County Exhumes Dexter Wade’s Body Before Family’s Arrival: ‘They Dug Him Up Without My Permission’

By Shaunicy Muhammad 

Hinds County exhumed Dexter Wade’s body from the local penal colony at 8 a.m. on Monday, hours before his family was set to arrive to witness his removal from the spot where local officials buried him long before notifying the family of his death.

The family’s attorney, Ben Crump, cited a signed letter from the Hinds County Board of Supervisors to Dennis Sweet, another attorney for the family. The letter said the “exhuming will take place on Monday, November 13, 2023 at 11:30am.”

Crump and Sweet said they had an agreement with the Hinds County Board of Supervisors that Wade’s mother would be able to attend the exhumation. The family only learned that his body had already been removed when they arrived at the Hinds County Penal Farm.

                                                    

Wade died in early March after an off-duty Jackson Police Department officer fatally struck him with his vehicle as he attempted to walk across the southbound lanes of Interstate 55. His mother Bettersten Wade searched for him for months and reported him missing to police on March 15. But even though Dexter Wade had a prescription bottle with his name on it and the coroner’s office had already determined his identity by the time his mother filed the police report, JPD did not inform her of his death until late August—over a month after his burial.

Wade’s family asked to exhume his body on Nov. 13 in preparation for an independent autopsy and a “proper burial” for their loved one, Crump said.

“It was an agreed upon position with the County that Ms. Bettersten Wade would be here at 11:30 to commence the exhumation of her son,” Crump said at a vigil on Nov. 13. “Like a thief in the night, they went and took the body out of the ground. Ms. Bettersten asked, ‘Who gave permission to public works? What are they hiding?’” Crump said.

“Is this how the system works?” Bettersten Wade asked on Nov. 13 at the vigil. “They put him in the ground without my permission; they dug him up without my permission.”

Bettersten Wade, pictured with attorney Ben Crump, reported her son Dexter missing in March 2023. She learned in August 2023 that an off-duty police officer struck and killed Dexter Wade in March and that her son was later buried without her knowledge. Photo by Shaunicy Muhammad

Crump and Wade’s family have questioned whether the lapse in communication from officials was related to the 2022 conviction of a JPD police officer charged in the beating death of her 62-year-old brother George Robinson. Robinson was pulled from a vehicle in the Washington Addition neighborhood and beaten by officers, witnesses said in January 2019. He died days later.

Bettersten Wade questioned how officials could claim they couldn’t get in touch with her to tell her that her son’s body had been identified when she would have been on their radar following the high-profile court case.

“How could you not say this is a vendetta? I put in a missing person’s report. There’s my address; there’s my phone number. How could they not put all that together?” Bettersten Wade said at a press conference on Oct. 30.

Dexter Wade was walking across Interstate 55 on March 5, 2023, when an SUV driven by an off-duty Jackson police officer struck him. Hinds County buried his body in a pauper’s grave at the Hinds County Penal Farm in July 2023. Photo courtesy Dexter Wade’s family

The Hinds County Coroner’s Office turned Dexter Wade’s body over to his family following the vigil. Crump said a public exhumation would have allowed for “full transparency” with the family and the public.

Since NBC News first reported about Wade’s death and subsequent burial, Jackson Mayor Chokwe A. Lumumba said that the circumstances were not the result of police misconduct or maliciousness. “There was a lack of communication with the missing person’s division, the coroner’s office and accident investigation,” Lumumba said on Oct. 26.

At Monday’s vigil, Crump accused Jackson officials of shifting blame and “trying to wash the blood off their hands.”

“There is no excuse for the way this case has been handled,” the attorney said in a Nov. 13 statement following the vigil. “Every time Ms. Wade takes a step toward getting answers as to what happened to her son, Jackson officials bring her two steps back. We hoped today that Ms. Wade could receive some answers and closure, but once again she is just left with more questions and even more trauma.”

Investigators with the Hinds County Coroner’s Office removed Dexter Wade’s body and turned it over to his family on Nov. 13, 2023. Photo by Shaunicy Muhammad

Jackson Director of Communications Melissa Faith Payne sent a statement to the Mississippi Free Press on Oct. 26 saying that “officers were unable to identify him at the time” of his death on March 5.

“Days later, the coroner’s office was able to identify the victim as Dexter Wade by way of medication found in his pocket,” the statement said. “However, the contact information for Mr. Wade was outdated, and neither the coroner’s office nor investigating officers were able to make contact with Mr. Wade’s family.”

“Subsequently, on March 14th, Dexter Wade’s family reported him missing to the Jackson Police missing person’s unit,” Payne continued. “Missing persons officers did not know that the pedestrian victim from March 5th was the same person reported missing on March 14th. The lead detective in the missing person’s case continued to investigate until he retired in July.”

Payne said a second officer began a follow-up investigation in August “that led back to the coroner’s office.”

“Through collaborative efforts, they were able to close the missing person’s case, by identifying Dexter Wade as the pedestrian who was killed March 5th,” the statement continued. “While this is a very tragic and unfortunate accident, our investigation found no malicious intent by any Jackson police staff.”

When asked for comment today about Wade’s exhumation, Payne said “the City had no part in either his burial or exhumation. That was entirely with the county.”

Continued Calls for a DOJ Investigation

Officials have not said who approved the 8 a.m. exhumation. The Mississippi Free Press was unable to reach the Hinds County Board of Supervisors for comment for this story.

Hinds County Administrator Kenny Wayne Jones told WAPT on Monday that the situation was “very unfortunate” but that there was “no cover-up or anything like that—just miscommunication.”

Attorney Ben Crump, right, and Bettersten Wade, center, look at Wade’s body bag as investigators with the Hinds County coroner’s office place him in the back of a hearse following exhumation on Nov. 13, 2023. Photo by Shaunicy Muhammad

Attorney Crump continued to call on the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct their own investigation into the circumstances around Wade’s death and burial. U.S. House Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat whose district includes most of Jackson, also voiced support for a federal investigation in a statement on Monday.

“The circumstances surrounding Mr. Wade’s death are deeply troubling,” Thompson said. “The pain his mother and loved ones are enduring is unimaginable. The extensive local and national media coverage of this tragedy has prompted numerous calls to my office from concerned citizens in Jackson who are also searching for answers. The system owes Mr. Wade’s family an explanation for the callous manner in which his untimely death was mishandled.”

Crump said the family plans to have an independent autopsy conducted on Wade’s body. Campaign Zero, an organization based in Washington, D.C., is assisting with the costs. The attorney said the family plans to give him “a proper funeral” on Nov. 20 and that he expects civil-rights attorney and MSNBC host Al Sharpton to attend.

“Justice delayed is justice denied, and we will keep fighting for justice in Dexter’s name until his mother gets the closure she deserves,” Crump said.

This article originally appeared in the Mississippi Free Press on November 17th, 2023.  

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and this link for my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   

'Travesty for Democracy': Court Guts Key Part of Voting Rights Act

By Jake Johnson

"This decision is a devastating blow to the civil rights of every American, and the integrity of our nation's electoral system."

A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that only the U.S. Department of Justice can bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a decision that—if upheld—would deprive private citizens and advocacy groups of the ability to file legal challenges to fight discriminatory election practices.

In a 2-1 decision, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no "private right of action" under that part of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits "any voting standard, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group."

Judge David Stras, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote in the majority opinion that "the who-gets-to-sue question is the centerpiece of today's case."

"The Voting Rights Act lists only one plaintiff who can enforce § 2: the attorney general," Stras added, acknowledging that "we must decide whether naming one excludes others."

Stras and Judge Raymond Gruender, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, argued that it does, siding with a 2022 lower court ruling. Chief Circuit Judge Lavenski Smith—also a Bush appointee—wrote in dissent that he "would follow existing precedent that permits citizens to seek a judicial remedy" until either the U.S. Supreme Court or Congress changes the law.  "Rights so foundational to self-government and citizenship should not depend solely on the discretion or availability of the government's agents for protection," Smith wrote.

"The court has gutted one of the most critical protections against voting discrimination."

The case stems from a legal challenge that Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel—represented by the ACLU of Arkansas—brought against the state of Arkansas in late 2021. Filed under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the lawsuit argued that a redistricting plan for Arkansas House races would illegally "undermine the voting strength of Black Arkansans."

"This ruling is a travesty for democracy," Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. "For generations, private individuals have brought cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to protect their right to vote. No court had denied them the ability to bring their claims in federal court—with the sole exception of the district court, and now the 8th Circuit."

Barry Jefferson, political action chair of the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, added that "this decision is a devastating blow to the civil rights of every American, and the integrity of our nation's electoral system."

"By stripping individuals of the ability to sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," said Jefferson, "the court has gutted one of the most critical protections against voting discrimination."

The 8th Circuit ruling is widely expected to face an appeal at the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court, which delivered a surprise victory for civil rights advocates earlier this year when it declined to gut what remains of the Voting Rights Act.

If the 8th Circuit's decision stands, an administration hostile to the Voting Rights Act could simply decline to enforce Section 2, a potential disaster for fundamental freedoms nationwide.

Experts were stunned by the court's willingness to dispense with decades of precedent by ruling against the right of private citizens to sue under Section 2.

"The brazenness of this decision is something else," wrote Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a professor at Harvard Law School. "The thousands of litigants who have brought Section 2 claims? The thousands of courts who have decided these cases? Somehow they all missed what these two judges, in their infinite wisdom, finally saw."

Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice, wrote that "this radical 8th Circuit decision would essentially gut the remaining nationwide protections of the Voting Rights Act by preventing anyone other than [the Department of Justice] from enforcing them."

"This is deeply wrong," Weiser added, "and it goes against decades of precedent and practice."

This article originally appeared in the Common Dreams on November 17th, 2023.  

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and this link for my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   

Cash bail policies are under fresh scrutiny

Some places have done away with the system, while others are considering stricter guidelines.

BY: AMANDA HERNÁNDEZ 

States can’t figure out what to do about cash bail.  The system — in which an arrested suspect pays cash to avoid sitting in jail until their court date and gets the money back when they appear — is deeply entrenched in the nation’s history as a way to ensure defendants return to face justice.

But cash bail is undergoing a reckoning as policymakers debate its disproportionate effects on underserved communities and people with low incomes who sometimes can’t afford bail — as well as just how much the system truly keeps the public safe.

This year some states such as Illinois and jurisdictions such as Los Angeles County in California and Cuyahoga County in Ohio scaled back their bail systems, even eliminating cash bail entirely for low-level offenses in some cases.

Policymakers in other places, meanwhile, are moving in the opposite direction.

Republican lawmakers in at least 14 states — including Georgia, Indiana, Missouri and Wisconsin — introduced about 20 bills this year aimed at increasing the number of non-bailable offenses and either encouraging or requiring judges to consider defendants’ criminal records when setting bail, according to analysis by The Associated Press.

And in New York state, where changes to curtail the use of bail took effect in 2020, lawmakers have made several rounds of rollbacks amid concerns about rising crime rates.

Some bail policy advocates argue that these changes may contribute to racial and socioeconomic discrimination by relying on one’s ability to post bail and undermine the idea that those accused of a crime are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

“There’s no single answer to effective bail reform,” Meghan Guevara, executive partner with the Pretrial Justice Institute, a criminal justice advocacy group, told Stateline.

Measures to increase the use of cash bail or to include certain factors in assessing bail eligibility saw varying levels of success. In Wisconsin, voters approved a state constitutional amendment in April allowing judges to consider factors such as a defendant’s past convictions and the need to protect the public from bodily harm in “violent crime” cases.

Missouri Republican Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation in July that requires judges who are setting bail to first consider factors such as a suspect’s flight risk, potential danger to others, past convictions for violent crimes and previous failures to appear in court.

In Indiana, lawmakers in April passed their first swipe at Senate Joint Resolution 1, which would amend language in the state’s constitution and enable judges to deny bail to those they consider a “substantial risk.” The bill must pass again in 2025 before appearing on the ballot in 2026.

In Georgia, lawmakers considered legislation that sought to impose cash or property bail for dozens of additional crimes, including misdemeanors. It failed due to disagreements between the House and Senate, but Republican state Rep. Houston Gaines, who sponsored the measure in the House, expects the bill to pass in the next legislative session.

Gaines, in an emailed statement, said: “Eliminating cash bail has been a disaster in places it’s been tried — even New York has reversed course on some of its radical policies. We can’t afford to create a revolving door of criminals who don’t show up for court and victimize other individuals.”

Political backlash and rollbacks

Between 2017 and 2019, a bipartisan movement for changes to bail systems gained momentum at both the local and state levels. Some states, such as New Mexico, New Jersey and Kentucky, sharply curtailed their cash bail systems by almost entirely eliminating cash bail, expanding release programs and moving toward risk-based assessments to determine pretrial release.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic strained crowded jails and detention centers, and agencies eased bail systems to reduce exposure.

Between 2019 and 2020, homicide rates increased 30% — one of the largest year-over-year increases on record, according to data released by the FBI and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Homicide gun deaths also surged 35% in 2020, the largest year-over-year increase recorded in more than 25 years. Despite these increases, the overall violent crime rate in the country did not increase during the pandemic, according to federal crime surveys.

In California and New York, policymakers rolled back their pre-pandemic changes to cash bail.

“Fears about public safety are in many ways greatly overblown and misplaced,” said Sharlyn Grace, a senior policy adviser at the law office of the Cook County Public Defender in Illinois. “It is exceedingly rare for someone who’s released pretrial to be arrested and accused of a new offense that involves violence against another person.”

A report released by the New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice in 2021 found that about 95% of individuals arrested and released between January and September 2020 were not rearrested while awaiting trial, and there was a very little difference in rearrest rates before and after bail reform in the state.

It is exceedingly rare for someone who's released pretrial to be arrested and accused of a new offense that involves violence against another person.

– Sharlyn Grace, senior policy adviser at the law office of the Cook County Public Defender in Illinois

New York had passed a sweeping overhaul in 2019, largely ending the use of money bail for misdemeanors and lower-level felonies, with a focus on imposing the “least restrictive” release conditions. The state’s bail law has undergone multiple rounds of revisions since then, primarily driven by calls from Republicans to amend or completely reverse the law.

In early 2020, New York expanded bail options, particularly in cases involving harm to a person or property. In 2022, the state further broadened the definition of “harm” and clarified factors judges must consider, such as criminal history, when setting release conditions.

This year, negotiations over additional changes led to the removal of the requirement for the “least restrictive” release, a proposal announced by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul last spring.

Some state Democrats and criminal justice advocacy groups have strongly criticized these changes, arguing that the most recent revisions represent a rollback in progress.

“These rollbacks have had a serious effect on our pretrial population, and we’re still seeing the same kinds of wealth-based and racial inequities that were the drivers of bail reform in the first instance,” said Jullian Harris-Calvin, the director of the Greater Justice New York program under the Vera Institute of Justice, a national nonprofit criminal justice advocacy group.

Money bail remains prohibited for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies in New York, with some exceptions related to rearrested individuals.

In 2018, then-California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed Senate Bill 10 into law, which would have made the Golden State the first to end the use of cash bail for all detained suspects awaiting trials. The American Bail Coalition, a nonprofit trade association representing the bail industry, pushed back hard, organizing Californians Against the Reckless Bail Scheme to lead a repeal effort through a veto referendum.

Voters repealed the measure in 2020. Some who opposed the law said the proposed risk assessment tool — which generally measures factors such as flight risk, public safety risk and criminal history — could potentially cause more harm than good, said Allie Preston, a senior policy analyst for criminal justice reform with the left-leaning policy institute Center for American Progress. Some bail policy advocates say using risk assessment tools in the pretrial process may contribute to more racial and socioeconomic inequities.

Jeff Clayton, the executive director of the American Bail Coalition, said in an interview that risk-based assessments are problematic because “there’s no scientific way to predict pretrial risk in terms of a particular defendant.” Clayton added that setting a bail amount offers more flexibility, which may be beneficial in some cases.

“The question is, can we engineer the alternate system better than the existing system of monetary bonds, posting bonds and staying in jail that’s existed throughout history?” Clayton said. “There’s reasons to suggest that we can’t do a better job.”

Although statewide change to California’s bail system failed, a few jurisdictions in the state have introduced other changes to their bail systems. Santa Clara County and the city of San Francisco both use risk assessment tools and offer other services to help those released pretrial return for their court dates and address needs, such as transportation.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court implemented a zero cash bail system in October. Under the new bail protocols, those charged with nonviolent or less serious crimes will be detained before arraignment only if a judge determines they present a threat to the community or a potential flight risk instead of whether they are capable of posting bail. In cases of violent and serious felonies, however, the bail system remains intact.

“[Los Angeles County’s new] bail policy is a really important step towards promoting safety and justice and away from a system where the rich are able to buy their freedom and the poor languish in jail,” said Claire Simonich, the associate director of Vera California, an initiative under the Vera Institute of Justice.

Some residents, county officials and members of law enforcement say the new policy will compromise law enforcement’s ability to address crime. And at least a dozen municipalities in Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit in September to block the new system from taking effect.

More legislative efforts

Lawmakers in some states have pushed for further changes in their legislative sessions.

Connecticut state Rep. Steven Stafstrom, a Democrat, said the problem in his state stems from an outdated constitutional provision that limits the state’s ability to deny bail, primarily reserving bail for capital offenses. But the state abolished the death penalty more than a decade ago. Since capital offenses no longer exist in Connecticut, there are limited legal grounds for holding people pretrial, especially if they have the financial means to post bail.

“We really need to first repeal that provision out of the state constitution and then move much more towards a risk-based system that takes into account someone’s risk and likelihood to flee as opposed to simply their ability to pay,” Stafstrom said in an interview with Stateline.

In Minnesota, a bill introduced by Democrats this year would limit the use of cash bail by the courts for misdemeanor offenses.

In Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Cleveland is located, informal changes to the court’s culture and practices have reduced the number of people required to pay cash bail, according to The Marshall Project, a news outlet focused on criminal justice. The state supreme court also made changes in 2020 and 2021 aimed at reducing the number of people jailed before trial. Last year, voters passed a measure that requires judges to consider certain factors when setting bail, including public safety.

The adoption of alternative approaches, such as pretrial risk assessments, is gaining ground across the country. Some two dozen different risk assessment tools are in use in at least 26 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Photo credit: Kris Arnold

This article originally appeared in the Stateline.org on November 13th, 2023.  

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and this link for my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   

Big Three Autoworkers Approve Contracts After UAW Strike

By Jessica Corbett

"It's a good contract, you just can't get around that," said one UAW local president. "You look at the investment we got in 2019 compared to now, it's not rocket science. It's just better."

As voting wrapped up on Friday, United Auto Workers members at Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis were all on track to approve contracts finalized during a six-week UAW strike demanding improved pay, benefits, and working conditions from the "Big Three."

The union's online trackers had the ratification vote results as 68.2% to 31.8% at Ford, 54.7% to 45.3% at GM, and 69.6% to 30.4% at Stellantis as of press time. The UAW and companies have not yet commented on the results.

The UAW launched its "Stand Up Strike" in mid-September, and increased walkouts at various U.S. locations throughout the talks. Rutgers University labor studies professor Rebecca Givan toldThe New York Times that the strategy "really upended a lot of conventional wisdom" in the labor movement and helped reverse some concessions the union had previously accepted, showing that "if workers build enough power, they can win things back."

The pending agreements, which were reached over a few days at the end of last month, don't deliver on all worker demands but celebrated provisions include 25% wage increases and cost-of-living adjustments through April 30, 2028.

As Bloombergreported:

Workers at Ford's Dearborn, Michigan, truck plant voted 78% in favor of ratifying the agreement Friday, putting Ford over the top, according to UAW Local 600 President Nick Kottalis.

"It's a good contract, you just can't get around that," Kottalis said. "You look at the investment we got in 2019 compared to now, it's not rocket science. It's just better."

The contracts' expiration date sets up a possible mass action around International Workers' Day on May 1, 2028. The UAW said last month that "we invite unions around the country to align your contract expirations with our own so that together we can begin to flex our collective muscles."

Also framing the Big Three battle as part of a bigger effort, UAW president Shawn Fain declared last month that "if we are going to truly take on the billionaire class and rebuild the economy so that it starts to work for the benefit of the many and not the few, then it's important that we not only strike, but that we strike together."

Fain on Tuesday testified at U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chair Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) hearing about how unions raise up working families and take on corporate greed. The UAW leader stressed the "essential role" of federal lawmakers, calling on them to not only support "our fights and other fights like ours," but also "finish the job for economic and social justice for the entire working class."

Already, the historic Big Three deals are leading to "UAW bumps" at other automakers including Honda, Hyundai, Subaru, and Toyota. The union is also aiming to help organize workers at Telsa, the electric vehicle company of billionaire Elon Musk.

Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection next year, became the first sitting president to join striking workers on a picket line in late September, when he rallied with UAW members outside a GM plant in Belleville, Michigan.

The Biden campaign's Ammar Moussa said in a statement Friday that "Joe Biden isn't just saying that he'll always have workers' backs—he's proving it. After President Biden made history by standing with striking autoworkers, unions have notched historic wins and even nonunionized auto companies are taking note, increasing workers' wages.

"This is what happens when you have a president who cares about working people," added Moussa. "Workers win."

Originally published on November 17th, 2023, in Common Dreams

Related Posts

'We're Not Gonna Wait Around Forever': UAW Expands Strike to Ford's Most Profitable Plant, Common Dreams

As of noon, 25,000 UAW members will be striking against the Detroit Three automakers

'This Is Our Defining Moment': UAW Launches Historic Strikes Against Big Three Automakers, Common Dreams

In two days, 144,000 US autoworkers workers are set to strike, Peoples Dispatch

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   

For Cable News, a Palestinian Life Is Not the Same as an Israeli Life

 CONOR SMYTH

Overflowing morgues. Packed hospitals. City blocks reduced to rubble.

In response to Hamas’s October 7 terrorist attack, Israel has unleashed mass destruction on Gaza. Into a region the size of Las Vegas, with a population of 2.1 million, nearly half children, Israel has dropped more than 25,000 tons of bombs, the equivalent of nearly two Hiroshimas. It has killed journalists and doctors, wiped out dozens of members of a single family, massacred fleeing Palestinians, and even bombed a densely populated northern refugee camp. Repeatedly.

As UNICEF spokesperson James Elder recently put it, “Gaza has become a graveyard for thousands of children. It’s a living hell for everyone else.”

In its initial attack on Israel, Hamas killed about 1,200 people and kidnapped about 240 more. By the end of October, less than four weeks later, the Palestinian death toll in Gaza had reached a wholly disproportionate 8,805 people. (Since then, the number has surpassed 11,000.)

This run-up in the death count was so rapid that prominent voices resorted to outright denialism. John Kirby, White House National Security Council spokesperson, labeled the Gaza Health Ministry, which is responsible for tallying the Palestinian dead, “a front for Hamas” (Fox, 10/27/23). (The ministry actually answers to the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority—Reuters, 11/6/23.)

And President Joe Biden, much to Fox’s delight (10/25/23), declared: “I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed…. I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using.”

A Washington Post factcheck (11/1/23) diplomatically described this statement as an example of “excessive skepticism: 

The State Department has regularly cited ministry statistics without caveats in its annual human rights reports. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which tracks deaths in the conflict, has found the ministry’s numbers to be reliable after conducting its own investigation. “Past experience indicated that tolls were reported with high accuracy,” an OCHA official told the Fact Checker.

Some deaths count more

For cable news, however, determining the precise number of Palestinian dead may not be all that relevant. Because for them, an important principle comes first: Some numbers don’t count as much as others. Whereas around seven times as many Palestinians died as Israelis during October, Palestinian victims appear to have received significantly less coverage on cable TV.

A slew of searches on the Stanford Cable TV News Analyzer, which scours transcripts from MSNBC, CNN and Fox News to determine the frequency with which given words and phrases are mentioned on cable news, bears this out. Here’s the breakdown of the screen time awarded to various search terms related to Israeli and Palestinian deaths over the course of October 2023 (see note 1):

In each instance above, coverage of Israeli victims outpaced coverage of Palestinian victims, often to a significant degree.

Even if they had reached numeric parity, that would still have translated to about seven times the mentions of Israeli deaths per dead Israeli compared to Palestinian deaths per dead Palestinian.

In their seminal study on media bias Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky make a distinction between worthy and unworthy victims. As far as the US media is concerned, the worthy include citizens of the US and allied nations, as well as people killed by state enemies. The unworthy include those killed by the US government and its friends.

Herman and Chomsky argue that we can expect the worthy and unworthy to be treated far differently by US media. The former will be the recipients of sympathy and support. The latter will be further victimized by neglect and perhaps even disdain.

It’s not hard to see who the media considers worthy in Israel and Palestine.

Unnewsworthy war crimes

Victims aren’t the only ones who receive different treatment according to group status. So do victimizers. Consider, for example, how often war crimes are covered when they are committed by Hamas versus when they are committed by the Israeli military.

One war crime Hamas is often accused of is the use of civilians as “human shields.” As the Guardian (10/30/23) has reported: 

Anecdotal and other evidence does suggest that Hamas and other factions have used civilian objects, including hospitals and schools. Guardian journalists in 2014 encountered armed men inside one hospital, and sightings of senior Hamas leaders inside the Shifa hospital have been documented.

However, the same article continues: 

Making the issue more complicated…is the nature of Gaza and conflict there. As the territory consists mostly of an extremely dense urban environment, it is perhaps not surprising that Hamas operates in civilian areas. 

International law also makes clear that even if an armed force is improperly using civilian objects to shield itself, its opponent is still required to protect civilians from disproportionate harm.

And it’s worth noting, as the Progressive (6/17/21) has, but the Guardian article unfortunately does not, that detailed investigations following the 2008–2009 and 2014 conflicts [between Israel and Hamas] by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the United Nations Human Rights Council and others have failed to find a single documented case of any civilian deaths caused by Hamas using human shields.

For its part, Israel has been accused of the use of white phosphorus in Gaza, a violation of international law. And its “indiscriminate military attacks” on Gaza have been described by United Nations experts as “collective punishment,” amounting to “a war crime.”

Yet coverage of these Israeli war crimes doesn’t even come close to coverage of “human shields.”

While “human shield(s)” got an estimated 907 mentions throughout October, “collective punishment” got only 140, and “white phosphorus” a mere 30.

Distracting from context

The difference in media’s treatment of a friendly victimizer—one that may cause more death and destruction, but is a longstanding close ally of the United States—and of an official state enemy doesn’t stop there.

On top of downplaying the friendly victimizer’s current war crimes, the media are also happy to distract from a context in which the friendly victimizer has been oppressing a population for years. In this particular case, Israel has illegally occupied Palestinian land since 1967, and has enacted “ruthless policies of land confiscation, illegal settlement and dispossession, coupled with rampant discrimination.” It has subjected Gaza to an illegal air, land and sea blockade since 2007. And it has imposed a system of apartheid on the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, as documented by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B’Tselem.

Cable coverage of this context can’t exactly be described as extensive. Shows in which “Hamas” was mentioned near “terrorism” or “terrorist(s),” in fact, outnumbered shows that mentioned “Israel” near “apartheid,” “occupation,” “blockade” or “settlement(s)” more than 3-to-1 during the month of October. (See note 2.)

Put simply, coverage of Israel’s long-standing oppression of the Palestinian people doesn’t appear to come anywhere close to coverage of Hamas’s terrorist acts. Context is swept under the rug. An enemy’s crimes are displayed indignantly on the mantel.

This sort of coverage does not contribute to creating a population capable of thinking critically about violent conflict. Instead, its main purpose seems to be to stir up hatred for a state enemy, and blind support for a state ally. All a viewer has to remember are two simple principles:

1. The suffering of our allies matters. The suffering of our enemies? Not so much.
2. The crimes of our enemies matter. The crimes of our allies? Not so much.

---

Originally published on FAIR.org, November 17th, 2023. Reprinted with permission.     

Related Posts

While Israeli Media Examine Government Failure, US Papers Push ‘National Unity’ , FAIR

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and this link for my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks