Israeli news media coverage: bombing near Zion Square, Jerusalem

Citation

Levinson, J. (2002), "Israeli news media coverage: bombing near Zion Square, Jerusalem", Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 11 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/dpm.2002.07311aab.001

Israeli news media coverage: bombing near Zion Square, Jerusalem

Israeli news media coverage: bombing near Zion Square, Jerusalem

On 1 December 2001 at 23.33 a bomb was detonated by a suicide terrorist near the Ben Yehudah pedestrian mall in downtown Jerusalem. Seconds later a second terrorist detonated another explosion some 100m away. At 23.51 a timer set off a car bomb a street away. In all ten were killed, and 180 were wounded

First news of these incidents was not by radio or television bulletins. Within moments of the first explosion this reviewer learned about the bombings from an eyewitness with a cellular telephone. This was not an uncommon phenomenon.

The second source was similar eyewitnesses who called in reports that were then aired by radio stations. During the first five or six minutes after the first two explosions Arutz 7, a radio station catering to West Bank Jewish residents, received at least two calls during a talk show that it was broadcasting.

The net result was that first impressions were set by the reporting of untrained and essentially emotional eyewitnesses.

Israel Radio and Television

Only some ten minutes into the incident did Israel Radio initiate its own coverage, followed about five minutes later by Israel Television (Channel 1), which started by relaying the radio broadcast. Channel 2 began its coverage about 30 minutes after the bombings following the conclusion of an entertainment movie.

Due to the late Saturday night hour, news staff on duty were generally not seasoned reporters. Thus, some of the reporting was trying, bordering upon the inaccurate. For example, a reporter described the arrival of ambulances from "the entire country"; in fact, only vehicles from the Tel Aviv-Rehovoth region were dispatched to support local Jerusalem efforts. There was some movement of ambulances from further points, not into Jerusalem, but as back-up for the Tel Aviv-Rehovoth region.

Another example. As is common in the confusion following any disaster, several initial reports proved to be inaccurate. For example, it was first thought that one of the explosions had been detonated on Hillel Street, parallel to the Ben Yehudah mall. When the correct location was ascertained, it was announced. There was only replacement, not cancellation, of the Hillel location. Thus, listeners were attuned to accurate facts only through frequent repetition and not by direct statements of correction[1].

The following morning when response agencies such as MDA (ambulance service) and ZAKA (religious volunteers removing body remains) described their disaster response activities on morning television talk shows, there was no critical examination of their statements. The television stations essentially offered these organizations gratis advertising time. Critical analysis, however, was plentiful concerning political ramifications, particularly after yet another terrorist bombing attack in Haifa on Sunday at noon.

Video clips were available only almost an hour into the television coverage. Since there was only limited footage, many of the same views were broadcast repeatedly. This had the effect of freezing the video image in time, even though the incident obviously progressed and maintaining an artificial level of excitement and drama. Older footage also contradicted real time events. One example is audio stating that the evacuation of the wounded had concluded even though video was still showing ambulances receiving patients at the scene.

Newspapers

Given the late hour of the incidents and relatively early press deadlines, newspapers were under pressure for their Sunday morning editions. Yediot Aharonot, the largest selling daily, solved this problem by placing a heavy emphasis on pictures with relatively limited accompanying text. The little found in the articles emphasized basic facts, political ramifications and superficial commentary. There was virtually no reporting of disaster response issues.

Maariv, another popular daily, followed a similar line, although it chose to have fewer pictures and more coverage of other non-related news events (primarily terrorist related). Maariv did carry one article describing how it took 30 minutes for Television Channel Two to come on the air with news broadcasts.

Haaretz, the third large circulation Hebrew daily, restricted its coverage to a lead article giving an overall description of the bombings and a map that showed the sites of the two suicide terrorist detonations without noting where the car had exploded. Otherwise, the newspaper edition was apparently as it had been planned before the terrorist incident. Readers were directed to the newspaper's Web site for news updates (available in both Hebrew and English).

The International Herald Tribune printed in Tel Aviv and sold on Sunday morning is the same paper that is distributed elsewhere on Saturday morning, long before the terrorist attack, hence it had no coverage. The English version of Haaretz, distributed together with the Tribune, had treatment parallel to that in the Hebrew edition – a basic article (enlarged by extensive coverage of counter-terrorism measures enacted by the army as the result of other attacks.

One day later

On Sunday, just after noon, a suicide terrorist detonated a bomb on a Haifa bus, killing 16. That became the main television and radio story. By early Monday morning when newspapers appeared, the focus of coverage was two-fold – the drama (both pain and heroism) or disaster and political considerations.

Although there were human-interest stories and expanded obituaries in both Yediot and Maariv (in the main and magazine sections), emphasis was clearly on what concerned the public – the war against terrorism. Yediot did run a vaguely sourced piece on the technical problems of victim identification. Maariv contained a short article stating that Television Channel Two had adopted new procedures to improve its emergency coverage. Otherwise, however, there was nothing that could be called coverage of disaster response per se.

Jay Levinson

Note

1. 1.

   After the Sunday bus bombing in Haifa it was first thought that the bus involved was No. 17, When it was verified that the number was, in fact, 16, statements of correction were repeated several times during the television coverage. This is a much more professional approach that limits unnecessary confusion.