« Taxes: Who Pays What (Or: The Same Old Same Old) | Main | Coca-Cola vs Coke Classic »
December 12, 2005
The Op-Ed Pages: Let The Reader Beware
The op-ed page in any newspaper is reserved for opinion pieces--in other words, what you'll find there is a writer trying to convince you of his or her point of view. It's a given that the author is taking a particular side; what's not a given is that the author is writing in bad faith--that is, hiding a connection or history that would give the reader information that might work against the writer's argument.
Neo-neocon has found a particularly egregious example of an op-ed shell game. In a December 9 article in the Los Angeles Times, George Bisharat argues that a "Pentagon-commissioned study" suggests that the threat posed by a nuclear Iran could be neutralized if Israel froze and then dismantled its nuclear arsenal.
Neo-neocon (along with blogger Omri Ceren at Mere Rhetoric) then compares and contrasts Bisharat's interpretation of the government study with what the study actually said, and finds that Bisharat's representations are shaky at best.
But the fact that Bisharat has blatantly misrepresented the study's conclusions is only part of the problem here. As neo-neocon points out, the bio listed at the bottom of the piece doesn't quite give the full picture:
So, it is in that spirit that I ask: who is Bisharat, and what are his political biases in the area of the Middle East and Israel? Does he have any? The Times identifies him as: is a professor of law at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco who writes frequently on law and politics in the Middle East. And this is, in fact, the case.
But if you read the entire bio to which I just linked, you'll find the following:
[Bisharat's] study of the impact of Israeli occupation on the Palestinian legal profession of the West Bank, Palestinian Lawyers and Israeli Rule: Law and Disorder in the West Bank, was published in 1989. In recent years, Professor Bisharat has consulted with the Palestinian Legislative Council over the structure of the Palestinian judiciary, reforms in criminal procedure, and other aspects of legal development.
Neo-neocon points correctly points out that Bisharat's past association with Palestinian organizations in no way negates his qualifications to write a piece on this subject. But a properly skeptical reader will want to know more about Bisharat's history. Basically one should ask, "Who is this guy and why should I believe him?"
With just a bit more research, one can easily come up with more information about a possible political agenda. Here, for example, is a piece written in early 2004 by Bisharat for the extreme leftist periodical Counterpunch. It's entitled, "The Right of Return: two-state solution sells Palestine short." The opening paragraph:
It is a tragic irony that, more than 55 years ago, one desperate people seeking sanctuary from murderous racism decimated another--and continue to oppress its scattered survivors to this day. In 1948, about 700,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homeland, their land and possessions taken by the new Jewish state of Israel. This included the Jerusalem home of my grandparents, Hanna and Mathilde Bisharat, which was expropriated through a process tantamount to state-sanctioned theft.
This clearly establishes that Bisharat has an agenda--and again, making note of his history is an altogether different action than condemning him for his opinion. What we can take him to task for is misrepresenting the conclusions of the government report he cited.
But even more deserving of blame is the LA Times for not providing their readers with adequate background from which to evaluate their columnists' positions.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/458
