Blatant NPR Bias

NRO carries a detailed article that compares the language NPR uses when discussing terrorism committed against Israel versus when it is committed against other countries. NPR labels it for what it is when the attacks are in Saudi Arabia or the Phillipines, but they absolutely trip over themselves to avoid using the term "terrorist" when it comes to Israel.

Even in this age of journalistic dereliction, NPR's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict stands out as a parody of journalism. It can hardly be an accident that terrorism in the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Yemen, and New York, is labeled precisely that by NPR — terrorism, but when identical attacks are unleashed against Israelis, NPR reporters move heaven and earth to avoid any use of the word terror. Of course, NPR's coverage of the Middle East also deserves criticism on many other grounds — for example, its numerous material errors and misstatements that seem always to tilt against Israel, and its refusal to forthrightly correct those material errors. Or its peculiar version of "balance" — balancing Israeli critics of Israel with Arab critics of Israel. Or its continual use of loaded words such as "hardline" and "rightwing" to characterize many Israeli politicians, while calling the head of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a "spiritual leader," as if he were the Dalai Lama.

Would it be unfair to say that NPR is to honest journalism as Sheikh Yassin is to the Dalai Lama? Well, maybe a bit unfair — but only a bit.

UPDATE (6/22/03): NPR has responded to the article in usual way.

NPR’s Terror Problem, published last week on National Review Online, documented National Public Radio’s refusal to use any form of the word terror in reporting recent murderous attacks by Palestinians against Israelis, despite the network’s regular use of the terror word in reporting the recent al-Qaeda attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. Rather than referring to Hamas and Islamic Jihad as terrorists, NPR instead termed them Palestinian “factions,” perhaps the most neutral word for terrorists one could imagine.

The article also pointed out NPR’s own definition of the word terror, in a styleguide for journalists on the network’s webpage. That definition is incriminating, to say the least, on the question of how NPR reports attacks against Israelis:

terrorism, terrorist — Terrorism is the act of causing terror, usually for political purposes, and it connotes that the terror is perpetrated on innocents. Thus, the bombing of a civilian airliner clearly is a terrorist act, but an attack on an army convoy, even if away from the battlefield, is not. Do not ape government usage. The Israeli government, for instance, routinely refers to PLO actions as terrorist. A journalist should use independent criteria to judge whether the term is accurate. [Emphasis added.]

So, if in NPR’s estimation an attack is not against “innocents,” then it is not terror, suggesting that the network refuses to use the word terror when covering Israel because it does not consider as “innocents” the numerous Israeli civilian victims of, say, suicide bombers. And is it just happenstance that of all the countries in the world, NPR singles out Israel, and instructs that in the case of attacks against Israelis, journalists should be especially wary of using the terror word?

Now, in response to the article, has NPR apologized for failing to report as terror suicide bombings and other bloody attacks against Israelis? Has the network announced that it has changed its policy, and from now on will refer to such attacks as terror? No on both counts.

But let it not be said that NPR’s publicly-funded bureaucrats are afraid to take decisive action. Indeed they have acted decisively – by simply deleting their webpage embarrassment. NPR removed, with no explanation, the entire quite extensive styleguide from their website! Clicking on the address that worked just a week ago (www.npr.org/inside/styleguide2/pugptoz.html) now returns “page not found.”

NPR, which loves to interview and cite Israeli revisionist historians, is apparently not above revising its own history. But unfortunately for those at NPR who tried to erase the damning evidence, the page is still available via Google’s cache.