Equaltiy in coverage? NO.
"Three years into the Aqsa Intifada Israelis suffer, Palestinians too"
This is what you see highlighted on the side of an article in Toronto Star called 3,432 graves mock notion of peace (NOTE: over 2/3 of the killed are Palestinian but the Star gives the priority in mentioning Israelis first: "..Israelis suffer, Palestinians too"). This is of course accompanied by a picture showing the pain of an Israeli woman after loosing her loved one perhaps after a suicide bombing. Pictures similar to this are frequently published in the Star; perhaps one of the most balanced papers in north America (imagine how terrible the rast are), but you know, you don't see many pictures of Palestinians suffering, you don't see the pictures showing Palestinians' pain of loosing their loved ones. Even if the content of the story is fair, still the impact of the picture is much more that the story itself, because many people don't even read the whole story and the sole picture gives them plenty of stories.
If a paper such as the Star, with millions of readers, is so much biased in what it publishes, how do you expect me to attribute the same and equal coverage of pain imposed to Palestinian and Israelis?
Again, I will not be so simple to think I have to pay the same attention to both in order to be fair. No, I shouldn't. let me show you what I mean, by an example:
If I have some limited amount of money (my money) in my pocket that I want to spend on buying food for two kids whom I am looking after for one day (and only one day), if one of them is always fed properly and the other one usually suffers from malnutrition and doesn't get much chance for good food, I will definitely spend more money on the second child, while I will still feed the first one. Is it because I dislike the first child? No, but I realize the first child will not suffer if the quality of his food is a bit less (for a day) but the second child does not get much chance like this. Here if I apply equality to both, I am just satisfying myself by feeling: "I am fair". But no, then I am in fact very unfair.
By this (perhaps not very realistic example), I am just trying to illustrate why my "limited energy and resources" should NOT be equally divided to cover both sides. It might be hard to understand this mentality, but hey, it is me and I do it this way. Please don't give me lecture, but any meaningful input why if I might be wrong on this, is appreciated.
This is what you see highlighted on the side of an article in Toronto Star called 3,432 graves mock notion of peace (NOTE: over 2/3 of the killed are Palestinian but the Star gives the priority in mentioning Israelis first: "..Israelis suffer, Palestinians too"). This is of course accompanied by a picture showing the pain of an Israeli woman after loosing her loved one perhaps after a suicide bombing. Pictures similar to this are frequently published in the Star; perhaps one of the most balanced papers in north America (imagine how terrible the rast are), but you know, you don't see many pictures of Palestinians suffering, you don't see the pictures showing Palestinians' pain of loosing their loved ones. Even if the content of the story is fair, still the impact of the picture is much more that the story itself, because many people don't even read the whole story and the sole picture gives them plenty of stories.
If a paper such as the Star, with millions of readers, is so much biased in what it publishes, how do you expect me to attribute the same and equal coverage of pain imposed to Palestinian and Israelis?
Again, I will not be so simple to think I have to pay the same attention to both in order to be fair. No, I shouldn't. let me show you what I mean, by an example:
If I have some limited amount of money (my money) in my pocket that I want to spend on buying food for two kids whom I am looking after for one day (and only one day), if one of them is always fed properly and the other one usually suffers from malnutrition and doesn't get much chance for good food, I will definitely spend more money on the second child, while I will still feed the first one. Is it because I dislike the first child? No, but I realize the first child will not suffer if the quality of his food is a bit less (for a day) but the second child does not get much chance like this. Here if I apply equality to both, I am just satisfying myself by feeling: "I am fair". But no, then I am in fact very unfair.
By this (perhaps not very realistic example), I am just trying to illustrate why my "limited energy and resources" should NOT be equally divided to cover both sides. It might be hard to understand this mentality, but hey, it is me and I do it this way. Please don't give me lecture, but any meaningful input why if I might be wrong on this, is appreciated.
posted by Faramin | 2:08 p.m.
<< Home