Media Activism Advice

When we see stories and articles in the media that are inaccurate or biased, our natural response is to be infuriated and develop a hostile attitude to the media. It is very important to realize that directing hostility towards the media or approaching them with anger will NOT bring about positive change. Yes, there is a lot of deliberate distortion and omission, but often bad reporting is the result of media organizations not having access to good information and to alternative viewpoints. This is where YOU can make the difference.

The basic roles an activist can play in the media are:

Accountability: acting as a check on inaccurate and unfair reporting and analysis.

Education: developing relationships with editors, producers and journalists and becoming a source of accurate news and alternative views.

Participation: becoming a voice in the media through getting letters and articles published, and doing interviews.
A good activist can aim to do any or all of these and develop skills over time.

II. Six Steps to Successful Media Activism and Participation

Every person who listens to the radio, watches TV or reads the newspaper can go from being a passive "recipient" of views and images created by others to an active participant fighting for fairer and more accurate coverage of what is happening to Palestinians. Here are six steps based on our experience:

Step 1: Become an analyst

For every report you hear or read, ask yourself "what is good about this, what is bad? Whose voices are included, whose are excluded. What would it take to make this report better?" Don't make blanket statements that you cant support. If your local paper has ten bad articles on the Middle East and one good one, don't say "all your coverage is bad." Rather, be prepared to praise the good one, and use it as a way to illustrate why more good reporting is needed, and contrast it to the bad ones.

Step 2: Choose your battles, learn the battlefield

None of us can read or listen to everything, but you can pick one or two sources--radio, tv or newspaper and try to monitor them consistently. That way, you can become familiar with patterns of good or bad reporting over time, and even with the work of individual reporters, and have a much stronger case for your arguments, and a better basis to establish a dialogue with the people who produce the news.

Step 3: Know your facts

Maximise your use of available information on the Internet:

Use Lexis-Nexis -- It is available to most university students and is invaluable. This is a searchable full-text database of hundreds of newspapers, magazines and electronic media transcripts. It is easy to use, and if your university gives you access to it is an invaluable tool. Ask your university library if it is available to you.

Use wire services like Reuters, Agence France Presse and the Associated Press -- these are the basic sources where most local media get their international coverage from. But there are many stories that they choose not to use. It is easy to search through wire stories at: http://dailynews.yahoo.com

Use the Web -- There are many alternative sources of information such as human rights organizations operating in the Middle East.

Foreign media -- BBC, European newspapers. Use them to contrast with US coverage. Often they are more complete and impartial.

Be accurate, precise and do your research -- Don't say something is a fact unless you are sure. If you are not sure, check on it. Lexis-Nexis is an extremely valuable tool for fact-checking. You are always much more impressive if you can show you command the facts. Don't give partial facts or distort facts. Speak the truth even on the days when the truth doesn't help the arguments you want to make.

Quote people accurately -- write down what they say. Tape programs. Keep a pen and paper near the radio or TV. Cite your sources. Remember, your credibility is your most valuable asset.

Step 4: Communicate:

Use email. Phone calls as follow up. Letters and faxes are good too. Unsure how to reach a journalist or editor directly? Call the newspaper/radio/TV station directly and ask. Most media outlets have websites which offer some information about how to contact them.

Be courteous and collegial. When communicating with journalists or editors, remember the following:

They are human beings. They feel harried and under pressure. They hear from a lot of nutcases, and will easily dismiss you as just another nutcase, unless you communicate effectively, professionally and politely.

When writing a letter, do not assume that the reader is as familiar with the subject as you are. Always include relevant information (date, name of reporter, subject), and briefly restate what was in the report that you are commenting on. If you are writing a letter to the editor which you hope will be published, different rules apply: you must be very brief, concise and to the point (see below). If the letter is supposed to educate the journalist, then you can afford to make it longer and include more information.

Never give in to frustration or emotions, even when you see a very hurtful or inaccurate report. Always address people as if they were colleagues. Often they will respect you and answer you, even if they still disagree with you. This will help to establish a dialogue.

Journalists are suspicious of "advocates." To avoid being labelled as an advocate, you should be able to argue factually, and calmly against the opposing viewpoint. You will not be taken seriously unless you can respond thoughtfully to opposing viewpoints. It is even better if you can anticipate and diffuse the opposing arguments. Remember, if the truth is on your side, then you have nothing to be afraid of!

Praise the good, as well as damning the bad. It is hard to overstate the importance of this. Journalists are much more likely to take you seriously if they feel they will get a fair hearing from you. A way to demonstrate this is to take the time to write a short note praising them for a good report. We are all human and we all like praise! Often a note of praise is what opens the door to dialogue.

Step 5: Become a Source
In our experience, the vast majority of journalists are decent people. They may not be experts on the issue you are interested in, and they rely on the information their sources give them, so you have to become a source, of good, timely reliable information and analysis. It is better to be a source, than just a person with a gripe! Being a source does not mean bombarding someone with 10 lengthy emails every day. Be selective and thoughtful. What are the most important things you think they need to know? Even better, ask them about the kinds of things they are interested in hearing about.

Once you establish a record, and some credibility, journalists will begin to turn to you, just to discuss ideas, or even ask for quotes and interviews. Now you have become a "source."

Step 6: Develop networks
Share your letters with interested friends and fellow activists. This will encourage others to follow your example, and will give you a way to share information. Become a "teacher." Encourage people to write to newspapers both in praise and when they don't agree.

III. Specific strategies for print and electronic media
Print Media

Writing a letter to the Editor
A letter to the editor that you want to be published should be above all concise. Very few newspapers will publish any letter over 250 words, and less than that is common. This means that you may see an article with dozens of statements you disagree with. If you want your letter published, you have to pick only the most important issue and respond to that. The tone of a published letter should be calm and matter of fact.

Here are some examples of letters that were successfully published in newspapers:

17 March 2002 - Letter published, "Palestinian Rights," The New York Times

31 August 2001 - Letter published, "Seeking Equilibrium In the Middle East," The New York Times

29 October 2000 - Letter published, "Ignoring facts about Israeli deeds is childish," The Montreal Gazette

29 July 2000 - Letter published, "On Jerusalem"

20 March 1999 - Letter published, Globe and Mail

Most newspapers accept unsolicited submissions of "Op-ed" articles from members of the public. An op-ed is simply an opinion piece. Sometimes they are called "commentaries." There are no hard and fast rules about how to get one published, but here are some general principles:

An op-ed should be well-written and topical. For example, when the Middle East is in the news, most newspapers will be looking for one or two op-ed pieces on the subject. This is your chance, especially if they recently published something from an opposing viewpoint.

Very few newspapers publish op-eds over 800 words, so keep your article within that limit. It takes some training to say all you want to say in so few words, but get a friend to read your piece and ask them to cut out words, phrases and information that are unneccessary to your article. An op-ed should be understandable to a general reader. In other words, if the reader needs to have a PhD in Middle East history to understand what you are writing about, it is unlikely to be printed.

Newspapers like op-eds from members of the local community who have some personal stake in the issue.

Having a title, such as "..the writer is a member of Pleasantville Citizens for Peace" sometimes helps, but is not absolutely necessary. Simply having a personal connection to the issue or a long-standing interest is often enough. Most important is to have a well-written and compelling article.

Every newspaper has different guidelines for accepting an op-ed. Some accept email, others only faxes. The best way is to call the newspaper up and ask for the op-ed editor and ask what the guidelines are. Follow them. If you submit your op-ed by email or fax, follow up with a phone call to make sure it was received and to ask when you can expect an answer. If you haven't heard an answer within a reasonable time (usually a couple of days), call back again to ask.

Disappointment is an integral part of trying to get an op-ed printed. In our experience, MOST of our op-eds are rejected. Do not be discouraged. If your op-ed is rejected by one newspaper, try another. If none of them print it, try again with a different piece another time. If you are only willing to try once or twice, then op-ed writing is not for you. Generally speaking big papers like the New York Times are extremely difficult to get into. Your best bet is to start with regional and local papers.

Here are some examples of op-eds that we had printed by following this approach. Note these are only examples by one author. Typically op-eds can touch on personal, historical or other aspects of an issue and encompass widely varying styles:

11-12 December 2001 - Published article, "Israel should end its occupation", The Chicago Tribune

26 October 2000 - Published article, "Been Down This Road Before", The Chicago Tribune

10 August 2000 - Published Op-Ed, Arnove & Abunimah, Financial Times

Meeting with the Editorial Board
Newspapers typically have an editorial board. This is the group of people who decide on what stands a newspaper will take in its unsigned editorials, (known as "staff editorials" in the US and "Leaders" in the UK.) These articles represent the newspaper's position on a given issue. Any group of people can ask for a meeting with the editorial board. It is best to have some sort of title for this. For example if you have three or four people, call yourselves "The Circleville Committee for Middle East Justice" or something like that. Before you ask for such a meeting, DO YOUR RESEARCH. Look through back issues of the newspaper. What reporting and opinion was good? What was bad? What do you want them to know? If a person connected with the conflict comes through town, for example a human rights activist or a witness from Palestine, this is a good occasion to ask for a meeting with the editorial board.

Giving an interview on radio or television
Most people are nervous the first time they go on the radio or on television. With practice it becomes easier and easier. The trick is to know what your message is beforehand and find a way to say it in a concise and accessible way. No matter what questions you are asked, be sure to put your message across. Your goal should be to set the agenda and define the terms of the discussion regardless of the questions you get. Here is an example of how to do this. This sample interview is typical of the type activists have been having:

Question: The Israelis say that Yasir Arafat isn't doing enough to stop violence. What more can Yasir Arafat do to put an end to the violence?

Answer: The issue is not what Yasir Arafat is doing, but what the Israelis are doing. The Palestinians are living under a very brutal military occupation....[you can then talk about what occupation means to Palestinians.]

Question: But we are seeing Palestinians using guns and firing at Israelis. The Israelis say they are just defending themselves.

Answer: You cannot defend yourself by occupying someone else's country in violation of international law. This is aggression, not self-defense. The whole world has condemned Israel's 34-year-old occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It is true that there have been some Palestinians who fired guns, but the vast majority of Palestinians killed and injured had no guns. Israel's excuses just don't hold up.

Question: What do you think needs to happen for there to be peace and to stop the violence?

Answer: There will be peace when Israeli occupation forces withdraw and Palestinians are allowed to live free in their own country.

And so on...In the above example, the interviewee decided in advance that she wanted to stress the fact that the Palestinians are living under occupation, so that all the events would be considered in that context. Practice makes perfect....

Know your audience
When speaking publicly or in the media, be aware of who your audience is. Sometimes you might be up against a hostile person representing a Zionist viewpoint. Remember, this is not the person you are trying to convince or argue with. You cannot change their mind. Your goal is to appeal to the majority of people in the media audience who are uncommitted and who don't know enough about the true situation to make up their minds. Speaking truthfully and calmly about what is really happening is the goal. Don't allow yourself to be provoked or baited by an interviewer or another interviewee.

arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)