Al Jazeera condemns new Israeli law, rejects Netanyahu’s ‘lies’ | Freedom of the Press News

Media network denounces Israeli prime minister’s ‘slanderous accusations’, says they incite against the safety of its journalists around the world.

Al Jazeera has condemned a new Israeli law that could shut down its operations in Israel and said “lies” spread by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu incited against the safety of the media network’s journalists worldwide.

As Israel’s war on Gaza nears the six-month mark, the Israeli parliament, or Knesset, on Monday overwhelmingly backed legislation which allows the government to order the closure of foreign networks operating in Israel and confiscate their equipment if it is believed its content posed “harm to the state’s security”.

After the vote, Netanyahu said on X he intended to take immediate action to stop Al Jazeera’s activities in Israel, accusing the network of “actively” participating in Hamas’s October 7 attack and inciting against Israeli soldiers.

Al Jazeera Media Network denounced Netanyahu’s “frantic campaign” as nothing but “dangerous” and “ludicrous” lies.

“Netanyahu could not find any justifications to offer the world for his ongoing attacks on Al Jazeera and press freedom except to present new lies and inflammatory slanders against the Network and the rights of its employees.”

In its statement, the Qatar-based news organisation also accused Netanyahu of “inflammatory slanders against the network and the rights of its employees”.

“Al Jazeera reiterates that such slanderous accusations will not deter us from continuing our bold and professional coverage, and reserves the right to pursue every legal step,” it said, adding that it held the Israeli prime minister responsible for the safety of its staff and premises around the world “following his incitement and this false accusation in a disgraceful manner”.

The network also said the law, which Israel has been pushing since the beginning of its nearly six-month war on Gaza, was “part of a series of systematic Israeli attacks to silence Al Jazeera”.

It cited the 2022 killing of correspondent Shireen Abu Akleh while she was covering an Israeli military raid in the occupied West Bank town of Jenin and the killing of its journalists Samer Abudaqa and Hamza Dahdouh during the war in Gaza, as well the “deliberate targeting of a number of Al Jazeera journalists and their family members, and the arrest and intimidation of its correspondents in the field”.

Jodie Ginsberg, the chief executive officer of The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), said the passing of the law was “an incredibly worrying move”.

“It’s another example of the tightening of the free press and the stranglehold the Israeli government would like to exercise,” Ginsberg told Al Jazeera.

“We’ve seen this kind of language before from Netanyahu and Israeli officials in which they try to paint journalists as terrorists, as criminals,” Ginsberg said, commenting on the prime minister’s remarks. “This is nothing new.”

The CPJ says it has documented the killing of at least 95 journalists since the start of the war.

White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said an Israeli move to shut down Al Jazeera would be “concerning”.

“The United States supports the critically important work journalists around the world and that includes those who are reporting in the conflict in Gaza,” Jean-Pierre told reporters.

The law was passed as Netanyahu faces massive demonstrations against his handling of the war on Gaza and the security failures which did not detect the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel. At least 1,139 people were killed in those attacks and about 250 captives were taken to Gaza, according to Israeli authorities.

Israel’s war on Gaza has killed at least 32,916 people, mostly children and women, according to health officials in the besieged territory.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Russian court extends detention of journalist Alsu Kurmasheva until June | Freedom of the Press News

Russian American is accused of failing to register as a ‘foreign agent’ and spreading ‘false information’.

A Russian court has extended the pre-trial detention of journalist Alsu Kurmasheva until June 5, her employer Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) says.

The Prague-based editor, 47, was arrested last year in the city of Kazan in southwest Russia for failing to register as a “foreign agent” and for spreading “false information” under censorship laws enacted after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Appearing in court in Kazan on Monday, Kurmasheva smiled and complained about the poor state of the cell where she was being held, an Agence France-Presse reporter said.

Kurmasheva, who has both US and Russian passports, entered Russia in May to deal with a family emergency. She was initially detained on June 2 at an airport while awaiting her return flight, and her passports were confiscated.

According to court documents, she was then fined 10,000 roubles ($108) in October for failing to register her US passport with Russian authorities.

Funded by the United States Congress, her employer, RFE/RL, is designated by Russia as a foreign agent, a charge levelled on the basis that it receives foreign funding for activity deemed to be political.

In 2022, she edited a book titled Saying No to War, a collection of interviews and stories from Russians opposed to Moscow’s campaign against Ukraine.

In December, a state-affiliated media outlet reported that the book led to Russian investigators opening a new case against Kurmasheva, accusing her of spreading false information about the Russian army.

The charge for failing to register as a foreign agent carries up to five years in prison while spreading false information has a maximum sentence of 15 years.

‘Baseless’ charges

RFE/RL described her imprisonment as “outrageous” and said she has been locked up “simply because she holds an American passport”.

“The charges against Alsu are baseless. It’s not a legal process. It’s a political ploy, and Alsu and her family are unjustifiably paying a terrible price,” RFE/RL head Stephen Capus said on Monday.

“Russia must end this sham and immediately release Alsu without condition,” he added.

Rights groups have accused Russia of using oppressive legislation to target Kremlin critics and independent journalists.

Kurmasheva is the second US journalist to be arrested in Russia since the start of Moscow’s war in Ukraine.

Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich has spent more than a year in jail in Moscow on espionage charges that carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

He has denied the charges.

Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, an American convicted of spying in 2020 and jailed in Russia for 16 years, have been designated by the US government as “wrongfully detained”.

The designation means Washington considers the charges against them bogus and is committed to working for their release.

The US Department of State said last year that Kurmasheva’s arrest “appears to be another case of the Russian government harassing US citizens”, and her supporters have been lobbying Washington for the status of “wrongfully detained” for her as well.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Wael Dahdouh: Gaza’s voice amid loss and courage | Israel War on Gaza

Journalists, especially in war zones, face immense challenges in reporting conflict realities.

In the context of Israel’s war on Gaza, their role has been pivotal in exposing the devastation and suffering.

Among these journalists, Wael Dahdouh, Al Jazeera Arabic Gaza bureau chief, stands out for his dedication to covering his homeland’s conflicts over the past 25 years.

Despite personal losses, including family deaths in air strikes and his own injuries, Dahdouh’s commitment remains unwavering.

His story, highlighted during an interview in Doha, where he receives medical treatment, exemplifies journalistic courage and resilience.

Wael Dahdouh talks to Al Jazeera.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Russia mulls labelling queen of Soviet pop Pugacheva a ‘foreign agent’ | Russia-Ukraine war News

Musician Alla Pugacheva, who is currently abroad, has criticised the Kremlin for its actions in Ukraine.

Russian prosecutors have asked the justice ministry to consider labelling Alla Pugacheva, the queen of Soviet pop music, as a “foreign agent”, the Reuters news agency reported.

If successful, the move would officially designate Russia’s most famous star as a foe of the Kremlin.

Pugacheva, known across generations for hits such as the 1982 song, Million Scarlet Roses, and the 1978 film, The Woman who Sings, has expressed disgust with the Ukraine war.

In 2022, she said the war was killing soldiers for illusory aims, burdening Russian citizens and turning Russia into a pariah.

Earlier this month, the 74-year-old said that no normal person would return to Russia. She is currently abroad.

Vitaly Borodin, an activist who heads an anticorruption group and who regularly appears on state television, submitted an official request to recognise Pugacheva as a foreign agent.

Then Borodin published a letter from the prosecutor general’s office showing that a request had been made to the justice ministry to consider that, Reuters reported.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he had heard no official statements about the issue. Pugacheva, thought to be in Cyprus, did not immediately comment.

‘Moscow’s Tina Turner’

Officially labelling Pugacheva a “foreign agent” would underscore the rift between the Kremlin and many – but not all – of the cultural icons of Soviet and post-Soviet Russia over Ukraine.

Such a step would almost certainly need approval from the Kremlin. It has yet to opine in public about the singer and could still stop the process.

The New York Times in 2000 described her as “the goddess of Russian pop, Moscow’s Tina Turner with a hint of Edith Piaf, whose songs have given voice to the yearnings of millions”.

Shot, a Russian media outlet with close ties to the security services, said an official announcement may be made on her 75th birthday on April 15.

Being labelled as a “foreign agent” is often the first sign of serious trouble from authorities in Russia. There are 787 organisations and people listed as such.

The label has negative Soviet-era connotations and its bearers have to place it prominently on all content they publish. They also face arduous financial and bureaucratic requirements.

For many opponents of President Vladimir Putin, though, the designation is considered a badge of honour – evidence they stood up to a leader they cast as a dictator and say has led Russia towards ruin.

Criticism

Supporters of Putin say that the pro-Western cultural elite which grew up after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union is being cleared out and replaced by patriotic singers, writers and artists who will ensure Russia remains sovereign.

Pugacheva came to the attention of Putin supporters for taking six days from Friday’s gun attack on Crocus City Hall to make a comment in public.

“Grief should be in your soul, not in Instagram,” she posted on Instagram on Thursday.

Pugacheva was also criticised for apologising to a Tajik singer who wept over the “public torture” of the Tajik suspects detained for the attack.

Some of the suspects were shown being interrogated beside a road. One was shown in unverified footage having part of his ear cut off and stuffed into his mouth.

Pugacheva in 2022 even asked for the state to label her a foreign agent in solidarity with her husband, TV comedian Maxim Galkin, who was put on the list that year.

Pugacheva has in the past been feted by both Putin and his predecessor Boris Yeltsin. When Mikhail Gorbachev died in 2022, she praised the last Soviet leader for allowing freedom and rejecting violence.

After Putin ordered troops into Ukraine in 2022, Pugacheva left Russia. She has Israeli citizenship and has come back for some periods.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Life Magazine set for revival by Karlie Kloss and husband’s media company | Media

Magazine known for photography of major 20th century events ceased print publication in 2007.

Life magazine, the American magazine known for its iconic photography capturing major events of the 20th century, is set to be revived under a deal struck by fashion model Karlie Kloss’s media company.

Bedford Media, which Kloss owns with her venture capitalist husband Joshua Kushner, said in a statement on Thursday that the magazine would be relaunched in print and digital form after it secured publishing rights in an agreement with Dotdash Meredith.

The financial details of the deal and the relaunch date were not immediately disclosed.

“Josh and I are honored to continue @LIFE’s legacy ❤,” Kloss said on Instagram.

Joshua Kushner, the founder of Thrive Capital, is the brother of Jared Kushner, former president Donald Trump’s son-in-law.

Life, launched in 1883, was a mainstay of American journalism for much of the 20th century, featuring history-defining photography such as the iconic image of a United States Navy sailor kissing a stranger on the day Japan surrendered to the US in WWII.

After a period of decline, the magazine switched from weekly to monthly publication in the late 1970s before ceasing publication in 2000.

Publisher Time Inc resuscitated the magazine as a supplement in 2004 before ending the print edition for good three years later and launching a website to display its archives.



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Is the US media layoffs phenomenon the next housing crisis? | Media

In the past few months, the media sector in the United States has gone through one of its worst rounds of layoffs in decades, with some voices within the sector even asking if journalism is a viable career path despite surging subscriptions at publications like The New York Times.

Most recently, outlets like Vice and the sports blog Deadspin were decimated in a massive round of job cuts. Vice ended its online publication, and Deadspin laid off its entire editorial team.

These are the latest in a slew of headcount reductions at countless newsrooms around the US over the past decade at the hands of wealthy owners. The latter overwhelming have the backing of some of the biggest private equity and wealth management firms in the US like Apollo Global Management, Fortress Investment Group and Alden Capital, to name a few. These institutions are also called shadow banks.

A surge in private equity investments in media, experts said, has led to decisions that benefit investors but not always the companies and their employees, similar to the 2008 housing crisis and private equity’s ability to flourish during that time.

While the media business is in the spotlight now, it is a microcosm of a bigger challenge across the US economy. What makes it stand out is that it’s been a long and high-profile battle.

One such moment came with tech’s control (overwhelmingly led by Meta, then Facebook) in 2018 over audience traffic, which made newspapers, magazines and news portals beholden to the algorithmic choices of social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, which ultimately hurt the sector.

That was an optimal entry point for private equity to get a stronger foothold in the media business.

“Media companies were struggling at the time but not nearly enough as the journalism community was led to believe,” explained Margot Susca, the author of How Private Investment Funds Helped Destroy American Newspapers and Undermine Democracy.

“Funds use these market conditions to justify the gutting of these American institutions,” said Susca, who is also a professor of journalism at American University in Washington, DC.

‘Liquidating the entire industry for profit’

Like in the housing market, financial institutions capitalised on someone else’s misfortune to make money from it. In the 2008 recession, it was lenders and big investment banks ranging from Lehman Brothers to Washington Mutual, a move that ultimately led to their collapse.

The key is real estate. In the housing crisis, banks seized foreclosed homes for pennies on the dollar after homeowners defaulted on subprime mortgages. 

In the case of the media sector, shadow banks are going after physical newsrooms and selling them. For instance, in 2018, Gannett sold the headquarters of the Asheville Citizen Times to Twenty Lakes Holdings, a real-estate affiliate of Alden Capital. Gannett sold the building for $3.2m. Alden then sold it to developers for $5.3m. 

A comparable move happened at Vice last year. Only months after Fortress Investment Group acquired the publication, it left its office in Brooklyn, New York.

There’s a lot of real estate at shadow banks’ disposal. Private equity, hedge funds and other comparable firms control roughly half of all daily newspapers in the US.

“The problem with the news media sector is not its viability. The problem with the news media sector are these locust funds that are liquidating the entire industry for profit,” Susca said.

But where do shadow banks go once physical assets like real estate have been liquidated?

They squeeze out revenue where they can for as long as they can. That often means cutting staff.

G/O Media, formerly known as Gizmodo Media Group, sold off Deadspin, its sports blog. The new owner, Lineup Publishing, said it would not bring over any existing editorial staffers even though it aimed to “be reverential to Deadspin’s unique voice”, G/O CEO Jim Spanfeller said in an email to employees.

Great Hill Partners acquired the media brand in 2019 and drastically shifted Deadspin’s editorial vision. The publication was a sports-centric one that also housed vibrant cultural commentary on a variety of topics. At the direction of the new owner, the publication was directed to “stick to sports”. The announcement led to mass resignations.

This week, G/O Media sold two more publications from its portfolio — The AV Club and The Takeout.

G/O is not in a financially dire position, according to Spanfeller, who told Axios this year, “We’re not strapped for cash.”

Unionised staff at US publishing company Conde Nast walk the picket line during a 24-hour walkout amid layoff announcements in New York City in January [File: Angela Weiss/AFP]

According to the Writers Guild of America East, which includes various unions representing editorial staff from multiple media firms, Great Hill Partners made an estimated $44m in revenue in 2023. The guild suggests that Great Hill Partners has enough money to make decisions that do not undermine the financial security of its staffers.

When Spanfeller was appointed in 2019, the private equity firm said he was a significant investor in the company but did not disclose the specifics of the financial agreement. Spanfeller’s appointment came directly from the firm suggesting that it intended to oversee day-to-day editorial operations across G/O’s portfolio.

Great Hill Partners did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

G/O is the latest in a string of companies laying off workers in the last few months alone.

Last month, Engadget, a brand owned by Yahoo, had a series of layoffs including of high-profile editors. It came amid a reported refocus on traffic growth. But how can you drive more traffic with high-quality reporting with fewer people to make the product?

Meanwhile, Apollo Global Management, which now owns Yahoo, is doing very well. The asset management firm’s stock is up nearly 250 percent over a roughly five-year period – 80 percent this past year alone. The firm acquired Yahoo in 2021 and also has a significant stake in several other large media companies, including Gannett, which owns hundreds of newspapers around the US, including USA Today, the fifth largest. In 2019, Apollo provided $1.8bn to finance the acquisition of the newspaper giant and merge it with GateHouse Media.

‘Layoffs were the core strategy’

Once Gannett’s acquisition of GateHouse was complete, it scrapped hundreds of jobs immediately. In 2022, the newspaper group slashed roughly 600 more jobs in two rounds of cuts in August and November.

Apollo also acquired both Northwest Broadcasting and Cox Media Group, which included 54 radio stations, and 33 TV stations.

“After funds became owners, layoffs were the core strategy to try to maximise revenue. [These are] firms that just had profit as the sole motivation,” Susca said. “Layoffs are the stark reality of hedge fund ownership and private equity investment.”

Historically, private equity firm involvement has led to layoffs – an average of 4.4 percent of job losses in two years as well as a 1.7 percent decrease in pay, according to a study from the University of Chicago.

That is what happened at Cox Media Group. Almost immediately after its acquisition, talent from local TV and radio stations across the country was laid off.

Apollo Management did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

New York-based Alden Capital operates a similar job-cutting strategy and is one of the most infamous hedge funds in the sector for decimating a number of newspapers around the country.

In 2020, Vanity Fair referred to the firm as the “grim reaper of American newspapers”.

Vanity Fair’s stern critique is because of the massive slate of layoffs at the papers Alden Capital owns, including the Denver Post, even as one of the company’s executives said “advertising revenue has been significantly better”, according to reporting from Bloomberg in 2018.

Alden bought Tribune Publishing and gutted many of its newsrooms. At the time, Tribune was profitable, but Alden still moved forward to strip down its papers to make more profits.

Alden often pushed to beef up subscriptions even after shedding physical assets like office space and social assets like its people, which, Tim Franklin, senior associate dean at Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism, suggests is a losing strategy.

“It’s like charging for 16 ounces of Coca-Cola and putting it in a 12-ounce bottle. You’re giving people less and then expecting people to pay. The problem is that you end up in this doom loop. You’re getting less digital subscription revenue because you are providing less content, so then you make cuts and then you see even less revenue and you make more cuts. It’s this never-ending cycle of rinse and repeat,” Franklin said.

Alden Capital did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Doomed to failure

Shadow banks and big banks have made risky investments and hoped they would work out financially.

They sold the idea that someone could very well make payments on a subprime mortgage. Now, the idea is that a media company can create quality reporting on a shoestring budget and a fraction of its headcount. But those are unrealistic expectations and doomed for failure.

During the 2008 housing crisis, big banks essentially created an insurance plan for themselves: sell the debt and make money off the interest. Now private equity is employing a comparable strategy for media.

In the housing crisis, the banks bundled the mortgage loans in a package and sold them to the bond market to random investors. The banks had protections. If a lender defaults, they sell the debt on the secondary market for a profit. The strategy was to bet on the homeowners who were most likely not going to be able to afford the mortgage payments. But ultimately, that backfired, and the resultant housing crisis has been well documented.

“The only people there [who] were able to buy homes at the point could do so with cash or with Wall Street financing because that cash was still flowing,” said Aaron Glantz, author of Homewreckers: How a Gang of Wall Street Kingpins, Hedge Fund Magnates, Crooked Banks, and Vulture Capitalists Suckered Millions Out of Their Homes and Demolished the American Dream.

“Private equity is not depending on that credit system,” Glatz added.

NBC and MSNBC laid off employees [File: Justin Lane/EPA]

In either situation, the protections afforded investors were not passed down to homeowners in 2008 or writers, editors, on-air talent and others in the media industry now.

While some savings and lending banks failed and were the recipients of massive bailouts, shadow banks flourished. Generally speaking, these companies make money during times of economic vulnerability, leading to an even more challenging situation for average people.

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, funds were largely criticised for buying up distressed housing across New York City and forcing out longtime residents – a move that brought rent-stabilised properties to market rate, which ultimately allowed them to drive up prices on their buildings and raise the value of the buildings around them.

“They’re reliant on cash that is just sitting around ready to be spent or credit lines that they can get from banks like JPMorgan Chase or they can leverage other assets. They own so many other assets,” Glatz said.

One of those assets over the past decade is a growing number of media companies.

But even then, it poses the question: If all these media companies are struggling, why are their executives so wealthy?

Behind a number of these mass layoffs are uber-wealthy executives. That’s the case for Business Insider, The Washington Post and Vice, just to name a few.

In January, Business Insider, owned by the German media giant Axel Springer, laid off 8 percent of its workforce. Axel Springer, however, is doing well financially. Its CEO, Mathias Doepfner, has a net worth of $1.2bn.

Executives on both the editorial and business side at the short-lived outlet The Messenger raked in close to million-dollar salaries. Meanwhile, editorial staffers launched a crowdfunding campaign to make ends meet because the outlet did not give them any severance packages.

NBC and MSNBC laid off 75 people this year. Brian Roberts, the CEO of NBC’s parent company, Comcast, raked in more than $32m in 2022.

Despite the recent layoffs, the network hired former Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel as a contributor. Hiring McDaniel was met with swift backlash from high-profile talent across the news organisation and the NBC News Guild, the union representing journalists across the network.

The union in particular pointed out that McDaniel – who was known for helping to enable former President Donald Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged – was hired after the company laid off more than a dozen unionised journalists. Amid the backlash, NBC cut its ties with McDaniel.

NBC is just the latest major network to make job cuts. At CBS, despite its high viewership during American football’s Super Bowl, parent company Paramount laid off staffers the following day at CBS News. Meanwhile, CEO Bob Bakish made $32m in 2022.

In November, Conde Nast laid off 5 percent of its workforce. The Newhouse family, which leads Advance Publications, the parent company of the magazine giant, has a net worth of $24.1bn, according to Forbes.

 

Vice Media, which was once valued at close to $6bn, has since filed for bankruptcy and ended publishing on its website [File: Eric Thayer/Getty Images/AFP]

In recent weeks, Vice laid off hundreds of employees and ended publishing on its website. It has been plagued with a nearly endless series of layoffs in the past few years. Prior to filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year, the media company paid its executives roughly $11m – even though its executives were notoriously known for mismanagement.

Yet they were bailed out. Amid the Chapter 11 filing, Fortress Investment Group acquired Vice – a company that was once valued at $5.7bn – for $225m. Executives left with hefty paycheques while staffers were left jobless with little notice.

Fortress did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

The Washington Post eliminated 240 jobs, yet it is owned by Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, who is worth more than $200bn, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, making him the second-richest person in the world.

In 2019, Senator Sherrod Brown sent a stern letter to Alden Capital, pressing the fund not to buy Gannett. Brown was unsuccessful.

In 2021, Brown, alongside Senators Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren, introduced the Stop Wall Street Looting Act, which would have reformed the private equity industry.

The bill never made it past committee, so it never had a vote in the full Senate.

Experts believe that Washington has not done nearly enough to curb the power of private equity.

“You have a government system, a regulatory, legislative system that has basically failed at every turn to stop the growth of these hedge funds,” Susca said. “And private equity firms in the journalism market, to me, is an institutional failure.”



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

ABC Australia staff’s concerns over pro-Israel bias revealed | Israel War on Gaza News

Staff at Australia’s national broadcaster warned that its coverage of the war in Gaza relied too much on Israeli sources and used language that “favoured the Israeli narrative over objective reporting”, internal communications reveal, shedding new light on bias claims that convulsed the outlet.

In a summary of a meeting on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)’s coverage of the war, staff detailed concerns that coverage displayed pro-Israel bias, such as by accepting “Israeli facts and figures with no ifs or buts” while questioning Palestinian viewpoints and avoiding the word “Palestine” itself.

The three-page summary, which Al Jazeera obtained via a freedom of information request with the ABC, is undated, but its contents correspond with a meeting of 200 staff that was held in November to address concerns about the broadcaster’s coverage.

While the broad thrust of concerns aired at the meeting was reported by Australian media in November, the document contains extensive detail about staff’s complaints and previously unpublicised examples of alleged pro-Israeli bias.

“We’re worried the language we’re using in our coverage is askew, favoring the Israeli narrative over objective reporting. This is evident in our reluctance to use words such as ‘War crimes’, ‘Genocide”, ‘Ethnic cleansing’, ‘Apartheid’ and ‘Occupation’ to describe the various aspects of the Israeli practices in Gaza and the West Bank, even when the words are attributed to respectable organisations and sources,” staff said in the document, which is signed “Concerned ABC journalists and staff” and addressed to “managers and colleagues”.

“Meanwhile, we’re quick to use ‘terrorist’, ‘barbaric’, ‘savage’ and ‘massacre’ when describing the October 7th attacks. Similarly, we regularly quote sources referring to highly contested claims made by Israel, but not those made by Palestinians and their supporters.”

While the ABC could not make accusations of genocide or war crimes taking place, staff said, the broadcaster “should be more proactive in reporting them to properly contextualise the conflict”.

“This is especially the case as we are far more comfortable in labelling Hamas’s actions ‘terrorism’ yet lack the language to correctly describe Israeli aggression in the region,” they said.

“We mention the number of Israeli hostages in many stories, but we never mention the number of Palestinian prisoners in Israel.”

As a result of the ABC’s editorial policies, staff said, audiences had been led to believe that the broadcaster “stifles one narrative in favour of another”.

“Many community members – not limited to the Arab and Muslim communities – in Australia have expressed this view to several ABC journalists and in other forums,” they added.

Staff also said they felt ABC management had failed to defend their staff from attacks by other media and politicians for expressing their personal views on the war, “despite there being instances of the ABC doing that for some senior journalists who have posted about other issues in the past”.

In response to the concerns raised by ABC staff, an ABC spokesperson told Al Jazeera the broadcaster does not comment on confidential staff matters.

“All major stories are subject to robust internal discussion and we listen to and respect staff input,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson added that the ABC Ombudsman’s Office had found the outlet’s coverage of the war in Gaza to be “professional, wide-ranging and reflective of newsworthy events”.

“Given the extent of our coverage of this important and difficult story, this is a testament to the professionalism, expertise and dedication of our journalists,” the spokesperson said.

Months after the staff meeting, tensions continue to simmer at the ABC over the conflict.

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) union last week registered a second vote of no confidence in the ABC’s managing director, David Anderson, and “all ABC managers involved in the decision to unfairly dismiss” freelance broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf.

Lattouf’s short-term contract as a presenter on ABC Radio Sydney was abruptly cut short in December after the journalist shared a report from Human Rights Watch accusing the Israeli government of deliberately starving civilians in Gaza.

The Sydney Morning Herald later revealed that a WhatsApp group calling itself Lawyers for Israel had lobbied for her removal with ABC’s top management.

Lattouf, who is of Lebanese heritage, has filed an unlawful termination claim against the ABC with Australia’s Fair Work Commission.

The ABC has denied that external pressure played a role in its decision to take Lattouf off the air.

The ABC spokesperson told Al Jazeera that the broadcaster “has a demonstrable track record of doing our utmost to defend our journalism and employees against unwarranted criticism.”

The spokesperson said the ABC is currently “defending the Antoinette Lattouf matter before the Fair Work Commission” and it would be “inappropriate to comment further while that decision is pending”.

The ABC’s chair, Kim Williams, on Monday accused staff who had joined the votes of no confidence over Lattouf’s treatment of rushing to judgement and being “enormously unhelpful.”

Williams earlier this month also warned journalists against letting their personal politics affect their work.

“If you don’t want to reflect a view that aspires to impartiality, don’t work at the ABC,” Williams told the Fourth Estate podcast.

Rachel Withers, the editor-in-chief of the new Australian publication The Politics, said the ABC chair’s comments about impartiality were “worrying”.

“Would we rather have a public broadcaster committed to ‘integrity, transparency and rigour,’ to investigating facts and exposing the truth, or to ‘impartiality’, whatever that means, in the context of a conflict that is seeing civilians die in their thousands?,” Withers told Al Jazeera.

In the document obtained by Al Jazeera, ABC staff also expressed concern that the broadcaster’s coverage of the war in Gaza risked alienating certain audiences, including younger listeners.

“We believe failing to offer different perspectives has them turning away from the ABC to alternative media sources,” they said.

In July, the Australian Financial Review reported that 80 percent of the audience for the ABC’s leading 7pm news programme was more than 55 years old, while less than 8 percent was under 40.

Tito Ambyo, a journalism lecturer at RMIT in Melbourne, said young people “cannot ignore what’s going on” in the world and that the ABC shares problems with other newsrooms in Australia, including a reluctance to address “journalism’s colonial history and problems with racism”.

“From what I can see, many of my young students do care about what’s happening in Gaza in quite a deep, empathetic way,” Ambyo told Al Jazeera.

Ambyo said young journalists’ willingness to challenge their “biases and privileges” may be dismissed in newsrooms as “naive instead of exciting and relevant”.

Ambyo said, however, that the ABC’s recent episode of its flagship investigative programme dedicated to the war was one example of how the broadcaster could cover the conflict well.

The Four Corners episode titled The Forever War drew praise from, among others, Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian Territories.

In their summary of their meeting with management, ABC staff noted that the broadcaster did not have a correspondent in Gaza despite stationing several reporters in Israel.

Staff also said that the ABC’s style guide advice against using the word “Palestine” was out of step with international norms and that the broadcaster used terms favoured by both sides in the case of disputed territories in East Asia.

“Nearly every UN member state recognises Palestine as a state. What grounds does the ABC have to refuse the mention of Palestine? How can we explain what Palestinian means without calling it Palestine? How can we show our audiences that this is a people, not just some ‘territories’?” they said.

The ABC spokesperson said the outlet’s coverage is always grounded in its editorial policies and pointed to its style guide’s detailed instructions on acceptable ways to refer to Gaza and the West Bank, including the “Occupied Palestinian Territory”.



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Sudan army regains control of national TV and radio headquarters from RSF | Humanitarian Crises News

Sudan’s military posts videos online showing its soldiers inside the headquarters in the city of Omdurman.

Sudan’s army has taken control of the country’s national radio and television headquarters from the rival paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the army said in a statement.

The military posted videos online showing its soldiers inside the headquarters on Tuesday in Omdurman, a city across the Nile from Khartoum that forms part of Sudan’s wider capital, where the army has claimed recent gains after a string of military losses.

There was no immediate comment from the RSF.

The conflict broke out in mid-April 2023 amid tensions over a plan for transition to civilian rule.

In 2021, the warring factions staged a coup that derailed a previous transition following the 2019 overthrow of longtime leader Omar al-Bashir.

Al Jazeera’s Hiba Morgan, reporting from Khartoum, said the military’s takeover of the media headquarters follows weeks of gains against the RSF.

“After overnight battles between the RSF and the Sudanese army, and after gains from the army here in the city of Omdurman, the army was able to retake control of the station,” said Morgan.

“It shows that the army over the past few weeks has been making steady gains from the RSF, regaining territory and recapturing grounds back from the RSF in the city of Omdurman and in some other parts of the capital as well.”

The war in Sudan has devastated the capital, sparked waves of ethnically driven killings in the western region of Darfur and created the world’s biggest displacement crisis.

The United Nations has called for a ceasefire over the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, but the army has rejected a pause in hostilities with the RSF unless the paramilitary group vacates civilian facilities in the capital of Khartoum and elsewhere.

“So fighting continues here in the capital Khartoum,” Morgan said. “We were able to see, in the past few hours, several plumes of smoke rising in various parts of the capital – and we were able to hear artillery shelling.”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Media agencies pull photo of Kate Middleton over manipulation concerns | Media News

AP, Reuters, AFP and Getty withdraw first official image of the Princess of Wales released since her surgery.

The first official photo of Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, released since she underwent abdominal surgery has been pulled by multiple media agencies amid concerns the image was manipulated.

The Associated Press (AP), Reuters, Getty Images and Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Sunday issued notices not to use the image of Kate and her three children, which was released by Kensington Palace.

The AP said the photo had been withdrawn because upon “closer inspection, it appears that the source had manipulated the image” and the photo showed an “inconsistency in the alignment” of the left hand of Kate’s daughter, Princess Charlotte.

The AFP said the image could not be used as it had been “altered” without elaborating.

Reuters said it had deleted the image “following a post-publication review”.

When contacted for comment, the AP directed Al Jazeera to an AP article about the withdrawal decision.

Reuters, AFP and Getty Images did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

Kensington Palace did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The photo was posted on The Prince and Princess of Wales’s official X account on Sunday accompanied by a caption thanking the public for their “kind wishes and continued support over the last two months” and wishing the public a Happy Mother’s Day.

The image was purportedly taken by Kate’s husband, Prince William, during the past week on the grounds of Windsor Castle just outside of London.

The release of the image, which remained online on Sunday night despite the withdrawal notices, came after Kensington Palace announced in January that Kate, 42, had been hospitalised for surgery and would take a break from official royal duties until after Easter.

The lack of details about the reasons for the queen-in-waiting’s surgery and her prolonged absence from the public has prompted a flurry of speculation and conspiracy theories about her condition.

Kate last appeared in public on Christmas Day while attending a church service at the royal family’s Sandringham estate.



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

What went wrong with the British media coverage of the Gaza war? | Israel War on Gaza

Over the past five months, a lot has been said and written on the British media’s coverage of  Israel’s war on Gaza. Experts, journalists and activists, including myself, have argued in numerous articles and interviews that the British media exhibits certain biases in its coverage of this war, and the broader issue of Israel-Palestine.

In a new report, based on the largest statistical analysis of the media coverage of the atrocities committed in Israel on October 7, and Israel’s genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people in the first month of the war, the Muslim Council of Britain’s Centre of Media Monitoring (CfMM) laid out the empirical evidence for these observations and concerns.

Looking at some 180,000 video clips from seven United Kingdom broadcasters and three international broadcasters, as well as about 26,000 news articles from 28 British media websites, CfMM has assessed whether the UK media have reliably informed the public on the conflict and shared the positions of all concerned parties responsibly.

In line with the findings of smaller-scale studies conducted thus far, it found that Israeli narratives, voices and grievances were favoured over Palestinian voices, narratives and grievances in the coverage. “Israel’s rights” were insistently emphasised, often resulting in the exclusion and erasure of the rights of the Palestinians. Emotive language was consistently used for Israeli victims of violence, but not as much for the Palestinians. Representatives and supporters of Israel were allowed to dehumanise Palestinians on air, with no considerable pushback from news presenters and talk show hosts.

Analysing the coverage under six themes – contextualisation, language, framing, claims, the undermining of Palestinian sources and the misrepresentation of pro-Palestinian protesters – the research found that many news outlets have opted to present news from an Israeli perspective, often with significant lapses in basic fact-checking and verification.

Remarkably, the analysis unveiled that Palestinian symbols, such as the Palestinian flag, were overwhelmingly “used to illustrate stories on anti-Semitism”. It also exposed the many Islamophobic aspects of the coverage, such as the framing of pro-Palestine protests and support as inherently dangerous and akin to “a terror threat” often because of the Muslim presence among them.

The report revealed that the Islamophobic trope of “Islam being an anti-Semitic religion” was repeatedly presented – by editors, analysts and columnists alike – as the driving force behind the growing opposition to Israel and its treatment of Palestinians. This led to the misrepresentation of the 75-year conflict in Israel-Palestine as a “religious war” between Muslims and Jews, rather than a matter of oppression and occupation.

The report determined that pro-Palestinian voices and Palestinian activists have repeatedly been misrepresented by many British media outlets since the beginning of the conflict. It found that the right-wing media has been particularly hostile towards pro-Palestinian voices, “framing them as supporters of terrorism and anti-Semites as well as being hostile to British values”.

The analysis also unearthed many instances of misinformation through deliberate omission. The context of decades-long Israeli oppression of Palestinian people and occupation of Palestinian territory was absent from most of the coverage. The coverage was framed in a way that implied the conflict started on October 7. The report showed how some reportage on the ongoing war failed to even mention that the West Bank is Palestinian territory occupied by Israel, and that, according to international law, Gaza has also been effectively under Israeli occupation prior to October 7 – despite the absence of a military presence on the ground since 2005.

There were also many instances of apparent “mistakes” and misinformation being given a pass on British TV screens, as long as they reaffirmed Israeli narratives. In one instance, a defence analyst claimed on TV that “the West Bank is occupied by Palestinians”. Despite such a claim not having any basis in international law, or any current or historic reality on the ground, the presenter did not correct him or seek clarification.

Misleading use of imagery in some newspapers is another failure identified in the analysis.

For instance, distressing images depicting the flames and extensive destruction caused by Israeli air strikes on Gaza were paired with headlines referencing the atrocities committed by Hamas in Israel on October 7. In one case, a horrifying image of frightened, injured Palestinian children in Gaza was juxtaposed with a headline about “mutilated babies in Israel”.

Using misleading imagery, omitting facts, allowing guests to spread misinformation without challenge and sharing unverified information as fact are examples of irresponsible and unethical journalism. And such acts could have grave consequences.

Misinformation and disinformation breeds hate speech, which can result in harm being inflicted on innocent individuals. Misrepresentation of the current conflict as a “religious war” between Jews and Muslims, coupled with the dehumanisation of Palestinians and vilification of their supporters around the world as terrorists or “terrorist-adjacent” has exacerbated anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian sentiments.

As a result, hate directed towards British Muslims has manifested itself on the streets and screens across the UK. According to Tell Mama, the leading hate crime monitoring agency on measuring anti-Muslim hate in the UK, between October 2023 and February 2024, there were more than 2,000 anti-Muslim hate cases in the UK – a shocking 335 percent increase compared with the same period in the previous year.

Research conducted by UK NGOs More in Common and the Together Coalition since the beginning of the war in Gaza, published on March 3,  highlighted the prevalence of anti-Muslim sentiment in the country. Among those who responded to the survey, 21 percent – one in five – said they have a “very negative” or “somewhat negative” view of Muslims.

Media’s false labelling of pro-Palestinian protesters as “terror threats”, “pro-Hamas”, “extremists” and “opposing to British values” undoubtedly contributed to this unprecedented rise in anti-Muslim hate and prejudice in the country.

Indeed, anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments many British Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims are currently faced with in their schools, universities and places of work could – at least in part – be tied to the predominantly one-sided coverage of the war on Gaza detailed in the CfMM report.

The negative labelling of pro-Palestinian protesters as “anti-British” and “anti-Western” merely due to their support for Palestinian rights and self-determination leads to the unjust tarnishing of entire communities. It feeds into existing prejudices and could flame interreligious and inter-communal tensions and even violence.

Alongside the harm caused to Muslim, Arab and Palestinian Britons, the bias expressed by the media in the coverage of this conflict also harms Palestinians in Palestine and the wellbeing of the wider region.

The report’s findings imply that numerous journalists and commentators in Britain have knowingly or unknowingly aided a propaganda campaign aimed at providing false legitimacy for Israel’s relentless assault on Gaza – an assault that, according to the International Court of Justice, could plausibly amount to genocide.

The point of the CfMM report, and this article, of course, is not to make unfair generalisations about a diverse, rich media landscape and tar all UK journalists with the same brush. Many journalists in Britain and on the ground in Israel-Palestine have produced balanced and informative journalism about the Gaza war for British media and examples of this are also included in the CfMM report.

But the report, and the many problems and shortcomings that it highlights, should be seen by those working in the British media and covering this war as a wakeup call. They should treat this extensive report and its findings as a valuable learning tool and reassess their output on Israel-Palestine according to the just and meaningful criticisms laid out within it.

The extent of the tragedy still unfolding today in Palestine, and the demonstrable impact it has had on intercommunal relations here in Britain, necessitate every journalist contributing to the coverage of this war to think carefully about what they are communicating to the public, and take extra steps to uphold the values and principles that define the profession.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version