HR Comment: How Moral Equivalence Erodes Accurate Reporting

Alex Margolin
Honest Reporting
13 April '11

When Judge Richard Goldstone published his famous op-ed reconsidering the Goldstone Report, he – perhaps unintentionally – revealed one of the predominant biases of the Goldstone Committee that produced the report. The committee, it appears, was operating under a deep-set assumption of moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas.

The same bias of moral equivalence can be seen in the coverage of the recent violence between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

While virtually all mainstream news outlets covered the story as an action-reaction, started by Hamas’s attack on an Israeli school bus and carried on by Israel’s retaliatory strikes on targets in Gaza, the coverage gives the misleading impression that Israel and Hamas are morally equal.

What’s left out of the coverage is the element of intentionality. More specifically, it glosses over the reality that Hamas’s intention was to kill Israeli school children and Israel’s intention, in firing back, was to defend its citizens.

The distinction between the two sides is most clearly evident when their intentions are examined. The original, flawed Goldstone Report, however, was so mired by the biases of its authors that no distinctions were made.

(Read full "How Moral Equivalence Erodes Accurate Reporting")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.