Non-violent protesters came up with a novel way to protest Israeli plans to build more settlement colonies in the occupied West Bank: They occupied the land themselves. The Bab Al Shams tents went up on Friday on privately owned Palestinian land in what Israel designates as the E1 part of the West Bank. Israel’s announcement of a plan to build new colonies in that part of the West Bank was especially controversial.
The New York Times reported the news on Saturday. But the most remarkable thing is what they did with the headline.
The headline on the earliest versions of the story was “Palestinians Set Up Camp in Israeli-Occupied West Bank Territory.” Such acknowledgments of the West Bank as “occupied” territory are relatively rare in corporate media, as Seth Ackerman pointed out in Extra! (1/01).
But then, as Ali Abunimah wrote (Electronic Intifada, 1/12/13), at some point it was changed to “Palestinians Set Up Tents Where Israel Plans Homes.” (Twitter user @jamiesw was credited with spotting the change.)
The Times story, and the one the next day, both refer to “Israeli-occupied West Bank territory.” So why was this fact removed from the headline? The decision is certainly a curious one–a casual reader would likely react very differently to the idea that Palestinians are protesting an occupation, versus placing tents where someone would like to build “homes.”
It seems like a good issue for Times public editor Margaret Sullivan. If you’d like to know more about why the Times changed an accurate headline, you can email her at public@nytimes.com.
I’ve emailed the the public editor’s desk. They claimed they weren’t sure why it was changed. The assistant who contacted me speculated that the original headline may have been to long for print (but it was online?!). I pointed out an alternative way to shorten the headline without changing its meaning or making it as awkward sounding as the original. I’ve asked him to find out who made the change. He said he would but it might take a few days. I plan on posting the exchange to my blog when it’s finished.
The public editor sent me the form acknolwledgement but no response over a week ago.
I still have received no response as to who was responsible for the change. The person who replied to my email, Joseph Burgess, said it might take a few days. I’m not sure just how many is a few. Here is the email exchange:
1/14/13
Margaret Sullivan,
Can you offer an explanation as to why a 1/12/13 headline on the New York Times’ website was changed from “Palestinians Set Up Camp in Israeli-Occupied West Bank Territory” to “Palestinians Set Up Tents Where Israel Plans Homes?” How does such a semantic change help to clarify the issue at hand? It would seem from my perspective to cloud the issue. If the paper’s position is that Israel is not occupying the land, then why is such language used in the body of the article?
Sincerely,
James Freeman
1/15/13
I don’t know why the headline was changed but I assumed when first reading it that it was due to space constraints in print. The original headline
was incredibly long. The shorter version is more beneficial to print.
Hopefully this helps.
Best,
Joseph Burgess
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
1/15/13
Good afternoon,
I’m afraid it doesn’t help much. It frankly seems like a dodge. There’s a clear difference in meaning between “Israeli Occupied West Bank Territory” and “Where Israel Plans Homes.” If the actual intent was to shorten the headline it seems like the best way to do so without changing the meaning would simply have been to eliminate the words, “West Bank.” In print that would have been only two characters longer, without creating a headline so awkwardly worded that it looks like one of my 10th grade students wrote it. When you say more beneficial to print, I have to ask, by whom? This was an article on the website. It wouldn’t seem that I’d have the same concerns about space constraints when printing an article from my home printer that The Times has when it prints millions of newspapers.
The stylistic awkwardness of the revised headline and the absurdity of the explanation you’ve provided suggest to me that this is in fact an issue of journalist integrity, and that someone at the paper had a problem with Israeli occupied territory being referred to as such in a headline. The revised headline, in essence, buries the lead.
Can you tell me who was responsible for the revision?
Sincerely,
James Freeman
1/15/13
I will look into it, but it may take me a few days to get an answer.
Best,
Joseph Burgess
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
you ll never get an answer from that cow.. On isreal (and wal street) issues shes a coward and a liar..she changed the headline because AIPAC, and-or the Isreali embassy themselves, DEMANDED that she do so. she complied,
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
The article entitled “Palestinians set up camp in Israeli-occupied West Bank Territory” was actually an accurate headline. I wonder why the NY Times opted to sugar coat this from the Israeli perspective by changing it to “Palestinians set up tents where Israel plans homes.” Has fair journalism become an oxymoron in the US?
marc–Coward, okay. Liar, okay. But cow?
Remember friends that Israel is also practicing “non violent” protests.Their protest is against the attempt to annihilate the Jewish state.So they build homes in an area known as area C,as designated by the Oslo accords.This is a military buffer zone against future attacks.Setting up tents, or tanks in this area, by a group that admittedly and openly longs for violence against Israel will not bear fruit.Israel is not there to conquer a helpless people for the sake of expansion.They are there to secure a buffer against endless attacks .