H/T Margie
A recent report by Just Journalism on the UK media’s coverage of the Middle East demonstrated that, at the Guardian, coverage of Egypt, Libya and Tunisia combined doubled in 2010 (due to the upheavals inspired by the “Arab Spring”) but still fell far short of the total coverage of Israel; News reporting about Israel was nearly six times the volume of the next most reported Arab country, Egypt; Comment pieces on Egypt, Libya and Tunisia combined to less than half those published about Israel; Sixteen editorials were published on Israel, whereas none were published on Egypt, Libya or Tunisia.
Of course, it’s possible that the Guardian’s disproportionate coverage of Israel merely reflects the broader obsession in the world with anything Jewish or Israeli, in which case the Guardian may be cynically exploiting this sentiment to drive up web traffic.
Indeed, if you visit CiF ‘s Middle East section today, you’ll find three pieces highlighted (under “Editor’s Picks”): One about the war in Libya, one about Syria’s continuing bloody crackdown against civilians protesting the regime, and one about Israel’s recent anti-BDS legislation.
As you can see in the snapshot of the page below, the commentary on Israel has generated over three times the number of reader comments than the two other pieces (about Libya and Syria, two nations currently at war) combined, despite the fact that British troops (under NATO) are directly involved in the Libyan conflict.
More broadly, I recently corresponded with the Guardian readers’ editor, Chris Elliot, to inquire about the Guardian’s disproportionate coverage of Israel, in the context of the Just Journalism report, and his answer was, I think, quite revealing. He said:
“Israel/Palestine is one of the most intractable conflicts in the world, the effects or which are felt throughout a very large part of the world. It is entirely reasonable that the Guardian, an internationalist newspaper, should devote a great deal of coverage to the issue.”
As I responded to Mr. Elliot, however, no matter how “intractable” the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, it actually pales in comparison to other “intractable” conflicts throughout the world in terms of number of people killed.
While I don’t realistically expect the Guardian to cover the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (over 5 million killed since 1991) with the same level of intensity they devote to the I-P Conflict (far less than 10,000 casualties), it’s quite curious that, within their main CiF page, there isn’t even a link to Africa related commentaries.
There’s a very interesting site, called Stealth Conflicts, for those interested in holding the Guardian, and the rest of the mainstream media, accountable to standards of coverage based on evidence, and not merely the arbitrary (or ideologically and/or financially driven) desires of the sites’ editors, and becoming familiar with the information contained in the table below (on conflict death tolls throughout the world since the end of The Cold War) from the site, is a great place to start.
|
Conflict |
Death Toll |
|
Democratic Republic of Congo |
5,400,000 |
|
Southern Sudan |
1,200,000 |
|
Angola |
800,000 |
|
Rwanda |
800,000 |
|
Afghanistan |
500,000 |
|
Somalia |
400,000 |
|
Iraq |
400,000 |
|
Burundi |
300,000 |
|
Darfur |
300,000 |
|
Zaire |
300,000 |
|
Liberia |
200,000 |
|
Algeria |
150,000 |
|
Ethiopia-Eritrea |
100,000 |
|
Chechnya |
100,000 |
|
Uganda |
100,000 |
|
Sierra Leone |
50,000 |
|
Kashmir |
50,000 |
|
Colombia |
50,000 |
|
Sri Lanka |
50,000 |
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina |
50,000 |
|
Philippines |
20,000 |
|
Turkey |
20,000 |
|
Nigeria |
20,000 |
|
Gulf War |
20,000 |
|
Azerbaijan |
20,000 |
|
Bougainville |
20,000 |
|
Cote d’Ivoire |
10,000 |
|
Congo, Republic of |
10,000 |
|
Peru |
10,000 |
|
Aceh |
10,000 |
|
Myanmar |
10,000 |
|
Nepal |
10,000 |
|
Croatia |
10,000 |
|
Kosovo |
10,000 |
|
Kurdish Iraq |
10,000 |
|
Southern Iraq |
10,000 |
|
Senegal |
< 10,000 |
|
Guinea |
< 10,000 |
|
Chad |
< 10,000 |
|
Mali |
< 10,000 |
|
Niger |
< 10,000 |
|
Central African Republic |
< 10,000 |
|
Haiti |
< 10,000 |
|
Mexico |
< 10,000 |
|
Israel-Palestine |
< 10,000 |
|
Israel-Lebanon |
< 10,000 |
|
Yemen |
< 10,000 |
|
Andrha Pradesh |
< 10,000 |
|
Gujurat |
< 10,000 |
|
Northeast India |
< 10,000 |
|
East Timor |
< 10,000 |
|
Irian Jaya |
< 10,000 |
|
Kalimantan |
< 10,000 |
|
Molucca Islands |
< 10,000 |
|
Sulawesi |
< 10,000 |
|
Georgia |
< 10,000 |
|
Moldova |
< 10,000 |
|
Northern Ireland |
< 10,000 |
|
Spain |
< 10,000 |







13 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 14, 2011 at 9:16 am
SarahLeah
Has the link to this been forwarded to Rusbridger, Whitaker and Kath Viner? I think you should do so. I mean, they know their audience and all about driving up web traffic.
July 14, 2011 at 11:25 am
JerusalemMite
True. But I wonder how many people in the Democratic republic of the Congo read The Guardian.
I can imagine that that would be the answer of Rusbridger.
However, the screen shot does really demonstrate the sheer obsession of the Guardian and attendant CiFallists with Israel. The article about MacDonald and falafel was a scream. How many Guardian readers are actually interested in what is served in MacDonald in Israel?
Talk about delusional.
July 14, 2011 at 9:31 am
mostly harmless
‘the commentary on Israel has generated over three times the number of reader comments than the two other pieces’
Sounds like the Fox News trick, get loads of fellow hasbaraniks to comment on CIF then complain that there are too many comments on CIF. Genius if it wasn’t so transparent.
July 14, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Dom
I don’t think anyone who isn’t plain obsessed honestly thinks “hasbaraniks” are that effective. I also don’t think anyone who has ever visited cif comments will accept your explanation. It is people such as yourself commenting against Israel who make up the overwhelming majority of responses.
July 14, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Mitnaged
You’re projecting, moistly. Many anti-Israel obsessives do that and are delusional to boot.
And I’ve just seen your web page. I am writing a paper on delusional hatred. May I quote from your website?
July 15, 2011 at 8:46 am
Groovy Times
MH, what is clearly transparent is your obsessive paranoia that sees a Jewish / Zionist conspiracy at every turn, and the self-delusion that you possess the intellectual clout to expose them. Your anti-Semitic theories serve only to satisfy your own self-importance and expose your visceral prejudices and pomposity.
July 15, 2011 at 10:28 am
pretzelberg
You are saying the only reason for the sheer volume of comments is CiFWatch actively dispatching people to CiF threads???
Come off it.
July 14, 2011 at 1:33 pm
philiph35
Part of the reason for the flow of articles on Israel might be that there are more Guardian people or correspondents there. All of these people have to produce stuff to justify their postings. How many Harriet Sherwoods are there in the Congo or even Egypt or Syria? It would be good to have figures on a country by country basis
One should also ask why so many journalists are therein Israel in the first place (assuming they are). Part of the answer must be that it is safe and easy. But the more dangerous one just refers you back to intractable conflict, greatest threat to world peace, apartheid, fascism …. A dangerous set up is thus positively reinforced.
July 14, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Yohoho
One does wonder why they actually have to be in Israel. After all, I could make up any number of fairy stories about life on the moon without actually having to travel there and there’d be people gullible to believe them, particularly those who read CiF.
Of course, they’d probably say that I’d been sent there to spy it out for Jewish colonisation
July 14, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Gerald
philiph35,
“How many Harriet Sherwoods are there…?”
You mean there could be more than one? Oh Shit!!
July 14, 2011 at 3:33 pm
tlozuk
Let’s not entertain the “no Guardian readers in Congo” excuse because according to places like the Guardian and their readers, they pride themselves on exposing “atrocities”, “racism” and “fascism”.
It’s also relatively safe and comfortable in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Even if they were allowed into these war-torn African countries, I doubt you’d see hundreds of NGOs spring up with hundreds of international activists arriving to “confront fascism” etc.This further emphasizes the point that the media/activist campaigns against Israel are not about “human rights” and “atrocities” because if they were, then places like Congo should have seen ten times the attention that Israel has.
If people believe Israel is the benchmark for attention, then places like Congo, Somalia & Sudan have been SEVERELY under reported. If people believe the attention that African conflicts received is the benchmark then Israel has been SEVERELY over reported. Either way it’s not right and highlights a disgusting and harmful hypocrisy.
July 15, 2011 at 3:38 am
pretzelberg
As you can see in the snapshot of the page below, the commentary on Israel has generated over three times the number of reader comments than the two other pieces (about Libya and Syria, two nations currently at war) combined, despite the fact that British troops (under NATO) are directly involved in the Libyan conflict.
But how many BTL posters are actually British? And if you look at the thread to the Strenger piece, a fair proportion of comments are pro-Israel. Plus on the first page of comments, the one with the most recommends is pro-Israel (quincy1976).
Of course, it’s possible that the Guardian’s disproportionate coverage of Israel merely reflects the broader obsession in the world with anything Jewish or Israeli
And nothing to do with I/P being a hotspot of global importance? Or Israel being an ally of the West?
July 15, 2011 at 10:37 am
Thank God I'm An Infidel
pretzels,
Defeating islamofascism is of global importance.