I began my work as senior editor of Good Faith Media almost three weeks after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks against Israel. I never have been an expert on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Still, I have followed the situation closely enough over the years to know early on that much of my role for the foreseeable future would be navigating the turbulent waters of covering that situation.
Although GFM occasionally reports on hard news, our most substantial contributions to the religious media landscape are commentary and analysis. These endeavors involve a greater assumption of bias than traditional reporting.
Craig Nash
However, any type of journalism, whether news or opinion, does not aim to alleviate bias. That would be impossible. Even if reporting or editorials could equally and impartially communicate all angles of a story (they can’t), decisions about what to cover and when to cover it are laden with personal and institutional bias.
However, media outlets that wish to operate with integrity will name their bias. They will examine and interrogate it with as much vigor as they do for the stories they cover.
In the July/August issue of our Nurturing Faith Journal and Bible Studies, JD McDonald has written an excellent reflection on the witness of Oscar Romero and how it can inform our thinking about Israel and Palestine. In it, McDonald highlights the Catholic social teaching idea that distinguishes between institutional and enacted violence.
Institutional violence includes all the methods employed by those with power to uphold structures of oppression. These methods can consist of acts that cause physical harm, like dropping a bomb or actively enslaving and forcing labor on a group of people. More often, however, institutional violence utilizes the levers of power to slowly suppress the dignity and humanity of those without access to the same levers of power.
Enacted violence includes any action intended to harm or kill another human or to destroy property that communities rely on for their well-being.
Institutional violence isn’t always invisible or opaque, but it often is. Enacted violence, by its very nature, is always seen and felt.
“Institutional violence isn’t always invisible or opaque, but it often is. Enacted violence, by its very nature, is always seen and felt.”
Romero condemned all forms of violence but preached most fervently against the evils of institutional violence. He also believed much of the enacted violence by the impoverished people of El Salvador was a direct result of the more severe forms of institutional violence inflicted on them by their (U.S.-backed) government.
Romero had an anti-institutional violence bias.
At GFM, the lion’s share of our coverage has highlighted how the nation of Israel (backed by the U.S. government) has systematically marginalized and suppressed the dignity and humanity of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank. We have shared articles from our resident biblical scholar, Tony Cartledge, explaining how Christians can be pro-Palestinian. We have published informative, priestly and prophetic thoughts about the situation from some of our contributing correspondents, including Kali Cawthon-Freels, Wendell Griffen and Miguel A. De La Torre.
We have had an anti-institutional violence bias.
Could we have written more about the enacted violence of Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, which massacred and injured more than a thousand people and detained hundreds as hostages? Certainly. As far as I can tell, we haven’t published one article that solely or primarily focuses on those brutal acts.
We have amplified stories about the rising tide of antisemitism, but much of our coverage on that issue has focused on the threats Jews face from white Christian nationalists, many of whom are pro-Israel. We also often lump our stories about antisemitism together with those about Islamaphobia.
Given all this, virtually all our writers who analyze and comment on the war between Israel and Hamas have gone on record condemning the enacted violence inflicted upon Israeli citizens and residents on Oct. 7 and in the months since. I can’t speak for all of them, but I suspect many of them do so for the same two reasons I do: We do it because we believe violence in all forms, including enacted violence, is evil. But we also do it because not continually doing so opens us up to accusations of antisemitism.
This speaks to another aspect of our bias that must be named and interrogated, which is the “it’s complicated” element. This phrase looms large in every editorial decision we make. It must be considered if we will have any integrity in how we inform our readers about the war. At the same time, many media outlets, GFM included, have hidden behind “it’s complicated” to shield themselves from accusations of bias.
The situation in Israel and Palestine is complicated, even though much of the public favors media that pretends it isn’t. But it isn’t enough to say, “It’s complicated.” We must examine why.
“It is complicated because we … have been conditioned to see and condemn enacted violence but not institutional violence.”
The reasons are legion, and most involve the human propensity to tie religion, politics and land into a mangled knot. But another reason stands out that must be examined.
It is complicated because we, especially those of us who exist in the world with multiple layers of privilege, have been conditioned to see and condemn enacted violence but not institutional violence. This conditioning is actually a tool in the arsenal of those who perpetuate institutional violence. The harm is only immediately apparent to those on whom this violence is inflicted, and they are the only ones not allowed to question whether such violence has occurred.
This allows powerful nations to continue to perpetuate institutional violence and also acts as a justification for their own forms of enacted violence with bombs and bullets.
Institutional violence demands that we see Oct. 7 (or Sept. 11 or destruction caused by Black Lives Matter protesters or attacks on the military by impoverished Salvadoran campesinos) as Chapter 1 in any story of violence. Anyone suggesting there may have been a prologue is accused of supporting enacted violence.
There are signs that Israel’s sustained attacks on Gaza are eroding public support for the war. But violence of all kinds begets violence of all types. I imagine it will only take one case of enacted violence against Israel for this to change.
We will continue to provide readers with opportunities to be informed and critically examine the war in the Middle East. We will own and examine our biases. And we will do our part to create a world where swords of all kinds are beaten into plowshares.
It’s not that complicated.
Craig Nash is the senior editor at Good Faith Media.
This opinion piece is part of a platform swap between BNG and Good Faith Media, which today published an opinion piece by Mark Wingfield.