14/8/97
Right
or wrong, Right or Left
You
don't read this newspaper
because it is (a) a
right-wing rag (b) a
left-wing rag
(c)
it's a stupid question
because obviously you're
reading this newspaper.
Having
worked here lo these
many years, I've heard
it all. In any given
week, half the people
who provide their unsolicited
opinions want to know
how I could work for
such a right-wing paper.
The other half want
to know how I could
work for such a left-wing
paper.
After
14 years of hearing
this sort of thing,
I suspect we might be
putting out two editions,
each the political opposite
of the other, though
nobody has ever mentioned
this to the staff.
Or
maybe everyone's right.
Maybe
the Post is too Left
for the righties, too
Right for the lefties,
which theoretically
puts us right smack
in the Center. But that's
not possible, because
in Israel there is no
Center.
Anyhoo,
I figure it's time to
resolve the issue here
and now.
I
asked around the newsroom.
Are we Left?
Half
the staffers said yes,
half said no.
Are
we Right? Same response,
but the other way round.
Then
I sought out just the
Canadian staffers, because
Canadians are renowned
for seeing all points
of view. Half of them
said maybe; half, maybe
not.
Half
the people in Lower
Galilee live on hills
and are higher up than
the half in the Upper
Galilee who live in
valleys. In other words,
that's just the way
things are.
Same
with the Post.
Finally,
it hit me: where to
find the answer is in
the newspaper itself.
Specifically, the headlines.
For
the sake of this study,
I examined headlines
from the past few weeks.
ג€Barak praises PM for opposing plan.ג€ A politically
correct headline. Righties
will have understood
that to mean the PM
was praised, lefties
that the PM opposed
the plan.
ג€Mordechai sits out budget vote.ג€ Obviously slanted.
It could just as easily
have read ג€Budget vote
held without Mordechai.ג€
ג€Opposition wins no-confidence vote, 49-44.ג€ If we
were such leftists this
would have read ג€Likud
regime loses vote....ג€
On the other hand, if
we were rightists, the
story would not have
run.
ג€Palestinian cities off-limits to Israelis.ג€ Too anti-Palestinian.
Better would have been
ג€Israelis to remain
in Israeli cities.ג€
In
the same vein, we could
have made the PM look
a bit better by rewording
the headline ג€Premier
cancels US tripג€ to
ג€Premier stays home.ג€
ג€PM: Peace process in danger.ג€ If a PM propagandist
were an editor here,
he might have written
that differently: ג€PM
worried about peace
process.ג€
ג€Suha Arafat intervenes in Hebron monastery dispute.ג€
Ditto. If we were pro-Palestinian,
Suha would have ג€helpedג€
or ג€mediatedג€ or ג€resolvedג€
the dispute. ג€Intervenesג€
makes her look like
a meddling yente.
ג€Crisis lingers after Levy, PM meet.ג€ Is that anti-Right
or what? It would be
not untrue to simplify
that to ג€Levy, PM meet.ג€
ג€Survey: 1/3 of university students try drugs.' A
classic. Plays right
into the hands of Israel-bashers.
A truly Zionist headline
writer would have rendered
that: ג€2/3 of university
students don't try drugs.ג€
Do
two negatives make a
positive? Not in headline
writing. ג€Gov't: No
halt to Har Homaג€ could
have been non-negative
as ג€Progress at Har
Homa.ג€ On the other
hand, we could have
been more supportive
of the propaganda effort
with something like
ג€Gov't provides hope
for homeless as once-barren
hill flourishes.ג€ Never
mind that it's too long:
if we had to make it
fit, we could.
ג€US, Israel slam Arafat.ג€ If this were a Palestinian
newspaper, we'd all
be in jail for that.
(In fact, on the same
page as that headline
was another: ג€Journalist
Kuttab held in Ramallah
prison.ג€) My honorable
colleagues on the other
side of town would have
interpreted that as
ג€President Arafat refuses
to kowtow to American,
Israeli humiliation.ג€
ג€Barak still needs Peresג€ ran a headline under an
ג€Analysisג€ tag. We can
only assume that space
constraints, or political
sensitivity, prevented
the full headline from
running: ג€Barak still
needs Peres like a hole
in the head.ג€
Anyway,
you get the idea. Half
of you will see this
as proof we're a right-wing
rag, half that we're
a left-wing rag. Half
will continue to read
it despite our perceived
politics, the other
half because of it,
and vice versa for people
who don't read the paper.
Half
the complaints are not
unjustified, the other
half, justified.
That's
just the way things
are.
