His Excellency Boaz Modai, Ambassador of Israel, and The Irish Times
On 2 September 2014 the front page of The Irish Times carried a report under the heading “Gaza residents pick up the pieces after 50 days of bombing and destruction”. The article included eye-witness accounts from Palestinians living in Gaza on the destruction brought about by the Israeli military forces. The Israeli Ambassador to Ireland, His Excellency Boaz Modai, complained to the editor of The Irish Times stating that he believed “… this article to represent a serious departure from the journalistic standards of fairness and objectivity to be expected in a news report”. He claimed that the journalist reported the opinion of residents of Shejaia that “revenge motivated the extreme destruction” of their part of Gaza by the Israelis without challenging that opinion or even establishing a “personal critical distance from it”.
The Ambassador went on to criticise the author of the article for comparing the bombing of Gaza with 9/11 (the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001 by the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda) when she wrote “the Israelis attacked high-rise buildings, a strategy Gazans compare to 9/11”. He said that as a citizen of Israel he found this comparison “particularly offensive” claiming that the two events could not be compared and that the purpose of the Gaza attacks by the Israeli Defence Forces had been “undertaken in order to put a stop to the incessant and indiscriminate firing of rockets from Gaza at the civilian population of Israel”. He described the comparison as “morally bankrupt” and undermined by the inclusion of the fact that the tallest building in Gaza which the Israeli air force had attacked housed Hamas government offices, a Hamas radio station and was the hiding place of an Islamic Jihad leader. In these circumstances he believed these buildings were “legitimate military targets”.
Ambassador Modai also complained about the manner in which it was reported that the Israeli Defence Forces warned residents that attacks were imminent.
A final aspect of the Ambassador’s complaint referred to the photograph accompanying the article (the photograph accompanying the article was of some of the interviewees in the article in their bombed house). He argued that the selection of the photograph of emotive images “unfairly biased the reader against the Israeli side of the conflict”.
Ambassador Modai concluded his complaint by requesting that the newspaper publish a clarification to the effect that the article was “written from a position of personal antagonism against the state of Israel and that The Irish Times itself deliberately indulged the author’s personal slant through the headline, sub-headline and photograph chosen to accompany the article”
The editor in response to the complaint denied that the reporter had “communicated the impression” that she agreed with the view expressed by the Gazan people she interviewed when they compared 9/11 to the Israeli bombings. He said she was reporting what she heard from the people in Gaza. She did say, the editor continued, that it was mostly high rise buildings she saw destroyed.
In regard to advance notice given about imminent attacks by the Israeli Defence Forces the editor pointed out that the reporter stated that she had been told that no warning was given in regard to the attack on the building where 20 people were killed at mealtime and that Gaza’s tallest building had been emptied prior to the attack as half an hour’s notice had been given and that therefore according to Hatem Hassounam (a factory owner quoted in the article) it was “indicative of wanton destruction” as no one was in the building at the time of the attack.
Finally the editor defended the choice of photograph by stating that it illustrated the subject matter of the article, the destruction of buildings and the injuries and deaths caused by the bombings.
After receiving the editor’s response Ambassador Modai formally complained to the Press Ombudsman’s Office that the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) and Principle 8 (Prejudice), the latter because the article served to arouse hatred of Israel.
At this point the Press Ombudsman’s Office began a process of conciliation. During this process the editor offered to meet the Israeli Ambassador but the Ambassador turned down the offer on the grounds that he had previously met him and the dialogue was ultimately futile.
As the complaint could not be resolved through conciliation it went to the Press Ombudsman for consideration.
Conflict in the Middle East generates strong feelings on both sides and editors expect to receive criticism that reports are biased in favour of one side or the other. Editors expect to be at the receiving end of groups who strive to win over public opinion to whatever side their favour. It is not desirable that the Press Ombudsman’s Office be drawn into this process. This office cannot be regarded as an arbiter in determining rights and wrongs in a dispute so complex and fraught. What the office can do is determine if the Code of Practice has been breached in reportage and comment on the Middle East conflict.
The Ambassador complained that the Code of Practice was breached by The Irish Times in its front page on 2 September. I cannot find any evidence that the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy). I am unable to detect anything inaccurate in what was reported. The report focussed on the response of the people of Gaza to the Israeli bombings. Of course I can appreciate that Ambassador Modai might have preferred had the article challenged the views expressed by the people interviewed in the article, but the reporter was under no obligation to do so. She was simply reporting what she was told. The fact that Ambassador Modai profoundly disagrees with what the reporter was told is not relevant in this instance.
I also cannot find any breach of Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment). The article reported the opinions of those interviewed. The reporter did not claim that what she reported was factually correct. She gave readers of her journalism access to the viewpoints of the Gazan people. Readers could make up their own minds whether they agreed or disagreed with the views expressed. In any conflict reporters provide a valuable service if they report on the impact on civilians of military activities. This article did not set out to provide detailed analysis of the causes and consequences of the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Its limited scope was clearly signalled.
The complaint that the article breached Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) is rejected. Fairness in this Principle refers only to the procuring and publishing of news and information. Principle 3.1 states
Newspapers and magazines shall strive at all times for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information
It is quite legitimate for a newspaper to publish an article on the consequences of military conflict from one side or another. Indeed for logistical reasons it is generally the norm for reporters to report from one side in a conflict. The article set out to report on the consequences of the Israeli bombing on the residents of Gaza. The decision to send the reporter to report from the Gazan side reflects the newsworthiness of the Israeli Defence Forces incursion into Gaza
In regard to the choice of photograph used to accompany the article I am persuaded by the explanation put forward by the editor, that the matters illustrated in the photograph were appropriate given the subject matter of the article.
The complaint that the article breaches Principle 8 (Prejudice) is rejected on the grounds that stirring up hatred against a State (in this case the State of Israel) is not covered in this Principle. The individuals or groups identified are on the basis of their race, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, membership of the travelling community, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age. The State of Israel cannot be defined as any of these groups.
13 February 2015