Journalism in the conflict

[mids2019]

Journalism in a war zone is incredibly difficult and it is often said that a the first casualty of war is truth. Yes we have propaganda but journalists and the main stream media need to continue to report on this conflict even with limited access to the region. Do you think large broadcasters such as the BBC are meeting their objectives of impartial accurate journalism or is there a sense with such limits to information that there needs to be honest about how accurate reporting can be?

One example is the IDF taking a BBC crew to Al Shifa. Is this genuine journalism or just means of the IDF to supply its narrative? When reporting about the presence of Hamas and terrorist infrastructure in hospitals are journalists being in effect being told alternative facts by two groups, medics and IDF soldiers; which is true?

In fact the question arises if journalism in such a place can be entirely unbiased. It must be I credibly difficult for Palestinian journalists to report on the war without unconscious bias of some form.

Personally the thing that may happen like the war in Ukraine is that the news may eventually be deprioritised and it may become a 'niche' story.

Well the BBC has already had to issue 2 apologies for misreporting on this very issue, so I'd say they are not meeting the requirement of impartiality especially well.

I keep a variety of news sites on bookmark: Al jazeera, BBC, Haaretz, Ynet, RTE. It is interesting to read the various contrasting narratives. I don’t think any of them are impartial. I also make myself read opposing views on social media. It is despairing but occasionally I hear a squeaky moderate voice and I live for these people. Look out for journalists who are crucified by both sides - they are the ones worth listening to in my experience.

@Thisusernamenotavailable .

Good advice.

I tend to listen to the BBC and think their coverage of diplomatic issues is good in an international scale but I think there are real question a about the difficulty of reporting on a war where journalist access is restricted.

One thing that is absent really is any detail of any military battles between Hamas and the IDF which are a little easier to report on in Ukraine for isntance. It would be good to know if Israel is discovering more tunnels and whether they are nearer to discovering hostages but that is in itself sensitive infomration.

Look out for journalists who are crucified by both sides - they are the ones worth listening to in my experience.

I'd definitely agree with that.

On Newswatch there was a bit about the BBC having apologised for using the ward 'targetted' rather than the word 'accompanied'. I wasn't aware of that. Some people might have heard the 'targetted' and never realised it was incorrect, and never heard the apology. I think the BBC had been copying a Reuter's report.

The BBC has to work very hard indeed not to be anti semitic. Its problem is that a lot of its journalists tend to be of one political kind only and then it needs to clamp down on their bias and force them to be impartial. if they recruited those diverse of thought from both sides of the political spectrum we would get a much better BBC.

The issue was that they misquoted the Reuters report.

To make myself clearer, I am not sure whether I had heard the misquote on one of the many passing headlines which I half-hear every day, and I certainly didn't know that the BBC had apologised for it.

To me, there is a considerable difference between "The IDF targetted doctors...." and "The IDF accompanied doctors.....".

I do wonder whether the BBC misquoted Reuters deliberately or accidentally. Yes, you can definitely call me an old cynic.
N.B. I think I can trust Kate Adie but I might even be wrong on that.

I think it's difficult to expect unbiased reporting from either side. Every journalist has an opinion but their job is not to show us that opinion. Somebody once said their job is to present the facts and let the viewer decide what they think. It seems lately (especially with regard to Israel but on other many issues too) some journalists are certainly giving us an idea of what their opinion is and that's not good.

On the Palestinian side journalists are also subject to controls by Hamas. They or their families may be subject to intimidation if they don't report things the way that Hamas like. There have also been reports that some of the journalists who were very early on the scene on the 7th of October may have been given a heads up to go along or may well be Hamas sympathisers. One has previously been photographed being all huggy/kissy with Yahya Sinwar and shot footage on the day whilst riding on a motorbike behind a guy with a grenade.

All we can do is read as many opposing sources as possible and try to make up our own minds And as a PP said if they're being criticised by both sides we know they're doing their job properly. If they are constantly criticized by one side only they're probably not.

I do wonder whether the BBC misquoted Reuters deliberately or accidentally

The girl who did it has had to apologize previously for misquoting and I don't think she's particularly experienced at her job. It's a huge difference though between what the Reuters report said and what she said.

How can journalists remain impartial when impartiality is both unfair and impossible. If one side of the conflict is clearly being obliterated in every sense of the word with a long standing history of this obliteration mostly documented in the pages of history, how can you as a journalist report impartially? One side is clearly a victim whilst another is the blatant aggressor. As a journalist on the ground with troops, you will likely see the truth for what it is. Remaining impartial when you clearly see the victim is cruel and unjust to their suffering and that makes you complicit by default.

This is a misunderstanding about what impartiality means. Impartiality does not mean constructing false equalities but rather it means reporting based on objective evidence and following rigorous standards for accepting facts. Good journalism involves investigating stories which may be uncomfortable to (or may support) the "official" narratives promoted by authorities on either side. This is completely different to talk-show type reporting, where the opinion/narrative of a random individual is presented as representative or authoritative, often with somewhat lax credentials on the part of the interviewee or leading questions on the part of the interviewer. Of course it's possible to recognise power imbalances and within that understanding still produce good journalism which explores the complexity of reality.

NB to add to the commentator who wrote above - even when you open a number of sources, remember that very few people in the region read the news in English. Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English have different stances. Haaretz Hebrew and English is pretty similar but not all the stories get translated. Sites like Times of Israel don't really have a Hebrew equivalent.

I do think Gaza is becoming a niche story simply because events have room over in the middle east, Lebanon, Iran and now Syria. Th e Gaza conflict simply isn't news as it grinds on month after month. Maybe there will be a.ceasefire and that should be prioritised in the media.

Hopefully the people responsible for prolonging it also grow tired of it soon.

This Channel 4 documentary will be streaming from tomorrow

https://www.channel4.com/news/channel-4-announces-new-streaming-documentary-this-is-gaza-from-emmy-winning-news-team-in-gaza