Israeli-Palestinian
conflict in Dutch Media:
A
study of NRC Handelsblad
winter
2007-2008 and 2008-2009 (Gaza
summary
- Introduction
- November 2007 - January 2008
- December 2008 - January 2009
- Examples
- Perspective given
- Fact and opinion
- Conclusions
- The results in tables
There is an almost constant
spotlight in Dutch media on Israel and the Palestinian issue. No other
foreign
problem is so frequently reported about, and no other conflict arouses
so many
emotions and fierce responses among the public. The media greatly
influence our
view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but they are not always as
careful in
their reports as should be expected. Moreover, partisans from both
sides accuse
the media of one-sidedness and bias against their party.
To investigate the objectivity of
its reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Ratna Pelle in
collaboration
with the Stichting W.A.A.R., a foundation which monitors media bias on
the
Middle East conflict, did a study of the articles in NRC Handelsblad,
one of the
most respected newspapers in the
The main question
investigated
in the study was whether NRC Handelsblad reported in an evenhanded and
impartial way about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Did it give
attention to
all relevant facts and views on the conflict, without pushing the
reader in a
particular direction? Another important question was, how NRC's
coverage of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict relates to its own journalistic principles.
Two time periods were examined, the winter of 2007-2008 and the Gaza War of 2008-2009, together counting 203 articles dealing with the conflict and 6 about Israel or the Palestinians unrelated to the conflict. These articles were evaluated on the basis of several criteria: Whose perspective is given in the article, which people are being cited or interviewed, are both sides heard, are events and actions put into a broader context, are claims being substantiated, do reporters bring their own opinions into the article, is the wording neutral or shaded, does the article contain factual errors, are headlines or illustrations suggestive or misleading, and which sources were used? These criteria were used to systematically grade articles as neutral or somewhat, moderately, or strongly shaded in favor of the Palestinians or to the detriment of Israel, or in favor of Israel or to the detriment of the Palestinians, according to the following rating system:
* Neutral: no
biased language, use of sources from one side only, giving context from
one side only, etcetera, and no factual errors. Mostly these were short
news articles from the big news agencies. One minor point of bias may
be disregarded if the overall purport of the article is balanced.
* Somewhat shaded: one or two instances of
biased language or use of sources, quotes or factual errors etcetera.
Sometimes also articles with three instances were classified as
somewhat shaded, depending on the overall tone of the article.
* Moderately
shaded: several instances of biased language etcetera, so that the
article gives a clearly distorted picture of what happened and who was
wrong and right.
* Strongly
shaded: articles full of distortions and one sided language and
accusations against one party without giving that party's view. Mostly
these were op-eds by known advocates of the Palestinian side (Gretta
Duisenberg, Rami Khouri, Mohammed Benzakour) or reports from Gaza
filled with accusations and biased descriptions. Also interviews with
pro-Arab people (for example the Lebanese Georges Corm) were mostly
classified as strongly shaded, especially as the interviewer did not
ask any difficult questions and did not put some of the allegations of
the interviewee into question.
In this study, only 33 percent of NRC Handelsblad news articles, 14 percent of background articles and 10 percent of opinion pieces dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict maintained a posture of neutrality, while 66 percent of news articles, 84 percent of background articles and 86 percent of opinion pieces examined showed bias in favor of the Palestinians or to the detriment of Israel. Only 2 articles in NRC Handelsblad (one interview with a rabbi and one column from a regular columnist) - less than 1 percent of the total studied - leaned in Israel's favor. (See tables below.)
Hostile Media Effect
Due to the so-called "hostile media effect",
one could argue that the researcher is biased towards the Israeli side,
and the NRC news coverage was in fact overall balanced. It is indeed
difficult if not impossible to perform a study like this with criteria
that friend and foe of either side would agree on, and when applied to
the subject matter would in each case get the same results. For that
reason the criticized media often dismiss studies like this one as
being subjective and revealing more about the researcher than about the
newspaper or news station.
Both the Dutch TV news program NOS Journaal and the ombudsman from De Volkskrant newspaper explicitly stated in response to criticism for being biased toward the Israeli or the Palestinian side, that since both sides accuse them of bias, chances are they are right on spot. This is a too convenient excuse. Furthermore, the bias revealed in this study of NRC Handelsblad is so strong that the results would be negative even if a substantial number of articles were judged more lenient. Even if every single article were to be shifted one column in the tables (neutral being judged as somewhat pro-Israel and somewhat shaded toward the Palestinian side as being neutral, etcetera), the outcome would be that the news articles would have been neutral on average, but the background and opinion articles would still be shaded in favor of the Palestinian side for 71 and 76 percent respectively.
The Annapolis conference and the Gaza - Rafah fence breach
Two
topics
were central in the news coverage of this period: the
Of the 83 articles from this period,
over half (45) were moderately or strongly shaded in favor of the
Palestinians
and/or to the detriment of
By all measures, the reporting in
NRC Handelsblad proved to be shaded to the detriment of Israel, most
clearly
on context (51 articles), suggestive statements from the reporter (47
articles)
and perspective (also 47 articles); 28 articles contained a total of 56
factual
inaccuracies, all to the detriment of Israel.
News reports focused mostly on Israeli violence, the Gaza blockade and its consequences for the civilian population in Gaza (which were described with empathy in on-the-spot reports), and settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. There were only vague and general references to the continuous Qassam rocket attacks from Gaza on Sderot. There was no mention at all of weapons smuggling, foiled terror attacks, extremist statements from Hamas and in Palestinian media, or of positive reports from Israel, like the thousands of Palestinians who are treated in Israeli hospitals each year. Numbers of Palestinian deaths resulting from Israeli actions were reported time and again, but mostly without giving context such as who started the fighting or mentioning whether it concerned civilian deaths or militants. Strong accusations about Israeli cruelties by ordinary Palestinians, UNRWA employees and Hamas spokespersons regarding Israel were published without an Israeli response and without the reporter checking their accuracy. Israeli critics of their government's policies were featured in reports and interviews, while Israelis supporting their government were absent. Reporters themselves voiced strong criticism of the allegedly obstinate Israeli government while being mild towards the 'increasingly pragmatic' Hamas and the 'moderate' Abbas government.
Israeli tank and Al Qassam Brigade gunman
December 2008 - January 2009 (Gaza War)
All articles from the period of the
Of a total of
124 articles dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the period 18 December 2008 - 3 February 2009,
31 can
be viewed as neutral, 25 somewhat shaded in favor of
the Palestinians,
52 shaded in favor of the Palestinians,
14 strongly in favor of the
Palestinians and 2 shaded in favor of Israel.
Generally there was little attention
given to the context and events that led to the
Accusations voiced against Israel were
never accompanied by moderating comments or information from the
Israeli side, and
Israel's reply was seldom included. When Israel's viewpoint was
mentioned, it
was mostly briefly and in detached wordings ('supposedly', 'according
to Israel'),
while far less restrained language was used to describe the claims of
Hamas,
Palestinian organizations or the UN. NRC Handelsblad mainly used
Palestinian or
UN sources for the numbers of deaths on the Palestinian side, sources
that have
been proven to have counted hundreds of fighters as civilians on their
lists, a
fact that NRC Handelsblad completely ignored. The Hamas policemen who
were
bombed heavily in the first days were described and counted as
civilians, not
as part of the Hamas fighting force. NRC ignored the extensive Israeli
evidence
of Hamas's use of civilians as human shields, of schools, mosques and
hospitals
to store weapons or hide their fighters, and misuse of humanitarian
aid. The
aims and strategy of Hamas were also ignored or presented in a more
positive
light, whereas Israel's actions were presented as more extreme and
aggressive.
The newspaper mainly quoted
Palestinians, often ordinary Palestinians but also, in several instances,
spokespersons of Hamas or the
Qassam Brigades, Hamas's military wing. 'Ordinary' Israeli citizens or
soldiers
were hardly ever quoted. The Israelis who voiced their opinions in NRC
Handelsblad
were almost without exception critics of the offensive (and of Israeli
policies
in general) and on occasion the most militant and religious supporters
of
Furthermore, there were endless
repetitions of certain phrases and information, mostly in news reports
from the
major press agencies: every day the total number of deaths was
mentioned,
specifying numbers of civilians and children killed (never numbers of
combatants). The UN and 'Palestinian medical sources' were generally
cited as
the source. Nowhere was it made clear who exactly these sources were,
how they
got their numbers and how reliable these were. Israeli sources were
cited seldom.
Incidentally it was mentioned that according to Israel a much higher
number of
Hamas "militants" was killed. The different treatment of Israeli and
Palestinian or UN sources was clearly demonstrated in the description
of the
shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabalya. This incident was repeatedly
mentioned, each time accompanied by UNRWA spokesperson Gunness'
assertion that
Israel's claim that the IDF was fired upon from there was untrue. The
reader
was also constantly reminded of the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Israel's
actions to prevent civilian deaths, like the many leaflets and phone
calls to
warn the population and the daily pause in the fighting, received
little
attention and were described as totally insufficient. Hamas misuse of
these
measures in turn was not mentioned.
Repetition was also customary
regarding the Israeli elections in February and the settlement policy
of the
new government. Again and again Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman was
labeled extreme-right and it was repeated that he had told Egyptian
president
Mubarak to 'go to hell', and he was falsely described as wanting to
deport all Arabs
from Israel. The growing popularity of right-wing parties was
repeatedly highlighted,
and the new government was portrayed as very hard-line and totally
unwilling to
make any concessions, without connecting this to the Hamas victory and
coup,
and to the thousands of rockets fired on Israel after its withdrawal
from the Gaza
Strip.
Examples
of factual
inaccuracies and suggestive wordings (of both research
periods):
*
"
*
A brief
news article headlined "Eight dead during incursion and attack on Gaza
Strip" (11 December 2007) reported Palestinian deaths as a result of an
Israeli incursion into
*
"Yesterday the tunnels under the Egyptian border were targeted, the
only
entrance for relief supplies since the borders were closed almost
completely."
(29 December 2008)
The
newspaper automatically justified the use of the smuggling tunnels and
portrayed the attack on these tunnels as inhumane, disregarding the
fact that
they were also used for weapon smuggling, and that Israel let through
over 100
trucks of humanitarian aid each day.
*
"Hamas politicians no longer emphasize the destruction of
Hamas
leaders also stated regularly that they will never recognize
*
In its editorial
commentary of 22 January 2008 the newspaper called Gaza a 'ghetto', and
in a
news analyses of 24 January 2008 the Palestinian breach of the Gaza
border was
called 'the Palestinian exodus into the Sinai desert'. The newspaper
used words
like 'Bantustans' (17 November 2007, interview with Menahem Klein) and
'Arab'
or 'occupied'
*
Photo of
an old Palestinian man, against a background of the security fence (a
wall at
that point) with a watch tower, the caption reading: "The wall that
A
more
neutral and factual caption might read: "In the wake of the Second
Intifada Israel built a barrier that helped stop the suicide attacks
but caused
hardship to many Palestinians and was widely criticized for running
over
Palestinian land in a number of places."
* "Since the radical Muslim
movement Hamas took power in the Gaza Strip last June,
This
claim
is uttered by the reporters themselves in a number of articles.
However, there
had only been a total blockade for a few days. Temporary border
closures were
implemented as a response to rocket attacks or attacks on the border
crossings
themselves. Basic goods and humanitarian aid were let through most of
the time
and commercial goods and building materials part of the time. The
delivery of fuel
and electricity was limited moderately and only months after Hamas took
control
of the strip.
The study found that NRC Handelsblad
reporting was biased and paid much more attention to the Palestinian
perspective
on the conflict. Palestinians (and Israelis very critical of their own
state)
were more often cited than Israelis supporting their country's policy,
sources
supporting the Palestinian perspective were more frequently used than
those
supporting the Israeli perspective, and Israeli violence and misconduct
received much more attention than Palestinian violence and misconduct.
The
Israeli view, when given, was presented as less trustworthy than the
Palestinian view. Op-eds published in the periods investigated were
mostly written by well-known fierce critics of
NRC Handelsblad disregarded its own
principle of separating fact and opinion, and let its editorial point
of view
shine through in its reporting in an unacceptable way.
Some editorial
positions
of NRC Handelsblad that intruded on news reports were:
* The Abbas
government
is moderate and well meaning but weak, and Israel is incompliant to
make concessions
that would strengthen its position;
* The settlements
and
their continued construction are a major obstacle to peace and they
undermine
the moderate Palestinian leadership;
* Hamas should be
viewed
as a movement that is becoming more pragmatic and that needs to be
engaged in
the peace process;
*
These editorial viewpoints of NRC
were not only propagated in the editorials, but were also shown in news
reports
and background analyses, through a number of suggestive remarks, and by
the
choice of interviews. Moderate Hamas leaders were featured in
interviews, news
reports favorable to Hamas (like Hamas's offer for a long-term truce)
were
prominently placed, while Israeli peace proposals (such as Olmert's
proposals
to Abbas) as well as radical, inciting and even anti-Semitic statements
by
Hamas or in PA controlled Palestinian media were systematically ignored
or
played down. At the same time the newspaper focused heavily on the
ongoing
construction of houses in Israeli West Bank settlements and East Jerusalem, pointing to them as the
main obstacle to peace,
and on fierce comments made by Israeli leaders, while ignoring
hard-line
positions taken by PA president Abbas. The failure of the peace process
was
blamed mainly on Israel. According to NRC, Israel often used
disproportionate
violence in response to Palestinian rockets. Whereas the newspaper put
Palestinian violence in context and explained it, Israeli violence was
presented as ruthless and malicious.
This study showed that NRC
Handelsblad failed to live up to its own journalistic standards. Not
only were
facts and opinions insufficiently separated in the articles, context
was
frequently omitted, accusations against
NRC Handelsblad, which advertises
itself as the thinking man's newspaper providing in-depth background
information and differentiated opinions, ignored the complex realities
of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the problem that all parties have their
own
agenda and there is no single objective source that can be trusted for
telling
the truth. It failed to tell its readers that it is hard, if not
impossible, to
always distinguish reliable information from propaganda. Instead, it
presented
only Israeli information as propaganda that cannot be trusted.
The one-sided reporting by NRC
Handelsblad fits into a broader tendency in the Netherlands, in which
the
Palestinian narrative gets more exposure than the Israeli side. Still
the claim
is often made that the Israeli narrative remains predominant in the
Dutch
media, partially because in the distant past there was a lot of
sympathy and
understanding for Israel's side.
The debate about Israel and the
Palestinians has become highly polarized in recent decades, especially
since
the second intifada, and is increasingly being confounded with ethnical
tensions within the Netherlands. In recent years the discussion is
often
accompanied by anti-Semitic utterances, incidents and threats.
Increasingly,
Israel is being compared to the Nazis and accused of ethnic cleansing
and even
of a 'new Holocaust', Gaza is called a prison, a ghetto and a
concentration
camp, and the Jews are said to behave like the new 'Herrenvolk'. Such
comparisons are not only voiced in rallies, but can also be found in
newspapers, on websites and in publications, and can be heard in
lectures and
on congresses. It has become "common sense" that Israel was created
at the expense of the Palestinians, that the Palestinians pay for the
Holocaust
and to some extent also that the victims of the Holocaust have become
the
perpetrators now.
The strong emphasis on Palestinian
suffering, the lack of context and the omission of the Israeli version
of the
events in NRC Handelsblad's reporting have a negative influence on this
trend.
Framing Israel as the malicious perpetrator and the Palestinians as the
passive
victim, presenting a black and white image of a complicated conflict
between
two actors, stirs up both anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish sentiments.
The entire report is available in
Dutch,
see: Krantenonderzoek NRC Handelsblad.
The editorial staff of the NRC Handelsblad received it in August but
chose not
to respond to its findings. The report was published online in
September 2009.
Ratna Pelle and Wouter Brassé, the Netherlands
=============================The results in tabels
|
NRC Handelsblad |
neutral |
somewhat shaded in favor of the
Palestinians |
moderatedly shaded in favor of the
Palestinians |
strongly shaded in favor of the
Palestinians |
|
33 news articles |
12 |
10 |
10 |
1 |
|
13 short news |
1 |
5 |
7 |
|
|
12 background |
3 |
|
8 |
1 |
|
4 news analyses |
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
8 reportages |
|
2 |
4 |
2 |
|
4 interviews |
|
|
1 |
3 |
|
3 commentaries from editor in
chief |
|
|
3 |
|
|
1 op-ed |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 book review |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Total 79 articles |
16 |
18 |
36 |
9 |
|
NRC
Handelsblad |
neutral |
somewhat shaded
in favor of the Palestinians |
moderately
shaded in favor of the Palestinians |
strongly shaded
in |
shaded |
|
53 news articles |
20 |
15 |
15 |
3 |
|
|
31 background |
7 |
7 |
15 |
2 |
|
|
6 news analyses |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 reportages |
|
|
5 |
2 |
|
|
11 interviews |
2 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
|
|
5 commentaries from editor in chief |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
9 op-eds |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 (shaded) |
|
2 book reviews |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
Total 124
articles |
31 |
25 |
52 |
14 |
2 |
© This article is copyright Israel-Palestina Informatie, aside from illustrations and quotes that mention outside sources. For permission to copy our materials please contact us through our e-mail address. Limited citations accompanied with a link to this website are allowed.
Other recommended websites on Israel - Palestine and the Middle East Conflict:
* A Brief History of Israel and Palestine and the Conflict,
The Early History of Zionism and the Creation of Israel, and many other articles on
MidEastWeb for Coexistence - Middle East news & background, history, maps and opinions
* Wikipedia categories Israel and Zionism, Palestine and Middle East
* Council for Peace and Security (Israel) * One Voice Movement
* Ariga's PeaceWatch - on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Middle East peace
* Middle East Analysis * Israel News * Israel: Like This, As If (blog)
* Zionism and its Impact and other articles on Zionism and Israel Information Center
* ZioNation - Progressive Zionism and Israel Web Log
* Israël Informatie Linkpagina (Dutch / English)
* Israël & Palestijnen Nieuwsblog (Dutch / English)
* History Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (1) (Arabic) تاريخ النزاع الإسرائيلي الفلسطيني، الجزء الأول
* History Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2) (Arabic) تاريخ النزاع الإسرائيلي الفلسطيني، الجزء الثاني
