I’ll disclose for the record that I’m more optimistic than many observers hoping for a lasting peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. I don’t think an agreement will come in twelve months, as the Obama administration insists is possible, but I believe it will happen. Regardless of whether I’m right, though, journalists covering peace negotiations need to do so with more straightforward reporting that reflects less their personal frustration and pessimism.
Behind the News
11:31 AM - September 7, 2010
Sourpusses and the Summit
Journalists discarded Obama’s Mideast peace summit before it began
‘See you on the other side’ - Meet Jessica Lum, a terminally ill 25-year-old who chose to spend what little time she had practicing journalism
#Realtalk: This is the best moment to be in journalism - The old stuff isn’t coming back, but that’s okay
Streams of consciousness - Millennials expect a steady diet of quick-hit, social-media-mediated bits and bytes. What does that mean for journalism?
Sticking with the truth - How ‘balanced’ coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism
An ink-stained stretch - Can Aaron Kushner save the Orange County Register—and the newspaper industry?
This is the best moment to be in journalism (25)
The WSJ editorial page hits rock bottom (19)
What was James Rosen thinking?
How much of Rosen’s trouble is of his own making?
Cat Fall: A modern tragedy
Max Fisher and the problem with foreign-affairs blogging
“I hope my nudity doesn’t bother you. We’re completely committed to openness here”
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
Uptown Messenger – Hyperlocal news for a neighborhood in New Orleans
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
I think it helps to get some facts straight.
You wrote: "On the eve of the most recent negotiations, Hamas shot four Israelis dead in the West Bank near Hebron, an act that seemed to achieve its goals: Kill, embarrass the Palestinian Authority, and make a peace deal less likely.
The fact is: The deadly shooting actually happened in the "occupied West Bank" where in fact Israeli security and NOT Palestinian security has control of the area! This is actually why the Israeli delegation did not make a huge deal of the shooting as you would normally expect-- becuase they knew that in areas where the Palestinian Authority is in control there has been no violence against Israelis.
This, I find, is an important omission on the behalf of most U.S. media outlets who never mention this important fact.
Again, it shows how Israelis can actually achieve peace and security if they did not have illegal settlements on occupied territory, and how the PA has actually ensured their safety in the areas they do have control.
I covered those peace talks-- and these facts were actually echoed by both Palestinians and Israelis. Shame, the U.S. media does not take notice.
#1 Posted by Nadine Alfa, CJR on Wed 8 Sep 2010 at 02:55 PM
The US govt. is Israeli-occupied, bought and paid for; plus, the US govt. controls the US news media via a military empire, the FCC, and so on. So, imagine my shock when the US press rubber stamps every US policy move in support of Israeli evil against Palestinians. CJR should not be taken seriously so long as it continues to hold the state-controlled AP and NYT in high esteem. The US "free" press is a joke... a state-coddling, state-controlled, state-worshiping fraud.
#2 Posted by D.A., CJR on Wed 8 Sep 2010 at 06:32 PM
Nadine: The claim isn't being made here that the PA controlled the area where the shooting took place, only that the timing of the attack by Hamas served as an attempt to embarrass the Palestinian delegation attending the peace summit in Washington, D.C.
#3 Posted by Justin, CJR on Mon 13 Sep 2010 at 05:20 AM