‘Washington Post’ relies on Israel lobby group for statistical graphic about blockade

on 15 Comments

Our media are broken, corrupted. Look at these Washington Post graphics on the blockade of Gaza. For info, the Post credits the Israel Project, the Israel Defense Forces, and Gisha: Legal Center for freedom of Movement. That’s nuts. The IDF is a foreign army, and the Israel Project is an Israel lobby group that serves up propaganda over easy. You will say that Gisha is a Palestinian-solidarity group, but it is in the end an NGO, and an Israeli one, which, shockingly, seeks freedom of movement for an ethnic minority. Once again, we see the lobby’s influence in American discourse. Pervasive. Hard to say where it stops. I didn’t spot this: Matt Duss did.

15 Responses

  1. James
    June 1, 2010, 9:58 am

    it’s a full throttled propaganda outlet… most folks know this…

  2. Colin Murray
    June 1, 2010, 10:01 am

    The next thing is to identify who in the media are making these calls, and their political affiliations. Who in the WP made the decision to use the Israel Project and IDF sources? Are they members of AIPAC or other Zionist organizations?

    All members of the press are public players, and hence are completely fair game for scrutiny of their professional activity. Editors and anonymous writers should be identified, and asked to explain the reasons for their decisions.

    • James
      June 1, 2010, 10:04 am

      don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them????????????

  3. DICKERSON3870
    June 1, 2010, 10:26 am

    RE: “Our media are broken, corrupted. Look at these Washington Post graphics” – Weiss
    MY COMMENT: “Everyone knows” about Fred Hiatt and The Washington Post!

  4. lareineblanche
    June 1, 2010, 10:46 am

    “Our media are broken, corrupted.”
    Yes they are, Phil. For me, this is one of the main reasons the situation has endured for so long – people simply accept the narrative they are spoon fed. Who has the time to look all this up? It’s difficult to establish who are trustworthy sources of information, but they exist.

    I think most journalists simply know very little about their subject (especially in the ME), and simply don’t want to know. They aren’t all bad people, but they are intellectually lazy, and mostly fear biting the hand that feeds them.

    Here’s an excellent article by Jonathan Cook about the print media for anyone who has the time :
    link to medialens.org

  5. hophmi
    June 1, 2010, 11:07 am

    Excuse me, but what about the actual graphic do you object to? It doesn’t seem very propagandistic to me.

    • James
      June 1, 2010, 11:17 am

      yer part of the propaganda, so it is much harder for you to see..

      • hophmi
        June 1, 2010, 11:21 am

        Can’t you simply answer the question?

    • sherbrsi
      June 1, 2010, 11:23 am

      It doesn’t seem very propagandistic to me.

      The fact that it is citing a Hasbara group (Israel Project), and the very military that is imposing the illegal and inhumane blockade as its primary sources in question, doesn’t strikes as propagandist to you?

    • Donald
      June 1, 2010, 11:26 am

      One of those extremely rare occasions where I agree with you. I might be missing something. Seriously, I might be missing something. But I just looked at the graph and the words and it didn’t seem “pro-Israel”.

      What was misleading or false about the graphic?

      • sherbrsi
        June 1, 2010, 11:29 am

        Donald, the graphic uses a pro-Israel advocacy group (more commonly known as Hasbara) and the IDF itself for statistics on a very controversial issue, as its two primary sources.

        It’s called having a conflict of interests, and it is a sign of propaganda journalism on WaPo’s part itself.

      • Donald
        June 1, 2010, 11:33 am

        Yeah, I caught that part. Going back to the graphic, though, I’m having second thoughts. The list of banned items could use improvement, to emphasize the sheer arbitrary nature of some of what is banned, for instance. Instead, they say some items are banned on a “case by case basis”, which makes it sound reasonable. And they give a more detailed list of what is allowed than of what is banned. So there is a bias there.

  6. Chu
    June 1, 2010, 11:34 am

    There should be graphics that show how the blockade is forcing death, disease and migration away from this strip of land.

    I don’t think Israel is going to let Gaza remain. This remnant of dispossessed people stuffed into a tiny corner is a reminder that the entire founding of the state has left a majority of former residents packed into a huge fucking ghetto. It’s a cobweb for them.
    They want it gone, erased from their history.

    link to globalresearch.ca
    The Invasion of Gaza: “Operation Cast Lead”, Part of a Broader Israeli Military-Intelligence Agenda

  7. MHughes976
    June 1, 2010, 11:50 am

    I’m not sure that there can be a purely factual and neutral discussion of such things. That said, I would have liked to see at least an estimate of how the volume of goods delivered relates to the volume needed, though of course any estimate could be challenged and ‘needed’ is open to a lot of interpretation. I don’t think it’s true that Israel is trying to isolate the Hamas government or leadership: it’s trying to get them removed by isolating the people. The meaning of blocking some goods, presumably those normally on the permitted list, on a case by case basis is that the supply situation is made unpredictable, which itself must be an important aspect of life in Gaza. This is something I’d have liked a ‘how it works’ graphic or summary to mention.
    I wouldn’t have called the graphic a big, stark lie but it would be fair to say that it is at least slightly weighted the Israeli way, so that a reader is likely to think that ‘there is no humanitarian crisis’, which is what some Israeli spokespersons, applying their own value judgements, have said.

  8. Susan Johnson
    June 1, 2010, 12:14 pm

    The Washington Post: ….”Everyone or most” may apply to Mondoweiss readers and knowledge of the Washington Post and their propaganda. It certainly doesn’t mean “everyone” or “most” in the US….forget it…they don’t even know the Washington Post exists.
    We aren’t using very good sense when saying “everyone” believes, knows, approves, dis-approves. This is a set up for trouble and a false sense of security.
    I’m always amazed when someone I thought was knowledgeable about a subject ends up not having a clue. about it….it’s even worse for me when I realize they don’t care.

Leave a Reply