Two people on one land. Israel and Palestine continue to wage a life-threatening war. In April, there was an Israeli attack that killed World Central Kitchen (WCK), a non-government organization, workers. U.S. President Biden strictly urged Israel to protect civilians, and although the aid has been extended, both civilians are still endangered. A large pro-Palestinian protest was held at Columbia University, while some students at Seoul National University posted a poster supporting Palestine. Despite the fact that it is a long-standing ethnic conflict based on history and religion, it is still a sensitive issue.
The Intercept brought an argument with The New York Times’ (NYT) biased coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The three major problems were disproportionate coverage of deaths, lopsided words, and omitted words. Even though the deaths of Palestinian civilians far outpaced Israel’s losses, Israelis are mentioned more by a margin of 16 times. Ironically, the overall death graph tendency goes the other way with the mention of Palestinians’ deaths. Words such as “slaughter, massacre, and horrific” had been largely excluded from Israeli attack coverage. Also, NYT deliberately omitted sensitive words such as “children.”
It is important to make an ethical journalism network. This is not just a task for one broadcasting station: it must be a shared matter for reporters around the world. Coverage of globally sensitive incidents, such as diplomatic conflicts, demands impartiality and public interest. In conflict reporting, reporters must provide an integrated story about the conflict and deliver the voices from both sides. Using partial words and highly emotive terms can be engaging, but it can also defame the reputations of whole broadcasting stations. The damaged trust of broadcasting studios is already a big headache for major media.
Ironically, this partialism can provide a biased but thick support group. When the country or political party has a clear preference for either conservativism or progressivism, the media company can earn guaranteed readership. This type of broadcast further solidifies views that are biased toward the public, thereby restraining the possibility of social reconciliation. According to a social experiment that tested whether party positions affect public policy preferences, the public tends to follow a party’s policy blindly despite being a non-attractive suggestion personally. This implies the huge influence of loud voices.
Impartial reporting stacks a broad and deep readership. It promotes social harmony and reconciliation. According to the Code of Ethics of the Journal Association of Korea, a reporter is a journalist who meets the people’s right to know and must inform the truth. A reporter is obligated to reject power plays and financial intervention that threaten the autonomy of the media; and to report the truth fairly and strictly. Collected information should be used only for reporting purposes through a legitimate collection process, and the subject of reporting should be protected with no tolerance. Wrong reports should be acknowledged honestly, and misunderstandings should be corrected through follow-up articles. The purpose of an article is to realize the public interest and ensure the people’s right to know. An article should not be written to arouse any conflict or discrimination.
