Around the World in a Story:Gaza Conflict | Dec30 |
We all know that local news differs from international news in their coverage of events close to home, but different networks and mediums cover the same story differently, even given the same facts and figures. Today, on the fourth day of Israel’s offensive, I thought I’d look at a few major news outlets.
Hit the jump for notes on how the story was treated by the BBC, Fox, Al Jazeera, The New York Times, and Reuters.
BBC News:
Headline “Israel vows lasting Gaza campaign”. The first paragraph contains the striking contrast between Gaza strip casualties (360+), and Israeli causalities (4). Second paragraph notes Israel’s determination to keep up the attack, while the third is a comment from the UN describing Israel’s actions as “shocking atrocities.” First details on Hamas’s rocket attacks are 21 paragraphs in (though they are briefly mentioned in paragraph 1). Clearly anti-Israel slant.
Fox News:
The intro summary paragraph (are they called decks in online reporting?) refers to Israel “smashing a government complex, security installations and the home of a top militant commander.” First paragraph is about the vow to continue attacks and the second is about the rocket “barrages” that “defied Israel’s warnings.” Gaza death toll features in paragraph 4, while the tiny Israeli death toll is not mentioned until par 7. Later paragraphs note that Hamas “specifically calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, is listed as a terrorist organization.” Unsurprisingly, a pro-Israel slant, but it’s not too extreme.
Al Jazeera English:
A short piece, this mainly focuses on the extensive military mobilisation by Israel, and the plight of civilian Gazans. Reports on the level of wounded (as opposed to merely death toll) and the lack of medicine and medical staff are also strongly present., First paragraph refers to Israeli “onslaught,” while the 3rd par points out the dead civilian and security personnel. While the reports is slightly slanted against Israel’s actions, it’s more focused on the civilian plight than anything else.
The New York Times online:
In what seems like a fair and balanced article, the NYT have some interesting information on where Hamas’s rockets landed in Israel, and some detailed information on the interception of medical goods and aid to Gaza. The focus is on the escalation of the military operation and the humanitarian effort. The death tolls of both side are given together in par 4. Interestingly, the NYT has reporters in both Jerusalem and Gaza, which may be why this is one the best reports I’ve read on the topic.
Reuters Online:
Reuters is more conservative with the death/wounded toll than other media organisations have been. First paragraph is phrased around"Israel on Tuesday rejected any truce…” however, the reminder of the report seems to be balanced and fair, and offers details of the casualties I’ve not seen elsewhere. Further, this is the first report I saw that mentioned the home of the Hamas commander they bombed was vacant. Like the NYT, the report’s quite detailed and well worth a read.
Most of these reports are basically customised AP copy, altered to reflect the editorial stance of the organisation. Sure, the changes are subtle, but they’re interesting to note in order to learn about the values of the organisation. For my money, it’s unsurprisingly Reuters, the one with the reputation, and the NYT, a newspaper with actual reporters on the ground, that have come up with the goods today.