The readers' editor on… language in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
|
Version 0 of 1. It is inevitable that one of the persistent themes in the work of the Guardian readers' editor's office is the Israel-Palestine conflict – inevitable because that conflict has proved to be one of the most intractable of the past century. The latest irruption of violence above the day-to-day has seen Hamas firing rockets into Israel, and Israel, in a counter-offensive, bombing and shelling Gaza, with the loss of many lives. Though I have tried to write the above as carefully as possible, there will already be readers reaching for their keypads to complain about the way I have framed the conflict, readers who believe passionately that the Guardian is either pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. Two minutes after writing the opening paragraphs I replaced the word "norm" with "day-to-day" because the former seemed complacent in the light of all that pain and suffering. Language and images are at the heart of the latest round of complaints. One reader objected to a photograph used online to illustrate a story published on 7 July headlined "Three Israelis 'confess' to killing Palestinian teenager". "The story is about the brutal murder of an innocent Palestinian youth, and about how three Israelis have confessed to the murder, yet the Guardian chooses to run the story with a photo of allegedly Palestinian youths with scarves around their faces," the reader wrote. "Can you explain why your paper has chosen the photo it did and why something more appropriate wasn't chosen, particularly something in keeping with the headline and content?" I think it's a fair point and the picture was changed, just as it was with a similar issue of an inappropriate photograph involving a story published on 3 June headlined: "Israel condemns US for backing Palestinian unity government". This followed a complaint from the Israeli embassy: "I'd like to point your attention to a piece online right now, which contains a photo of a Hamas summer camp with children blowing bubbles. "This is obviously an editorial decision, but it is one which is so blatantly biased that I feel I must bring it to your attention… "There are photos in this very same summer camp of children being taught military skills, firing guns etc (see one example attached) … To pick this photo, for no apparent reason (the piece is not on Hamas or on the summer camp specifically), is akin to 'whitewashing' a terror group." I am not choosing examples from both points of view for reasons of balance but to show that, when hundreds of images are published in print and online every day, we don't always get it right. My colleague Kirsten Broomhall wrote to the reader who complained about the picture of bescarved Palestinian youths: "While the image used on the story was not wrong, in the sense that the story talks about how violence has escalated since the killing, you are right that a more appropriate image would have been better and, as such … it has now been replaced. "I talked to one of our world news editors about this particular story and the wider story as a whole. He said the use of images around this story has been problematic in that there has been a seemingly disproportionate use of images of Palestinians throwing rocks. He says this is likely to be a combination of subeditors feeling they need to use 'action' images and the fact that the images provided by the agencies are dominated by such photos. That, however, is no excuse for ensuring we provide balanced reporting in both words and images and I will be reminding subeditors of this today so I appreciate you raising the issue." The complainant wasn't satisfied with that answer and came back with what he considers to be an example of biased language in favour of Israel, a charge levelled by other complainants writing from a Palestinian perspective – who, unusually, outnumbered the readers complaining of pro-Palestinian and antisemitic bias in the Guardian's pages. He said: "I am deeply disappointed by another headline in today's newspaper: 'Israeli offensive in Gaza continues with at least 14 killed'. Why do you call it an 'offensive'? You make it sound like a football match. "The story itself points to the fact that, among other things, a coffee shop was hit and many civilians have been killed." I disagreed and believe it to be an entirely acceptable and accurate military term. However, when issues of language arise, there is a useful booklet published by the International Press Institute last year, entitled Use With Care. It is an excellent glossary of loaded language in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was written by six journalists from the region representing both perspectives, who remain nameless because of the sensitivity of the situation. The preface asks: "Can journalists rise above their roots and remain true to their journalistic mission even when those interests conflict? Can they avoid the use of loaded words that serve a narrative instead of reflecting reality? … Knowing a language's grammar and syntax will not suffice when trying to accurately pinpoint the meaning of a word or expression in the context of the conflict, where it may be loaded with different associations and meanings depending on whom you ask." "Offensive" isn't in the booklet but the first two expressions discussed are "activity/action" and "aggression" and provide apposite examples of the language being used today. Both illustrate the care needed when used and the sad prescience of the authors. "There is a Palestinian view that [activity/action] is problematic when used to describe an Israeli military operation in a way that diminishes its confrontational or violent nature. For example, 'A soldier was wounded while carrying out a routine activity.' "There is an Israeli view that this word [aggression] is problematic when used as a blanket description for Israeli military operations, such as an air strike or broader military assault, because it immediately assigns blame; however, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) might argue that the operation was carried out against a specific person who is involved in attacks against Israel, and whom they, therefore, consider a legitimate target. "For example, 'Hamas condemned Israeli aggression in Gaza.' Journalists should consider using the terms 'strike/military operation' or 'military assault'." There will be no universal agreement on even these guidelines, despite the compromise that went into them, but they represent a brave and important effort to use the language as an aid to understanding rather than an obstacle. |