Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land was broadcast on the French CBC on October 23, 2008, provoking a flood of complaints to the Canadian network. These complaints overwhelmingly took the network to task for running what they deemed to be a "pro-Palestinian" film, largely sidestepping the critically acclaimed 2004 documentary's explicit focus on how pro-Israeli pressure groups methodically influence American media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
CBC management asked the network's Ombudsman to launch a full-scale investigation into the substance of the complaints and the central charge that the film was unduly biased.
On December 8, 2008, the Ombudsman released her findings. She issued a report concluding that Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land should not have been shown on French CBC at all.
In response to the Ombudsman report, Sut Jhally, the executive director of the Media Education Foundation, the producer and distributor of the film, drafted and sent a detailed letter to the president of the CBC challenging the accuracy and professionalism of the Ombudsman report, and criticizing how CBC management handled the pressure they faced.
>> Read MEF Executive Director Sut Jhally's full letter.
>> Read the full CBC Ombudsman report.
Comments from Registered Members | (Register or log in to make your comment.) | dart 2009-05-21
Neoconbuster.Thanks for that info-I also read their crib sheet and YT videos ready for gaza blogs.The problem with comment threads like this is that it`s so easy to get the wrong end of the stick.`SFU` was my way of describing the new law intended to stifle all Israeli comment in the US and perhaps worldwide.(Its very relevant to the topic-see Rense or Global research).Another aim of the tactics I`ve outlined is to sew discord among opponents or to set them up to discredit themselves.The danger is that the debate on media bias is buried or sidetracked.Of course there is little to debate about the film as the conclusions are unassailable and therefore uncomfortable to the accused to hear.Consistant with the film I note that the Israeli spokesman on the Gaza massacre UN investigation today used the word `terrorist`to describe those killed in line with US foreign policy propaganda and for easy consumption by the american masses.The BBC did something similar by referring to the massacre | neoconbuster 2009-05-20
Dart: As predicted and published the IDF recruited hundreds of People (Most Ex Army who speak english)) During the Gaza War and ordered them to post in non Israel- Zionist frendly sites.If you want to say something SMARTER just say it, BUT don't send me to S.T.F-UP! After all it's my right to say WTF I want and to debunk all those mercenary shills.! | dart 2009-05-20
As I predicted contributors on this thread are confirming the use of tactics to obfuscate,misdirect and confuse the issue.This is a common technique taught in yeshivas and soon becomes boring which is another intended consequence.To destroy all debate is the ultimate goal as paul Craig Roberts describes on pending ` Shut- TF- Up` laws..http://rense.com/general85/crim.htm
Now that`s something to talk about.
| neoconbuster 2009-05-20
Shill_PR- Rabbis in the Israeli Army Told Troops They Were Fighting "Religious War Against Gentiles"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ltraIf_WDQ)
| shel_tr 2009-05-20
N.B.: Clearly, the pressure of an ongoing adult discussion was too much for you. You are one immature, hate-filled dude! Fortunately, by exposing your hate, readers are now forewarned to treat your comments appropriately. Thankfully, you are in the minority. | neoconbuster 2009-05-20
Hey Shill_Pr. We already know That you are 100% ZIONIST and you were sent here to Shill by the IDF.
Keep on dreaming about your Holly Promissed Land Crap but this is not your site. You Zionists control the news Media with PR.
We believe Palestinias are paying by Mistakes made by German Nazis and The British Empire IN 1947. Your LIONS won't have peace in their conquered Territory AFTER the 1967 WAR. Don't you get it? | shel_tr 2009-05-20
Jim Reed: I'm belatedly responding to your post. What a pleasure to have you here! To expose my own potential biases, I am 100% Zionist (i.e. I love Israel). In that regard, I have noted that your reportage is often sympathetic to Pal's. As you say, though, there are no inaccuracies (although one’s bias can also be revealed by omission, and/or by a consistently displayed prejudice). Nonetheless, I am bothered by the possibility that you may have been dropped by the CBC for political reasons. Even though I do accept that there may be reasonable, acceptable limits on free speech, we probably need a threshold that is higher than what is seen these days. We must avoid censorship due to political pressure, or even the appearance so. | neoconbuster 2009-05-19
Shill_Pr "Judean Lion, they’ll get hurt all over again."
For which branch of the IDF You worked for. SNIPERS?
Let's see some Lion's PICS: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLSHnDwEi44) | shel_tr 2009-05-19
N.B.: "There you go again...". Barak most definitely DID accept Pal sovereignty over East Jerusalem. The NYT (not exactly a bastion of support for Israel) wrote about it. See http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/09/world/huge-rally-in-jerusalem-protests-us-proposal-to-divide-sovereignty.html?pagewanted=1. There are others. If you do even a basic search you’ll find plenty of references! As far as Hummus, why do I (or Israel) need to deal with them?? Israel’s in no rush, they want peace, but they’re not foolish. Israel knows that most people care FIRST about their economics, THEN their politics. Israel can continue to concentrate on leading M.E. economies. They'll also continue working with Abbas / Hussein / Mubarak. If Hummus wants to provoke the Judean Lion, they’ll get hurt all over again. Israel most definitely does not need to curry favour. | jimreed 2009-05-19
Of course our revered Canadian broadcasting Corporation caved in to the complaints and comments.
My last piece for www.cbc.ca was this one:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_reed/20060801.html
The Ombudsman was involved in responding to complaints to my columns. However there were no inaccuracies in any of my columns and there was no negative report.
However...I was subsequently informed that because of budget considerations, www.cbc.ca would no longer be able to publish my work.
Interestingly, however, my writing was not condemned or taken down.
Go figure.
Jim Reed
www.reewrites.ca | neoconbuster 2009-05-19
Shell-PR: Neither in Camp David nor in OSLO you have offered EAST JERUSALEN. Only BANTUSTAN - INDIAN RESERVATION kind of solution (You call it "TWO" States solution). There are fanatics and extremists in BOTH SIDES. I personaly supported ARAFAT but you have to deal NOW with HAMAS! | shel_tr 2009-05-19
BTW: U are incorrect about East Jerusalem. Ehud Barak first proposed East Jerusalem to the Arabs in 2000. Personally, I totally disagree with that. Jerusalem has been the centre of Judaism for thousands of years. It was Palestine's capital since the time of King David. It's mentioned throughout the Old Testament. Jerusalem has some, but relatively little, attachment for Muslims. I was very surprised when Barak first made his proposal. Israeli citizens may be more willing than I to cede it to Arabs / Pal's. But this will be a VERY tough sell... | shel_tr 2009-05-19
NB: Do we need to go over this again? UR own original excerpt of U.N. 242 shows that even the U.N. called for negotiation. Israel has withdrawn from Gaza (and that was after its withdrawal from Sinai vis a vis Egypt). UR demands call for Israeli national suicide. Ain't gonna happen. The latest incursion into Gaza only occurred once Hummus significantly increased their rocket / mortar attacks on Israeli civilians. Globally, so many sided with Israel since they saw that Hummus brought the disaster on themselves. I want a two-state solution, but it can’t happen ‘til Pal’s take responsibility for themselves. A simple start? End the institutionalized teaching of hatred to Pal children (PA curriculum explicitly teaches hatred). Of course, using children as shahids is stealing their future to fight the wars of old men. Arab moderates DO NOT support Hummus. They are using their own people for their own cynical ends. Recent polls: 70% of Israelis want 2-state solution. Pal’s have the power to | neoconbuster 2009-05-19
SHEL_TR: AGAIN. UN Resolution 242. ACTUAL TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION: "1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."
ISRAEL have never returned EAST JERUSALEN as un 242 Mandates! Not one ISRAEL Peace propossition have ever included that choice!Just recently OLMERT mentioned but that's it! | dart 2009-05-19
What of the media organisations commenting on the film?As Fisk explained no journalist will get out of line.They will of try to bombard this film and use it to promote an anti Israel bias without countering the issues carefully made section by section.Was CBC connected in any way to pro Israeli Bronfman family at the time of first screening.Ias there confirmatio of the Canadian PM being as pro zionist as the US? | qc_rez 2009-05-19
The Quebec-Israel complaint links to a NYT article from 2005 about the film, which says that the film is terribly biased and pure propaganda: http://movies.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/movies/28peac.html To a CBC ombudsman NYT is going to sound like a highly credible source. With links like that she clearly swallowed the rest of the argument hook, line, and sinker.
This case definitely deserves some further attention. | qc_rez 2009-05-19
For those who can read French, here is the Quebec-Israel complaint: http://www.qic-cqi.org/pdf/demande_revision_ombudsman_SRC%20.pdf
It is obviously distorted but very elaborate and likely to impress a person who is not too familiar with the subject.
The ombudsman's attempt at analysis betrays her basic ignorance of the issue. And she has received 150 complaints filled with all sorts of details she's clearly never heard about before.
She needs better research personel at her office, otherwise she'll just cave in everytime to this sort of information attacks. | shel_tr 2009-05-19
Wow! That was fast. Do U guys live online @ UNReal News...?? agstreet: I agree with you. Peace requires even-handed input/effort from all parties. IMO, it also requires respect and honesty, too! NB: Thx for the actual 242 txt. Note the part about: "...termination of...STATES OF BELLIGERENCY ANCE RESPECT FOR AND ACKNOWLEGEMENT OF THE SOVEREIGNTY..." Also, "...to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a PEACEFUL AND ACCEPTED SETTLEMENT. I.E. 242 calls for negotiation! Unilateral withdrawals don't work. Tried that. Instead of creating a civil society, Hummus just re-calibrated their focus on Israel -- a bit more north, now to Ashkelon, Sderot, etc. Hummus and Pal's need to accept their share of responsibility. (In contrast, Egypt and Jordan accepted Israel's existence and they DO have peace). BTW: Wasn't the topic media coverage? Take note, and think on this seriously. A discussion of a ME issue quickly descended into Israel-bashing on any issue. | tommyj7648 2009-05-18
George Washington on Israel----------------------------
"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ~George Washington Farewell Address----------------------------
"The nation which indulges toward another habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interests." ~ George Washington---------------------------------------------
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson
| dart 2009-05-18
So predictable!The inevitable obfuscation and red herrings have appeared after the silly white megaphones flashed up.The message of the documentary was clear.The incontrovertible truth has been well and fairly stated.All that remains is for those who do not want others to know the truth is to attack the messenger and medium but never argue the message. A tried and trusted technique that fools only passive consumers of information.A useful object lesson in spin for some.
| neoconbuster 2009-05-18
UN 242 Part Actual TEXT 2:
"demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible".
Has IRRAEL Complyed?
Whay it's territory is Growing and Growing and Growing...? | agstreet 2009-05-18
But while reacting to an obvious pro-Israel bias in the U.S. media it is important not to create an anti-Israel environment and the associated siege mentality. No progress will be made until all parties feel safe and a militant anti-Israel backlash is a waste of energy and takes us in the wrong direction. | agstreet 2009-05-18
Well the Jewish settlements are certainly not "in Israel" and continuing to build them flies in the face of both the UN resolutions and American public opinion, the latter should be ignored at ones peril. Regarding the humanization of Israeli casualties and the dehumanization of Arab casualties--one of the most powerful examples in the documentary--I suspect that is just basic racism on the part of those reporting for the benefit of those viewing. But it needed to be said. | neoconbuster 2009-05-18
SHEL_TR: UN Resolution 242. ACTUAL TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION:
"1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demili | shel_tr 2009-05-18
in favour of the factually more correct term “disputed territory”. These are the same media outlets that have chosen to avoid the word “terrorist”, replacing it with the more neutral “fighters”. Though it’s an imperfect balance, it is an attempt and Jhally’s attack intentionally ignores that balance in order to whip up a frenzy by focusing on only one side. Jhally goes far beyond the role of impartial documenter / messenger of “truth”. E.G. At 0:50 of the first interview, he refers to Israel’s occupation of Pal territory IN ISRAEL (emphasis added) and Palestine. The M.E. had plenty of displacement, on both sides (Israel / Arab), but Israel has a right to exist, it is NOT “occupying” Pal territory in Israel! There is plenty of blame to go round. The vilification of one party does not advance either “truth” or a resolution to the conflict. The ombudsman rightly questioned Jhally’s “journalism”. | shel_tr 2009-05-18
Aaah, the old argument of media bias! Both sides have large amounts of evidence for bias toward the "other" side. On balance (ha ha ha), clearly there are instances of bias for both parties. News consumers need to become more sophisticated. Sadly, though, that sophistication is not evident on these pages. E.G. Jhally labels the ombudsman's report "lazy". That’s rather rich! His own “documentary” lazily and incorrectly paraphrases UN Resolution 242 (it does not call for Israel to “withdraw”, it explicitly calls on BOTH parties to negotiate the disposition; consequently, it is not Israel alone who has yet to comply, it is as much a result of Palestinian / Arab intransigence!), setting the stage for the rest of his blatantly biased propaganda. He rails against the absence of the words “occupied territory” from media reports, when it is absolutely clear that media outlets have deliberately chosen to avoid the politically-loaded term in favour of the factually more correct term “disput | Gabriel White 2009-05-17
Great stuff guys. It was a pity you didn't get onto the issue of "biased" sources though... | dart 2009-05-17
The CBC ombudsman`s report is not surprising since Canada is now viewed as a pro zionist nation under conrol-the identical pro Iraq invasion speech uttered by Canadian and Australian premiers testifies accordingly.The Israel pro-war lobby will disrupt any important debate on the media issue by simply using debating tactics or claiming racism.For them the truth is irrelevant and to be avoided while stifling inquiry,promoting confusion and using the methods of the verbal bully is the tried and trusted strategy.Regardless of how the debate is won or lost the objective from outset is to manage the perception of the many and as often as possible-propaganda style.Remember it was Condolisa Rice who said-"we have the guns and we decide what is truth."There is no doubt who she worked for. | dart 2009-05-17
Some may think that BBC television coverage used as a contrast in the documentary indicates complete neutrality but there has been great outrage and calls to withold license fees in response to their Gaza coverage-especially the handling of charity appeals where the `B`BC (some say Bogus) aped Murdoch`s pro zionist position.From their earliest days in the US the ashkenazi immigrants whose forte is perhaps the law and mass entertainment sought to create a positive image for themselves reversing traditional european stereotypes which included banning shakespeare`s Merchant of Venice in many counties so the importance of media control was clearly understood and now cannot be denied.There need not be a smoking gun proving judaic media ownership or control to recognise the blatant bias-any inquiry would be branded as racist-it is of course a non-issue. | dart 2009-05-17
Very well done RNN especially for providing the paperwork on line.The official response so far has been as I predicted in Part One though we cannot know what threats will be made behind scenes.The standard proceedure for the jewish lobby is to attack the man and never the issue-in this case calling his work factually inaccurate.Their methods will be to create false dichotomies,juxtapositions , deflections and outright lies thus avoiding legitimate critique.They are in fact all too predictable.The next stage will be to piggy back onto this debate a film not just to directly contradict its incontovertible findings but also to set the stage for a propaganda drive to justify Israeli claims to the right for a racist state.In other words they will look to lever the film in reverse.. |
TranscriptPAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network, coming to you from our studio in Washington, DC. So is the North American media fair when it covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? And was our guest today fair in his critique of the North American media? We're joined by Sut Jhally. He's a professor of communications at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst; founder, executive director of the Media Education Foundation; and was the director of, producer of the film Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land. So, Sut, first of all, thanks for joining us again. And to set the scene here—so you made the film Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land. You sold it to Radio-Canada, which is the French arm of CBC, mostly in Quebec. They aired the film. There was a big—lot of critique of the film as what some viewers and people who wrote letters calling it one-sided. And the ombudsman for Radio-Canada produced a report which is—this is a copy of it. And one of the headings in it is "Was this propaganda? Was this PR? Was it one-sided?" It calls it a pro-Palestinian documentary or a work of propaganda. And the ombudsman for Radio-Canada more or less concludes that this was a work of propaganda and Radio-Canada shouldn't have shown it. So lead us through. What was her critique, and what's your response?
SUT JHALLY, MEDIA EDUCATION FOUNDATION: Well, a major critique was, you know, that this was a one-sided, pro-Palestinian film that had numerous inaccuracies that didn't meet the journalistic standards of CBC, and then she lists some of those inaccuracies. But, in fact, the way I want to use the critique is actually as a case study of how anything that is critical of Israel is treated. And in fact it's a case study of exactly what not to do when journalists are faced with this, which is to actually absolutely cave to the pressure.
JAY: Which is what you're saying the ombudsman did.
JHALLY: The ombudsman—I mean, it's a case study in—. The film actually is about the media coverage, stories that are told around Israel-Palestine. But he also talks about when stories are told that don't conform to what is expected, that there is flak that comes from organized groups or organized pro-Israeli groups that's meant to put pressure on journalists to make sure that the next time they toe the line. And, in fact, this is—and that's what the film predicts; the film predicts that if you have this kind of coverage, this is the kind of response you'll get, which is exactly what happened. The film was shown. There was an orchestrated response by two pro-Israeli groups.
JAY: Which ones?
JHALLY: :HonestReportingCanada.com, which is an offshoot of David Horowitz's in the States.
JAY: And the ombudsman says that most of the complaints came from this organization.
JHALLY: A hundred and fifty of those, which means that, you know, this is a coordinated letterwriting campaign that comes as a result of an e-mail going out. And then she says the only other complaints that came we're from the Israel-Quebec Committee. So if you have responses from two pro-Israel, you know, Zionist right-wing groups critiquing the film, which is exactly what the film predicts.
JAY: Well, let's go through what the critique was. The majority of this report is about one particular critique, which is the film was produced in 2003-2004, was shown in 2008, and by that time Israeli settlers had left Gaza, but there's nowhere in the film or in RDI's, Radio-Canada's setup for the film do they explain to anyone that the film was older and Gaza is no longer occupied by Israeli settlers, at least. So what do you make of that critique?
JHALLY: Well, you know, history moves on. I mean, the film was made in 2004, and, you know, at that time Gaza was directly occupied by Israel. But, in fact, I don't think it's a real issue, 'cause that's not the point of the film. The the point of the film is not about—it's not a history of the region. The point of the film is to look at media coverage of how the stories of the region are told. And so I think a legitimate critique would have been: was the coverage of the Gaza withdrawal any different than the patterns that we had identified in the rest of or in the previous—?
JAY: But certainly this point, there's something to this point, that if somebody had watched the film, didn't know any context, they might have thought there were still Israeli settlers there.
JHALLY: No, and that's the—I mean, I think that's right kind of--should have set it up better and said this was a film made in 2004, and although some things have changed—. I mean, the way when I present this, when I do the screenings of these films now—and I do a lot—you know, history has moved on. And the way I present it is to say, okay, the film actually is about the media coverage and it's about the patterns of media coverage. And so, since then, history—you know, whether it's the Gaza disengagement, so-called disengagement, whether it's the Lebanon War, or whether it's the erection of the separation barrier, and, more recently, whether it's about, you know, the Gaza assault, the film says something; the film says when these things happen, the stories that the American media tell will be structured in a certain way. And on that basis the film is absolutely accurate in terms of predicting how the Gaza disengagement was covered, how the war on Lebanon was covered, how the wall has been covered, how the war on Gaza has been covered.
JAY: Well, let's show one example, because most of the report really is about this issue of the date and the fact that Gaza doesn't have settlers anymore, so people can make of what—that of what they were [sic]. CBC probably should have explained that in the beginning. But then the report moves into another segment which says: are the facts correct or not? And it picks up one particularly. There's a point it says the Israeli position is anything but defensive. And here's where that quote comes from. This is an interview with Hussein Ibish.
~~~
HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE, USA: Israel's basic posture is anything but defensive. Israel is the only country in the world right now which, in contravention to UN Security Council resolutions, maintains tens of thousands of heavily armed troops outside its borders in somebody else's country for the sole purpose of taking their land away from them and, in the process, forcing them to live under the worst form of tyranny imaginable, which is a foreign military dictatorship.
~~~
JAY: So this clip kind of goes to the heart of the whole question of what's fair in covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If, for example, someone had shown someone in an interview saying Saddam Hussein was a dictator, no one would have expected, nor did anyone ever see, anyone from the Baathist party come on and start explaining that Saddam Hussein did whatever he did because it was necessary and justified in some way. So I guess the contention you're making is: why do you have to do that when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? And, specifically, this is the real question: Israel says what they do is defensive, and Ibish is saying it's not defensive.
JHALLY: Well, it really comes to the core of how you produce documentaries, I mean—and news, actually. In news and in documentaries you have pundits giving their opinion all the time. And that's the way we use Husseini Ibish in the film. It's not the narrator of the film saying, you know, having an official line of the film; it's someone that we quote. If this is what the CBC says is an inaccuracy, then I would be willing to bet that 80 to 90 percent of what passes for news and news commentary on CBC itself is also inaccurate, 'cause that's what news is, that's what documentaries are, that's what journalism does. You know, it allows people to say things; it allows people to express their point of view. And so to call this—you know, it is an argument certainly, but to call it inaccurate and the reason why the film should not be shown is to me just truly bizarre.
JAY: Well, the counterargument—.
JHALLY: [inaudible] you know, if that was the case, you could go through CBC evening news and point to numerous examples of where questionable generalizations are made by people who have a stake in what is being talked about.
JAY: Well, there's a lot of generalizations made about people we're supposed to not like, like Saddam Hussein. Nobody—you never hear someone defending Saddam Hussein, or Ahmadinejad from Iran. There's assumptions made which are okay to make if they're about enemies, I suppose. youBut the counterargument is that this idea that Israel is under siege, according to Israelis, that there are—particularly with Hamas, Israel makes the argument that Hamas refuses to recognize Israel in Hamas's constitution; the idea that the state of Israel should be eliminated exists. So this gives the construct for why this is defensive, and their argument would be: none of that's in the film.
JHALLY: Well, when we look at the history of—I mean, if you look at the history of the Middle East, and you look at the history of Israel, and you look at, you know, what happened in '68, you look at what happened in the first war in Lebanon in '82, you look at the second war in Lebanon, I mean, if you look at the aggressive power in those—in history in that region in the last, you know, 20 years has been Israel, and you're really talking then about what Israel's position is. And I want to be clear: what we're talking about is Israel and the Occupied Territories. That is what the focus of this, actually, the film, is. We actually don't go beyond that very much. It's actually how are those—. You know, we look at 1967, in fact, as, I think, kind of the key watershed mark and how the occupation is treated. And in fact, you know, to the extent that—you know, how can the occupation be defined as defensive? Israel does. Israel says the occupation is defensive 'cause we have to stop suicide bombers, we have to stop the violence creeping into—. Well, and if that's the case, then you have to look to see, well, what is the cause of the violence, what is the cause of suicide bombings. And, again, you have to go back into history.
JAY: Which is what your film's about is that American media in general, which is your focus, less Canadian media (but I don't know if it's that different a story), doesn't give that context, and when it reports, it reports it in a one-sided way, you're saying.
JHALLY: It does. And, in fact, if you tell the story, as I said, from, you know, two days ago or three days ago, then it seems as though what Israel is doing is defensive. If you open up the frame, as you should do to get a real historical context, then that would actually give you the true understanding of how to understand those historical events.
JAY: So to understand this process in the media, is part of the point here is that there's a rigor being asked for when it comes to stories about Israel that's never applied anywhere else?
JHALLY: Yes. I mean, in that—or—well, I actually think it happens at other times as well. I mean, I think it's an ideological filter. You know, again, when stories were coming out, you know, if you go back to Saddam Hussein, you know, when he became Hitler, the previous history of America's relationship to Saddam Hussein disappeared. And if that history was brought up and the fact that, you know, the facts that when Saddam was committing his most heinous acts, when he was launching chemical weapons against his own people, in fact he was a good puppet, he was supported by the US, it spoils that story, and you can't just frame him as this, you know, madman Hitler. You have to then look at—it becomes a much more complicated story about the role of the US and its relationship to the Middle East and its shifting relationship with the Middle East.
JAY: The final point in the ombudsman report is—and I'll read this section. "Repeatedly, the document mentions the 'illegal' occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel. The legal reality is more complex," writes the ombudsman. "Jewish settlement and the construction of security fence in the West Bank are without a doubt illegal. But the experts do not agree on the 'illegal' nature of all Israeli military presence in the West Bank because of the ambiguity in the English version of the United Nations Resolution 242 (1967). Withdrawal must be made 'from territories.' Is the Israeli withdrawal from the totality of territories mandatory or not under Resolution 242? The interpretation of this provision has never been clarified by the courts." (Julie Miville-Dechêne, CBC Ombudsman) So what did you make of that argument? That's sort of her most substantial critique of the film.
JHALLY: And it's the point that's made by Zionist organizations all the time when it comes to 242, that, you know, 242 is recognized as the founding framework for what any peace settlement would be. And so it's this nitpicking, this legalistic nitpicking over whether the word "the," you know, is in front of the territories. Again, the point I want to make is, I mean, she's using this argument that comes from the margins of this debate, 'cause in fact it goes against the international understanding of what 242 is about. And she uses this as an example of how our film is inaccurate. And, again, the point that we want to make is what she has done—and it's really a lazy report. I mean, I think it's—well, I'm not that sure if she's naive, but it's really a lazy report in that she has bought the line of the complaints, and so she takes what the honestreporting.com, what the Israeli-Quebec committee says, and has used that as the framework for her own report.
JAY: And the significance of this is she, in the final conclusion, says that the film should never have been aired by Radio-Canada, by CBC/Radio-Canada, and which creates a precedent for any kind of films that take a position that seems to critique Israel on these issues.
JHALLY: And not only that, but the ombudsman's report is also circulated widely within the CBC. And if you're a journalist within the CBC and you see this kind of report coming out, it is going to send a chill into reporting on the region in general. I mean, that's why we—that's why, you know, with—I wouldn't I really mind, you know, I wouldn't be talking about it if it didn't have this broader perspective, 'cause this actually now becomes a way that journalists at CBC are going to think about how they report the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is exactly what the complaints are meant to do. The complaints are meant to actually create that climate of fear that if you go outside the bounds of this kind of story, then you're going to get in trouble. And Radio-Canada and this ombudsman has validated that point of view.
JAY: So what we're going to do is we're going to take up the ombudsman of CBC's recommendations: we're going to do what we think will be fair and balanced and interview the ombudsman on this issue. So this is the report. You can find it on our Web site. You will also be able to find the response of Sut Jally. Here's a copy of it. You'll find a copy of that on our web site, and you'll find a link to the film. You can watch the entire film there. And you could also, I would suggest, given that the ombudsman seems to respond to letters, you could write the ombudsman and suggest it would be a good thing to appear on The Real News and defend her report and take up this whole question of fairness in covering the Middle East. So her name is Julie Miville-Dechêne, and you can write her at 1400 René Lévesque Boulevard East, Room 2315. And we'll be calling Julie soon. And, Julie, if you're watching, we hope to see you soon.
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy. | |
 
You must log in as a registered user to save articles, or to view articles you have saved. Not a registered user yet? Register Here  
|
