Scrutinising journalism
To date, some 270 journalists and media workers have signed a petition calling for ‘ethical reporting’ of the Israel-Hamas conflict, a petition endorsed by the journalists’ union the Media Arts and Entertainment Alliance. In doing so, the signatories, including the union, have opened debate about what journalism is and what is required to perform it.
Impartiality as a necessary requirement is called into question, particularly in the coverage of conflicts such as this, where the stakes are high, and over 15,000 people have died since October 7th.
The signatories include some senior names, who bolster a list of younger, newer entrants to the journalism business drawn from across Guardian Australia, the ABC, The Conversation and the Nine papers. The reaction from editorial leaders at the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age was swift. They have banned any journalist who signed the petition from reporting on the conflict lest readers are left believing the journalists’ personal views are influencing their reporting. The ABC hasn’t been quite as harsh, but it has come close, warning its journalists that if they choose to sign, their impartiality might be questioned.
The petitioners claim news media give less credence to information from Gaza when sources from Israel are cited to ‘balance’ information and that Israel’s version of events is reported verbatim whilst that from Hamas is questioned. They offer no examples to support this claim. They also claim inadequate coverage is given to allegations of war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid – all of which the signatories appear to be claiming Israel is guilty of.
The ABC’s Managing Director David Anderson last week strongly opposed his reporters using such descriptions, unless citing reputable agencies and NGOs because the burden of proof is too great for a media organisation to meet and furthermore, is not its purpose. For the ABC, not making such claims is an important element in how public interest journalism is done – to do otherwise is to show impartiality by believing one side over the other. Clearly, the editors of Nine’s newspaper also adhere to this belief even if their position is somewhat tainted by some of them having accepted fully paid information gathering trips to visit Israel.
Overall, what the signatories are calling for has the appearance of adherence to the principles of public interest journalism, but it is couched within a narrative about the importance of believing one side over another. For example, the need to cite only the 1948 expulsion of Palestinians from their native lands to make way for the state of Israel, without acknowledgment of the inter-generational trauma behind the birth of the Israeli state.
What the petition writers also appear to be asserting is that reporters should be able to give prominence to voices asserting that Israel’s intention is to commit genocide, in the absence of any judicial or even United Nations determination. As we wrote in our last newsletter, for journalists to use the language is a significant burden and critically, slides dangerously towards advocacy.
Some of the journalists who signed the petition would understand the dangers of advocacy journalism and the loss of audience trust which is its unhappy bedfellow. The others might benefit from knowing that picking a side runs against the principle of impartiality and doesn’t always deliver the truth and context they want Australian audiences to be exposed to. Journalists are of course entitled to personal views. They’re not entitled to make them the basis of their reporting.
Monica Attard, CMT Co-Director
