A friend last night told me that he felt that the PBS News Hour, which he religiously watched and which he normally felt did a good job determining what to cover and an unbiased job when the covered the selected stories, had shown bias towards Hamas in its coverage of the Gaza war, because it was continually showing pictures of the conditions in Gaza, over and over again, and was putting all the blame on Israel and none on Hamas. I don’t normally watch the PBS News Hour, so I don’t know whether I would agree with him or not.

But this does bring up a serious question: what does it mean for media to be unbiased, how should a media organization achieve neutrality, and – equally important – should it always strain for neutrality? In case you don’t know, this is a very, very, very difficult question.

There is a myth that American news used to be unbiased. I don’t think this is true. Certainly, during the Vietnam War, the networks were not neutral, although we may think that they were. Every night, the national news would show footage from Vietnam and give us statistics (body counts) that we later learned were totally inaccurate. The media was simply reporting to us what the government was reporting to them without questioning their accuracy. Thus, the Vietnam era media reports were both inaccurate and misleading, leading us to think that victory was inevitable, even if it was taking a little longer than expected.

We know that the Arab media portrays Israel as satanic, and the Gazans and their leaders as victims. I was surprised to learn from Ben-Gurion University professor Amit Schejter, in a presentation to the Haberman Institute two days ago (available on YouTube), that Israel TV was doing the opposite – i.e, it does not show clips of Gazan suffering to the extent that viewers in other countries see them. Media neutrality does not, and cannot, exist.

But, let’s look at what is going on right now. There have been reports that there have been conversations going on, with Qatar and Egypt participating, for the possibility of the release of up to 40 hostages in return for another week or two week long ceasefire. But this morning, I see on the Times of Israel website that “Hamas said to reject Israeli offer for a 7 day truce in Gaza, in return for release of 40 hostages…Egyptian officials tell Wall Street Journal that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are demanding that Israel end military operations in Strip before they’ll discuss a potential deal.” Aljazeera reports are similar, so I think we can assume that this is accurate reporting.

What does it show? To me, it shows that Hamas and its Jihad ally are either unable to lose face, or are convinced that they will eventually come out on top. Or perhaps that they don’t have living hostages to release any more.I can’t tell which, but I would bet it’s one or another. It also shows that Hamas prioritizes its position over protection of the citizens of Gaza, thus guaranteeing more casualties from military attacks or food and aid shortages. Hamas figures, it appears, that the more Israel attacks Gaza, the more public opinion will turn in Hamas’ favor and the more likely an Arab victory (whatever that will mean) will occur.

The media has a choice as to where to put the blame – on Israel’s attacking, or Hamas’ refusal to release hostages.

I am not sure I am making as much sense as I want to this morning (hard to write a blog while babysitting a 3 year old), but my point is (I think) that there is a relationship between the war and the media reporting of the war. And the leaders on both sides are fighting two different wars at the same time – the one on the ground (or in the air) and the one on media. And they influence each other. If the media decides to concentrate on the hardships in Gaza, public opinion will be swayed in one way. If they concentrate on the hostages, or the destruction in Israel, public opinion might be swayed in another direction.

Now, this relationship may not itself affect those directly involved in the conflict – they know what side they are on. But it will certainly affect how the rest of the world looks at the situation.

The participants in a war must decide what to publicize and what to hold close to their chests. The media must decide what to concentrate on. Each could make different choices. And those different choices could change the duration of, or even the result of, the war itself.