I know this week I’ve stepped a bit outside of my usual space, and there is much to say about what is going on right now with Israel, Iran, Palestine, the US, the neoconservatives, and all the other cheery subjects I usually write about.

Well, I’ll be taking a couple of days off to enjoy the weekend and hopefully watch my beloved New York Giants pound the  stuffing out of the New England Patriots this Sunday. And then, I’ll be back to Middle East writing. Unless something just grabs my attention again.

That was an example of one way media distortion happens. Today, we saw another, this time from the left side of the political spectrum.

Nancy Brinker, founder of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation

As I’m sure everyone out there is aware, the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure Foundation had passed new regulations governing its grant process that would have ended its funding for Planned Parenthood. The ensuing outcry made them reverse their decision.

A great victory right? Well, yes, it was, but you would not know it if you read this Huffington Post article by Laura Basset. The headline reads: “Susan G. Komen Reverses Planned Parenthood Decision, Does Not Promise To Renew Grants.”

Sounds like not much of a victory at all, right? It certainly led some friends of mine to question the big win, and it led The Daily Kos to just about toss the whole thing out the window and call it a defeat.

Nonsense. This was every bit the victory it seems to be.

The issue for the HuffPo and Kos (really Greg Sargent at the Washington Post, whose article was mostly just echoed at Kos), is that there is no guarantee that Planned Parenthood will get its funding renewed at the next funding cycle.

Well, yeah. There isn’t. Guess what? There wasn’t such a guarantee before.

Grants are made, renewed, discontinued for all sorts of reasons. No grant is simply assumed to be renewed. If a foundation commits in writing to funding a program or organization till the end of time, fine. Otherwise, everyone has to go through the renewal process.

Sometimes there are political reasons that a foundation does not renew a grant. More often, there is simply a decision to use the limited resources at hand elsewhere, perhaps to start up a new organization or help one that is in more dire need than the one it had been funding.

That’s all there is here. That’s all there ever was. The status quo ante has been restored which is all Planned Parenthood ever wanted.

I don’t know if this is simply an example of lazy reporting by Basset and Sargent or if one or both of them wanted to make sure people didn’t get complacent about this issue. But in either case, they are misinforming their readers.

Planned Parenthood is under ongoing siege. Anti-choice members of Congress are leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to find an excuse to cut off federal funding for PP. And foundations like Komen may receive lots of money from people and organizations that are pro-choice, but they receive funding from anti-choice people too (being against abortion but wishing to support breast cancer research are obviously not mutually exclusive).

So, Komen, like every other (with a handful of exceptions) foundation and non-profit organization wants to keep getting funded from as broad a base that supports its mission as it can. And that means the politics over this are going to continue, both inside and outside of Komen.

I can’t say I’m too upset if the shaded reporting on this motivates people to stay alert and on their guard about funding for Planned Parenthood and the protection of a woman’s right to decide what happens with her own body.

Nonetheless, I think that can be accomplished without misleading readers and distorting the actual events. Komen completely reversed itself here. They went back to where they had been, and expecting them to promise to renew Planned Parenthood’s grants in perpetuity, or even for the next cycle, outside of whatever approval process the

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood

foundation has is simply ridiculous.

That’s why it was really a great victory. As Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood said: “We are enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Komen partners, leaders, and volunteers. What these past few days have demonstrated is the deep resolve all Americans share in the fight against cancer, and we are proud to be a leading source for women seeking preventive care.”

Richards has been around the block, both in politics and the non-profit world, a few times. She is not being fooled by an insincere apology meant to save the face of the Komen Foundation. She is also aware that the long term battle to keep, and hopefully expand, Planned Parenthood’s funding is far from over, and that this was nothing more than a defensive victory.

But a victory it was. Basset and Sargent need to recognize that, and certainly need to avoid misleading their readers about that important fact. Motivate them to redouble their efforts, which must indeed happen, in a more helpful way, please.

For a more reality-based report that addresses the serious questions that remain about Komen and its ongoing relationship with Planned Parenthood, check out this piece from Think Progress.

I just received an e-mail news alert from the Washington Post. The headline reads: “News Alert: U.S. deficit to top $1 trillion for 4th year in a row.”

Sounds like that bungling president is not handling our economy very well, doesn’t it?

But then, I read the story.

It starts off by echoing the headline, but then comes to the relevant facts:

The federal budget deficit will top $1 trillion for a fourth straight year, congressional budget analysts said Tuesday in a report that predicts a nearly $1.1 trillion gap between government spending and tax collections for 2012.

That figure is the smallest – both in nominal terms and as a percentage of the economy – since the Great Recession began taking a heavy toll on the federal budget in 2009.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would continue to fall, dropping sharply in 2013 and throughout the remainder of the decade if policymakers follow through with major changes in both tax policy and government spending now on the books.

So, actually, Obama has been reducing the deficit despite the need for a massive amount of funds to bail out the many “too big to fail” financial institutions and for job creation. But to discover that rather pertinent fact, one has to read past both the headline and the first paragraph, something most readers don’t do.

The Washington Post has been steadily moving to the right for years, so this comes as no surprise. But as an object lesson in how mainstream media manages to report the facts, without lying, while at the same time completely misinforming its readers, I don’t think you’d find a starker example.

UPDATE: Turns out, the Post actually changed the lede in the article. It was reported on at the bsom blog here.

But I don’t forget the origin of this holiday, or any other I may share in, from a variety of sources. And we do well to remember it collectively. It’s not as if the United States is the only country in the world that would not have what it does without a horrifying history of brutality, cruelty and murder. Most nation-states can say the same. Still, too often we do seem to forget it, perhaps because the people we wiped out are so completely invisible to almost all of us almost all of the time.

Rev. Will McGarvey, a friend and colleague and man of deep conscience posted this picture on his Facebook page. I think it’s worth spreading around on Thanksgiving.

If you want to see the President of the United States take a stand for a just Israeli-Palestinian peace and (not for nothing) long-stated American

Emily L. Hauser

policy goals — let him know.

Make a phone call – the White House phone number is: 202-456-1111 (And if you’re Jewish or Israeli-American, make sure you mention it). Send an email – the White House contact pageis here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact (you’ll find a sample email after the jump).

And yes — I want you to do both.

But more importantly, it’s possible that the President does, too.

To quote Auden: “All I have is a voice/to undo the folded lie.” It’s time to use your voice.

**************************

Sample email to the White House (but this is just to give you ideas. Your own words are always best!):

Dear President Obama,

I’m an American Jew/Israeli-American Jew/American for whom Israel’s future and well-being are very important. As change sweeps across the Middle East, I deeply and sincerely hope that you are planning on addressing the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I honestly believe that the only way that you can serve American, Israeli, and Palestinian interests is to make a real break with the past, and take leadership in presenting an American peace plan. Not only do the Israeli and Palestinian peoples deserve an end to bloodshed and real security, but I think that American interests throughout the Middle East demand that the US act to mediate a final peace agreement. Please use the opportunity of your upcoming speech and your appearance before AIPAC to do what’s best for Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans.

Sincerely,

Name, etc, etc.

So far, it seems the Western anti-Muslim hysteria has not been able to latch onto anything to promote irrational fear of “radical Islam” taking over in Egypt, despite the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in these protests. The MB, which, contrary to its frequent portrayal in the US, is actually a moderate Muslim group these days who, in Egypt and elsewhere, have forgone violence and embraced popular activism and political agitation, has been used as a frightening specter in the West in the past. But both the fact that this is clearly a struggle for freedom and the fact that the protests were not sparked by the MB (indeed, they were probably a little late in joining in support) and have featured an astonishing cross-section of Egyptian society have prevented this. But the fact is that whatever emerges in Egypt is likely to be more independent-minded than  Mubarak and certainly less willing to be complicit in Israel’s policies vis a vis the Palestinians. When that becomes apparent, the demonization is sure to begin…

It’s also worth remembering that Jawaher’s brother, Bassam Abu Rahme, was also killed by Israeli forces in April, 2009 at another protest in Bil’in. Bassam was killed when a tear gas cannister was fired directly at him, in violation of legal use of such a weapon.

Jawaher Abu Rahme, another victim of the occupation

Interview with Michael Sfard

IDF Radio, January 4 2010 08:22 [recording here; interview begins at 00:33]

Niv Raskin: Now we turn to the IDF investigation on the death of protester Jawaher Abu Rahma. According to the IDF investigation, senior officers say it’s a kind of fabrication. The Bilin protester didn’t die of [tear] gas inhalation; she was a cancer patient. We want to talk about this issue with the family’s lawyer, Attorney Michael Sfard.

Attorney Michael Sfard: The IDF didn’t publish, its court journalists did.

Raskin: What do you mean?

Sfard: What I mean is that no IDF officer was willing to talk on-record. The IDF Spokesperson didn’t even put out a communiqué. Everything was done through journalists. They weren’t presented with even one document. I have never encountered such crazy fabricated blood libel.

Raskin: With your permission, let’s review the facts, at least as they were published. First, according to the reports, according to the investigation conducted by the IDF, there was no report of a wounded woman on Friday. According to those officers, at least, this casts doubt over whether she was at the protest at all.

Sfard: Niv, I don’t know where to start. There’s almost no word, no letter, of truth in the sentence you just uttered. And the most terrible thing is that I don’t know how Israeli media, which had the extraordinary courage to topple a Prime Minister [Olmert – DR] over corruption, acts like the North Korean media when it’s about something the IDF wants to achieve. There isn’t even one substantiating foundation for any of the components you described. Jawaher was at the protest. Dozens of people saw her there. I spoke to eyewitnesses who were beside her at the protest. Jawaher collapsed at the protest. She wasn’t sick like the IDF Spokesperson said on Friday. She didn’t have cancer as he’s saying today.

Raskin: Those officers ask why there aren’t photos of her at the protest when there dozens of photos from it.

Sfard: Because the IDF shot so much gas, that it was everywhere in the village and people all over were affected by it. The IDF has to this day refused order the opening of an [official] investigation. How is it supposed to obtain the photos? The Judge Advocate General hasn’t, until this very moment, ordered the opening of an investigation. So, on the one hand, they don’t open an investigation. On the other hand, they come up with these fabrications. If the IDF invested a tiny fraction of the energy it’s investing in fabrications in investigating itself, lives would be saved because the IDF would know where its action were wrong.

Raskin: Let’s, with your permission, try to return to factual issues. The gaps in the timeline. According to the Palestinian medical reports, a blood sample was taken from Abu Rahme 40 minutes before she even arrived at the hospital. How does that work?

Sfard: Look at what we’re discussing. Do you know how many medical files I’ve seen where, under the pressure of a life threatening incident, someone wrote 2 instead of 3? That’s what’s important? According to what the IDF is telling journalists and journalists are telling us, is that she was a cancer patient. Is there one journalist at Yediot this morning? Can the senior reporters — Nahum Barnea, Shimon Shiffer and Sever Plocker — ask the reporters and editors if they have one document substantiating the claim that she had leukemia? This is a farce! If we find an incorrect noting of a time, do we absolve the IDF of responsibility for her death?

Raskin: You’re criticizing the media?

Sfard: Of course.

Raskin: I’m not sure that’s the correct address. Someone gave them this version. Those were senior officers. Another allegation, they say, is that her clothes didn’t smell of tear gas, contradicting the Palestinian claims. They [also] talk about a quiet funeral, not the kind they have for Shahids [martyrs in Arabic -- DR] and that the Palestinians usually know how to leverage [these funerals] for a PR advantage and that didn’t happen this time.

Sfard: Hold on, I want to understand, are you serious?  The IDF is claiming that because it was a quiet funeral, she died from an illness and not by its hands? Is that a serious that a serious argument? So the IDF’s proof that she wasn’t at the protest is that there wasn’t rioting [at the funeral]? Look what’s become of us! I have to prove that there was or wasn’t a smell on Jawaher’s clothes when the IDF won’t investigate the incident? The IDF is talking about some kind of examination conducted by its officers. These aren’t people who know how to investigate.

Raskin: To summarize, bottom line, you’re saying that she wasn’t sick?

Sfard: What the hell? What sickness? She had an ear problem. We..really…her ear problem. Yesterday I got 20 calls from 20 reporters requesting an explanation what kind of problem she had with her ear. Let’s assume she had an ear problem. Does she deserve to die at a protest for it?

Raskin: A couple of days ago we spoke to her uncle who was with her at the protest. He said she was suffering from a kind of asthma and that she had suffered from respiratory problems over the past few years. That means that you can’t say she a clean medical record. Not that means anything. But it’s an important thing to say.

Sfard: Look, Niv. I’m not a Palestinian. I’m an Israeli and you’re an Israeli. I want to tell you..why not put out an orderly communiqué saying: ‘This is a tragic incident and we will investigate it. We use tear gas and other non-lethal weapons precisely so things like this won’t happen. We’ll look into how this happened.’ Then task the military police with a serious investigation, because a protester has died.  This is important because, if an Israeli protester dies, it won’t matter what illness he had, the police will investigate seriously.

Raskin: Attorney Michael Sfard, representing the Abu Rahme family, thanks for joining us. I’ll just point out in this context that in contrast to what Attorney Sfard says, the item on the IDF investigation appears in all the [Israeli] media and not just in Yediot Aharonot, which Sfard attacked.