A few thoughts on the controversey involving the two Israeli journalists who reported from Lebanon under false pretenses.
First, I think it is ridiculous that Israeli journalists can’t report from Lebanon, especially if they have non-Israeli passports. The Arab world’s posture on this issue in general is absurd. Syria, Lebanon, every Arab government knows that scores of journalists, academics, businessmen and others, have two passports and simply shelve their dirty Israeli-stamped passport and use their clean passport before travelling to Damascus or Beirut or wherever.
That being said, I do think it is a legitimate criticism that the safety of those interviewed could have been put in jeopardy. In Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, and elsewhere, the safety of sources is always a factor in your thinking. I think there is a fair argument here that perhaps that was neglected. Of course, the fact that a Lebanese citizen would have to fear for his safety for talking to an Israeli (who they clearly did not know was Israeli) doesn’t exactly reflect well on Hezbollah either.
Perhaps this is unreasonable and even downright reckless to expect, but I would have liked to see Rinat and Lisa tell people they were reporting for Israeli media outlets. The question of what information is appropriate and safe to disclose in this part of the world is something I have given much thought to over the years in Cairo, Baghdad, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and elsewhere. There isn’t a hard and fast rule. Journalists I know with unpopular backgrounds have different policies, and those policies shift from place to place. People who were always up front about their religion in Cairo, were far more discrete about it in Baghdad for obvious reasons. However, as a general rule I think that, ethics aside, you are simply safer when you are up front and honest. I agree with the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Goldberg in this October 2006 exchange in Slate with Haaretz’s Shmuel Rosner. Goldberg writes:
I’ve always found, when talking to true Islamist terrorists, whether in Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, or any other compass point on the Muslim map, that it’s better for the conversation—and better, actually, for my own physical safety—to assert vigorously what I believe to be true. I once gave a talk on the morality of Israel’s existence at a madrasah in Pakistan.
I was a bit taken aback by the bitterness of the Daily Star’s response. I have much experience working for English language publications in the Arab world (including a stint writing for the Daily Star) and know that they are frequently viewed with suspicion, and have to sometimes bend over backwards to prove they are not Western-backed quislings. Iraq war backer Michael Young’s ties to the paper surely don’t help much here. And they’re not entirely fair or accurate either. The Daily Star’s Nour Samaha writes:
She [Rinat Malkes] begins by incorrectly stating that Hizbullah’s approval was necessary to visit villages in the South, when in fact approval to visit areas in the South is not obtained through Hizbullah, but through the Lebanese Army, who have maintained control of the area since the end of the war last August.
That’s total nonsense. Journalists absolutely do need Hezbollah approval to report from any of the interior villages, like Bint Jbeil, in the south. Read this July 10 posting on McClatchy journalist Hannah Allam’s blog. To report from the south you need 1) A Lebanese government press ID, 2) the permission of the Lebanese army, and 3) Hezbollah approval. The first two are easy, the last one, increasingly difficult (thanks in part to Rinat and Lisa). I’ve heard from correspondents who were there as recently as last week that you can get as far east as Qana, but after that there are Hezbollah checkpoints and Hezbollah minders everywhere. If you don’t have the proper Hezbollah approvals, they simply don’t let you speak with anyone. Friends of mine came back thoroughly frustrated with Hezbollah.
As for the content of Rinat’s and Lisa’s reports, it was mostly harmless from what I’ve seen and read. I wasn’t a big fan of headlines like “An Israeli in Dahiya” which make the story seem like it’s all about the fact that an Israeli snuck into Lebanon. It’s sort of like taunting the Lebanese. The other marginally fair criticism I could find, was that Lisa does perhaps downplay the damage Israel caused the Dahiya and Lebanon in general. I was there in the midst of the war and Israeli bombs savaged a good chunk of that neighborhood. Rinat’s articles all in all seemed straight and fair to me.
You can’t expect Israeli journalists to report on Lebanon the same way the Arab media would, just as you can’t expect Al Jazeera to report on Israel or Iraq, or whatever, the same way the NY Times does. But that doesn’t mean that one outlet has it right and the other has it wrong. They’re reporting the story through their own unique viewpoints, based on their own unique experiences and circumstances. That’s the value of having a diverse selection of news outlets covering a given story.
I’m pointing out the obvious I think when I say that if we had more Lebanese reporting in Israel and more Israelis reporting in Lebanon, we’d be better off.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Linda Grant // Jul 23, 2007 at 6:11 am
I would agree with everything you said, Charles, but a friend of mine, an Israeli-born photojournalist based in Britain, covering the 1982 Lebanon war for a British paper, was advised to change his name to a more innocuous John to prevent being suspected of being an Israeli spy. Being upfront and honest is not always the best policy when your own safety is also an issue.
2 sean // Jul 23, 2007 at 6:36 am
Your comment about the south is definitely true, particularly for foreigners.
However, when Lisa repeatedly says this, it’s just not true:
As for me, safety concerns outweighed journalistic curiousity and I didn’t try to go to Dahiyah. There is a checkpoint at the main entrance to the neighborhood manned by Hezbollah security people who aren’t stupid, Any time a foreigner wants to enter, they would ask for ID and immediately check them out in Google, where they would have found out immediately I was Israeli and I wasn’t interested in taking that risk.
3 Yal // Jul 23, 2007 at 9:02 am
How about every reporter who needs two pasports ? one to enter Israel and one for the Arab world ?
4 sean // Jul 23, 2007 at 11:56 am
I meant to write particularly for foreign journalists not foreigners.
5 Charles Levinson // Jul 23, 2007 at 12:18 pm
CLARIFICATION: I have had some emails from readers who took my use of the word ‘hack’ in the title to this post as a derogatory term. The dictionary does indeed define ‘hack’ as a “writer or journalist producing dull unoriginal work” but that was not my intended meaning. Among most of my peers, the term hack is merely a catchy slang term for journalist. It was not my intent to suggest that Rinat or Lisa are mediocre, dull, or unoriginal. thnx.
6 sean // Jul 23, 2007 at 12:51 pm
I’ve never heard anyone use “hack” as anything but derogatory.
Webster’s defines a hack as “a person hired to do routine, often dull, writing; literary drudge” and the OED says a hack is “A person whose services may be hired for any kind of work required of him; a common drudge, esp. a literary drudge, who hires himself out to do any and every kind of literary work; hence, a poor writer, a mere scribbler.”
In a 1997 addition, however, the OED offers this: “slang, a journalist or reporter, esp. a staff newspaper writer (orig. disparaging, now chiefly jocular).
The first example given for the last definition comes from the Irish Magazine in 1810: “Let them hire a news-paper hack, a shameless, trading defamer, a master of Babylonish dialect.
Personally, I thought you were using it to mean something between “literary drudge,” “poor writer” and “master of Babylonish dialect.”
7 Linda Grant // Jul 23, 2007 at 1:33 pm
The term hacks is used to denote all journalists by Private Eye and is universally used by journalists ourselves to describe ourselves.
8 Lewis // Jul 23, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Well, all NON-journalists see hack as a derogatory term. The audience for this post is not journalists only.
9 Mike Nargizian // Jul 23, 2007 at 8:05 pm
The fact that you are admitting that simply talking to an Israeli or Jewish journalist will put someone in danger reveals that any feedback you are going to get in Lebanon, supposedly the most liberal open of Arab countries, is going to be biased.
So question -
Should all reporting from the Arab world be noted with a preface… please note that is likely we will only get a 1 dimensional view and not the full truth bcs Hezbollah or Al Queda etc.. are lurking nearby and these people have to live her after we leave.
I mean in America and Israel everyone can speak out to their hearts delight without having to worry. FUNNY HOW THAT’S NEVER PREFACED IN THE GUARDIAN, NATION, NY TIMES, LA TIMES etc….?
And what the h does this mean?
First, I think it is ridiculous that Israeli journalists can’t report from Lebanon, especially if they have non-Israeli passports. The Arab world’s posture on this issue in general is absurd. Syria, Lebanon, every Arab government knows that scores of journalists, academics, businessmen and others, have two passports and simply and use their clean passport before travelling to Damascus or Beirut or wherever.
10 Rinat // Jul 23, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Hey Charles!
What’s up? I’ve left comments here before and curiously after a short while I just turned to be a post. Ironic to say the least…
Thanks for the post. I do not react to this role story in general, but I’ve been following your blog for a while and I just like what I read. “Maalesh”…
You got all the points. I decided I behaved quite ethically preserving all my Lebanese and even Hezbollah sources. I could have revealed names and locations and I did not do that as I knew they would be in trouble. Therefore I can sleep totally in peace with myself. I just regret the fact that I really could not reveal my Israeli identity, however all the acusations of acting under false pretenses are not acurate at all.. I DID write for O Globo newspaper exactly as I told all the sources I was doing. It’s a fact. If I decided to sell the story for Israeli newspapers as well, this is another problem and I can understand Lebanese sensibilites. I respect that. Despite the whole thing, still I think I acted ethically preserving my sources. Journalism is about daring. And I didn’t dare anyone, but the Middle East reality with the only intention of letting the Israeli public know what goes on there one year after the war.
Anyway… That’s it. I would be glad to be in touch with you independently of the “Lebanon Story.
PS. You’re more than right about the “sensation”of the headlines… “Israeli in Dahieh”and so on… I tried to fight it and argued about it very much… As a Brazilian professional, I would never do it… But this is Israel, you know… If you know Hebrew and follow the local press, you probably undertand it was a lost war. Yeah, here I was defeated. But you’re 100% right. This sucks. And this pissed me off to death.
Rinat
11 Lebanon » Blog Archive » Lebanon: A to Z // Jul 24, 2007 at 6:58 pm
[…] Lebanon…Again A land grab proportionally equivalent to a foreign power occupying Arizona. More on Israeli hacks in Lebanon First, I think it is ridiculous that Israeli journalists can’t report from Lebanon, especially if […]
Leave a Comment