Paper 3- Comparing news reports

Karen Molina
Dr. Metcalf
Orientalism and Occidentalism
Spring 2009
Due: April 9, 2009

Comparing News Reports

News broadcast along with other forms of media have facilitated the connection or communication between the nations of the world. Although the focus is the nation’s issues, international concerns and incident discussions are also available to everyone. There are numerous news groups and journalists that provide their version of an incident, which sometimes lead to a confusion of what is really true. The ways in which the news is written also depends on the views of the news corporation and the people who run it. In the present time the Israeli- Palestinian conflict has been a major focus in the world and has been a perfect example of the difference in news reports.
In November 2008 a blockade of the Palestinian Gaza strip by Israeli forces terrified the world, as trapped civilians suffered cruel conditions. News coverage through newspapers and television gave the people of the United States, among other countries, coverage of casualties as well as the progress of cease-fire. One of the most controversial events during the Israeli invasion was the attack on United Nations schools located in the Palestinian Gaza territory. These schools served as refugee shelters for a number of desperate Palestinians looking for refuge from the constant attacks on civilians. This event shocked the world and was a center of interest due to it being a U.N. school. Although it was one event, the news articles on the same incident were quite differently presented.
An article of the Arab News on the incident taking place Tuesday January 7, 2009, was presented quite differently than that of the New York Times. The first difference can be noted in the title of the articles. In the Arab Times the title of the article is “Massacre at refugee shelter” and was written by Hisham Abu Taha. The article, discussing the same incident, in the New York Times is titled “Israeli Shells Kill 40 at Gaza U.N. School” and was written by Taghreed El-Khodary and Isabel Kershner. At first glance the titles of the articles give a different perspective on the incident. The word “massacre” is used to describe the incident through a Middle Eastern perspective and is a strong word to emphasize the casualties that occurred. Other important words used were “refugee shelter” which was the exact purpose of the U.N. school. The New York Times, compared to the Middle East, uses less descriptive language to headline the incident. The title does not mention it was a massacre of a refugee shelter but rather describes the incident with a basic overview of whom and what was involved. The “who” is Israel, the “what” is a U.N. school, and instead of a massacre it is mentioned that 40 people were killed.
In further reading the article by the Arab Times it is clear that it provides an Arab interpretation of the incident, while the New York Times mainly focuses on Israel’s actions. Taha mentions that 43 people were killed and dozens were wounded in the incident compared to the 40 stated by El-Khodary. This shows the inaccuracy of the information but leaves someone wondering and questioning the right number of casualties. The New York Times fails to name the school in which such casualties occurred, while the Arab News gives the name Al-Fakhora School. The name of the school, although foreign to those not from the area, is important information that gives the institution its identity. In this article, it seems as the focus is on the actions of Israel rather than the school and the civilians within. In the opening paragraph, the New York Times mentions that the motif of the attack was that Israel believes that Hamas fighters had fired from the school. Arab News does not mention such thing but does say that the “United Nations regularly gave the Israeli army exact geographical coordinates of its facilities” to keep them safe as they served as refugees, which is missing in the other article. Such information further leaves a person uncertain of the real situation and cause of the attack.
A favorable attitude towards Israel is present in the New York Times article and remains as such through out the news. Perhaps it is due to the alliance between Israel and the United States as well as the post 9/11 view of the Arab nations. An example of such preference in the article is the mention of the Prime Minister of Israel and his planned visit to Egypt to discuss cease fire. This is clearly off the topic but is described after the opening paragraph. At this section of the article more about the incident should have been mentioned rather than what was included. An inappropriate statement by El-Khodary was about a rocket that was launched by Hamas and is said to have wounded an infant. This information has no reason to be mentioned as Palestinian casualties specifically those of numerous innocent children, were not included. An infant wounded is awful but if that is to be mentioned, for what reason is the death by gun shot of many innocent children not mentioned as well. The article also includes the Israeli view of Hamas as callous towards the lives of the Palestinian civilians. This should not be a subjective news article about Hamas but should have the role of informing of the incident. After a long introduction to an Israeli point of view, the article by El-Khodary ends with a short casualty report, actions taken by the Palestinian president, another school incident, and a few words of rage by a U.N. relief member. Despite their mention, the information was shorter and less descriptive than the beginning of the article.
The Arab News provides a closer look into the incident and continues to look at other forms of aid to the Palestinian people. The allegations that the coordinates were given to Israel, if true, clearly shows Israel as the worst, deceiving, and heartless enemy. This article clearly argues that the location of the refugees was known and targeting it showed no mercy for the refugees. It is also revealed that when reporters asked the Israeli Foreign Minister about the deaths, she was “not familiar” with such occurrence. In the article ambulance and medic targeting is also discussed as they not being able to help injured people since they are shot by assault helicopters. Like the article by the New York Times this information goes of the main topic of the incident but links it since it deals with the impediment of humanitarian aid.
A final and important aspect of both news articles is the photograph included at the top of each article. The New York Times included a picture of a young wounded Palestinian being carried by others. This photograph demonstrates the chaos and anger seen in the faces of the people present the day of the incident. The Arab News presents a more graphic and heartbreaking image of the casualties, but it is not one taken of the incident discussed. Instead a picture of a man trying to pull out the body of a child out of the rubble is shown. The use of a child in such condition could be used to capture the cruel reality of the blockage but can be seen as being too dramatic with the purpose of obtaining increased pity from the people. The use of imaging is important and different depending on the message being transmitted by the article.
The bombing of the Al-Fakhora School in Jabaliya on the 11th day of the war on Gaza demonstrated the extent of Israel’s invasion. Refugees sought shelter but they soon realized that there is not safe place. The news of the incident spread through out the world, but different views developed due to the way it was presented to the public. As a person reading the article by the New York Times, more knowledge is received about the actions being taken by Israel. On the other hand, a person reading the article by the Arab News is informed of the lack of respect by Israel towards humanitarian groups in Gaza during the blockage. Both articles mention the school bombing, but the information included varies depending on the newspaper. This creates a problem as people are oriented and manipulated by what they read, which may not be the entire truth.