Israel: why pictures don’t tell the whole story | thearticle

Recent reporting from Israel confirms some of the most important problems with TV news. Much of Tom Bateman’s reporting on BBC News featured disturbing images of the rioting by Israeli

settlers: destroyed cars, homes and small businesses on fire, or more, specifically, lurid images of flames and smoke. You can see why Bateman and his cameraman (or woman?) and the editors

of the 6pm and 10pm News couldn’t resist these images. They are so dramatic and so emotive. But what do these pictures actually tell us? Of course, they seem to tell us the story of what

happened. But they only tell part of the story. The pictures of the three young Jewish men (two Israelis, one Israeli-American), all in their 20s, who were murdered are obviously less

dramatic. There is the odd photo of a windscreen with a few bullet holes and one or two stills of these young men. On social media there have been more telling photos: of Palestinians, all

boys or men, celebrating these murders, handing out sweets and cakes to mark what they believe is the good news. You can see why the reporter, the camera crew and the programme editors went

for the pictures of a burning town. But what about other things that weren’t filmed? I have just seen a powerful image from Israel of a car in flames. But then I looked at the caption: “A

car burning in Silwad. Oh, it belonged to Jews.” Or take this news story from _The Times of Israel: _“Israelis donated over NIS 1 million ($272,750) within less than 24 hours for

Palestinians whose homes and businesses were destroyed by hundreds of settlers who carried out a deadly rampage through the northern West Bank town of Huwara on Sunday night.” The BBC’s

Israel correspondent didn’t even mention this story from Tuesday, partly because of the BBC’s anti-Israel bias, but also partly because how would a TV news programme show this gesture of

solidarity? Where are the dramatic pictures? And, finally, we are back with the problem of complexity. This act of generosity goes against the prevailing narrative on British TV news:

Netanyahu’s new government is right-wing and extremist, Israelis are rioting against Palestinians, Israel is out of control. A story about generosity and building bridges just doesn’t fit

the narrative. Then there are other kinds of pictures we never see. We never see Palestinian politicians expressing sadness at the brutal murder of Jewish children in Israel — because, as a

rule, they don’t. The President and Prime Minister of Israel both condemned the violence of Israeli settlers. On Monday Benjamin Netanyahu said, “We will not accept a reality where people…

set homes on fire, burn cars, intentionally harm innocent people. This is exactly what our enemies want to see: a loss of control and a never-ending cycle of blood, fire and smoke.” But

which news editor wants to see pictures of Netanyahu condemning Israeli settler violence? Where’s the human story in that? I don’t agree with people who called the terrible attacks on

Palestinian civilians a “pogrom”. I understand that people call this a pogrom because it involves lawless behaviour by an angry, lawless mob, injuring dozens, destroying homes and

businesses. But “pogrom” is a word used to describe the many massacres of Jews in the Russian Empire in the late 19th century, and by extension other similar atrocities against Jews since

then. How often did the Russian Tsars, ministers or governors apologise to Jewish communities for such violence? More worrying still, using the word “pogrom,” a word associated for more than

a century with antisemitic violence, to condemn violence _by Jews_ leaves a nasty taste. Why “pogrom” and not riot or violence? It is part of a new vocabulary used to tarnish the people of

Israel. Israel, its critics claim, is an “apartheid state.” Have you ever heard anyone call the North African and Middle Eastern states which expelled hundreds of thousands of Jews

“apartheid”? There are no photos or newsreel which could capture the complexities of these issues. Best of all, of course, for TV news editors and reporters are pictures of suffering

children in hospitals, nearly always Palestinian. The pictures tell a thousand words and they are so moving. But what do they tell us? Do they tell us that Hamas have used children as human

shields, knowing that they will be hurt or even killed by Israeli missiles fired in response to some terrorist attack. and even fake images of children being wounded? Only if the reporters

choose to tell us this — which they usually don’t, because of their own prejudices. What gets squeezed out by the dramatic pictures are notions of complexity and contradiction. If the

pictures show burning buildings and the reporter says one Palestinian has been killed, that is dramatic and memorable. If the pictures show a damaged windscreen and the reporter tells us (or

doesn’t) that three Jews have been murdered, that is less vivid. TV news storytelling is all about pictures. The picture from Ukraine that still haunts me is a father saying farewell to his

young family at a station: he touches the train window and leaves his fingerprint on the cold window. It’s a powerful image which seems to tell us a thousand words about all the families

that have been broken up, the terrible loss and grief of countless parents and children. Every such image confirms the faith of news editors and reporters everywhere that news stories must

follow the pictures. Except when they shouldn’t. Either because there are no pictures or the reality is too complicated to capture in a picture. Ultimately, it is for viewers to decide, but

that’s hard if you’re not given the larger context. In other words, if the reporter doesn’t do his or her job. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to

covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So

please, make a donation._