This page is discontinued

Background

It is frequently claimed that the Norwegian media is biased against Israel, and that this is reflected in the manner in which events are reported. In support of this claim we can go to surveys on the political inclination of the Norwegian press and media corps. According to a 2008 survey by Norsk Respons for Nordiske Mediedager, both editors and journalists are far more left-of-center than the population. The Norwegian press and media corps is disproportionately  left-wing. In the table below we see the results of the 2008 survey, with the political parties in the column to the far left, with the next three columns showing the political allegiance of the audience, editors and journalists displayed in percentages.

As is evident the difference between the political allegience of the audience and that of the journalists coincides at the political centre, with an equal percentage, four percent, of both the audience and journalists stating that they vote for Senterpartiet (An Agrarian party). The difference then increases the further out on the political spectrum we see. For the socialist party Rødt (Red) we see that it has a 1% support from the audience, 2% support from the editors, and a full 3% support from journalists. For the Socialist Left we see the same relationship, only less expressed, with a 9% support in the audience but 16% support among the journalists. On the other side of the spectrum we see the same relationiship the other way around, with 22% of the audience expressing support for the Progress Party but only 3% of the journalists doing the same.

The political allegience of the media and press corps is likely to have a direct effect on how news from the Middle East is presented. The anti-Israel lobby has its powerbase in the political parties from left-of-center. Israel has support only from one party, the Progress Party, which is the most disproportionately represented party in the media and journalistic corps.

Findings of this site

To what extent can this site find support for the allegation of anti-Israeli bias in the Norwegian media? What we find so far is:

1) The Tali incident: On Febuary 5th, the Norwegian News Agency (NTB) reported that Israel had stopped and boarded the Tali, on its way to the Gaza strip with much needed supplies. Israeli soldiers had then brutalised the crew and the accompanying correspondants from Al Jazeera, before taking the ship in tow.  This news was reported widely in, among others, Aftenposten, Dagbladet, Dagsavisen and Hamar Arbeiderblad. On February 6th, the Haaretz reported that only 150 kilos of supplies were found onboard, and not 60 tons as reported earlier. If the Haaretz is right, the entire event was a PR stunt, and in Norway a very successful one as NTB has not released any information on the Tali since reporting that it was taken in tow.

2) Israel the aggressor: On February 14th, Aftenposten published an NTB report under the title “Six wounded in Israeli attacks on Gaza”. The first paragraph states that the Israeli attacks were made on a refugee camp. The second paragraph states the extent of the damage resulting from the attacks. It is not until the third paragraph that it become clear that the Israeli attack is a counter – attack made in reprisal for rocket firing from the site subsequently attacked. We see the same in Dagsavisen on February 2nd, under the headline “Israel threatens to attack”, a camouflaging of the fact that Israel has actually already been attacked. In Dabladet on February 21st the heading runs “Israeli artillery fires upon Lebanon”, when this artillery fire is in response to a rocket having been fired from Lebanon into Israel, injuring a woman. The same angle, with the heading emphasizing Israeli artillery fire on Lebanon, was used by the following newspapers: Telemarksavisa, Hadeland, Lofotposten, Namdalsavisa, Rana Blad ans Siste.no, Drammens tidende, Fremtid i Nord. NRK, the national broadcasting agency, went for the neutral “Shooting at Israel – Lebanon border”, and  Verdens Gang chose the heading “Rocket attack on Israel”.

We find another example of Israel being portrayed as an aggressor in the article by Per Anders Johansen in Aftenposten on February 13th, 2009. Here the article states that “Russia, Israel and muslims” have hijacked the computers of unknowing, third-party civilians in order to cyber-attack their enemies. Examples are given of how Russians cyber-attacked Georgia, how Estonia was exposed to cyber attacks in 2007, and how Israel was exposed to cyber attacks during the 2009 war. But no example is given of how Israel or Israelis have done the same, even though the article accuses them of having done so. There is an accusation but no proof. Mr.Gerstenfeld might interpret this as an example of how proof is irrelevant when it comes to accusing Israel and Israelis.

3) Aftenposten’s facts: Aftenposten is Norway’s second largest daily. On their internet site they post a “facts” page on the middle east. One problem with this page is that it was discontinued after the Israel – Hizbollah war in 2006 and has not been updated since. A more serious problem lies in the fact that it is skewed in it’s presentations.

One article is headed “Massacred Palestinians in 48″, and is based on Benny Morris’ findings on the makings of the Palestinian refugee problem.  The article covers the Palestinian refugees of 48, while no mention is made of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries. Highlighting only atrocities on one side when they were committed by both is not unbiased journalism.

The “facts” page also covers Yassir Arafat, under the headings: ” From guerilla icon to peace prize” and “Honored as warrior and hero”. Under both headings the newspaper displays photographs of Yassir Arafat as a statesman, leader and soldier. The photograph of Yassir Arafat mourning at the grave of Haj Amin Al-Husseini is not included, nor any other photograph which might indicate that Mr.Arafat was anything but a dearly beloved and respected leader of the Palestinian cause. It is hardly commendable for a newspaper to present such a one-sided and uncomplicated picture of a such a highly controversial man. Aftenposten would scarcely write about Ariel Sharon in this manner.

4) Humanitarian racism: Gerstenfeld claims that the Norwegian elites are imbued with humanitarian racism, setting one set of standards for western nations and another, more lenient set of standards, for the rest of the world. One example of how this arguably might be seen, is in the often mentioned massacres in Sabra and Chatilla. While Sabra and Chatilla are virtually household names in Norway, the massacre at Damour is virtually unknown. Gerstendfeld might argue that this is simply because the first can be blamed on Judeo-Christian society, whereas Damour was a Palestinian massacre  of Christians. See the article “Boycott Israel. Speed up the dialogue.” in Morgenbladet (February 20th-26th), where the author of the article refers to the massacres at Sabra and Chatilla.

5) Jews and Israel: On February 25th, Dagbladet reports on how PFU (A Norwegian association for media professionals) finds Otto Jespersen’s anti-semitic monologues in violation of proper conduct. Dagbladet runs an article in it’s internet edition, under the title “Jørgensens Israel-hets uproblematisk” (Jørgensen’s harassment of Israel unproblematic). This blurs the demarcation between Jews as a people and Israel as a state. The statements Jørgensen has been condemned for are anti-semitic and not related to the state of Israel.

6) Omission of facts: On March 7th Dagsavisen covers the riots in Malmö, where the march “stoppamatchen” turned into a street battle with the police. Dagsavisen elects not to report that Swedish neo-nazis had announced that they would partake in the march, alongside with the far-left extremists in Antifascist Action.

This page is discontinued