Why Editorials Make Bad Sources
- February 27th, 2010
- Posted in Media Coverage . Outreach
- By MFruchtman
- Write comment
This post is mainly a deconstruction of an article that appeared on the twitter feed as a source, and was an editorial. The editorial itself contained a number of factual errors that even five seconds of research could have fixed. This is in no way a criticism of the person who believed this was a decent source, ignorance is to be corrected, not criticized.
The article in particular is located on Al-Jazeera here: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/02/2010225111933403649.html “Israel’s New War Against Islamic Sites”
This is extremely relevant to terrorism and the press because of the idea that incitements promote violence and the press spreads these allegation thereby hurting or helping the creation of demonstrations, riots, and violence. The primary fault I have with Al-Jazeera is that there is no separation on their English website between editorial and their formal articles. This is something I discovered when doing the middle east press presentation research, but never had enough time to share. I don’t know if this is due to Arab culture, media, or tradition, but such an idea is alien to western audience which would like to believe that journalists can be entirely objective. Of course, that isn’t possible, but the idea of mixing in editorial inside the general article section is rather unknown. One can find this though in other Arab papers such as Ma’an, Al-Ahram, and the oftentimes slanderous PressTV.
So what makes an editorial such a bad source? Quite frankly, traditionally, factual errors are allowed in editorial whereas not in standard articles, the level of research is not required to be has high and this causes major problems as demonstrated in that editorial.
The errors start immediately into the editorial:
In a move that appears to be a celebration of the 16th anniversary of the massacre of 29 worshippers by the terrorist Baruch Goldstein, the Israeli government has proclaimed that the Ibrahimi Mosque in Khalil (Hebron) and Masjid Bilal ibn Rabah (mosque) in Bethlehem are “Jewish Heritage sites”.
Immediately, one sees that the author has just claimed that declaring the Cave of the Patriach and Rachel’s Tomb is a celebration of what he claims to be a state sanctioned terrorist rather than the Israeli government was unaware of the date’s significance. The latest Israeli government isn’t exactly known for competence; never assume to malice what can be explained by incompetency. Since this is an insinuation, a balanced article, not an editorial would have removed the above.
Next problem:
It is consistent with the Israelis’ long-standing ambition to dispose of all non-Jewish religious symbols and presence in Palestine.
The Revolt: Menachem Begin
No responsible journalist what put this in article without a quote from an Israeli government or politician with high representation declaring this. To do so is to put motivations to people that aren’t speaking, again, fine in an editorial, not good in an article.
While the Israeli government was announcing the annexation of the Islamic sites, dozens of settlers attempted to storm into Jericho on the pretext that they were visiting an ancient synagogue.
To a journalist this would be an error of omission. As the Jerusalem Post points out http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=169374 the IDF went in and forcibly removed them and were attacked by the settlers. By failing to mention this the author has again assigned motivation to the Israeli government without a statement, not allowed in regular articles, but allowed in editorials.
Hence, David Ben Gurion recorded in his memoirs, The Revolt: “The partition of the Homeland [Israel] is illegal. It will never…
This one was simply stupid and inexcusable even in an editorial. A five second search on Amazon reveals that The Revolt is the autobiography by Menachim Begin, who used to be the terrorist leader of the Irgun and later signed the 1979 peace agreement with Egypt. Seriously, how the heck did the author get this wrong? One only has to go to Amazon to find out.
The Israeli moves come at a time of huge embarrassment for the European patrons of the Zionist project…
Again, the editorial assigns motivation without quotes from important contacts, which seems to be a pattern through this editorial. Putting words in people’s mouths in not acceptable for standard journalism in any respect, but seems to be fine in editorials.
…European Union maintains its proscription of Hamas as a “terrorist organisation”, they are yet to produce any evidence that the organisation has carried out a single military operation outside Occupied Palestine.
Always more problems as an article that slips by because it is an editorial. Clearly attempted attacks in Jordan http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3243639,00.html, or killing border guards in Egypt http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/07/content_12767360.htm. I could also do a thing on the meaning behind calling all of Israel “Occupied Palestine,” but I won’t open that can of worms. Seriously, did the person who wrote this editorial even try to do proper research and stop assigning motivations to people? I am sure you’re noticing by now that using this as a source in a paper would be a bad idea, an essay is only as good as the source – and this source is terrible.
Meanwhile, in April 2009 the same authorities took a huge stone from the Khatouniyah Palace and embedded it in the square in front of the Knesset, claiming that this was a stone from the “Second Temple”.
More problems with this, I don’t even know what Khatouniyah Palace is? Neither does Google actually, which only list 13 sites that mention such a thing, and that includes this article – and perhaps 14 after google indexes this post. It seems to be some reference to Ninenveh and Babylon, which is bizarre. As Israel is legally in a state of war with Iraq and Syria there is no way that anyone could smuggle out a multi-ton stone. This must be a rumor from someplace, but definitely not in any reputable news organization. This event could not be found in any newspaper. Seems to be just another factual error.
…other items were taken to warehouses run by the Israeli antiquities department in the Rockefeller Museum, ironically the former Palestine Archaeological Museum. It is believed that the Islamic relics will be given cosmetic treatment and then reappear, miraculously, as “Jewish” relics. We know this because it’s not the first time that this has been done.
This one isn’t an obvious error, unless you know the region fairly well (which I just so happen to know this case due to pure luck visiting the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in San Diego). The now-named Rockefeller Museum is one of the sites that the Dead Sea Scrolls are preserved and are likely, but can’t confirm to what the author is referring too. But considering that Jordan and PA has tried to sue Canada http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/284978 over them. The other bit of fail in this editorial is that both the Jews and Arabs were referred to as Palestinian before 1948, when the museum was called the Palestine Archaeological Museum. So the author needs a history lesson, that’s no big deal, such mistakes are actually fairly common in editorials.
There are probably other errors, but I wouldn’t know about them in such a short span of time. But I think this is enough to show why quoting editorials is generally not a good idea in sourcing for essays. The level of requirements of factual details is much much lower. Generally, if a mistake is made in an article, corrections come out within a few days. In comparison, in the corrections section of the New York Times I have never seen a correction regarding the editorial section. I highly doubt the editorial section of even the NYTimes is so good to not make factual mistakes. But in the interests of allowing authors to express their opinions, sacrifices to accuracy are made to allow freedom of opinion that editorials do. That’s fine, just don’t use them for sources.
Bad editorials give credence to terrorism as seen in N.Ireland, Israel-Palestine, Columbia, and Saudi Arabia among lots and lots of examples. Heck, one can consider the Danish cartoons of Mohammed as editorials and look at the aftermath of that episode was extreme violence. News organization allow factual errors to published in editorials deliberately in the interest of freedom of speech – but don’t use them as sources.
First, I think this post makes some very good points about applying careful scrutiny to sources. Also, it points out a very comical error made by the author who incorrectly attributes a quote to David Ben-Gurion. Overall, it does a wonderful job of explaining the differences between hard journalism and op-ed pieces. The first presents (or ought to present) nothing more than the confirmed facts about a story, while the second offers an opinion, a perspective.
However, I think it is important to not condemn an op-ed based on the fact that it doesn’t measure up to rubric of journalism. As I mentioned earlier, this editorial contains a ridiculous factual error by misattributing a quotation. If the author had been paying closer attention, he would have gave Menachem that quote on the partition and gave Ben-Gurion this closely related one: “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” The mistake has no excuse.
However, I think it’s important to remember that the majority of the criticisms in the post highlight why the editorial is not a piece of investigative journalism while not taking away from its value as an editorial piece. In my opinion, the value of an editorial is presenting a perception or opinion of an event, policy, etc. While the Israeli government may have been incompetent in their timing of the announcement of the Jewish Heritage sites, it’s important to realize that many who honor and remember the date of the massacre perceived the Israeli announcement as blatant insensitivity or even insult.
The same can be said of this quote “It is consistent with the Israelis’ long-standing ambition to dispose of all non-Jewish religious symbols and presence in Palestine.” While that may not be the officially voiced Israeli policy, the people who are affected by the Israeli government’s actions feel as if those repeated actions are an attempt to remove anything Palestinian from those lands.
It may seem juvenile, but an important part of conflict resolution is realizing how one party’s actions affect another. This is seen in the classic questions, “X did this, how did it make you feel Y?” and “Y did this, how did that make you feel X?”
While the actions of a person, group, or state may have certain intended effects, it is important to understand the way those actions are perceived by others. News articles explain the event, but an editorial sheds light on how people are reacting to that event. I feel that it’s important to pay attention to these reactions as we try to understand the broad story behind something as complex as the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
On a side note, I’ve also noticed that Al Jazeera doesn’t have a clearly marked section on their website for editorials, however this particular article was labeled as opinion at the very top of the articles page. Also, at the end of the article was the following: “Daud Abdullah is the director of the Middle East Monitor- an independent media research institution founded in the United Kingdom to foster a fair and accurate coverage in the Western media of Middle Eastern issues and in particular the Palestine Question.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.”
In my opinion, that’s pretty clear disclosure that what the reader just read was indeed an opinion piece.
So, in closing, I think it’s important to remember both the value news articles and editorials. Each serve different purposes and shed light on issues in different ways. Furthermore, anyone wanting to gain a broad view of any issue will look at multiple articles and editorials from many different sources.
Note: for more info on “diplomatic therapy,” or the idea of addressing how state actions affect populations and working to fix the negative effects, read this editorial from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26strenger.html?ref=opinion
I am afraid that you must also be more careful of your sources. That quote you took from Ben Gurion was cut up to appear that way.
The actual quote appears in an interview in 1952. The quote you got it from was no doubt parroting Walt and Mearsheimer long debunked “The Israel Lobby” paper from 2007 that was peppered with a very high number of errors. The misuse of that incorrect quote you used was noted by the Jewish magazine Forward “They twisted quotes. David Ben-Gurion was cited as having stated in 1937 that he opposed the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states — drawn from a famous speech in which he went on to say that, nonetheless, partition was the best that Zionism could hope for and should be seized with open arms.” http://www.forward.com/articles/11461/
The actual quote goes like this:
Mr. Ben-Gurion: The starting point for a solution of the question of the Arabs in the Jewish State is, in his view, the need to prepare the ground for an Arab-Jewish agreement; he supports [the establishment of] the Jewish State [on a small part of Palestine], not because he is satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we constitute a large force following the establishment of the state – we will cancel the partition [of the country between Jews and Arabs] and we will expand throughout the Land of Israel.
Mr. Shapira [a JAE member]: By force as well?
Mr. Ben-Gurion: [No]. Through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement. So long as we are weak and few the Arabs have neither the need nor the interest to conclude an alliance with us… And since the state is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it must prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement – we are obliged to run the state in such a way that will win us the friendship of the Arabs both within and outside the state.(Efraim Karsh, “Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion and the ‘Transfer’ Idea,” Israel Affairs, V4, No. 2, Winter 1997, p52-53)
There’s a list of fake of Israeli quotes here that are often used, be careful to avoid these:
http://www.jewishblogging.com/blog.php?bid=190761
http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionist_quotes.htm (Halfway down the page)
http://www.thestar.com/article/678245 (this one was really common for nearly a decade)
When stating anything in Israel-Palestine know your sources, the amount of partisan nonsense out there would fill a building bigger than the Memorial Union.
Please be careful when going into Israel-Palestine in the future, I know it is emotional for some. That’s why I kept my essay here on a journalistic basis only. I did not question the argument presented in the article; I will keep my opinion of that to myself. I merely wished to point out why people should avoid using editorials as sources was was done on the #terropress twitter feed by using the above as why.
You stated, “While the actions of a person, group, or state may have certain intended effects, it is important to understand the way those actions are perceived by others.”
Yes, that is correct but many don’t, but ignorance is not a motivation. For instance, there are a number of Arizona republican legislators that wish to allow guns in bars. I personally find that atrocious due to the possibility of someone drunk grabbing the gun. I don’t assign the motivation that the legislators want drunk people to start shooting each other, which is a possible motivation, but very wrong. That is why assigning motivation without a direct statement is utterly wrong. Stating that they shouldn’t be ignorant is not helpful criticism, what needs to be pointed out is why.
Ignorance is state of being, and as I mentioned, the author of the editorial attributed motivation from personal opinion rather than statements supporting his position.
You’re right about I should have made it more clear Al-Jazeera does mark it as an editorial – but only on the tutorial page itself. The point still stands that in their article feed the editorials in the list are not marked. At the very least, that might lead to inflated page hit counts. I personally, did not see the part marked editorial at the top until you pointed out to me, though I did see at the bottom.
First, I apologize for the misquote. I should have looked into what the full quote said. However, the quote that you posted doesn’t seem to be substantially different than the one I used.
Mine: “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”
Corrected version: ” he (Ben-Gurion) supports [the establishment of] the Jewish State [on a small part of Palestine], not because he is satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we constitute a large force following the establishment of the state – we will cancel the partition [of the country between Jews and Arabs] and we will expand throughout the Land of Israel.”
then it continues..
“Mr. Shapira [a JAE member]: By force as well?
Mr. Ben-Gurion: [No]. Through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement. So long as we are weak and few the Arabs have neither the need nor the interest to conclude an alliance with us… And since the state is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it must prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement – ”
To me, the beginning portions of both quotes are essentially the same. However, the second part of the quote does clarify that there is not a plan to use force to expand through Palestine/Israel. Despite, Israel continued to expand through new settlements without Jewish-Arab agreement on said expansion. I’ll be honest, I haven’t done hours of research on it, but I have a feeling that all of the Palestinian homes that have been demolished have not been demolished with full Jewish-Arab agreement. Otherwise, there probably wouldn’t be activists from around the world trying to stop those bulldozers, even dying in some cases. I honestly hope that doesn’t sound too emotional or unfair.
With regard to attributing motivation, I would agree with you that declaring someone else’s intent for them is unfair. I think the author of the original editorial avoids doing so in his first comment, “In a move that appears to be a celebration of the 16th anniversary of the massacre…” by saying “it appears.” That is a clear indication of his perception, his opinion.
However, the author is in error when he states the actions are “consistent with the Israelis’ long-standing ambition to dispose of all non-Jewish religious symbols and presence in Palestine.” That statement can’t be solidly proven without some sort of official statement. The author made the comment within the context of an editorial, but I would agree that it still oversteps acceptable bounds.
Still, I hold to my previous argument that it is important to pay attention to these perceptions and opinions, to understand where they come from. I am by no means an enemy of the State of Israel and I wish no ill-will or negative things upon it. I fully support the idea of two states existing side by side in harmony. I think that one of the smartest steps Israel could take towards reaching that situation would be to make it incredibly clear that Israel does not have any ambitions to erase all-things-Palestinian from that land. They ought to come out and clearly state that these types of statements are completely false and use their actions to show it as well. That way, there would no longer be any grounds for Palestinians to think these things. It’s true that the Israeli government was probably just ignorant about the date of the announcement, but given the damages at stake, it seems to be folly not to have someone in charge of making sure these mistakes don’t happen. Ben-Gurion himself discussed the importance of “run[ning] the state in such a way that will win us the friendship of the Arabs both within and outside the state.”
Much in the same chord, Palestinians need to come out and clearly state that they too have no desire to drive the Israelis out of the land. That way, Israelis would stop perceiving them as such a threat to their security. The problem of perceptions runs deep on both sides. In my opinion, the best way to counteract the problems created by these perceptions is to: 1) don’t ignore these opinions, they are part of a cultural narrative used to understand the world in which people live; 2) work hard to understand what is driving people to these conclusions 3)actively work to change those misperceptions by giving evidence to the contrary.
In closing, I just want to reemphasize that I’m not approaching the matter in an emotional way. And I also want you to know that I respect your thoughts very much, I think they are useful contributions to the discussion on this issue and terrorism in general. I certainly come to these debates with an open mind and try to weigh both sides evenly. As a human being, I admit I make mistakes. But, my goal with these discussions is to learn things and explore ideas. With that in mind, I look forward to more opportunities to share and learn.
I do not think that there is very much ignorance to be corrected. I knew what I was doing when I posted that article.
Opinion columns are perhaps not the best place to gather one’s facts from. However, I’ve found that they are a perfect source for… opinion. It’s not the events that are described in this article that I was/am interested in, but rather the article itself (this being a class on the press and all).
I think you may have bit onto this a bit more strongly than I expected, though.
I understand that your blog post was primarily on the factual errors of the article I tweeted, rather than the content of the opinion people, but I am curious:
Who do you think the intended audience is? This is on the English part of Al-Jazeera, so I can’t directly assume that this is for the Arab Street’s consumption.
He is sourcing several things incorrectly, but do you think people believe him? Do you think that said people are those who do not know better, or those who already live in the reality he describes?
Do you think he has a political motivation? Do you think he is trying to create a result on the street? Do you think he is writing what he believes?
Anyway, see you in class on Monday.
Well, I specifically did the portion on the middle east presentation on the audience. So I suspect I can do a reasonable guess to that, but by no means will it be correct or just one of several applicable theories.
“Who is the intended audience?”
Well, as I mentioned, due to the low development rate and 1%< know English, it is for English foreigner consumption – which tend to be more highly educated than the average populace.
"Do you think people believe him?"
Who knows? I cannot take an opinion poll. Personally, due to the history of this conflict it will largely fall on partisan lines. Most react negatively to the accusatory tone presented here. What do you think would happen in class if someone accused me of being an ideologue? I guarantee at least several would take sides regardless of evidence for or against, same as any conflict.
"Do you think he has a political motivation?"
Anyone who writes a partisan, or even a mainstream editorial on Israel-Palestine has a political motivation. One of those unfortunate side-effects of seemingly intractable problems.
"Do you think he is trying to create a result on the street?"
No, the audience is distinctly English high education. I believe this group is largely similar to Nixon's old "Silent Majority" that expresses themselves largely through voting and charitable donations they believe are worth causes. The audience is too varied to affect a street situation.
"Do you think he is writing what he believes?"
No clue, one would think if he really cared he would do better sourcing. Though he might simply have a bad habit of keeping track of his sources.