Friends,
I am attending
the Israel Venture Association annual conference and was introduced
to Andrea
Koppel from CNN as we were waiting for Prime Minister Sharon and
Secretary of State Powell to finish their discussion Sunday evening
at our hotel. While we were chatting, an American-born Israeli
joined us to tell Andrea about his perception of media distortion in
that the press that stresses moral equivalence between Israeli civilian
deaths caused by Palestinian terror and Palestinian civilian deaths
caused by Israeli military actions. He argued that Israel has tried
to engage in a peace process since Camp David and has been double crossed
over and over by the Palestinian Authority. Further, he
argued the deaths caused by Palestinians are intentional, whereas the
deaths caused by Israel are mostly the tragic, unintentional results
caused by Israel trying to defend itself. Andrea replied, "So when
Israeli soldiers slaughter civilians in Jenin, that is not equivalent?"
Israeli, "What are your sources, were you in Jenin, how do you
know there was a slaughter?" Andrea, "I just spoke with my
colleagues who were there and they told me of the slaughter." Israeli,
"Did they see the shooting, the bodies?" Andrea, "Palestinians
told us about the slaughter." Israeli, "And you believe them
without evidence; they lie and distort facts." Andrea, "Oh,
so they are all just lying?" Israeli became emotional in describing
that his children are afraid, his friends have been murdered, and if
this goes on, "We could lose our lives or we could lose our country."
Andrea, "Yes, you will lose your country." At this point,
I interrupted the two of them and asked, "Did I hear you correctly
that you believe the current crisis will lead to the destruction of
the State of Israel?" Andrea, "Yes I believe we are now seeing
the beginning of the end of Israel." Needless to say, I was stunned
to hear a senior CNN correspondent express this extreme "worldview".
It was very disturbing for obvious reasons, and I was particularly upset
by her extraordinary geo-political conclusion that the State of Israel
is bound for destruction. I asked her how she came this
conclusion - what was her background scholarship in Middle East history
or military geo-strategy? Andrea, "Well you know, I took a course
on the Middle East when I was at Middlebury College and our professor
assigned us 5 books on the history of the conflict. So I first
read a book written by an Israeli and I thought all the land belongs
to the Israelis. Then I read another book by a Palestinian and
thought all the land belongs to the Palestinians. There are
many points of view, and it is so complex." Her background scholarship
and intellectual depth on the subject duly noted, I turned to consider
what to do next.
1)
Complain to CNN management?
2) Expose this to other press (say Fox or 60 Minutes, letters
to the editor?)
3) Try to educate her towards a more realistic understanding of
Israel's geo-political position?
4) Tell the Israeli Foreign Ministry and let them deal with it?
5) Do nothing? (I hope not)
I don't
know what do to about this, but I thought you may have the right suggestion.
Feel free to forward this to others.
David J. Blumberg
We
received the following email from David Blumberg after we wrote to him:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have received a flood of emails on this issue. Help me turn the event
to a positive outcome. I did indeed participate in the conversation
and stand by my paraphrased account as you will see below. I was able
to track down another witness who has confirmed key points and will
"go public" if necessary. To help you follow the flow, I have
attached the following chain of emails to help you follow the story
more clearly. If you send it out, please take my email address off as
I am being inundated with responses.
If you are disturbed by reporting that is misinformed, lacking in depth
and context or even biased, please take the time to write to the source
as well as letters to the editors of international, national and local
press. In this encounter, I was simply in the right place at the right
time to hear some ill-considered remarks by one influential reporter.
I don't think the issue is about her personally (see my second email
below); it is much bigger and broader. Remember that the press is responsive
to the public so put pen to paper or finger to keyboard and write clear,
balanced, well-researched letters stating your views or asking for balance
and deeper, insightful reporting rather than the superficial, reductionist
headlines and dramatic images we receive instead all too often.
I believe it most useful and effective to attack the issue rather than
the personality and to try to bring the issue into broader context.
Good luck.
Some additional sources for checking media fairness are:
www.adl.org
www.camera.org
www.honestreporting.com
http://fallaci.blogspot.com/?/2002_04_07_fallaci_archive.html
Be well and my best regards,
David J. Blumberg
The following is a response David Blumberg received from
CNN's Walter Isaacson after sending them the above
email.
-----Original Message-----
From: Isaacson, Walter, CNN
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:15 PM
To: Richard Bookstaber
Cc: Davis, Rick
Subject: Re: Tel Aviv meeting with CNN's Andrea Koppel
Sid Bedingfield, who has gone to Israel to oversee coverage, just asked
Andrea about this. She says the conversation was not at all as recounted.
She did not use the word slaughter, she says, and would not have done
so because the allegations are in dispute. CNN has been very careful about
how we report these allegations, and we put them in context. She says
it was a brief conversation with an Israeli who was emotional about the
situation facing the nation. She agreed with him that this is indeed a
dangerous time for Israel, something Sharon and others have said. She
says that she, of course, shares the hope that Israel will live in peace
and security. She really regrets the conversation was misunderstood, but
insists the quotes in this e-mail are inaccurate. Thanks. Walter
The
following is David Blumberg's response back to CNN.
-----Original Message-----
From: David J Blumberg
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 3:52 PM
To: 'Richard Bookstaber'; 'Walter Isaacson'
Subject: David Blumberg responds: Tel Aviv meeting with CNN's Andrea
Koppel
Dear Mr. Isaacson,
Yes, it was a brief conversation, but there was no misunderstanding.
I shouldn't have used quotation marks throughout my email, as I was
indeed paraphrasing in part, but the themes, phraseology, terms and
conclusions I noted were contemporaneous, genuine and accurate. Also
there were two other witnesses - parties to the conversation, 1) the
Israeli debating with her and another bystander with whom I spoke briefly
later. The second fellow later told me that it was no use talking with
her; she wouldn't listen - her mind was already made up. True, I only
excerpted from our discussion as it went on for 5-10 minutes, and I
only focused on highlights. Ms. Koppel made what I considered other
controversial points, but let's keep focused on the remarks I reported.
First, I regret that she now is trying to change her story. She absolutely
used the word "slaughter". I remember specifically because
the press had generally been using the word "massacre" or
"alleged massacre". So when she said "slaughter",
I noted the distinction with keen interest in her perspective and listened
intently for her sources or evidence. >
Second, whether she used the word slaughter or massacre or mass killing,
is beside the main point. More significantly, I presented her repartee
with the Israeli fellow correctly. She brought up the Israeli Army causing
civilian deaths in Jenin, not him. She seemed to accept without hard
evidence that such killing had occurred, and she was indeed making the
moral equivalence argument the fellow was trying to debate. I noted
this with such astonishment because my understanding of journalism would
have reversed the roles. As the journalist, she should have been the
questioning skeptic, asking for evidence and sources. Instead the Israeli
fellow was the skeptic, with her "defending" the allegations
as more than that.
Third, I don't doubt that she hopes Israel lives in peace and security,
but twice in what she describes as "a brief conversation"
she said the country is headed for destruction. That is what I found
so naive and astounding coming from a senior political correspondent.
Sure she believes it is a dangerous time for Israel and she agreed with
the Israeli who said Israel was at mortal risk. But let me repeat, I
quoted her verbatim, "Yes, you will lose your country...Yes I believe
we are now seeing the beginning of the end of Israel."
Please note that I started chatting with her not even thinking of discussing
politics. I thought she might be interested in the high-tech venture
capital aspect of the Israeli economy since we were at a venture capital
conference. So when the Israeli fellow came up and began speaking, I
was listening to their dialogue with no malice aforethought, nor any
antagonism towards Andrea - rather the opposite. This may be why I was
so shocked by her words and conclusions.
I am sure she is a well-meaning person and of course we all make misstatements
and mistakes. This is not so much about Andrea Koppel as it is about
the practice of journalism. Her comments in our conversation are emblematic
of a larger problem with journalism in general, TV journalism more specifically
and coverage of the Middle East in particular. It is the "talking
headization" of journalism. I am concerned about content and context.
How can someone with her lack of understanding accurately report on
the issues involved in this ancient and multifaceted, nuanced part of
the world? Today, the power of such voices as Andrea Koppel magnifies
the potential for misleading conclusions born not necessarily from malice,
but from broad conclusions based on shallow knowledge edited for a short
TV time-slot. To be fair, I have not heard her say on air what she said
to us on Sunday evening, but I will find it hard to listen to her with
much credibility henceforth.
I would be pleased to meet with or speak with Walter Isaacson, Sid Bedingfield
or Andrea Koppel to discuss this further.
Best regards, DJB
David J. Blumberg
back
|