The double standards of reporting the Gaza conflict and shifting perspectives on Israel

Obvious acts of war crimes, attempts at genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid will always outrage the international community, even if it has taken over 75 years to get to this stage.

A concerning revelation has come to light in the war reporting in Gaza, raising questions about the objectivity of the mainstream media coverage on the conflict. Over 70 journalists and editors from mainstream media outlets have had “re-education” trips and junkets to Israel over the past decade funded by the Israeli government, with a significant majority of these individuals are affiliated with News Corporation, Nine Media, with some from the ABC and The Guardian as well.

Unsurprisingly, these effects and influence of these trips and junkets has resulted in media outlets taking actions against journalists who have expressed support for the Palestinian cause. Nine Media, in response to an open letter demonstrating solidarity with journalists covering the Gaza conflict, has banned journalists who endorsed the letter. While the ABC didn’t ban journalists, it did issue a warning to its staff regarding the open letter, adding to the growing concerns about media impartiality. These developments follow a prior directive from the ABC, which explicitly banned the use of terms such as “genocide” and “apartheid” to describe the actions by Israel in Gaza and West Bank.

These directives were in response to the open letter initiated by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, which aimed to offer support and camaraderie for journalists covering the war in Gaza and also emphasised the importance of adhering to journalistic principles, including holding power accountable and accurate reporting on war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid, and suggesting that there was a risk of losing “the trust of our audiences if we fail to apply the most stringent journalistic principles and cover this conflict in full”. It’s hard to disagree with the contents of the open letter.

The backdrop to this media controversy is the ongoing conflict in Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of over 55 journalists, with a notable number allegedly targeted by the Israeli Defense Forces. In the open letter, journalists were also expressing outrage over the loss of over 15,000 Palestinian lives, demanding that mainstream media uphold the fundamental tenets of journalism, such as reporting truthfully and freely on the realities of war.

News reporting in Australia has a discernible pro-Israel stance, which compromises the principles of an open and fair media. The conflict in Gaza, essentially ongoing since 1946 but reignited on 7 October when Hamas led an assault which killed 1,200 Israelis, has highlighted the need for objective journalism, particularly in democracies reliant on a free and open media environment.

Amidst these challenges, it is crucial to emphasise—yet again—that criticising a government, in this case, the Israeli government, should not be equated with hostility towards any particular religious or ethnic group. The complexity of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict extends beyond religious or ethnic lines, and journalists play a vital role in navigating these nuances while adhering to the principles of responsible reporting.

The issue has been further compromised to attempts by the Israeli government to use accusations of anti-Semitism as a means of stifling criticism and debate. The condemnation of anti-Semitism, anti-Arab sentiment, anti-Muslim attitudes and Islamophobia should be a given, and there needs to be a diversity of opinions within both the Palestinian and Israeli communities. However, concerns persist about the influence of the vocal Zionist lobby in Australia—small but loud—raising questions about the authenticity of accusations and the potential impact on unbiased reporting.

A further erosion of trust in the mainstream media: who do we trust?

The recent revelations about these close ties between the Israeli government and Australian journalists and media outlets continues a pattern of influence over media reporting, not only in Australia, but also in the United States and Britain. The Israeli lobby’s substantial sway over the Australian media has become a focal point of scrutiny, with echoes of previous incidents highlighting these biases.

In 2014, when the Israel government instigated yet another conflict in Gaza, journalist Mike Carlton was pressured to resign from the Sydney Morning Herald for using offensive language in responses to Jewish readers—private correspondences—who criticised one of his articles on the conflict, and a cartoon by Glenn Le Lievre was removed due to claims of offensiveness by the Australian Jewish Association. These incidents underscored the existence of double standards in reporting on Israel and Palestine, where similarly offensive anti-Palestinian content, such as cartoons produced by News Corporations’ Bill Leak, received little scrutiny. The perception that journalists may be compromised by their acceptance of sponsored trips from the Israeli government adds fuel to concerns about the integrity of media reporting on the conflict.

Figures such as Bevan Shields, editor at the Sydney Morning Herald, and Lenore Taylor, editor at The Guardian, have also received sponsored trips to Israel in the past. While the journalistic community defends their right to engage in such visits, the lack of disclosure raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Last week, at least two of the four panelists on the ABC’s Insiders program were revealed to have traveled to Israel on sponsored trips: should the audience have been informed of this information? The editor of the Herald Sun, James Campbell, pushed his own one-sided views and racist attitudes when he commented: “Does you really think that refugees from the Ukraine would potentially [pose] security risks the way people from Gaza are? There’s also an unfortunate truth that they are unlikely to hold sanguine views about Jews… people don’t leave those sorts of attitudes when they hit the check-in”.

Why should a journalist be allowed to push forward these divisive attitudes to a national audience? How much of Campbell’s commentary is taken from the talking points provided to him by the Israel lobby in Australia? The broader concern is that journalists on sponsored trips or pressure from specific interest groups are likely to be swayed in their reporting due to their experiences, creating a distorted narrative that compromises journalistic integrity. There are comparisons to the “cash for comment” scandals in 1999, where the radio broadcasters Alan Jones and John Laws were paid—$18 million in total—to make favourable comments about corporations without disclosure, which ultimately forced changes to the Broadcasting Services Act to ensure tighter disclosure regulations. Should tighter rules be instigated for political reporting?

In 2019, the media industry launched a “Right to Know” campaign, claiming that governments has been “passing laws that make it harder and harder for people to tell the truth about what the government is doing in your name”. Where is the public’s right to know about where information that’s being provided to the media is coming from? Shouldn’t the public be aware of the distortions of this information and be informed about when the news is real or based on propaganda provided by the Israel government? The need for transparency in this area is essential: how would Australians react if other governments, such as Russia, were funding journalists and providing “re-education” tours to the Kremlin, to reshape perspectives on conflicts in countries such as Ukraine?

While there are instances where governments may sponsor journalists for positive reporting—trade shows or tourism purposes—the call for transparency is paramount and even in these instances, disclosure is usually provided. Journalists, when sponsored by governments, should disclose such ties to maintain trust in their reporting: even better; refuse the junkets in the first instance. This would allow audiences to better assess the potential influences on a journalist’s perspective and encourage critical examination of the narratives presented. Ultimately, the hope is that a more transparent approach will lead to a media landscape that is less susceptible to external influences and better serves the public’s right to unbiased information.

Controversial editorial choices mar the Israeli–Palestinian coverage

Australian journalists have previously expressed support for colleagues in war zones, particularly in Ukraine, condemning Russian actions and President Vladimir Putin for instigating the invasion almost two years ago. However, there are no half-measures or equivocation about Ukraine: the ABC and Nine Media have published many articles accusing Russia of war crimes, genocide and ethnic cleansing—and rightly so—and there was no censorship imposed by news editors or management at the time. This perceived inconsistency in treatment has fueled the argument that similar scrutiny and denouncement should be applied to Israel for its actions in Gaza.

If Russia can be accused of war crimes and attempted genocide in Ukraine, the same standards should apply to Israel in the context of Gaza. The ABC’s editorial decision to ban certain terms such as “genocide” and “war crimes” in reporting on Gaza and Israel was inappropriate, but if it’s correct to accuse Russia of war crimes, then it must be correct to accuse Israel, because the actions committed by both the Russian and Israeli military forces appear to be identical, if not far more severe in Gaza.

The decisions of Nine Media and the ABC to interfere with the reporting of war on such a level is a failure of journalism, although it’s evident that the public is becoming increasingly aware of such editorial decisions and seeking news and information from other more reliable avenues.

Social media is providing many platforms for a wider range of unfiltered opinions, allowing for more diverse perspectives on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Despite the challenges of navigating misinformation and confirmation bias, this is encouraging critical thinking and evaluation on the Middle East politics and shifting public opinions, however slightly, particularly among younger generations, and providing an opportunity re-evaluate essentially what has been a barrage of Israel government propaganda appearing in much of the mainstream media in Australia.

The geopolitical implications of the Israeli government’s actions today are quite different to events from the past, which have usually been tacitly condoned by Western governments and after initial concerns, a level of indifference from the public: a faraway and confusing conflict can hold the attention span of the public for only so long.

However, there is a different global response in 2023. The Israeli government, under Benjamin Netanyahu, has overplayed its hand, losing its precarious and perfunctory political support in the Middle East region but potentially losing the substantial support it holds in Europe, the U.S. and within Australia, whose populations are becoming more outraged with the continuing tragic loss of innocent lives, and the continued domination of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank.

Ceasefire’s glimmer of hope wiped out

The recent ceasefire in Gaza, which Australia abstained from voting on just a few weeks ago, brought a glimmer of some hope amid the darkness of war. Initially planned for four days, the ceasefire was extended by an additional two days, and there were hopes that it could become a permanent agreement. United Nations Secretary–General Antonio Guterres expressed optimism about the ceasefire, seeing it as an opportunity to increase humanitarian aid to the suffering population in Gaza.

However, this current ceasefire has since been broken by Israel and it’s a reminder that there’s still a long road ahead in this conflict, which has been substantially one-sided. The civilian casualties have been disproportionately high, with over 15,000 Palestinians killed since October, compared to 1,200 Israelis and, beyond the grim statistics, there’s a pressing humanitarian crisis in Gaza that requires urgent attention.

The outcry against this conflict on the international stage has been larger than in previous Israeli conflicts, raising awareness and prompting outrage globally and the narrative surrounding the conflict, often controlled by mainstream media filters, is undergoing a transformation. The traditional controls on how stories are disseminated and framed are dissipating, indicative of the broader changes in media reportage and communication through social media and access of material, in general, through the internet.

While geopolitical changes move at a glacial pace, mainstream political parties in the Western world are facing challenges, both electorally and philosophically, and the disillusionment with established parties and their dwindling memberships becoming contributing factors. The changing narrative around the Palestinian people—once only portrayed in a negative light—is breaking down. Even among those who may not entirely support the notion of Palestine, there is a growing recognition that the situation is more complex than previously thought, that the situation cannot continue for ever and needs a long-lasting and peaceful resolution.

The Gen Z and Millennial impact

The evolving landscape of public opinion on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is significantly being influenced by social media, particularly among younger demographics. Platforms such TikTok and emerging independent media outlets in 2023 provide alternative perspectives beyond mainstream narratives. Younger audiences are less receptive to historical propaganda, and are increasingly critical of Israel’s actions, perceiving them as practicing apartheid, attempting genocide, and likely committing war crimes.

This shift in perception is not confined to Australia but extends globally, prompting a re-evaluation of Israel and Palestine’s dynamics. The Gen Z and Millennial demographic, in particular, are more likely to be advocating for international action against injustices, and this demographic’s influence is spreading to other age groups, creating a sizable shift in popular opinion that may impact Middle East politics in the future. Beyond changing public sentiment, geopolitical factors are also at play. The slowly diminishing reliance on oil will reduce the strategic importance of Israel for Europe and the United States.

Recent developments at the United Nations, including Australia’s vote against a resolution for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories in the Golan Heights—as well as abstaining from a vote for a ceasefire—reveal a disparity between Australia’s stated positions and its actions. While Australia supports the idea of a two-state solution, its voting record suggests a gap between rhetoric and practical steps.

Despite the international lobbying efforts of the Israel government and Zionist support groups in many countries, public support for the actions Israel is waning, and the consequences of overplaying their hand may be irreversible. The Israeli government’s challenge now is to navigate this changing landscape, where reshuffling the deck may not guarantee a favourable outcome, leaving them with limited options to regain public favour. Obvious acts of war crimes, attempts at genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid will always outrage the international community, even if it has taken over 75 years to get to this stage.