endorsed by a Syrian dictator."

Whatever its editors' political inclinations are, there is also a practical reason why Reuters is biased against Israel. As a global news provider, Reuters has to operate in more places than just about any other news organization, with 189 bureaus serving 128 countries. Because Israel is a free society, Reuters is able to run articles critical of the government without endangering the lives of its journalists or losing its ability to work in the country. Were Reuters to start striking a critical tone against the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Arab governments, its reporters' lives would be at risk as would its ability to operate in those parts of the world. Pretty soon, it would cease to be a "global" news provider and it would struggle for a raison d'etre.

Just as human rights organizations ignore real torture and oppression while damning the US and Israel, the press can freely savage free countries because there are no consequences. Accuracy is less important than being able to report from the scene.