Contextual Failure - The Times Can't Connect the Dots

"Escalation Feared as Israel, Continuing Bombing, Lets Foreigners Leave Gaza"
A5, Saturday 1/3/09
By Isabel Kershner and Taghreed El-Khodary

In a poor, but relatively adequate article, the NYT summarizes the eight day of conflict between Israel and Hamas. The greatest weakness of the article is its inclusion of some extreme quotes without qualification.

Here are a few:

• Muneer al-Zughair, a spokesman in Jerusalem for the families of Palestinian prisoners, said Hamas had been strengthened by what he called “the massacre” in Gaza.
• A Gaza teenager, Jawaher Hajji, who said she had lost two close relatives in the past week, described a scene of growing desperation in the enclave. “There is no water, no electricity, no medicine,”Jawaher, a 14-year-old who has United States citizenship, told The Associated Press. “It’s hard to survive. Gaza is destroyed.”

Neither of these statements is true, but the Times does not nothing to reject the claims made. Israel has not perpetrated a massacre, nor is it starving or denying Gazans water. It is important for the reader to know that "since the beginning of Operation Cast Lead 335 truckloads of humanitarian aid (7800 tons) have been transferred at the request of the international organizations, the Palestinian Authority and various governments." The NYT does not reveal this essential context, creating the impression that perhaps Israel is suffocating the residents of Gaza.

Beyond this, the NYT fails to highlight the necessary context in reporting the death of senior Hamas leader Nizar Rayyan, along with his four wives and nine children, in an Israeli airstrike. The Times fails to mention that "Hamas radio reported Rayan had received a phone message from the Israeli armed forces saying they were going to blow up his house but he refused to leave." Given this information, why didn't Rayyan tell his family to flee rather than face certain death? This demonstrates the depravity of the Hamas leadership, but by leaving out this context, the article makes it appear that Israel has little or no concern for civilian life, rather than the reverse.

Lastly, the piece refuses to state the obvious - the majority of those killed in the conflict have been Hamas security personnel members or operatives from other terrorist organizations. Instead the Times reports: "The casualty figures include many Hamas security personnel members, but the United Nations has estimated that a quarter of those killed were civilians." So, if the UN estimates that a quarter of those killed were civilians, doesn't that logically lead to the fact the majority of those killed were Hamas security personnel and the like?

Once again, the NYT fails to connect the dots or provide the essential context when the story doesn't come out as desired.