'Philly Inquirer' Battles Boycott By Jewish Groups

By: Lauren Wolkoff The old piece of newsroom wisdom that measures a report's objectivity by whether both sides of an issue are complaining has done little to defuse criticism of The Philadelphia Inquirer, which has come under intense scrutiny by activists on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian debate.

To date, some 600 readers have dropped their subscriptions because of a boycott launched in July by a handful of area Jewish groups claiming the coverage is biased against Israel. But Executive Editor Walker Lundy said Inquirer has not been impacted financially. The paper has a daily circulation of 381,104, according to the ABC FAS-FAX report issued March 31.

Steve Feldman, executive director of the Greater Philadelphia District of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), which helped organize the boycott, said the Inquirer has consistently misrepresented the facts surrounding the Middle East conflict for more than two decades.

Palestinian rights advocates have taken a different tack. Counting headlines and photos, and analyzing story placement, Palestine Media Watch documents examples of perceived bias and presents the final tally at meetings with editors every few months, alleging the Inquirer is actually pro-Israel.

Lundy, who has fielded this two-pronged criticism for months and has met repeatedly with both groups, said he has a "hard time understanding" many of the allegations. He stood by the coverage of the paper and its Israel correspondent, reporter Michael Matza, who he insisted has done "an extraordinary job under very trying circumstances."

One major bone of contention for the pro-Israeli camp is the newspaper's refusal to use the word 'terrorist' to characterize Palestinians who target Israeli citizens with violent acts such as suicide bombings. Critics argue that the Inquirer sanitizes these actions by using words such as 'militant' or 'activist' to describe the perpetrators.

Though a harsh critic of the Inquirer in his own editorials, Jonathan Tobin, editor of the greater Philadelphia area's Jewish Exponent, a weekly with a circulation of some 60,000, does not support the ZOA-led boycott because he considers it ineffective. Moreover, he dismissed some ZOA hardliners' contention that the Inquirer is anti-Semitic, calling this argument "at best, off the point, and at worst, misleading and possibly unfair."

The ZOA's Feldman refrained from using anti-Semitic to characterize the Inquirer or its editors, but would not rule it out, either. "Anti-Semitism is a very strong term that we do not like to fling around. I am not saying the Inquirer is or is not [anti-Semitic], but it certainly seems they are anti-Israel," Feldman said.

Lundy said other critics have called him anti-Semitic to his face and feels this does not have a place in the dialogue. "You do damage to the phrase 'anti-Semitic' by making this accusation. And you hurt your credibility with me when you call me names," he said.

By all accounts, the controversy surrounding the Inquirer's coverage is not likely to blow over any faster than the Middle East conflict itself. The ZOA says it is stepping up the boycott, and plans to begin to meet with Inquirer advertisers who might be sympathetic to the cause.

Palestine Media Watch, too, will continue its careful dissection of the newspaper's coverage, a strategy Ahmed Bouzid, its director, hopes will "yield truth in the long run."

More information on the ZOA and Palestine Watch can be found at www.netreach.net/~zoa/ or www.pmwatch.org.