In Gaza as in Iran and North Korea, journalism strives for the „best obtainable version of the truth.”
Do we want media coverage of horrible police states, even though it will be messy and involve rounding some corners? That is the true question that arises from the furor sparked by the pro-Israel media watchdog honestreporting.com with its findings that Gazan journalists of the foreign media witnessed Hamas atrocities on Oct. 7.
Naming several photojournalists associated with the Associated Press, Reuters, the New York Times and CNN, last week’s report fed into a wider narrative of media unfairness toward Israel. As the former Middle East Editor of AP and ex-chairman of the Foreign Press Association for Israel and the Palestinian territories, I say what the heck, I’ll jump right in.
The would-be expose amounts to little beyond noticing that photos taken inside Israel – including disturbing images of abductions and dead bodies – were credited to Gaza-based Palestinians. They clearly had entered Israel without a permit – but the implication was of more dire skullduggery than that.
The organizations issued denials that largely amounted to the following: Neither the organization nor the reporters in question had prior knowledge of the attack; the images came from an hour or more after the border breach, indicating the photojournalists in question were not “embedded” with the attackers (like, say, US media had been in Iraq); they were all freelancers and not staffers – meaning that there is simply less of a profound relationship with them, and their background is less thoroughly vetted.
And though this was only implied, the main defense is that this was a mega-news event with everyone dealing with an inevitably chaotic scramble to get to the story. This is essentially the “give us a break” paradigm combined with a genuine sense of mission by courageous reporters willing to leap into the fire.
For all that, though, there was clearly discomfort. Outside jihadi circles few enjoy being accused, even implicitly, of complicity in terrorism. And we all understand that the partisan and the bereaved will be less interested in the finer points of conflict coverage.
Indeed, AP announced it would no longer work with Hassan Eslaiah, who attracted much of the ire for a number of reasons. First, he filmed himself next to a burning tank announcing its crew had been abducted yet wore no press markings. Next came a recent social media selfie with Hamas leader Yehia Sinwar, in which Eslaiah smiles as the uber-terrorist playfully kisses him on the cheek; then came leaked emails purporting to portray him as sympathetic to Hamas. AP lost patience with the rather clear violation of its draconian “News Values and Principles.”
That will not mollify watchdog groups that are generally delighted to find something to bark about. Their zeal is less for honest reporting than for proving media bias against Israel.
Here’s why.
Their longstanding claims stem from the sense that the media focuses more on Israel’s oppression of the West Bank Palestinians than is reasonable – and more on the civilian casualties from Israel’s reprisals against Hamas than it did, say, on the civilian casualties during the US-led pro-Iraqi coalition that uprooted the Islamic State, at horrifying human cost, from Mosul and other cities in Iraq.
I’d say those feelings are largely correct – but it is not really because of the media, and it certainly has little to do with antisemitism in the media, which in my experience is hardly in existence. Rather it has to do with the media’s audience, which effectively pays its bills.
First, most people in the West support Israel’s right to exist, which makes them Zionists and can freak out many Arabs, feeding conspiracy theories about Jewish control of the media and whatnot.
But second, they dislike the Israeli occupation of and especially settlement in the West Bank. That is a position shared by most educated people in Israel itself, and most living heads of its security establishment. This is not only not anti-Israeli – it aligns with preventing the country’s descent into a non-democratic binational nightmare.
The serious media does its best to be objective and not take sides. Whether one is interviewing Hitler or Mother Theresa, we report and you decide. Still in all, though, there is a way to report with great sympathy – and that’s not the way the settlers are covered. I cannot tell a lie.
In their frustration with this, right-wing Jewish groups have taken to blaming the media’s reliance on Palestinian reporters in the West Bank and especially Gaza. In Gaza, which has been run by a terrorist mafia since 2007, this is inevitable: Israelis are not allowed in and foreigners are themselves rather unsafe.
Nonetheless critics will argue that these Gazan journalists must be pro-Palestinian (which is overwhelmingly true), that they’re also pro-Hamas (which is laughably incorrect), and that they determine the tone of the coverage (which is false, since they are rarely the writers or on-camera, nor the higher-up managers who actually call the shots).
There are also two wider philosophical dilemmas that attach to all of this – one universal and the other journalistic.
The universal one is the “Good Samaritan” question: What’s a journalist to do when witnessing a crime? Indeed, what is anyone to do? Get involved at risk of harm? Call the police first and miss the money shot? Realistically, the unarmed photographers on Oct. 7 could not prevent the crime, there was no police for them to call, and they would have been shot themselves if they took one step out of line.
The second is what to do with reporting out of police states like Gaza, where the environment in general is clearly not free and journalists must watch their step. Like a police reporter covering the Jersey mob, you proceed with caution, try your best and scoff at those who lecture.
Because AP’s current staff are not really able to go on the air and defend themselves, I agreed to do so on the Israeli public broadcaster Kan 11, where I found the normally placid anchor Guy Zohar at his testiest.
„Do you call this journalism?” he snapped, alleging that Hamas approves all coverage of Gaza in general. I explained that this is not exactly so: Hamas, while not exactly the home of nuance, is actually somewhat measured in its intimidation, seeming to assume that their well-documented wider thuggery is quite enough.
„There is no formal approval,” I explained. „Hamas, more than viewers might imagine, avoids direct censorship and direct threats. It is implied. Therefore, what one can claim, and this I can’t deny, is that it is possible that there may be a degree of self-censorship.” So, I conceded that it’s important for the reports to contain more than just the product of local Gazan journalism.
I seemed to genuinely shock Zohar by claiming that some of these reporters were heroes of a sort, because as journalists for foreign media with editors in Jerusalem they could very easily run afoul of the people with the guns. Ultimately the question is whether we let the great be the enemy of the good where perfection is not possible.
“You must ask yourself whether you therefore want, or don’t want, some coverage of North Korea. Or Cuba. Or certain countries of the region,” I said. “What is your answer?” the interviewer asked.
“Ultimately,” I replied, “I say yes.”
I view it as a classic case of Watergate icon Carl Bernstein’s iconic rendering of the goal of journalism: seeking “the best obtainable version of the truth.” Not all the truth, perhaps, yet certainly nothing but.
Dan Perry: Israel’s main objective is to secure release of Israeli hostages, end Hamas rule of Gaza
