
16/12/2024 إنكليزي

16/12/2024 إنكليزي

16/12/2024 إنكليزي

16/12/2024 إنكليزي

16/12/2024 إنكليزي

Protests expectedly strive to draw attention. They are almost always disruptive and inconvenient. What justifies protests, and even makes them welcome, are their driving causes. The New York Times’ coverage of Pro-Palestine demonstrations, however, rarely ever affords protest organizers a just cause. Only in passing do NYT reporters mention the genocide that has likely killed over 186,000 people in Gaza; at worst, they omit genocide altogether.
The protests are also seldom the main event NYT reporters are covering. Instead, NYT focuses on the disturbances that they cause. Not only does this practice showcase protest activity as a nuisance, but it also deprioritizes the genocide that the state of Israel is committing, framing it as less important than the disruptions protesters cause in its name.
1. The New York Times, March 10, 2024
Some Oscar Attendees Delayed by Protesters Calling for Cease-Fire in Gaza by Douglas Morino and Matt Stevens
Morino and Stevens’ choice of the passive voice for this headline is a glaring example of how NYT deprioritizes the genocide in Gaza and the protests it sparks. Instead of reporting the protests over the war on Gaza at the Oscars, NYT’s headline primarily reports the delays that befell Oscar attendees as a result of the protests.
The reporters dodge any proper explanation of the protests’ cause. They only write that they are “protests about the Israel-Hamas war,” with no elaboration on what the so-called “war” has entailed for Palestinians in Gaza. Even while quoting interviews with the protesters, Morino and Stevens continue to evade any reference to the scale of Israel’s crimes in Gaza. In one case, they opt for interpreting what one protester says rather than directly quoting her, writing that “she hoped to put pressure on the U.S. government to end the conflict.”In another instance, they quote one of the organizers saying that “[w]hat’s happening in Gaza needs to have attention drawn to it,” but conveniently leave out any explanation of what it is that is happening in Gaza.
Their anti-Palestinian bias is also conspicuous in their failure to include any statistics from the genocide in Gaza. These statistics would explain the protesters’ rage and, by extension, their choice to disrupt the Oscars. This omission was not NYT’s approach in their reporting on previous protest activities at the Oscars. In 2018, coverage of a Hispanic group’s protests over a lack of representation at the Oscars offered statistics explaining protesters’ anger, which frames them as rational and justifiable. By comparison, the lack of explanation for the rage that underlines the pro-Palestine protests leaves them looking senseless, especially to readers unfamiliar with the war.
By highlighting how “car horns honked” as “protesters marched down Sunset Boulevard,” NYT presents the protesters as a nuisance to Oscar attendees. The presence of “police in riot gear watch[ing] nearby” also implies an anticipation of violence from the pro-Palestine protesters, framing them as a potential threat. This presentation is consistent with NYT’s tendency to villainize anything pro-Palestinian. Ultimately, the reader’s attention is driven away from the protests and their causes and is placed instead on how they acted as a hurdle to the smooth running of the Oscars.
2. The New York Times, March 1, 2024
Penn Trustees Meeting Is Cut Short After Students Protest Over War in Gaza by Stephanie Saul
In a glaring case of anti-Palestinian bias, the title of this report once again emphasizes the disruption caused to the trustees’ meeting at the University of Pennsylvania, rather than the student protesters and their demands. The specifics of Penn’s involvement, “a study-abroad program [and] a recent faculty trip to Israel,” are mentioned with no elaboration or explanation. The author completely overlooked what it means for Palestinian students at Penn to have their university arrange trips to their stolen land. Saul could have easily gathered quotations to this effect by asking the student protesters.
The protesters’ demands are also decontextualized and mischaracterized. Saul quotes students’ “divest from genocide” chant but states that “[i]t was not clear whether Penn has investments in the country.” This statement distorts the students’ demand by narrowing it down to divestment from Israeli companies exclusively — which would not be a legitimate demand if Penn has no investments in Israel — and not from all companies complicit in the Israeli occupation and genocide. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Penn’s students’ divestment campaign is targeting companies that supply the Israeli Occupation Forces with airplanes, missiles, and other military equipment. These companies, such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAE Systems, and Raytheon, are investment targets for the endowments of many universities in the U.S.
The report’s bias crystalizes in its antagonization of student protesters. Saul writes that “the upbeat mood [of the meeting] quickly shifted as chants erupted.” It is as though the students’ protests against genocide dampened the tenor of an otherwise boisterous bureaucratic trustees meeting! The report also references a statement from Penn about “the disruption violat[ing] the school’s code of student conduct.” It does not, however, reference the statement or the exact code broken. Saul hence robs the reader of the chance to assess these accusations for themselves and sheds a negative light on the student protesters.