Current Affairs

The argument that you can assassinate a journalist without evidence, challenges all journalists in war zones. Israel is yet to provide evidence that Anas al-Sharif, a journalist for Al Jazeera was a Hamas mole. The idea that voices are being lost in this war is also an act that closes down independent voices from media outlets trying to get the voices of those affected out into the wider world.

The Palestinian member of the UN argued that if the Israeli state was so concerned with the reporting by Palestinian journalists in Gaza, then Israel should open up the strip to international journalists. The statement came minutes before Anas al-Sharif, his cameraman and driver were killed by a targeted drone strike. In a statement Al Jazeera argued that “Al Jazeera Media Network calls on the international community and all relevant organisations to take decisive steps to halt this ongoing genocide and end the deliberate targeting of journalists.” 

It is an argument that has alienated Israel from the wider media argument. The Israeli state has killed 234 journalist. The types of journalists killed have ranged from freelancers, radio journalists and multi media journalists. The range of journalists killed tells you that the flak jacket with press emblazoned on, is not much use in this war. The luxury felt by those telling the story in Israel is embarrassing, as the ideology of the state takes a harder line to words, voices and arguments coming from the media in Gaza.

It is a factor that any voice reporting from a war zone knows that their life hangs on a thread. And to be embedded with a military force challenges whether the journalist can be seen as an entity that is taking a stance within that force. But it is the journalists argument that a story needs to be told, the repercussions of that story can challenge the politicians narration and arguments that have been buried by a PR machine that not only argues for a one sided appraisal of their arguments, but also the right to take decisions that affect the populations direction. It is not so much an argument that challenges the perception of a statement, but the spoken or written word that challenges the politician comes from journalists asking questions, detailing events and writing what is later to become historical fact.

Netanyahu, freely spoke yesterday in a press conference. He readily argued that no people had died of malnutrition in Gaza, there was no hunger he stated and that refugees would be moved to safe zones. Freelance and credited media organisations had reported on the starvation, evidence was provided by images of those who had died of starvation, children trying to sift through sand to find rice and pasta, which had escaped shredded bags and those desperate enough to brave gunfire to take a box of food or bag of flour.

Images do lie, the glitzy media manipulation of images to sell products challenges the journalist to produce images that have not been manipulated. The AI tools have moved the argument to political arguments, where a politician can say this is fake news, but the journalist in Gaza do not have green rooms or any tools that could lead to arguments that the images coming from the strip have been stitched together.

The BBC in a flagship news programme have titled the programme as ‘Verified’. The argument is that the stories they produce have been verified by their newsroom as legitimate. AI tools and arguments of ideological bubbles taking form challenge news rooms, but the poster of illegal migrants queueing to enter Britain and used by politicians to win an argument in Britain, was widely used by news rooms, even though the image was manipulated.

There are no repercussions for politicians who have lied, but there are for journalists on the ground. Those that have manipulated a news story are shunned, but the PR battle of the politician and the journalist who slavishly write a ghost biography of that politician challenges the scope of the arguments that emanate from their mouths. Because of this, broadcasters have fallen into the trap of voices that challenge a narrative and the ideology of the broadcaster has been challenged by powerful political voices within the media organisation. (This I have said before).

The written word is powerful and the arguments that come from the written word is being negated by the broadcast word. The failure to get journalists into Gaza is a loss for the world to hear or see arguments coming from the strip. It is this failure that has compounded arguments of authenticity. It is arguments of whether the images coming from the strip can be authenticated and as journalist tell their story, their credibility is challenged. The voices that want to tell a story are told that their voices are not credible and that the reporting coming from Gaza cannot be verified.

The media tent was an easy target for a drone, the camera was an easy target and the insistence of Al Jazeera for the journalist to wear a flak jacket could easily be recognised by the drone operator. It was not so much an argument of the journalist being on the frontline, but an argument of an assassination born out of frustration by the Israelis of being embarrassed by the journalists reporting. Not so much about the politician given free reign to argue their own version of the truth, but a journalist on the ground reporting what is happening on the ground where he bore witness. The assassination was telegraphed with warnings from the Israeli military intelligence units that are able to get on the mobile phone and post a warning to the journalist. ‘Desist or else’, was the warning.

Anas al-Sharif had taken the decision to keep on reporting, in a statement posted on twitter posthumously, he argued that he bore witness, reported the facts accurately and believed in the ethicacy of his reporting. Hardly the argument of a journalist distorting the facts, but the lack of argument coming from newsrooms for one of their own, tells you everything about the life lost by a voice that detailed the war in Gaza. Maybe the fact that he was an Arabic speaker, his voice and reports were sent to Al Jazeera Arabic that has left newsrooms around the world sympathetic but not angry about his loss.

Reporting as a minority voice challenges journalists, the idea of the big scoop is not so much on the tongue of the war zone journalist, it is to get into the centre of an argument find the truth of what is happening and share the unsavoury truth of what is happening in the conflict zone. But the bastardization of any argument is sanitized by those who believe they have an argument without evidence or proof. The cynical manipulation of the argument is just that, a manipulation where the journalists who report on Netanyahu, or the IDF are fed a narrative by a PR machine that ignore the facts put forward by journalists on the ground.   

So what Israel has done is said without evidence or proof that once someone is targeted, they will be tarnished with an argument of one sided-ism and will become a voice that is lost. The next stage of Israel’s occupation of Gaza will not be witnessed by Anas al-Sharif, but like anything else in this world, another voice will be found and images will continue to be broadcast…. but whether that voice will be as powerful… is yet to been seen, heard, written or argued.