Friday, December 12, 2003

The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Middle East

Below is some recent correspondence between Tanweer Akram, a regular contributor to Press Action, and Amanda Bennett, editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, about the newspaper’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Muslims and Arabs.

Dec. 2, 2003

Dear Ms. Bennett:

I am writing to express my grave concern about your poor and unsatisfactory coverage of Arabs, Muslims, and the Israel-Palestine conflict in the pages of the Inquirer. I express deep disappointment at your running Tony Auth’s unfair and tasteless and often biased cartoons. I find it surprising that you don’t make any attempt to provide a balanced coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict in the op-ed pages of the Inquirer. I hope that you quickly correct this and invite contributions from Arab, Palestinian, and Muslim writers and scholars.

Sincerely,


Tanweer Akram

Dec. 9, 2003

Dear Tanweer Akram:

With all due respect, I would take complaints about our coverage much more seriously if I had any indication that you had actually read the paper and looked at Mr. Auth’s cartoons over a long period of time and had made specific suggestions. Mass mailings that include identical generic criticisms do not do very well to make your point.

As for the issue of “a page” of coverage, we offer full intense coverage of issues when and if the news requires it. Over the last two years, we have run four full pages that reflected heavily some of the Arab point of view in the Middle East conflict. Mr. Bouzid was prominently featured on those pages. We also are perfectly willing at anytime to consider individual op-ed submissions. During Eid, we ran one such piece from a Palestinian American, expressing his views about the conflict.

Charges of racism, discrimination and anti-Arab sentiment are very serious ones. We don’t take them lightly, and we do not appreciate it when either side makes these accusations, particularly when they impugn without evidence the reputation of a fine cartoonist such as Mr. Auth.

Sincerely,


Amanda Bennett



Dec. 10, 2003

Dear Ms. Bennett:

Thank you for your letter. You wanted to get some evidence that I “had actually read the paper and looked at Mr. Auth’s cartoons over a long period of time” and asked for “specific suggestions.” I do, indeed, read the Philadelphia Inquirer from time to time (as well as a number of other papers, including Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post on a regular basis). Moreover I am quite familiar with Mr. Auth’s cartoons “over a long period of time.” My letter also has very specific suggestions, namely, (i) “provide a balanced coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict in the op-ed pages of the Inquirer” and (ii) “invite contributions from Arab, Palestinian, and Muslim writers and scholars.” Is this too much to ask?

Contrary to what your letter claims I did not accuse anyone of the “charges of racism, discrimination.” Rather, I pointed out concerns about your poor and unsatisfactory coverage of Arabs, Muslims, and the Israel-Palestine conflict in the pages of the Inquirer and I complained about Tony Auth’s unfair and tasteless and often biased cartoon. Do take a look at Auth’s cartoon (posted on Sunday, Dec. 7, 2003).

It shows Arab and Muslim men in a dome in the Moon, with the label Guantanamo II, some of whom are shown to be praying. It is exactly, as I said, an example of tasteless and often biased cartoons that Mr. Auth likes to draw. There are other examples, such as: [a] a depiction of Shiite Clergy as a group that does not respect women’s rights and minority rights, [b] identifying a Muslim-Arab man as saying, “All praise to Allah and his tiny martyrs.”

I could go on. I don’t “impugn without evidence the reputation of a fine cartoonist such as Mr. Auth.” Mr. Auth’s cartoons convey his shameful worldview. Obviously, Mr. Auth is entitled to his free speech and opinions. His cartoons are, however, tasteless and systematically stereotype Muslims and Arabs. This is self-evident from looking at his cartoons “over a long period of time.” And this shows that contrary to your praise, Mr. Auth is far from being a “fine cartoonist.”

As for your coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, it is far from being balanced. You mentioned that you “have run four full pages that reflected heavily some of the Arab points of view in the Middle East conflict” and, “During Eid, we ran one such piece from a Palestinian American, expressing his views about the conflict.” But what’s the benchmark? Should not you compare this with you providing more time and space to the Israeli occupiers’ point of view? That is the issue. Use an appropriate benchmark. Balanced coverage of a conflict does require one to provide roughly equal time and space to the two sides in a conflict.

Since you run cartoons by Mr. Auth, why not run cartoons that provide another point of view? Why not have cartoons such as those available in Al-Jazeera? Why only cartoons from the occupiers’ viewpoint? Why not have the viewpoint of the occupied, the dispossessed, and the victims of Israeli state terrorism?

You claim that you are “perfectly willing at anytime to consider individual op-ed submissions.” I hope that you will live to your claims and you will actually ensure balance and objectivity in your op-eds and editorial policy for the Inquirer. I would like to see the Inquirer improve its coverage by providing a balanced and objective viewpoint of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and issues pertaining to Muslims and Arabs.

Sincerely,


Tanweer Akram

More from Tanweer Akram

Printer Friendly Format | Tell-a-Friend

Next: The Anglo-American Invaders? Punishment of the Iraqis -->

<-- Previous: Holiday Spirit at the UN

Support Press Action