Washington Post : A Twist of Phrase

The definitive fisking of the Washington Post's Sunday editorial, Preelection Turmoil, has already been done by Soccer Dad ("Post pre-election stress syndrome"). He concentrated on the Post's misrepresentation of fact. I thought there were a few interesting items in the way the Post editorial presented points, and the language they used, that were worth singling out.

1. The editorial starts off with this obvious statement:

VIOLENCE in the Palestinian territories has been steadily mounting as a crucial democratic election approaches.

This of course is a cause for concern, what with the kidnappings and all. As the Boston Globe reports:

Palestinian militants yesterday released an Israeli Arab who works as a producer for CNN a day after abducting him at gunpoint in the Gaza Strip in an unusual ordeal that underscored the spiraling lawlessness in the Palestinian territories and the precarious position of the Druze sect in Israel.

But of course, The Globe is writing about a different kidnapping--and a different year--in September 29, 2004. Then too--kidnapping and increasing violence. In Gaza there is always talk of mounting, spiraling violence. Google "gaza 'spiraling violence'" and you get 933 hits; "gaza 'mounting violence'" gets 723--and not just over the last couple of weeks. You can use the 'increasing violence' in Gaza as

2. At the end of the first paragraph, the Post does something interesting:

Israel has meanwhile declared the northern tip of Gaza a buffer zone and subjected it to regular artillery fire in an attempt to stop the launching of rockets at nearby Israeli towns; yesterday two Palestinians were killed.

If there is a reason to have to take courses to be a journalist, I imagine it is to write something like this. There are a few twists here.

a. Hobbyists launch rockets. NASA launches rockets. When you send a rocket with intent and purpose in order to cause damage and death, you 'fire' a rocket.

b. The launching of rockets--by unnamed parties no less--is contrasted with the Israeli firing (not launching) of artillery. But according to the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of artillery is:

Large-caliber weapons, such as cannon, howitzers, and missile launchers, that are operated by crews.[emphasis mine]

OK, so now we know the other side--which of course is Hamas, but that is the Post's little secret--is also firing artillery.

c. The artillery fire that Palestinians has been subjected too has been 'regular'. Well, how long has that been? Al-Jazeera tells us that on Wednesday, December 28, "An army spokeswoman confirmed that troops on Wednesday had opened fire in open fields in the so-called "no-go zone" after a missile was fired from the area shortly before the 1600 GMT deadline came into effect. "

d. How long has Hamas fired artillery have rockets been launched at Israel? I don't know off hand, though I did find an article in June 12, 2003 that mentions them. Elder of Ziyon quotes the Jerusalem Post on the stats for this year alone: "There was a significant increase in Kassam rocket attacks on Israel with 377 recorded, compared with 309 in the previous year. At the same time there was a decrease in mortar shellings with 848 launched in 2005 compared with 1,231 in 2004."

e. We know that 2 Palestinians were killed--after being warned. They are just called Palestinians, as if it were normal and their right to go into an area to fire rockets at Israel. Meanwhile, how many Israelis have been killed by the rockets fired into Israel all these years? The Post doesn't say.

f. So the Israeli artillery is going on for what--a day? two? That is up to Hamas. Meanwhile, Hamas has been firing artillery at Israel for years--so actually it is Israel that has been subjected to regular artillery fire...for years.

I think it must take a course to invert the truth so completely.

3. The Washington Post makes an issue of the "young reformers" who follow Barghouti. Actually, the term more often used to refer to them, according to Google (874 vs. 367) is "new guard." Young reformer does imply change, but as the Arab Reform Bulletin points out "the current intifada (was) triggered in September 2000 in part by young reformers." In other words, while it is a nice phrase, there is nothing to suggest any difference in their approach to dealing with Israel, which is important to note. More to the point, as Danny Rubinstein writes in Haaretz, "All the Palestinian commentators emphasize that this is not a struggle between innocent reformists and corrupt conservatives, but a face-off between strong men in positions of power"--which is what you'd expect from the "new guard".

4. The Post editorial speaks of "the fundamentalist Hamas movement." I've heard of fundamentalist Christians--but Hamas is not merely fundamentalist; in actuality Hamas is an "extremist Islamic movement." How do I know this? Because that's how the Washington Post described them back in October 20, 2005 in their editorial "A Vote For Hamas?" Calling Hamas a movement as if it were a merely religious movement as opposed to a terrorist group is a nice touch.

5. The editorial claims that "Hamas has refused to disarm or alter its doctrine denying Israel's right to exist." But that is not accurate--going back again to the October editorial, we see that the Washington Post there said "Hamas has refused to renounce violence as a means of establishing an Islamic state and extinguishing Israel." Again, the Post has tempered it's original statement, glossing over the intent of Hamas to destroy Israel--which some might see as a key point.

These are basically twists of language and meaning. Among other things, it hides the reasons why--as Meryl Yourish notes--2006 is expected to be bloodier than 2005.


See also Responding to WaPo's "A Vote for Hamas"


Technorati Tag: Israel and Media Bias and Washington Post.