|
My colleague Dan Boguslaw published an eye-opening story
about CNN’s Gaza coverage today, discovering that — whether reporting
from the Middle East, the United States, or anywhere else across the
globe — every CNN journalist covering Israel and Palestine must submit
their work for review by the news organization’s bureau in Jerusalem
prior to publication, under a long-standing CNN policy. While CNN says
the policy is meant to ensure accuracy in reporting on a polarizing
subject, it means that much of the network’s recent coverage of the war
in Gaza — and its reverberations around the world — has been shaped by
journalists who operate under the shadow of the country’s military
censor.
One member of CNN’s staff who spoke to The Intercept said that the
internal review policy has had a demonstrable impact on coverage of the
Gaza war. “Every single Israel-Palestine-related line for reporting must
seek approval from the [Jerusalem] bureau — or, when the bureau is not
staffed, from a select few handpicked by the bureau and senior
management — from which lines are most often edited with a very specific
nuance” that favors Israeli narratives.
A shaky arrangement has long existed between the IDF censor and the
domestic and foreign press, forcing journalists to frequently
self-censor their reporting for fear of running afoul of prohibited
subjects, losing their press credentials, and potentially being forced
to offer public apology. CNN, like other American broadcasters, has
repeatedly agreed to submit footage recorded in Gaza to the military
censor prior to airing it in exchange for limited access to the strip,
drawing criticism from those who say the censor is providing a filtered
view of events unfolding on the ground.
“When you have a protocol that routes all stories through one
checkpoint, you’re interested in control, and the question is who is
controlling the story?” Jim Naureckas, editor of the watchdog group
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, told The Intercept.
His full story (which I heavily plagiarized above) is here.
I went to the State Department briefing again today and this time asked about the upcoming Pakistani elections,
following up on a question by Jahanzaib Ali, the D.C. correspondent for
Pakistan’s ARY News TV. Ali asked about irregularities in the upcoming
elections, and spokesperson Matt Miller responded by saying that
Pakistan’s future government was the choice of the Pakistani people. A
nice sentiment, to be sure, but I pointed out that Pakistan’s
military-backed regime was arresting and abducting down ballot
candidates just for filing their papers, and the most popular
politician, the former prime minister Imran Khan, is in jail and unable
to run, despite no conviction having been held up. It led to this
exchange which ended with a Freudian slip for the ages:
Me: “How can the Pakistani people choose their government if there are no candidates to choose from?”
Miller: “We want to see free and fair elections that are conducted in
accordance with Pakistan’s laws. It’s not for the U.S. to dictate to
Pakistan the exact specifics of how it conducts its elections…We will
continue to support democratic suppression."
AP Reporter Matt Lee: “You just said you will continue to support democratic suppression.”
Miller: "I said _expression_, _expression_.”
The fact is, however, that the U.S. is currently supporting democratic suppression. (Imran Khan just wrote an essay, by the way, for The Economist from jail.)
Yesterday, I was able to get three different questions
in at the State Department, including one that led Miller to amend a
previous public statement. (The exchanges are in this article.)
On Tuesday, Matt Miller and U.S. ambassador to the United States
Linda Thomas-Greenfield both issued identical remarks pushing back
against Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance
Minister Bezalel Smotrich, both of whom made clear in public statements
the end goal of the assault on Gaza is to push out much of the
Palestinian population and build Israeli settlements. “There should be
no mass displacement of Palestinians from Gaza,” Miller and
Thomas-Greenfield both said in statements.
Because the U.S. has repeatedly insisted that Israel “should” take a
variety of steps that it has refused to take — allow sufficient
humanitarian aid into Gaza, take efforts to reduce civilian casualties,
and so on — the repeated use of the word, “should” raised questions
about how firm the U.S. opposition to mass displacement really is. Asked
why the statements weren’t more definitive, Miller amended his remark.
“There must not be,” he told me.
Ben-Gvir on Tuesday fired back at the U.S. with an extraordinary
response. “Really appreciate the United States of America but with all
due respect we are not another star on the American flag,” Ben-Gvir
posted on Twitter in Hebrew. “The United States is our best friend, but
first of all we will do what is best for the State of Israel: the
emigration of hundreds of thousands from Gaza will enable the residents
of the [Gaza] envelope to return home and live in safety, and will
protect the soldiers of the IDF.”
Smotrich also doubled down,
saying that mass emigration of Palestinians to foreign countries was
still desirable because “a small country like ours cannot afford a
reality where four minutes away from our communities there is a hotbed
of hatred and terrorism, where two million people wake up every morning
with aspiration for the destruction of the State of Israel and with a
desire to slaughter and rape and murder Jews wherever they are.”
Asked about the blunt response, Miller said the “doubling down” was
unsurprising. “The point of the statement I made yesterday was that the
comments that Ben-Gvir and Minister Smotrich have made are in direct
contradiction of Israeli government policy as has been represented to us
by multiple Israeli government officials including the prime minister
himself,” he said. “So I’m not surprised that he continues to double
down and make those statements, but they are not only in contradiction
with United States policy and what we think is in the best interests of
the Israeli people, the Palestinian people, the broader region and
ultimately civility in the world, but they are in direct contradiction
of his own government’s policy and we believe those statements should
stop.”
Whatever Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told the U.S.
government privately, his public remarks suggest that Smotrich and
Ben-Gvir are not out of line with Israeli government policy. “Regarding
voluntary emigration, I have no problem with that,” Netanyahu told Likud Knesset Member Danny Danon, after Danon had previously floated
the controversial idea. “Our problem is not allowing the exit, but a
lack of countries that are ready to take Palestinians in. And we are
working on it. This is the direction we are going in.”
The Times of Israel reported
this week that Israel was in negotiations with Congo to deport
Palestinians there, though Israeli officials have called the report
inaccurate.
Turkey on Wednesday joined South Africa and Malaysia in pursing
charges of genocide against Israel in the International Court of
Justice. White House national security spokesperson John Kirby called the charges “meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever.”
I asked Miller if U.S. officials were concerned about getting roped into the prosecution due to support of Israel’s war effort, and he said there were no such worries.
“No, I will say as it relates to the State Department we have been
committed to addressing the humanitarian situation in Gaza and have made
a priority of preventing, as I just said in response to your question,
the displacement of Palestinians. I will also say that of course
genocide is a heinous atrocity,” he said. “Those are allegations that
should not be made lightly, and as it pertains to the United States, we
are not seeing any acts that constitute genocide.” |