The Media Accountability Project  

"There is a huge issue with the asymmetrical nature of the video used in the segment, which exclusively used video sourced from the Israeli army, which was specifically released for Israeli public relations purposes. It is a serious ethical issue if the party which is accused of a violent attack is also allowed to provide the sole visual representation of that event. It is your responsibility as professional journalists to provide a balanced report."

Below the short article it states: “The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.” This is false. The article is a shortened, verbatim version of another The Epoch Times article published online written by a staff journalist, Andrew Thornebrooke.[i] I believe this is a serious breach of journalistic ethics, as it misleads readers into believing this was authored by AP or Reuters. As it stands, it appears as if The Epoch Times is masquerading an in-house story as one by the AP and Reuters.

"Israeli settlers did not just burn and vandalize 'hundreds of vehicles and buildings' as you claim in your introduction. Over a period of four hours, more than 400 settlers torched at least 75 Palestinian homes, 35 of which were destroyed completely. In fact, at least nine families reportedly had to be rescued from their burning homes. Although the settlers announced their intention to commit this horrific crime, Israeli forces allowed them to enter the towns freely and did not intervene until hours after the start of the violence. By solely reporting on the vehicles and buildings impacted, you are minimizing the human cost of what many are calling a 'pogrom' against Palestinians."

"However, there is an unjustified asymmetry in how Israeli and Palestinian casualties are reported. While the three Israelis who were killed in two incidents are mentioned in the headline and first paragraphs of the article, it is not until the 14^th paragraph until you mention that a Palestinian was killed during the Israeli settler attack on Huwara (Hawara) and surrounding villages. The killing of Sameh al-Aqtash, who is unnamed in the article, is the immediate context for today’s retaliatory attack on an Israeli motorist, and this should have featured prominently in the story."

"Your report was inaccurate and misleading. You fail to mention that at least one Palestinian was killed, four others were badly wounded, and around 100 were injured in the settler attack. Given that you mention the killing of two Israelis, it is not only fair, but necessary to mention the Palestinians killed or injured. This is an alarming omission and violates the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics. I am prepared to make a formal complaint."

The article, although very brief, cites four different Israeli sources including “Israeli officials,” “Israel’s military,” “a settlements spokesperson” and the “Israeli army.” The article does not specify whether the fifth source, “medical officials,” is Palestinian or Israeli. The article does not include even one Palestinian source.

By excluding Palestinian sources and perspectives and citing only Israeli sources, your article presents as deeply biased to your readers. The Cape Breton Post has a journalistic responsibility and obligation to provide both perspectives in this article. Following the Canadian Association of Journalists’ (CAJ) ethics guidelines on diversity, news organizations and journalists should seek to “include views from all segments of the population.”

Settlers set homes on fire with families still inside. The majority of injuries were a result of tear gas fired by the Israeli army and smoke inhalation from widespread fires set by the settlers. This horrific event of settler terror must be described for what it is: a pogrom.

In the case of Tuesday morning’s 8:00 a.m. news slot, you highlight the story of an American citizen from Connecticut who was killed by Palestinians.  One might reasonably ask, “What was an American citizen from Connecticut doing outside Nablus, a large Palestinian city in the West Bank, territory slated to be part of a future Palestinian state?”  In fact, the individual killed was not only an American citizen, but also an illegal Israeli “settler.”  Since 1967, when Israel militarily occupied the West Bank through war, Israel has been colonizing (“settling”) Palestinian territory, and to date, there are over 700,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank.  Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention – the international law applying to situations of war and occupation – strictly forbids the colonization of occupied territory.  As you can imagine, the indigenous Palestinians in this land are highly threatened by presence of 700,000 (and growing) illegal Israeli settlers.  Frequent confrontations and violence are the result.

Your Feb. 16 article in the Globe and Mail, "Palestinians sense a new intifada coming as young people focus their anger on Israel's resurgent right," did an excellent job of giving space for Palestinian perspectives. I welcome this development, which helps restore some balance to our national conversations. It’s important to note that your Feb. 16 regularly included significant space for Israeli perspectives as well, with quotes from people from different parts of Israeli society.

While the article represented an honest effort at meeting journalistic expectations around fair and balanced reporting, I would have hoped the same approach would be taken going forward. Unfortunately, the article published on February 22 almost entirely excluded the Palestinian perspective. Only twice does a Palestinian perspective come into the picture, and both times in a very limited fashion.

There are a few issues with this article. First, it fails to provide a single Palestinian perspective for an article which is all about anti-Palestinian racism. Second, the article lacks any discussion or explanation of the meaning of the term, “Nakba,” or what it means for Palestinians; nor does it include a definition of anti-Palestinian racism