Here is the transcript from a June 10 interview by CNN host Rick Sanchez with Steven Stotsky of CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America):
SANCHEZ: This is a smart, interesting conversation we should do more of, I think, in our business. This is, like, an introspective conversation about the media and — welcome back, by the way, to "RICK'S LIST." I'm glad you are here.
Much has been said and written since the pro-Palestinian activists and Israeli commandos who have been accused of going too far in storming the ship. Look, there are two sides to this story. "RICK'S LIST" has carefully given equal time to both, most would agree.
Then came the incident involving Helen Thomas. The consensus? Helen Thomas' comments are indefensible. But even before that there was the snubbing of Joe Biden, which had some people questioning, including a guest on this show, whether the U.S. relationship with Israel could at times become strategic liability, or, worse, a threat to the mission of maybe our troops overseas.
Steven Stotsky is good enough to join us now. He's a senior analyst with Camera. Let me tell you what Camera is. This is a relevant organization that keeps an eye on the media to make sure that their reporting in general, the media's reporting, including ours, when it comes to Israel is fair. Steven, good to see you. Glad you're here.
STEVEN STOTSKY, SENIOR RESEARCH ANALYST, CAMERA: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Listen, let's start with this. I'm curious, do you think the American press and American media reporting on Israel is generally, a, balanced, b, tilted toward defending Israeli policy or, c, tilted toward defending the Palestinian or other critics of Israel? Which one would you say it is?
STOTSKY: I would say a. America's media presents all points of view, and that's a good thing. What we try to emphasize, though, is factual accountability and providing enough context so that the viewers can really understand what's going on.
SANCHEZ: That's a fair point, and you're absolutely right. And, you know, that's sometimes the thing we struggle with in this business, trying to make sure we get everything covered and how much — what do we leave out? What do we put in? Context. You're right.
STOTSKY: Right.
SANCHEZ: Did you think the coverage of the flotilla incident that we were reporting on extensively, was that generally fair?
STOTSKY: Yes. Most of it was good. And what we have the advantage of this time was lots of video tape of what went on, and so that's different from a lot of previous events where we have to rely just on hearsay. Generally it was pretty good.
SANCHEZ: I don't know if you watched our coverage, but I showed and almost did a play by play when we provided the video of the commandos getting on the ship. There it is now again. There, they get down. What do you see? You see them literally being assaulted as they get on the ship.
That, I think, turned the story and I found that most people reported that. Do you not agree?
STOTSKY: Right. And — right, I would agree. And I did watch some of your coverage and I thought it was quite good, because you did present all points of view. You had good spokes people on. And that's important. And at this point I think what's important now is to follow through, looking at some of the more recent developments like the Turkish angle. We know that the particular group that was on that boat where the altercation, or the fight occurred, there was these members of the Turkish extremist group that thwarted them. I think that –
SANCHEZ: You know, it's funny you should say that, because I carefully referred to hem them as "activists." And other have referred to them as "peace" — I can't even remember the terminology, because I haven't used it.
But I think it's pretty clear, and to be fair — and that's not to excuse saying everything that the Israeli commandos did was right, but I don't think it's fair to say that these people didn't have an agenda on the boat and that they weren't activists.
Let's switch the subject and go to Helen Thomas. Fair? Coverage fair on that?
STOTSKY: Yes, it was fair. Something I would like to point out, something that I think was not pointed out as much, it wasn't simply the bigotry that was expressed. It was also the surprising ignorance of what she said. She totally — she said that Jews should leave Palestine and go back to Germany and Poland.
Well, Israelis, very few Israelis actually trace their heritage back to Germany and Poland. The largest group of Israeli Jews actually came from Arab countries, they were refugees from Arab countries. So for someone at the time that Israel was reestablished, it's surprising how little she knew to make that statement.
SANCHEZ: Yes, 1948. See, that's context. That's good information that you're sharing with us.
OK, we pretty much are in agreement on most of that stuff. Now let's get to the tricky stuff where you and I may have some disagreement. And I think reasonable people that follow the media and the Israeli-Palestinian stories would have arguments.
Let's start with Anthony Cordsman. He wrote a paper recently. It was quoted in "The New York Times." He suggests at times Israel can become a bit of a strategic liability to the United States. Quote, he says in this, "Recent Israel — Israeli governments, particularly the one led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have ignored the national security concerns of its biggest benefactor," I guess he's alluding to the United States, "the United States, and instead take steps that damage the American interests abroad."
That's a bold statement for a guy to make. Is that a fair criticism that deserves coverage in the United States?
STOTSKY: You know, it's a fair criticism. It's an opinion.
SANCHEZ: Yes, of course. STOTSKY: And certainly he's entitled to air it. And what CNN should do, though, is bring the other side to argue it. I'm not sure of his specific points that he made, but, you know, he has to have specifics where he thinks Israel is acting in a way that's against America's interests.
SANCHEZ: OK. Well, here's some of the specifics that were pointed out, for example, by "The New York Times" and to a certain extent, and I know you'll quibble with programs the way we presented it on this show, and you may have some, you know, fair ammunition there.
Back in March, Israel seemed to humiliate an American vice president. This got lots of press, "Time" magazine, "Newsweek," everybody wrote about it. That's the word they used, "humiliate." Some say it was a snub.
Biden traveled there to assure the peace accord and to confirm that the U.S. has a position opposing Israeli construction of new settlements. So what does the Israeli government do? They announce while he's there that they will build 1,600 new settlement homes in East Jerusalem.
It kind of almost emasculated Biden in the Arab world and made headlines all over the world suggesting that Israel, not the U.S., really wears the pants in our relationship.
That's the kind of thing that recently Americans have been writing about that says, come on, guys, Israel, are you our friend or not? Don't embarrass us like this. Is that a fair story to write, and was that a fair criticism?
STOTSKY: You know, it's a fair story and certainly the Israelis didn't handle it well. But on the other hand, the reason given was simply this was a municipal decision by the city government of Jerusalem, and it was about building more apartments in a section of Jerusalem that was surrounded already by Jewish housing and Hewish neighborhoods.
So I think what the media did was blow it up into something bigger than it really was. It really was a local issue that should have been reported but was not that big a deal.
SANCHEZ: You can understand though, why Vice President Biden felt kind of put upon, though, couldn't you?
STOTSKY: Sure, sure. The timing was very bad, but I think there are bigger issues. And on the bigger issues I think the United States and Israel do go by the same playbook.
SANCHEZ: Most people agree with that. We're talking about nuance here. I think — I'm glad we're doing this. This is smart for guys like us to have these conversations because I think too often we do stay on the extremes on this thing. Let's go a little deeper into this now. Soon after that incident, both President Obama and a U.S. commander were quoted suggesting that Israel might be hurting our security interests. Obama declared that conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up, and this is the quote that's been, you know, thrust about out there, "costing us significantly in terms of blood and treasure."
General Petraeus said in Congressional testimony that the lack of progress in the Middle East creates a hostile environment for America.
You took issue with the way we reported that, and you may be fair in your criticism. But what I don't believe is that you were right in that this isn't — you're right in criticizing the spirit of what our guest was saying here, which is sometimes when it appears that the United States and Israel are in disagreement, it doesn't help the U.S.'s cause overseas. Tackle that, if you will.
STOTSKY: And here again — sure. And here again the real issue from my point of view and from our point at Camera of view was accuracy. President Obama's statement, if you look at the full statement, he wasn't specifically referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when he spoke of blood and treasure. He was actually referring to all the conflicts in the Middle East.
SANCHEZ: OK. Yes, could be, he was speaking — a lack of progress in the Middle East, OK, I can accept that. Most people would say when you talk about the Middle East crisis, you're talking about the problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But you're right, that was not hammered down. What's your next point?
STOTSKY: The point with regard to Petraeus, what he was alleged to have said, the point was that many people took — when you had Mark Perry on in that segment on March 16th, many people took that and were repeating that General Petraeus had said that Israeli actions were endangering the lives of American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan when actually General Petraeus never said that.
What he was saying and what the written testimony that you were referring to said was that the failure to make progress in the peace process was creating difficulties for Arab moderates who might cooperate with us, and in terms of their own legitimacy in front of their own people. That's a fair statement to make.
SANCHEZ: You're right. General Petraeus came back several days later and said no, I didn't say that. And he tried to clarify it.
I think most people would take from Petraeus that there was an intimation, a suggestion that as a commander of people fighting in that part of the world, he was concerned, and I think we would agree that, look, we need to make sure it looks like we're both on the same page here, right?
STOTSKY: Right. I would agree with that, yes.
SANCHEZ: You know what? Can we do this again? I enjoyed the conversation. It's good to talk about these issues. Sometimes we get into the micro of these stories that we don't talk about the broad perspectives. I appreciate your time, Mr. Stotsky.
STOTSKY: Thank you very much, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Take care.
/cijainfo
@CIJAinfo