Journalism, Propaganda, or Terrorist Recruitment and Incitement?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) condemned the Israeli bombing of the Beirut headquarters of the Lebanese TV-network Al-Manar and of one of its transmission towers near Baalbek. According to a statement posted on the IFJ web site, the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces were "a clear demonstration that Israel has a policy to silence media it does not agree with." the statement ends with the waening that "in conflict situations, unarmed journalists cannot be treated as combatants irrespective of their political affiliations." There is no doubt that journalists should not be targeted by combatants. But is there a difference between journalism, propaganda, and terrorist recruitment and incitement?

The IFJ is right in insisting that violence must not be a means to silence journalists and news organizations regardless of whether one agrees with them or not. In fact, non-violent means are unacceptable as well. One certainly would expect that democratic states respect the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and press freedom--and not only when they like what is expressed. It was a very bad decision to ban Al Jazeera from Iraq--a move officially made by Iraqi authorities but certainly blessed by U.S. officials. How can Iraqis and people elsewhere in the region embrace democratic values, if the U.S. does not uphold them? If it turns out to be true that Israeli Defense Forces fired on an Al-Jazeera news crew in Nablus earlier in the week as--according to the IJF "first reports suggest"--, it was very wrong. Whether one likes Al-Jazeera's reporting or not, the Qatar-based satellite news network, warts and all, is a legitimate media organizations that reports the news from an Arab perspective and conveys the sentiments of the "Arab street."

Al-Manar is a different story. It is an understatement, when the IJF characterizes Al-Manar merely as a "controversial network whose broadcasts have been banned by some countries in the West, notably France." Moreover, Al-Manar is not just "linked to Hezbollah." It is Hezbollah. It is the organization's organ of propaganda and incitement. It is a terrorist recruitment vehicle that glorifies "martyrdom" among audiences in Arab and Muslim countries and in the Muslim diaspora in the West. That's why the French government moved to ban Al-Manar from reaching audiences in France.

Comments

[Aharon]

I'm wondering about the implications of the IFJ's stance. On some level it may be part of the question as to what the outer borders of journalism really are. The European tradition of editorializing in "hard news" stories and other more experimental forms of journalism may translate to a greater acceptance of even edgier, or, in their words, "controversial" forms of journalism. It would be a shame if the slope is so slippery that propoganda masked as news becomes news in the eyes of journalistic associations. (I shudder to think of comparisons to Ruwandan radio stations, and those in Nazi controlled Europe. Should those also have come under protection, according to IFJ?). Edgier forms of journalism are important, and this decision sadly cheapens that necessary form.