10.10.2016
"Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred."
C. P. Scott(1846-1932), editor and owner of The Guardian, then still The Manchester Guardian
The Guardian's Peter Beaumont wrote an article about today's tragic events in occupied East Jerusalem whose headline alone is a masterpiece in misleading readers without lying outright.
Here we quickly go through the ways Beaumont and The Guardian manipulate their audience to create a misleading view benefiting the Israeli occupation.
TOTALLY FACTUAL AND UTTERLY MISLEADING
The headline of the article is "Two Israelis dead after drive-by shooting at Jerusalem tram stop". It's totally factual - and utterly misleading. Let's count the ways it misleads the readers:
1)Three people died, not two. The dead Palestinian Misbah Abu Sbeih and his death are both erased. This magnifies the death of the two Israelis and dehumanizes Abu Sbeih.
Misbah Abu Sbeih is just mentioned as a "39-year-old resident" at first. The dead Israelis are both named, and that "Levana Malihi, 60" was "a grandmother" is brought out to make her more sympathetic.
That Abu Sbeih, whose name is eventually mentioned much later in the article, was a father with at least three underage sons, is not mentioned so that he wouldn't appear more sympathetic.
The fact that Abu Sbeih's elderly father and underage sons were arrested by Israeli occupation afterwards can't be mentioned either, of course.
2)"Two Israelis". In here the usual 'Western' media trick is used: The "Two Israelis" implies that we are dealing with civilians only here. In reality, one of the two dead Israelis was an armed occupation forces' police member.
We call this the "all dead Israelis are civilians" -tactic, and it softens the audience's view of the dead, as they imagine the dead as civilians, no matter the actual circumstances.
By the time audience (those who actually read the whole article) get to the mention of one of the dead being 'police', the already created impression will not be lodged from its perch in the minds of many readers.
3)Jerusalem: the article's headline here toes occupier Israel's "united Jerusalem" line, considered legitimate by one state in the world - Israel itself.
Occupation is erased, the context for the events made to vanish. In reality, the events described in the article happened near the Green Line and mostly inside East Jerusalem.
In the body of the article itself, occupation continues to be magically absent and is only coyly hinted at: "close to the line dividing mainly Palestinian east Jerusalem from the mostly Jewish western side of the city".
This line is of the Green Line marking the armistice line from 1948, and which according from UN resolution in 1967 to such figures as former US president Ronald Reagan should mark the border of the state of Palestine.
But the readers of The Guardian can't be told this, because The Guardian and it's reporter Beaumont operate inside occupier Israel's "united Jerusalem" bubble.
Why "western side of the city" is "mostly Jewish"? Because it was ethnically cleansed in 1948, of course, but that The Guardian's readers naturally can't be told. The whole historical context for the current situation in Jerusalem is made to disappear along with the whole occupation.
4)Tram stop - here a civilian landmark is used to describe the location where the shooting happened. The shooting did happen partly near a light rail stop, but it started outside Israeli occupation's police headquarters and much of it took place on the roads around the block it's situated in.
Using 'tram stop' instead of 'police headquarters' is meant to underline the civilian nature of the setting of the shooting, and again imply the civilian status of the "two dead Israelis".
Using police headquarters in the headline would create different images for the readers, and work against how The Guardian wants readers to perceive the incident in question.
THE OCCUPIER ALWAYS TELLS THE TRUTH
A "Western" journalist in Israel and occupied Palestine always believes the occupier, minimizes Palestinian casualties, erases Palestinians of dual nationality and always, always believes that occupier Israel tells the truth.
Writing an article, like in the case of Peter Beaumont for The Guardian, becomes a simple case of copying and pasting what Israel claims. Journalism made easy.
So Beaumont writes: "About 218 Palestinians have been killed during that period. Israel says the vast majority of them were attackers."
Most 'sources made Abu Sbeih the 236th, 237th or 240th Palestinian dead during the current uprising - not counting prisoners dying of medical negligence, of wounded dying from injuries arising earlier or people dying in ambulances on occupation checkpoints while waiting to be allowed through.
Beaumont, using dated figures, raises some twenty people from death to minimize the number of Palestinians killed and thus the impact among his audience. And if someone is troubled, Beaumont assures them that according to Israel "vast majority of them were attackers".
If you can't trust an occupier tell the truth about the people who it killed, then who can you trust?
A journalist could be expected to do some investigations, to look whether the Israeli claim is valid. But Beaumont is above such things as looking critically at an occupier's claims - copy and paste what it claims is good enough for him.
Beaumont has a job to do - and it isn't informing The Guardian's readers as well as possible about what happened, where it happened and why it happened. No, he's in damage control mode for the occupation, painting as pretty picture as possible for Israel.
Counting the Israeli dead, he erases both those of Palestinians of Israeli nationality killed by Israel and the eight Israeli Jews 'mistakenly' killed by Israel's occupation forces' and Israelis as Palestinians.
Lynched Egyptian Haftom Zarhum(29) is a victim of Beaumont's magical journalism tricks along with the eight "mistakenly" killed Israeli Jews. The Guardian's audience, 'naturally', can't read about mobs lynching people because they look like they might be Palestinians - or just because they are dark-skinned.
MAKING THE MOTIVATION INCOMPREHENSIBLE
Misbah Abu Sbeih was imprisoned for a year for 'incitement' on Facebook by Israeli occupation; in Beaumont's hands 'incitement' - which can any kind of negative mention of the occupation - becomes "encouraging violence against Israelis".
Notice the absence of occupation, notice how it's "against Israel", not against an occupier and it's occupation. Context is made to vanish and those "Israelis", implied yet again to be "civilians", reappear.
The anger of a man who lived his whole life under occupation is made incomprehensible for the readers of The Guardian, because putting the readers of The Guardian in the shoes of the Palestinians, giving them even a faint idea of what Abu Sbeih went through and what made him act like he did, is the last thing Peter Beaumont and his employer want.
The Guardian and Beaumont have a job to do - to make everything appear as positive to Israel as possible. Ask not for whose behalf The Guardian and Peter Beaumont fight - it's not journalism and people's right to know - ask only what they get out of it.
SOURCE:
Two Israelis dead after drive-by shooting at Jerusalem tram stop
