Believe it or not, journalistic ethics exist, even if honoured more in the breach than the observance. Nonetheless, all journalists’ professional bodies have published standards of conduct that their members are supposed to observe.
But, despite all that, the line between journalism and activism has become hopelessly blurred. In particular, too many mainstream media outlets have trampled all over their own, clear guidelines regarding bias and conflicts of interest.
Consider the following, culled from the MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics, the SPJ Code of Ethics, and the New York Times’ Ethical Journalism policies:
- Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.
- Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism.
- Relationships with sources require the utmost in sound judgment and self discipline to prevent the fact or appearance of partiality.
Australia’s taxpayer-funded broadcaster landed itself in a storm of controversy recently, when its journalists accompanied climate protesters who staged a home invasion on a businesswoman and her children. That the journalists were not just tipped off but accompanied the illegal action from its planning to its execution, was made clear from their own reporting.
But the ABC’s deeply troubling breaches of journalism ethics are as nothing compared to the shocking depths mainstream media journalists have descended to, in Israel and Gaza.
When Hamas perpetrated its bloodthirsty savagery in Israel on October 7, it didn’t even, as the Nazis did, try to keep it a secret. On the contrary, the Palestinian butchers proudly broadcast their murderous savagery to the world, using their own, and often their victims’ phones.
But amid the shaky mobile footage were scattered dozens of professional images. How did that happen?
On October 7, Hamas terrorists were not the only ones who documented the war crimes they had committed during their deadly rampage across southern Israel. Some of their atrocities were captured by Gaza-based photojournalists working for the Associated Press and Reuters news agencies whose early morning presence at the breached border area raises serious ethical questions.
The key to Hamas’ attack was secrecy and surprise. So, how did a bunch of professional photojournalists, on the payroll of some of the world’s leading mainstream media organisations, “just happen” to be on the spot?
What were they doing there so early on what would ordinarily have been a quiet Saturday morning? Was it coordinated with Hamas? Did the respectable wire services, which published their photos, approve of their presence inside enemy territory, together with the terrorist infiltrators? Did the photojournalists who freelance for other media, like CNN and The New York Times, notify these outlets? Judging from the pictures of lynching, kidnapping and storming of an Israeli kibbutz, it seems like the border has been breached not only physically, but also journalistically.
Four names appear on AP’s photo credits from the Israel-Gaza border area on October 7: Hassan Eslaiah, Yousef Masoud, Ali Mahmud, and Hatem Ali.
Eslaiah, a freelancer who also works for CNN, crossed into Israel, took photos of a burning Israeli tank, and then captured infiltrators entering Kibbutz Kfar Azza.
The kibbutz, it may need reminding, where some of the most horrifying atrocities took place: babies beheaded, unborn children cut from their mother’s wombs and both mother and baby beheaded, children burned alive, families dismembered alive in front of each other.
And Hassan Eslaiah was right there.
How did that happen?
Other AP journalists “just happened” to be on the spot to document the abductions of hostages and the vile parading of dead women as trophies.
Ali Mahmud and Hatem Ali were positioned to get pictures of the horrific abductions of Israelis into Gaza.
Mahmud captured the pickup truck carrying the body of German-Israeli Shani Louk and Ali got several shots of abductees being kidnapped into the Strip.
These “journalists” somehow knew to be right there as horrifying crimes against humanity were perpetrated.
And the mainstream media are complicit in it all. If not before, then certainly after the fact.
Interestingly, the names of the photographers, which appear on other sources, have been removed from some of the photos on AP’s database. Perhaps someone at the agency realized it posed serious questions regarding their journalistic ethics […]
Reuters has published pictures from two photojournalists who also happened to be at the border just in time for Hamas’ infiltration: Mohammed Fayq Abu Mostafa and Yasser Qudih.
They both took pictures of a burning Israeli tank on the Israeli side of the border, but Abu Mustafa went further: He took photos of a lynch mob brutalizing the body of an Israeli soldier who was dragged out of the tank.
These news agencies and the journalists on their payroll cannot hide behind the “just doing our job” excuse. Like the ABC and the climate protests, it’s clear that they are in fact disgustingly complicit in the worst massacre of Jews since WWII.
It is now obvious that Hamas had planned its October 7 attack on Israel for a very long time: its scale, its brutal aims and its massive documentation have been prepared for months, if not years. Everything was taken into account — the deployments, the timing, as well as the use of bodycams and mobile phone videos for sharing the atrocities.
Is it conceivable to assume that “journalists” just happened to appear early in the morning at the border without prior coordination with the terrorists? Or were they part of the plan?
Web Archive/Honest Reporting
Even stretching credulity to breaking point and accepting that the journalists didn’t know what was about to happen, and told nobody, did nothing to prevent it, there is still the fact that mainstream media outlets have paid for material obtained under the most dubious circumstances. And gone to great lengths to hide that fact from their audiences.
To put it into perspective, imagine if a media outlet had been notified well in advance — even earlier than the NZ government — by Brenton Tarrant of just what he planned to do, where, and when. Imagine that, instead of notifying police or security agencies, the media had rushed photographers to the mosque, who then stood by, cameras clicking, as dozens of people were slaughtered.
There’d be hell to pay.
There should be, now. The mainstream media have blood on their hands.
