My son was gray and shaking when I picked him up at school two years ago this month. Pro-Palestinian activists had made a presentation to the students at his high school, accusing Israelis of being "the real terrorists" and calling Israel "racist." Leaflets were handed out, urging students "take action" in the conflict. We had never heard anything like this before; how could they say such things? Immediately, I wrote a letter to the parents. School should not be a place where any of our children feel threatened.

Just days later, the bombing of a Passover seder at a hotel in Netanya rocked our world. I wasn't there, I didn't know anyone there, but they had matzah on their table the same night I had matzah on mine - and theirs got blown to bits. Maybe it was the story of the two eager children sent downstairs ahead of the parents, who were just finishing dressing. I saw myself in that story: "Yes, okay, go ahead. We'll be there in just a minute." In just a minute, it was already too late.

I had known there was violence in the Middle East, but it was so seemingly constant and confusing that I had paid scant attention to the particulars. That night, however was different from all other nights; my veil of ignorance was blown away. Suddenly, there was no separation between my family and those who grieved that Pesach. I began to hunger for comprehension of what was happening to us, to know who on earth brought us such ungodly harm, and why the world was allowing it.

A close friend and I started a newsletter to be handed out in our synagogues. The first issue was "Jenin was a Battle, Not a Massacre"; the second quoted A.M. Rosenthal: "Jews, listen and you will hear the sound of breaking glass." We never made it to a third issue - the process was just too slow. Who could wait a week for the news when it was coming in so fast and furious? The day after Netanya, a shooting attack; three days later, a suicide bombing in Haifa, then another at Yagor and another in Jerusalem. On Shabbos, Palestinian terrorists shot 5-year-old Danielle Shefi in the head in her home in Adora.

As I struggled to learn all I could as fast as I could, I began to notice a bias against Israel in much of the media I read and saw. By summer, I was writing to The New York Times:< BR>
"Dear Mr. Kifner,

"When I read your article today, it was not from the vantage point of a blank slate. Rather, it was with the knowledge that this past week, in addition to the Emmanuel bus bombing and shooting and the double-suicide-bombing in Tel Aviv, there was a car bomb exploded within a stone's throw of a synagogue in Finland, a synagogue in Wales and a Jewish cemetery in Rome desecrated, and the murder of a Jew, for being a Jew, committed by neo-Nazis in the city of Toronto. Let me explain that these events cumulatively inform my view of the world. At present, I am deeply concerned for the safety of Jews all over the world ...."

"Dear Mr. Sanger,

I'm not writing to criticize your article, just to ask a question of you, of the press, of the public: What is a Palestinian civilian? Of what use is the term or even the concept of  "civilian" in this war such as the world has never seen - where teenage girls are enlisted to blow themselves up, their mothers cheer their martyrdom, and we see photos of young Palestinian children in school plays emulating the disembowelment of Israeli soldiers by painting their hands red??"

Still naive, still expecting the media to listen to reason, and still wanting to love The New York Times, I later wrote to the paper's Jerusalem bureau chief, James Bennet:

"I've been writing and writing to you and others and nothing gives. You continue to call Hamas leaders "activists" rather than terrorists, you report on what Palestinians were arrested or shot by the IDF but not what armaments the IDF found when they raided Palestinian villages . . . You describe a toddler and an infant who were not only wounded but orphaned by a terrorist attack as "two passengers."

"I am giving up hope that you will ever try to see Israeli points of view . . . I am giving up hope that you will ever write anything I can bear to read. I did so love The New York Times, and held it in such high regard, for probably 25 years or so. But your bias is like a rock.?"

September brought the first anniversary of 9/11 and Hanan Ashrawi came to Boulder. I wrote objections to everyone I could think of, including university regents, but Boulder was adrift in protestations of "academic freedom" and "free speech." The local newspaper published ten anti-Israel letters in as many days. Mine was apparently too bitter to merit publication:

"With regard to the generous support shown by Boulderites in the [Daily] Camera for the speaking engagement of Hanan Ashrawi, I would like to thank the larger community for its sensitivity toward us Jews in this difficult time. I am deeply moved that a representative of Yasir Arafat's terrorist regime will be welcomed here, not only by the general public but by the venerable institution of Colorado University, where only last spring I was able to see anti-Semitic graffiti . . ."

Sukkot saw swastikas scrawled on the Hillel sukkah and anti-Semitic graffiti on the predominantly Jewish fraternity house. I was accused in a letter to the editor of supporting apartheid, segregation and ethnic cleansing . . . and that was just the first line.

I wrote literally hundreds of letters and seldom got any response. I sent copies to every pro-Israel person in town, urging them to write as well, and consequently became well known - as an annoyance.

When I did get a response from the media, the conversations that ensued went nowhere quickly. I accused National Public Radio of "immoral and uncritical devotion to making Arab terrorism seem palatable, even heroic, at the expense of the truth," and Kevin Klose, the CEO, answered that he stood by NPR's journalism "for its quality, balance, compassion and fairness to both sides."

Truth wasn't on his list. He discouraged me from further correspondence by sending me copies of the fan mail he received. I was outnumbered.

The highly influential New York Times remained a top priority, but my cynicism fell on deaf ears:

"I think I get it: if only Israel would stop causing Palestinians to blow them up, stop misguidedly trying to defend themselves, stop humiliating Arafat, and "seize this moment" to enhance Palestinian terrorism with statehood, then the poor Palestinians wouldn't be in this terrible, victimized position of having to engage in nation-building."

I knew I was turning people off, but how can you restrain your emotion when the Times covers a terrorist shooting/grenade attack with the headline "6 Israelis Die at Polling Place"? One would think they had simply expired on the spot. I wrote, "Might you never wake up to the fact that there is an extreme effort taking place to eradicate Jews? Your blindness to this appears calculated and callous . . . ."

After a year of working hard but feeling useless, unwelcome by the media, dissatisfied and frustrated, I found a new outlet: the blog. Blogs (short for web logs) are Internet sites consisting of frequently updated posts - instant messages to the web - arranged chronologically.

For me it was heaven: I could write what I wanted when I wanted and instead of my bombarding people with e-mails, they could just visit my site when and if they wished. And so, on April 27 of last year, Boker Tov, Boulder! was hatched on the Internet, at Boker Tov Boulder!. It was dedicated "L'chayim, to life, and to the children of Israel, like Shai and Chen Harenstein, who have to live without their mother . . ."

So it is that now, when I cannot abide the established media, I have a place where I can both expose its bias and offer some alternative. On my blog I can rant to my heart's content, uncensored, with no deadline and no word limit. This doesn't mean that I no longer try to engage with the press. I wrote recently to the public editor at the New York Times, Daniel Okrent:

"While it is deemed newsworthy that "After the bombing, [the terrorist's] husband was seen crying outside the family home," there is no mention made whatsoever of even just the names of those who were murdered . . ."

Six weeks after my original letter, I received his reply:

"I'm sorry for the delay in this response. The normal press of work; the transition between the old foreign editor and the new one . . . and the complex nature of your charges all conspired against a speedy reply. I also have to acknowledge that your comment after the initial delay did not induce me to want to respond quickly . . . .It did not seem like the beginning of a fruitful conversation.

"Do I disagree with your charges? Not necessarily - although your expectation of seeing the names of every one of the Israelis killed seems neither realistic nor fair; I know of no American newspaper that would do this. But neither do I accept your other charges, as cherry-picking a single article does not, to me, make a trend . . .

"Nonetheless, I've put your comments in a file for the piece I will eventually write about the accusations of anti-Israeli bias. And when I write it, I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt that you ask me to give you, despite your clear belief in your rectitude.?"

I immediately responded:

"Dear Mr. Okrent,

". . . .Many of us who complain about this have been doing so for a long time, with little response, and that seldom "fruitful." We do not do this for a job, we do this in spite of jobs and other commitments; we do this out of love - mostly for Israel and the Jewish people, but a bit for the Times as well. . .

"The Times has on more than one occasion published articles that told not only the name of a suicide bomber, but their age, where they were from, what organizations they were affiliated with, how many children they had, what they did for a living and what their family had to say .... [Do] suicide bombers get more attention because they become news only one at a time, whereas their victims become so in scores, too unwieldy to mention?

". . . .As for "cherry-picking a single article," I find this comment very amusing. When I complain about a trend, I am told that I must be more specific. When I am more specific, I am told a single article does not make a trend.

". . . .If I weren't certain of the validity of my claim, why would I write to you??"

To this last bit, he responded, "Extremely good point. But if you are, as you say, certain of your rectitude, I don't see any point in my continuing to reply."

And so, by default, I got to have the last word:

"Israeli victims of terror [were] referred to by name and age in an American newspaper. It was in the New York Times, August 12, 2002, in an article headlined "Arafat Calls U.S. Meeting Very Positive." Given that there is this precedent in your own paper, I would suggest that, to be fair, the Times must either name the killers and their victims, or omit the names of both."

In the larger scheme of the "war" on misinformation, this may not amount to much, but luckily, the story doesn't end there. According to blogger Rick Richman (www.rrichman.blogspot.com), "Blogs have ripples, both known and unknown." It's true; strangers e-mail me, from around the country and beyond, about items I've posted, and just as my blog is filled with links to other sites, some post links to mine. Posts are picked up, linked to and reposted at an astonishing rate.

When this article appears in print, I'll link to it on my blog so that my readers will hear of - and read - The Jewish Press, some of them maybe for the first time. Others can link to it on their blogs as well, while readers of The Jewish Press might wend their way through the blogosphere (just follow the links). In this exponential process lies our only hope.

We can only battle fraudulent bias by getting the truth out as effectively as possible. There is room for everyone in the blogosphere, where your point of view is judged only by the skill of your writing and the merit of your thoughts. And when the conversation is opened, instead of closed, between print media and bloggers, when our efforts are conjoined, I guarantee there will come a synergy that will not be denied. So get your blogs and papers ready. The day has arrived when the established media no longer control and define public discourse.

Someone should tell Daniel Okrent.

Anne Lieberman is a writer and advocate for Israel. Her weblog - Boker Tov Boulder! - is devoted to exposing the obscenity of the murder of Israeli children by Arab terrorists, and to seeing that Israel is treated fairly in the media.

Previous Articles in Front Page

©2012 JewishPress.com All Rights Reserved. |  Contact Us |  About Us