Smokestacks in Israel visible from the Gaza coast.

Every time Israelis shoot a Palestinian, which happens with tragic frequency, it’s extremely difficult to get accurate information on what has happened in any given case.  One incident—many spins. But I couldn’t resist doing a little speaks-for-itself media analysis here. Observe the following headlines:

IDF shoots three terrorists near Gaza border (Jerusalem Post)
Palestinian medics: IDF troops killed three on Gaza border (Haaretz)
Israeli troops kill Gaza fishermen (Al Jazeera)
3 shot dead in northern Gaza (Ma’an)
Israeli troops fatally shoot three Palestinians in Gaza (BBC)
Israel kills 3 Palestinians at Gaza border (Washington Post)

Better yet, read the articles and see the conflicting information that’s presented. Now, assume (correctly) that this pattern repeats itself almost regardless of the incident. For The Jerusalem Post, people killed by the Israeli military are almost always “terrorists”—at least in the headlines. The text itself sometimes provides nuance. Then, maybe if there’s an actual investigation and it’s confirmed that they were hapless civilians, they’ll print a follow-up a few days later. Does the average media consumer have time to read five articles about the same thing so they can get an inkling of what may have actually happened? In this particular case, I think only the Ma’an article reported that no weapons or explosives were found near the bodies.

Here’s another example, in which the allegedly “liberal” Haaretz comes full-circle regarding the shooting of an unarmed Palestinian at a checkpoint:

IDF troops kill Palestinian apparently planning to stab them (Haaretz)
Soldiers shoot dead Palestinian at checkpoint (Ma’an)
Israeli Troops Kill Palestinian Man in West Bank (New York Times)
Israeli troops kill Palestinian man at checkpoint in West Bank (Washington Post)
IDF probing shooting death of unarmed Palestinian (Jerusalem Post)
IDF says Palestinian’s death at checkpoint caused by ‘misunderstandings’ (Haaretz)
(Note that even with this last headline, Haaretz’s illustrating photo is of a rock-throwing Palestinian at a completely unrelated event from May 2010.)

Of course, sometimes actual militants are killed. Note the headline spin in this case of an attack by an armed Palestinian:

Palestinian Youth Killed By Army Near Jenin (International Middle East Media Center)
Soldiers Kill Palestinian Man near Northern West Bank Checkpoint (Palestine News Network)
Palestinian shot dead at Jenin checkpoint (Ma’an)
IDF soldiers kill armed Palestinian in West Bank (Haaretz)
Palestinian killed in West Bank clash with Israeli army (BBC)
Terrorist killed near Mevo Dotan (Jerusalem Post)

Dizzy from the spin? The moral of the story is not that there are “good” sources and “bad” sources—though some are better than others. JPost is more conservative than Haaretz, which is supposed to be lefty but has had some atrocious lapses of late. Sometimes the more conservative sources reveal important information. Ma’an, PNN, and IMEMC all display their own obvious political biases.  Joel Greenberg, the Washington Post Jerusalem correspondent, personally served in the IDF. The lesson is that ALL sources have bias and therefore it is necessary to read more than one to get a sense of reality in any given situation.

The greatest danger is that normal people who just skim headlines of their preferred sources and ignore the others—like I do much of the time—will only see what that reinforces their narrative framework. Blogs help some, but tend to be equally self-selective. But FWIW, here’s a link to my Google news reader feed for my preferred sources and shared articles.

I also find it noteworthy that in every example here—whether the Palestinians were armed, unarmed, or ambiguous—they all ended up dead.