I feel like this was a robust debate and part of the reason why I feel it was good reporting was I felt more conflicted than ever afterward. Not a convenient feeling, certainly, but worthwhile around such an important subject and it's surrounding scope.

Mr. Friedman embodied the reason that Israel is so far behind in the court of public opinion. Instead of acknowledging the complicated reality of the situation, he is only willing to talk about how unfairly Israel is treated. No matter how true parts of it may be, it comes off as myopic at best and paranoid at worst. That's the kind of talk that is not leading to solutions, ignoring the fact that it is a willfully one-sided presentation of facts. The media consumers of the world are choosing news with a slight Palestinian bias over news that presents solely a conservative Israeli viewpoint, as well they should.

reporter from Round Lake, IL: '[Matti Friedman] is such an unabashed propagandist for a fascist state that Israel has become[, while Ethan Bronner] is supposed to be a "voice of balance and reason."'

Yeah, like a Fox News "debate" on anthropogenic global warming: "fair and balanced" :-)

The problem for Israel and Zionist media (including WNYC) is that they really are *so close* to achieving complete control of Palestine: see the maps[1] that Lebensraumers love to hate. And since, to paraphrase Ari Shavit[2], "it's My Promised Land, dammit!" why shouldn't they ?-)

Israelis know two things from their time providing "technical support" to apartheid South Africa[3]. Firstly, they observed (close up and hands-on) that *keeping* control of occupied territory is impossible without complete demographic domination. The problem with that is, ethnic cleansing gets ugly (even when it's merely "mowing the lawn"[4] :-) which creates "problem visuals" if recorded by an unembedded free press. Israelis also know, from their time as apartheid's henchmen, that even the nastiest regime *can* stand, even against the whole world, with two things: "the bomb"[5] and US backing. The Afrikaners (also a Chosen People[6]) fell only after their US economic and military support ended, and after "losing their nerve" to use WMDs[7].

Hence the desperate need for Zionists (in both the US and Israel) to control US public opinion--without our support, they'll hafta choose between ending settler colonialism[8] and starting nuclear war.

[1] http://buildingbridgesvancouver.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/skytrain-ad-1.jpg
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ari_Shavit
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93South_Africa_relations
[4] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n15/mouin-rabbani/israel-mows-the-lawn
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner_nationalism#Dutch_Reformed_Church
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialism

The Palestinians have won the war. look at Swedish and now British recognition of a Palestinian Sate. It's done; over. Maybe now we need to feel sorry for the Israelis because they are the new underdogs. Right or wrong doesn't matter, Europe roots for the weak. That's Israel.

I think as usual OTM soft pedals the issue giving two guests' false equivalency of opposition. It is amazing to hear but not surprising that AP bureau chief is such an unabashed propagandist for a fascist state that Israel has become. It is also hilarious that NYT guy is supposed to be a "voice of balance and reason." I am not going to speak about politics or ownership of both outlets as other posts spoke on it quite well but it is also worth mentioning that NYT's West Jerusalem bureau is in a building that belonged to prosperous Palestinian family that was evicted at gun point during mass ethnic cleansing. NYT bought it in 1982 from a Canadian Jew who had took possession of it in subsequent changes of ownership (the Palestinians were never compensated for their loss). So yes the NYT has a dog in this fight and it is laughable that they don't bother to disclose the fact. If OTM was really serious to present divergent views on the role of US media they would present people such as Max Blumenthal or Ali Abunimah who would tell you what is covered and how and to what effect. As far as the Jewish state character "assassination" is concerned that is lamented by a hack Matti Fridman, get this: in occupied Europe many public transport sectors was reserved for the master race aka NUR FUR DEUTSCHEN and now in Israel we have roads and highways that are designated although in Hebrew as NUR FUR JUDEN. Talking about a circle of history closing...........

In the late 1990's during a time of great hope for peace I spent a short time in Gaza, Ramallah, and Israel. Both sides then and now have deep rooted belief in the righteousness of their side. I have come to believe the only hope is when the Palestinians embarrass radical non-violent social change and eject the philosophy of HAMAS and force a non-violent revolution that confronts the moral core of Israel beliefs.

Hey guys, so ultimately the question is who is the bad guy?
Screw the politics, the media politics, let's just look at the body count. Count the children. Now tell me.

Is there anyone else left who doesn't complain of bias whenever anyone disagrees with their point of view? It's so useless an argument: any resolution would require the ability to read the minds of countless source. Otherwise, it offers nothing but endless, pointless verbiage. Couldn't we focus on something more useful?

USA govirment sending over 300.000.000 dollars to Palestinian people so they can build their cities again, and than USA house past a law that all most l billion dollars military aid to ISRAEL, we all know that Palestinians are going to build and Jews are going to bring them down, tunnels or some thing else will be the reason for it. Now is this a a policy that we are thinking going to work, my five years old grand son says HELL NO

That coverage of Middle East by the US corporate-funded media (USCFM) is blatantly, nakedly pro-Zionist is clear to thinking Americans and most of humanity. The contribution of USCFM demographics to the bias is illustrated by Alison Weir's 2012 piece, "Meet the New York Times' New Israel-Palestine News Chief"[1]. Consider especially the following salient quote, since you won't hear anything like this from OTM anytime soon:

> Most Americans — particularly those who would object to only white reporters covering racial issues or only male reporters covering gender issues — are reluctant to discuss the potential bias in such a profoundly un-diverse system, having been conditioned to fear that such discussion would be "anti-Semitic" or would open the commentator to this extremely damaging accusation.

> In Israel, however, it is considered appropriate to discuss the Jewish roots of American politicians and journalists since Israel was created specifically to be "the Jewish state," Jews have elevated status in it, and the vast majority of Israeli land is officially owned by "world Jewry" (although some individuals have publicly opted out).

> An article on the Jerusalem Post website, a major Israeli newspaper, focuses on this aspect. The article, "Judaism at the New York Times"[2], reports that "all New York Times' bureau chiefs for at least the last fifteen years have been Jewish."

> The article's author, Ashley Rindsberg, notes that "the Times doesn't consistently send Russian Americans to its Moscow bureau ... or Mexican Americans to lead its Mexico City bureau ..." and asks, "Why does the New York Times consistently send Jewish journalists to head their central office in the Jewish State?"

> Rindsberg, who like many conservative Israelis considers the Times' reporting anti-Israel, provides a somewhat convoluted answer. The Times' Jewish owners, Rindsberg posits, are uncomfortable with their Jewish identity. Therefore, he claims, they "would just as soon as not have reporters who could be identified for their Jewishness. And to prove it, they send Jews to the Jewish State to report in a most un-Jewish way."

Weir rebuts Rindsberg by exposing the NYT's Zionist *conduct* as well as its content (plus a funny bit about David Shipler). There may come a day when OTM dares to criticize Jewish domination of USCFM Middle-Eastern reporting, as it already has white and male domination of the USCFM more generally ... but don't hold your breath :-) Rather, seek more diversity in your media-critical diet!

[1] http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/21/meet-the-new-york-times-new-israel-palestine-news-chief/
[2] http://blogs.jpost.com/content/judaism-new-york-times

Of course Friedman is exactly right. Bronner is just another example of the problem, a Leftist-oriented NYTimes "journalist" (read: Palestinian advocate). Every fair-minded intelligent person i know totally agrees (regardless of their ethnicity) that Israel is often mistreated by the liberal media, who for incomprehensible reasons, have decided in general to side with the bomb-lobbing murderous terror-loving massacre-enabling Palestinians.

Israel's recent defensive war in Gaza is a classic example of how differently the standards are for Israel's conduct. What country in the world would tolerate incessant (literally years) of thousands of rockets raining on their citizens? How long would the U.S. tolerate rocket attacks from Mexico or Canada?
Laughable.

And the "disproportionality" nonsense is typical of the hypocrisy Israel's critics use to bash her. Have you heard for example ANYTHING about "collateral damage" from recent U.S. bombings in Iraq and Syria, of which of course there are inevitably many? Or from the U.S.' bombings in Afghanistan which has been going on for years?
Or from the Allies' bombings of Germany and Japan during WWII? Did anyone in that conflict start counting how many U.S. civilian casualties vs. German and Japanese casualties, and then make the absurd allegation that somehow in war they're supposed to be equal?

Of course not--it's ridiculous. Every country when attacked and decides to respond, tries to destroy the enemy which has attacked them, not count the civilian casualties to make sure they're someone equal. No one has ever heard of that before, and its repeated use to tarnish Israel is merely another classic example of the blatant bigotry and hypocrisy which drives much of the criticism of Israel.

That US media coverage is biased against Israel would be laughable did it not have such tragic consequences for Palestinians and American taxpayers who foot the bill for Israel's weapons of mass destruction. A recent example: calling the attack on Gaza a conflict or war rather than the massacre that, in fact, it was, (if you think that is an exaggeration just imagine if the same level of destruction was done to Israel) with never a question about Israel's talking points. And when is the last time there was even mention in the media of the day to day brutality, humiliations and injustices that Israel perpetrates on Palestinians? Or of the occupation?

One would think that the media had an obligation to honest reporting about the country which receives the largest amount of US foreign aid, but the pro-Israel bias in the media is so profound that even the slightest hint that Israeli policy might not be perfect seems out of synch, including by OTM which is supposedly "devoted to media criticism and analysis". A real critique of media coverage of Israel is desperately needed. Noam Chomsky and/or Jeff Cohen as guests come to mind. That would be a show worth listening to!

Wow, Matti Friedman is so plainly biased.

Criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is "hostile obsession with the moral failing of Jews"? Gimme a break. So Israel is forever above reproach because Jews were once repressed???

Discussion of the legitimacy of Israel is "poisonous press coverage"? Is a discussion about the colonization of North America by Europeans also "poisonous press coverage"? Plainly Friedman thinks Jews deserve special treatment.

The allegations of anti-Israel bias at the NYT are just absurd. There were pictures of dead civilians because there were dead civilians! Friedman ASSUMES there were fighters everywhere, and interprets the lack of evidence not as proof that he is wrong, but as proof that the media are part of the coverup. It's pure paranoia.

Palestinians are NOT "agents of their own fate". Israelis have occupied them. Israelis are in charge, de jure and de facto. To claim otherwise is to blame the victim.

"Israel is a tiny village". Yeah, right, one with nukes. One that dominates and invades its neighbors. One with the USA as a big bully on call.

All I get from Friedman is: please stop paying attention to what Israel is doing, because it's making us look bad.

Sorry about the double post.

About a month ago the BBC Radio 4 programme Archive on 4 looked at the history of coverage of Isreal and Palestine through broadcasts and cinema newsreels: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gnhnv (audio, 1 hour, may not play out side UK[1])

[1] Some Radio 4 programmes can be heard anywhere, others only within the UK

About a month ago the BBC Radio 4 programme Archive on 4 looked at the history of coverage of Isreal and Palestine through broadcasts and cinema newsreels: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gnhnv (audio, 1 hour, may not play out side UK[1])

[1] Some Radio 4 programmes can be heard anywhere, others only within the UK

While I enjoyed the debate, I was once again dismayed over the complete lack of mention of a one-state solution: one country, shared by Israel and Palestine...secular, democratic and with religious freedom guaranteed for all. The land "belongs" to all of them. I realize there's opposition to this idea for many reasons, but there's never a serious discussion about it. The late Christopher Hitchens was a big supporter of one state. Doesn't that merit a little attention?

Could not finish listening to this piece. Matti Friedman voice is so hard to listen too. The little I did hear is what I have heard before.... "sure we have lots of problems but why don't you focus your attention somewhere else."

His argument is ridiculous and a sign about how Israel new media (propaganda) strategy is to blame the messenger so now even covering the conflict is Anti-Israel.

Wow! This segment blew me away, and Ethan Bronner was a breathe of fresh air that was sorely needed on NPR. With as much as Bob Garfield and Brooke Gladstone abhor Fox News, this would have been an excellent segment to call out its biased, pro-Israel coverage. I'm already well aware of the ugly things Hamas is doing; I'd like to hear equally ugly coverage on what Israel is doing.

VI.
FYI, when in doubt look down at your “Press Pass” not “Media Pass.”

Thank you Matti Freidman! For shedding light on the darkness of bad journalism.

V.
It is no more wrong if the press or media, Western or otherwise, mostly or only, covered the Palestinian side and NOT the Israeli side. The term “the media” is an insult to media outlets that act as propaganda for their corporate owners. While “the press” is reserved for those professionals who cover, observe and report on events as they happen, objectively; AKA Journalism. Journalism covers both sides of story to inform the public that there are “two sides to every story.” This can only be done if from the reporter and/or correspondent, the bureau chief, the senior editor and finally the publisher is committed to being members of “the press” not “the media.”

IV.
It does not mean that it is right to kill, directly or indirectly, the other side. The real tragedy that is not reported is the constant pain that every mother, son, widow, uncle, etc; whiter Muslim or Jew, suffers from this ongoing conflict. That is wrong not to be fairly reported by any member of the press.

III.
It’s true that some Palestinian terrorist groups have in their charters, etc; that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” As heard in the On The Media (OTM) story above, Hamas' charter states that Jews started the French & Russian Revolutions, WWII, and other false conspiracies. This makes them, and anyone else who agrees with them, ignorant and wrong.

II.
Look both sides have done wrong. Neither sides have their hands clean in this ongoing conflict. It is both a waste of time, energy and intelligence to KEEP pointing fingers at each other and claim that either they are more wrong, more to blame, more the victim or more evil. What is wrong is saying and/or doing actions that have the near effect of killing any group of people.

II.
Look both sides have done wrong. Neither side have their hands clean in this ongoing conflict. It is both a waste of time, energy and intelligence to KEEP pointing fingers at each other and claim that either they are more wrong, more to blame, more the victim or more evil. What is wrong is saying and/or doing actions that have the near effect of killing any group of people.

I.
RIGHT ON!! Former Israeli-based AP journalist Matti Friedman, is right.
Mr. Friedman has helped us, the public, realize that the Western news coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is focused on the "conflict" "story" and mostly ignoring the rest, AKA "the context" of both peoples. Israel has had technology/science stories and there are Palestinian cultural stories neither of which I have seen/heard from the mainstream corporate media outlets, sadly. It is not diverse.

I.
RIGHT ON!! Former Israeli-based AP journalist Matti Friedman, is right.
Mr. Friedman has helped us, the public, realize that the Western news coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is focused on the "conflict" "story" and mostly ignoring the rest, AKA "the context" of both peoples. Israel has had technology/science stories and there are Palestinian cultural stories neither of which I have seen/heard from the mainstream corporate media outlets, sadly. It is not diverse.

Matti Friedman's conclusions about framing Israel's conflict with HAMAS were very similar to a recent analysis given by Dennis Ross. Both point out the larger threat posed by the underlying endgame of theocracies like HAMAS,ISIS, Iran,etc committed to realizing a global Islamic Calaphate. This perspective puts the Palestinian conflict in a much broader context.

Omitted in the discussion was the ease with which it's possible to get an English-language paper trail of anything said by those in power in Israel. Some speeches start out in English and there's a vigorous critical-of-power English language press in Israel. It's easy to find the statements made and hold leaders accountable, even with very shaky Hebrew; thorough reporting is quite easy. (When short for time, translate Ha'artez). This is not possible with Hamas--if a Hamas spokesman claims he never advocated murder of all Jews, there's no way to verify easily.

It is amazing that the Palestinian voice continues to be ignored, marginalized, and the conversation is between the extremist Israeli supporter, and the less extreme one. There are many intelligent, thoughtful, insightful palestinians that would had made this a much richer discussion.
NPR and WNYC should step up to a higher journalistic standard.

Thank you for providing this professional and serious conversation. I appreciated the fact that these two individuals had diametrically different perspectives, that they both are highly competent and experienced, and that they had developed their own concepts after years of professionally covering this issue. All too often debates on the Arab/Israeli conflict are conducted by inexperienced folks who parrot someone else's ideology.

I was struck by the conversation on the European media. I have European colleagues, I have ask them why their perspective is so anti-Israeli. They reiterate to me what they have learned from their European press. If I received the largely anti-Israeli doctrine contained in their publications, I would have an anti-Israeli position as well. From what my colleagues tell me, the mainstream press in France, Italy, and Spain ( where most of my friends reside) presents the Palestinian perspective as the only reality, and is extremely anti-Jewish. This is the first time I have heard this issue brought up in the American press, and I think the American media should explore the one-sided and anti-Jewish point of view presented in by European journalists. I am certain that it is uncomfortable for journalists to evaluate their colleagues, but this is a timely and important issue which deserves to be brought out of the darkness.

I was glad to hear that the issue of context was important to your conversation. Of course, it is incomplete to ignore the context in which covered events occur. An article which ignores context is at best useless, and at worst propagandistic.

Again, thank you for the first intelligent and balanced piece I have ever heard on reporting of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

@Frank McManus from Pennsylvania: "I hope OTM removes the long antisemitic comment"

Advocates of censorship should be made to clear a high bar. Censorship of *true* statements should require extraordinary circumstance, e.g., a "clear and present danger" as commonly understood (vs the Obama adminstration's definition of "imminent" to mean "maybe, sometime"[1]). The alternative is madness. If Germans claim they are demeaned by coverage of the Holocaust, shall we censor? If white members of the US corporate-funded media are made anxious by empirical data regarding their over-representation[2], shall we censor? Only when, e.g., true speech couples with explicit instructions to violence, as in Rwanda[3] ("our enemies live here, go kill them") should it be suppressable; labelling true speech as "hate speech" under lesser circumstances has dangerous externalities. (Justifying the claim that true knowledge is c.p. good is left as an exercise for the reader. Hint: truth is adaptive :-)

Similarly, restrictions on empirical questions should face a high bar. Whether Jews are over-represented in the USCFM, and especially in its coverage of the Middle East, is certainly every bit as legitimate as the question of whether white journalists are over-represented in the USCFM, and for the same reason: decades of social psychology have strongly established that persons who self-identify as members of a group *tend* to have an innate bias toward other group members, and against members of groups with which they perceive their own to be in conflict. (This does not mean that Jews cannot provide excellent, indeed extraordinary, analysis and coverage of the Middle East: e.g., Blumenthal[4], Chomsky[5].) Similarly, should NRA claims regarding its persecution prevent our Federal government from gathering data about gun violence[6]?

Media critics, esp OTM, should recognize that We the People (whom the Fourth Estate is meant to serve) need more truth, and particularly that we need less exclusion of true discourse because it violates journalistic convention (as in the Chiquita[7] and "Dark Alliance"[8] cases). Process standards matter inversely with the importance of the claims made: phone-hacking to gather celebrities tidbits is unacceptable; phone-hacking to establish a multinational corporation's crimes is acceptable. That no process standard should exclude true claims merely because they offend someone is hopefully self-evident.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/24/obama-misleading-war-isis-syria
[2] http://www.onthemedia.org/story/130782-troubled-times-part-ii/
[3] http://www.onthemedia.org/story/100-days/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Blumenthal
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
[6] http://www.onthemedia.org/story/282181-why-we-might-be-telling-wrong-stories-gun-debate/
[7] http://www.onthemedia.org/story/171956-chiquita-phone-hacking-scandal/
[8] http://www.onthemedia.org/story/gary-webb-and-cia/

Matti does not take Americans seriously. I suggest, don’t worry, most of us assume that the Palestinian fighters are hiding. But so what. It does not change the ultimate story which is not of an island of democracy amid 300 million arabs, but of a plantation colony, originally of European Jews in the midst of arabs. It may be too late to change history, but the tensions ARE between Jews and Arabs and not simply another demonstration of bad behavior by Arab savages. The conflict started because even 100 years ago, the arabs did not like the new colony.

Does anyone else see a correlation between this life long battle between Israel and palestine and the first two groups in our society to play with fiction and cameras. I will go out on a limb here and proclaim that Hollywood is filled with a jewish population (agreed?) And im sure baliwood is filled with middle eastern citizens. Soooo by that logical it seems to me that that this entire "war" is nothing more then job and industry security for the two. Wake upworld . This just isnt real but seems to me a long lasting collaboration between Hollywood and baliwood. The only question to ask in a world deeply stricken by the roots of money is who makes money by this happening and who loses if it ceases to exsist. Sorry to break the news to all you "extremesist" but its just another one of these screwed up money machines

Why was there no Arab or Palestinian voice included in this discussion? Without it, you cannot pretend to have any balance. By discussing Palestine without even deigning to interview an actual Palestinian you continue the process of dehumanization that so pleases Palestine's enemies. You've told them and us that Palestinians don't matter.

I look forward to your next all-male discussion of women's rights and your all-white panel on the plight of African-Americans.

The comment in this debate that really stood out was the one about European media questioning Israel's legitimacy. That's rich, since it was centuries of antisemitism in Europe that made (makes) Israel necessary for the Jews to survive. And now in Europe we see the usual right-wing Jew-haters joined in by leftists and Muslims. The latter 2 are claiming that it just Israel, though all 3 manage to make use of classic antisemitic rhetoric and chants like, "Gas the Jews."

I'm hoping that most of the comments here are from Basement-Dwelling-Trolls and not indicative of American public opinion. Otherwise, we're no better than Europe.

The comment in this debate that really stood out was the one about European media questioning Israel's legitimacy. That's rich, since it was centuries of antisemitism in Europe that made (makes) Israel necessary for the Jews to survive. And now in Europe we see the usual right-wing Jew-haters joined in by leftists and Muslims. The latter 2 are claiming that it just Israel, though all 3 manage to make use of classic antisemitic rhetoric and chants like, "Gas the Jews."

I'm hoping that most of the comments here are from Basement-Dwelling-Trolls and not indicative of American public opinion. Otherwise, we're no better than Europe.

Where is the Palestinian representative here? OTM, which is supposed to cover media bias and misrepresentations, has three Jewish voices covering alleged over-coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, with predictable results. (Not that all Jewish people cannot understand the plight of the Palestinians, but it is not happening here.) This is outright propaganda. Very disappointing.

Very disappointing choice of guests for a program I usually respect. One, Friedman's views are identical with IDF spokespersons. Bronner's bias and his conflict of interest (son served in IDF) have been documented time and again.
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/when-will-new-york-times-address-ongoing-ethical-problem-its-jerusalem-bureau

Another story flawlessly demonstrating the mainstream media's categorical refusal to take the Palestinian perspective seriously. And this time, it's done by engaging in a pseudo-debate with an Israeli who wants to pretend that American mainstream media coverage of Israel is actually hostile to Israel, a claim similar to the claim by the American right wing that the mainstream media all operate according to an explicit leftist agenda.

As I heard the coverage of the latest war in Gaza, the central narrative was that it was a more-or-less equal outbreak of hostilities between Hamas and Israel. I can't recall a single story on NPR, for example, that ever even considered the possibility that it was primarily a war of Israeli aggression. Whether or not that's what it was, it certainly was viewed that way by most Palestinians, and by many millions of people around the world. In American mainstream journalism, on the other hand, that viewpoint went virtually unmentioned.

And yet Matti Friedman has the chutzpah to criticize American journalists for, in effect, not being sufficiently enthusiastic about Israel's perspective -- and OTM takes him seriously. In many ways OTM is the very best media criticism on the air, but when it comes to Israel, OTM has a big blind spot.

PS I hope OTM removes the long antisemitic comment in this thread. Matti Friedman is right that antisemitism plays a role in much criticism of Israel, and it is an odious phenomenon. I just wish he would distinguish more carefully between antisemitism and principled criticism of Israel's practice of refusing to come to a settlement with Palestine.

I was surprised that no one raised the issue if Israeli censorship. Talk about an elephant in the room. I also find it surprising that American media has not or cannot question the Israeli version of a defensive action. Israel pulls out of peace talks, IDF kills protesting protesters, has IDF handle kidnapping of Israeli teens and not internal security using it as an excuse to arrest Hamas officials, assets and collectively punish the families of the alleged suspects and then do nothing to the Israeli settlers who admittedly kidnapped and burned the Palestinian boy. Then the rockets came. When the war starts, Bibi's poll numbers were great. Nobody asks him why he didn't disclose until after a month that they arrested one of the Israeli teen kidnapping suspects on day 3 of the war. All these wonderful questions that I would like asked and I am not even a journalist.

what a typically biased story. it starts out with the assumption that the question is whether or not israel is treated unfairly by the media and whether or not the media is too biased in favor of the palestinians. there is no suggestion that, perhaps, israel is treated with kid gloves by the media and that itis the palestinians who are demonized. the pro-israeli dude like many, many israeli advocates turned the argument so that anti-israeli bias is assumed whenever any story mentions facts that are not totally favorable to israel. instead of the question being whether the story and/or facts are accurate the isue is always that thereporting and media are biased against israel. he raises several alleged facts about palestinians and then claims that the media is too gutless to print or report them. in fact, I have read and heard every single alleged fact that he raised in virtully every mainstream story about the israeli onslaught onto gaza.

what we NEVER hear or read, espically in the NYT and government radio, are discussions of the LIKUD charter, the charter that states that the west bank shall forever belong to israeli jewish people, that there will never be a palestinian state and that the israeli regime will take "stringent measures" if the palestinians attempt to declare to an indepedant state(and we all know what israel means by "stringent"); whether israeli's biannual onsluaghts on gaza are actually part of its ongoing policy to destroy any independant palestinian opposition to israel and to the PLO; whether israel places ITS military amidst israeli civlian population centers (it does), whether israel targets and assassinates any palestinians who are indeendant of the PLO, one could go on and on as to the issues that the media ignores because they go agaisnt the israeli narrative. meanwhile any story about the palestinian opposition in the media is always "balanced" by the opposing israeli narrative.
OTM's own bias can be sumarized by the inteview with the BBC exec about a year ago. the interviewer started by saying that the first that he had to say is that "everyone" knows that the BBC is biased against israel. he then went on to question the BBC guy about the BBC's so-called anti-israeli bias. it was clear that OTM's claim against the BBC was entirely based on the fact hat the BBC didn't swallow whole the israeli narrative.

@Kathleen Struck: "Interesting debate that might have been more so if both sides had been represented."

OTM presented the full spectrum of acceptable opinion, from pro-Israel (Bronner) to hyper-Zionist (Friedman). What more could you want: Noam Chomsky, Max Blumenthal? If so, you're missing the point: Israel is The Jewish State, therefore anti-Zionism == anti-Semitism, therefore cannot be aired by "responsible media" like OTM. (But please, don't confuse "responsible" with "accountable": the ICC[1] is too distressing for US corporate-funded media to contemplate :-)

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/gaza-war-crimes-justice-palestine-sign-icc

After hearing the segment on live radio (without seeing the previous vitriolic comments) I was thoroughly impressed with the well-measured, insightful piece. Especially for this topic, which is so passionate in people's minds that we rarely hear any intelligent debate, even on media that can be intelligent on other topics (which are unfortunately rare).

Now that I see the other comments, I am glad I decided to pipe in and send my compliments to you. It is an excellent piece and you deserve real kudos for it. Don't let the trolls discourage you from doing it again.

Interesting debate that might have been more so if both sides had been represented.

Please stay in "The South."

I hope the media continues to "disproportionately" cover and expose two of the world's greatest evils, Israel and the U.S. (even if OTM doesn't), until they make changes in their foreign policy.

It's always disappointing to hear OTM discuss the Israel-Palestine conflict. It is obvious that OTM does not criticize Israel and its government, and the guests they bring on to speak won't say anything that may be taken as being critical of Israel.

The first negative story to come out about the PLO emerged from the vitriol spewed by the enemies of Arafat's Parisian wife -- only AFTER Arafat was dead and buried.

Right now this is a simple DATA story. Just count the number of NYTimes front page articles about Hamas politics and social analysis that do not include the word "Israel" or "Jews." I'm certain it's zero, which is the amount of insight that the public has about this sophisticated and well-funded organization. (Keep in mind that Bush W.'s press corps was largely comprised of the ninnies responsible for covering the middle east in the 90s. Couldn't have done a worse job.)

And this is from a news source that at least purports to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. For the non-bigot, a single, strong dose of BBC, as w most Arab/ Euro sources, on Israel is guaranteed to nauseate.

Matti Friedman alleges there is disproportionate, and disproportionately critical, attention to Israeli occupation and military action from the "major" (i.e., corporate-funded) US media. Ethan Bronner[1] disagrees ... slightly. Brooke Gladstone, Matti Friedman, Ethan Bronner: sound like a line from "The Chanukah Song"[2] ?-)

Once again, OTM seems to be "burying the lead" media-wise: the extent to which coverage of the Middle East by the USCFM is conducted, disproportionately, by those who self-identify (through religion or heritage) as Jews. If anyone can point to data on the relevant demographics of USCFM[3], please do! Meanwhile, inference to best explanation suggests the following:

The current size of the US Jewish population is disputed[4] but is almost certainly less than 10 million, even if one counts both religious Jews and "those of Jewish parentage who may have adopted another religion or opted out of Judaism along with household members such as spouses and children who are not otherwise included"[5]. That's ~3% of the total US population (~320 million currently). Time to roll-your-own media criticism: ask yourself,

1. Of the number of members of the USCFM covering the Middle East (and controlling that coverage, e.g., through editing), is the Jewish proportion more or less than 3%?

If your answer is "more" (or as I suspect, "much more"), you might also want to ask yourself:

2. Is disproportionately-large coverage by Jews of "The Jewish State"(tm) and its neighbors

2.1. irrelevant?

2.2. likely to give the appearance of a conflict of interest?

2.3. a prima-facie conflict of interest?

3. If those delivering and controlling USCFM's Middle-Eastern coverage were less disproportionately Jewish, would consumers of USCFM get

3.1. more or less diverse coverage of the region?

3.2. more or less critical coverage of Israel?

3.3. more or less critical coverage of Israel's neighbors?

All (IMHO) interesting questions directly "on the media," and directly concerning "media diversity" (a regular OTM topic over the years), but which I suspect will not be addressed by OTM (or any WNYC vehicle) for years, if ever. Prove me wrong, OTM!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Bronner#Controversy
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chanukah_Song
[3] Even more interesting would be data on religious demographics of USCFM by occupational level (i.e., separately for journalists, editors/managers, publishers/owners).
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country#Debate_over_American_numbers
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country#Countries

Thank you, Matti Friedman, for bothering to making the effort.