His Excellency Boaz Modai, Ambassador of Israel, and The Irish Times
On 2 September on an inside page The Irish Times carried a report under the heading “Vista of devastation: apartment buildings, a hospital and factories flattened”. The article opened on a description of the damage that an Israeli military attack had inflicted on a centre for autistic and Down syndrome children in Gaza. The report stated that the centre had received a warning from the Israeli army that it was to be destroyed because a Hamas rocket launcher had been detected on its roof. It was reported that the centre said it was not possible for there to be a Hamas rocket launcher on its roof as the building was secured and no one had entered it. Despite the denial the building was attacked. The reporter interviewed the founder of the centre, explained how it had been funded and how many children had been treated in the centre. She went to the roof of the centre and reported that she could find no evidence of a Hamas rocket launcher. She reported that the centre was 3 km from the Israeli border. She reported that there was an Israeli imposed buffer zone on the Palestinian side of the border and that this buffer zone deprived Palestinians of 44% of their land. The article then went onto to report on various Palestinian factories which had been destroyed by the Israeli Defence Forces.
The Israeli Ambassador to Ireland, His Excellency Boaz Modai, complained to the editor of The Irish Times stating that the article represented “a serious breach of journalistic standards of accuracy, fairness and objectivity to be expected in a news report”. He claimed that the amount of land in the buffer zone was not the 44% claimed in the article, but actually “about 3%”. He said the 44% figure had been falsely published on the Al-Jazeera news service website. He went on to challenge the value of the journalist’s assertion that she could find no evidence of a Hamas rocket launcher on the roof of the centre for autistic and Down syndrome children. Given that a rocket launcher is “highly mobile” the fact that the journalist was unable to find any evidence of it on the roof of the centre six weeks after the attack “beggars belief”, Ambassador Modai stated, and “must be seen as either gross naiveté or a serious underestimation of the intelligence of her readers”. The Ambassador also complained about the choice of photograph used to accompany the report. The photograph showed the level of destruction of buildings in Gaza following Israeli attacks. He argued that the photograph “was a failure to help the reader gain a balanced account of a conflict that resulted in such destruction”.
The editor of The Irish Times responded to the complaint by acknowledging that the reported percentage of Palestinian land included in the buffer zone was inaccurate. This was, he claimed, a “typographical error”. The source of the information was, he claimed, not Al-Jazeera but a UN official who had stated that “44% of farmed land” was in the buffer zone. The editor offered to publish a correction. The editor went on to address the part of the Ambassador’s complaint dealing with the absence of any evidence of a rocket launcher on the roof of the children’s centre. He said that the reporter had never said that there hadn’t been a Hamas rocket launcher on the roof, it was the centre’s executive manager who had said so.
At this point in the complaints process the Press Ombudsman’s office offered its conciliation services. During conciliation the editor stated that the online edition of the newspaper had added a correction at the end of the article correcting the claim of the extent of the buffer zone and offered to publish a correction in the print edition. He cited a United Nations figure of “35% of farmed land” but added that in the “interests of conciliation” the correction would state “what the Ambassador says is the correct percentage”. The editor went on to defend the choice of photograph that accompanied the article. He said that the article “told of the destruction in Gaza (not of Hamas equipment or damage in Israel)”. The editor also said that he would be happy to meet the Ambassador to discuss the concerns that he had expressed. The Ambassador turned down the offer.
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 has complained that the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) of the Code. There are three issues in the complaint that need to be considered if a breach of any of these three Principles is to be found. The first relates to the claim that 44% of Palestinian land was in the buffer zone, the second to the lack of evidence of a Hamas rocket-launcher on the roof of the centre and the third to the use of the photograph that accompanied the article.
The Press Ombudsman has four decisions he may take in regard to complaints. He can decide to uphold a complaint, he can decide not to uphold a complaint, he can decide that the publication concerned has offered to take, or has taken, action which is, or was, sufficient to resolve the complaint and finally he can decide that there is insufficient evidence available to make a decision on a complaint.
In regard to the first issue the offer by the editor to publish a correction which would include the Ambassador’s assessment of the percentage of Palestinian land unavailable due to the imposition of the buffer zone is judged to be sufficient to resolve this part of the complaint. The editor had initially responded to the Ambassador by saying this was a typographical error but during conciliation agreed that it was an error of fact.
Whilst understanding the Ambassador’s frustration at the value of the journalist’s statement that she found “no sign of a Hamas rocket launcher” I cannot find this a breach of Principles 1, 2 or 3. The reporter was simply stating as a fact that she found no evidence of the rocket launcher. She was not asserting that there hadn’t been a rocket launcher six weeks earlier when the building was attacked.
In regard to the choice of photograph used to accompany the article I believe that the image chosen, a group of Palestinians in the foreground with widespread destruction of Gaza in the background, was appropriate and did not breach any Principles of the Code of Practice.
13 February 2015