WHILE YOU STAND ON ONE LEG: I sent last week’s #863 to the Philadelphia Inquirer editor identified as the representative to whom to direct news coverage questions and comments. Here are my email, Mr. Sullivan’s response, and my response, as this week’s #864, to him.
This Week From The Philadelphia Inquirer: An Editor’s Response re Headline and Temple Mount
Our last week’s #863 raised two coverage balance issues concerning the Philadelphia Inquirer’s (Inq’s) news report that three Israeli Arabs had murdered two Druze Israeli policemen near the Temple Mount, using weapons they had stored on and retrieved from the Mount.
We said, first, that the Inq should not have headlined its 7/15/17, A4, Washington Post article
“5 Die in Shootout in Israel
“Three gunmen killed two police at a Jerusalem mosque and were shot down”
We said that “shootout” failed to convey to Inquirer readers what the Inq’s Washington Post article’s lede called “a bold attack” on the policemen. (We appended “maybe not so ‘bold,” as one was shot in the back with no warning.) And we added: “Note that identification of the attackers as ‘Arab’ (they were Israeli Arabs) and the victims as ‘Israeli’ (the two murdered policemen were Israeli Druze) made neither the headline nor subhead.”
We said, second, that neither the Washington Post in its article nor the Inquirer in its photo caption should have referred to the Temple Mount as “the Al Aqsa mosque compound.”
Under “Corrections” in its daily “Contact Us” information, the Inquirer directs readers with a question or comment about news coverage to Assistant Managing Editor David Sullivan, giving his mailing address, phone and email. We sent last week’s #863 to dsullivan@phillynews.com, with this covering email:
– – – – –
“Dear Mr. Sullivan:
“We do a weekly media watch on balance in coverage of Israel. We sometimes focus on that of the Philadelphia Inquirer. This week we said that on Saturday the Inquirer should not have headlined what your Washington Post article called a ‘bold attack’ on Israeli policemen as ‘5 Die in Shootout in Israel,’ and that your headline or subheadline should have identified the murderers as Arab and victims as Israeli. We also said that both the Inquirer in its photo caption and WP in its article should have called the Temple Mount the Temple Mount and not ‘Al Aqsa compound.’
“This week’s is attached as a Word doc. If you’d care to respond to our concerns in this #863, we’ll include it for our readers next week.
“We invite you to subscribe to our watch.
“Jerome Verlin, Editor”
– – – – –
On Friday, we received this reply:
– – – – –
“I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you until today – jury duty pushed everything back this week.
“We ran a letter to the editor of criticism of the headline. While a shootout does mean gunfire from two sides, I’d agree that the headline did not accurately communicate the context of what happened, particularly in the headline.
“I would say, however, that if the shooters are identified as ‘Israeli Arabs’ and the police are the police, your suggested identification of the combatants as ‘Arabs’ and ‘Israelis’ doesn’t fit the bill. Otherwise no Arabs are Israeli citizens or residents. And an attack on the police is predominantly an attack on the police regardless of who they are.
“Finally, on the Temple Mount vs. the al-Aqsa Mosque, we’d assume the Post and AP accurately reported where it was. Our copy editors would not presume that they could parse between whether the al-Aqsa mosque compound is on the Temple Mount, separate from it, a subdivision of it – if the caption said it was at the mosque compound, we’d say that and not change it. The Times of Israel would certainly have more direct knowledge and probably a style on that.
“Thanks for writing and again apologies for the delay.
“David Sullivan
“Assistant Managing Editor”
– – – – –
“Sunday, July 23
“Dear Mr. Sullivan:
“Thanks very much for addressing the two Israel coverage balance issues I raised in my email.
“Attached is this week’s #864, which contains this reply on both points.
“’5 Die in Shootout in Israel’ Headline
“I appreciate very much your recognition that ‘shootout’ does not convey ‘bold attack.’ I did see the reader’s letter, Inq-titled “Terrorists Killed Israeli Police,’ which I appreciate the Inq printing and with which, of course, I completely agree.
“The Inq’s headline just called the assailants ‘gunmen.’ Calling them ‘Israeli Arabs’ would have conveyed the context of the attack.
“What drove me to write to you about this headline, Mr. Sullivan, was not this headline standing alone. At times, the Inquirer has headlined Arabs killed in attacking Israelis as ‘Israel Kills Palestinians,’ a step worse than headlining attacks as ‘shootouts.’ I referred you to examples, not that long ago, cited in our #857 and #859. It goes back a long way. E.g., on 4/29/08, the Inq headlined as ‘Israeli Army Shoots Four Palestinians’ its shooting of terrorists whom its AP article quoted Hamas calling its members ‘on a jihad mission.’
“Our #857 noted an abrupt cessation of such Inquirer headlining in February 2016. My hope, expressed in last week’s #863, is that ‘Shootout’ does not herald a return to ‘Israel Kills Palestinians [who were attacking Israelis]’ headlining.
“Calling The Temple Mount ‘the Al-Aqsa Compound’
“The issue is not ‘whether the al-Aqsa mosque compound is on the Temple Mount,’ but what that Temple Mount complex containing the al-Aqsa mosque (and Dome of the Rock, and First and Second Jewish Temple remains), still supported today by Herodian (and in places Hasmonean)-built walls, should be called by newspapers in the United States.
“In last week’s #863, I cited the same AP photograph, captioned as ‘Temple Mount’ by Times of Israel and ‘al-Aqsa mosque compound’ by the Inquirer, as showing that ‘the very name of the holy site is contested.’ At the very least, American papers should reference both names in all references. Adopting ‘al-Aqsa compound’ as the site’s name, appending further down that Jews call it the Temple Mount, is selling out more than the Jews.
“Every term in the mainstream Western media’s loaded lexicon of Arab-Israeli conflict reporting – Israel’s ‘founding’ and ‘creation’ in 1948, ‘West Bank’ [the UN in 1947 called it ‘Samaria and Judea’] and ‘East’ Jerusalem, Israel’s ‘1967 borders,’ ‘occupied’ territories, ‘settlers and settlements’ (used in pointed contrast to ‘residents of Palestinian neighborhoods and villages’), etc. – is a Jewish homeland-delegitimizing pejorative.
“It’s time for all this imbalance to stop.
“I thank you again for getting back to me, Mr. Sullivan. I’ll convey any further comment you may wish to make to our readers.
“Jerome Verlin, Editor”