Israel's Military Censors Demand 'Prior Review' of NYT's Gaza Reporting
Free press advocates advise newspaper to ignore such censorship, but incident raises larger questions in debate over coverage of ongoing conflict
Following its reporting of the latest events in the Gaza Strip on Friday, including available details about an IDF soldier captured by Hamas soldiers early in the day, the New York Times was contacted by Israel's military censor and told that future reporting related to the capture would need to be run through its office before publication.
The Times updated their original story by adding:
"...the military's censor informed The New York Times that further information related to the soldier would have to be submitted for prior review. Journalists for foreign news organizations must agree in writing to the military censorship system to work in Israel. This was the first censorship notification The Times had received in more than two years.
Israel's policy of placing 'gag rules' over foreign correspondents is well known to reporters who have worked in the country, but rarely acknowledged by U.S. outlets.
In response to the notice given to the Times on Friday, the Freedom of the Press Foundation--which advocates on behalf of journalistic freedoms--tweeted its advice to the newspaper:
Writing on his Pressing Issues blog, freelance journalist and media critic Greg Mitchell notes, "that the Times has been criticized in the past for agreeing to what they call 'gag orders,' including by its public editor, when it revealed that it had buckled under to Israeli censorship in the past. Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren defended that when it was exposed. "The Times is 'indeed, bound by gag orders,' Ms. Rudoren said. She said that the situation is analogous to abiding by traffic rules or any other laws of the land."
Noting that he had not seen an Israeli objection mentioned by other large outlets that reported on the captured soldier--including an Associated Press article published within a similar time frame--Mitchell wondered: "Was NYT singled out for this (despite very favorable coverage from Jerusalem bureau in past?) because of its importance? Or did compliant Times reporters just mention it as explanation to the Israelis that this story had already appeared before the censorship demand?"
The episode comes amid increased criticism of how many U.S.-based news outlets--including outlets like MSNBC and the Times which are often categorized as "liberal" by many--skew and bend their coverage in order to offer a narrative more friendly towards Israeli government and military policy.
In a pointed essay on the Guardian, written by correspondent Chris McGreal on Friday, the veteran journalists asks "if evolving conversations on the ground" in Gaza demand probing questions for U.S. television news audiences, "Why does [American] TV news look like a Netanyahu ad?"
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Following its reporting of the latest events in the Gaza Strip on Friday, including available details about an IDF soldier captured by Hamas soldiers early in the day, the New York Times was contacted by Israel's military censor and told that future reporting related to the capture would need to be run through its office before publication.
The Times updated their original story by adding:
"...the military's censor informed The New York Times that further information related to the soldier would have to be submitted for prior review. Journalists for foreign news organizations must agree in writing to the military censorship system to work in Israel. This was the first censorship notification The Times had received in more than two years.
Israel's policy of placing 'gag rules' over foreign correspondents is well known to reporters who have worked in the country, but rarely acknowledged by U.S. outlets.
In response to the notice given to the Times on Friday, the Freedom of the Press Foundation--which advocates on behalf of journalistic freedoms--tweeted its advice to the newspaper:
Writing on his Pressing Issues blog, freelance journalist and media critic Greg Mitchell notes, "that the Times has been criticized in the past for agreeing to what they call 'gag orders,' including by its public editor, when it revealed that it had buckled under to Israeli censorship in the past. Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren defended that when it was exposed. "The Times is 'indeed, bound by gag orders,' Ms. Rudoren said. She said that the situation is analogous to abiding by traffic rules or any other laws of the land."
Noting that he had not seen an Israeli objection mentioned by other large outlets that reported on the captured soldier--including an Associated Press article published within a similar time frame--Mitchell wondered: "Was NYT singled out for this (despite very favorable coverage from Jerusalem bureau in past?) because of its importance? Or did compliant Times reporters just mention it as explanation to the Israelis that this story had already appeared before the censorship demand?"
The episode comes amid increased criticism of how many U.S.-based news outlets--including outlets like MSNBC and the Times which are often categorized as "liberal" by many--skew and bend their coverage in order to offer a narrative more friendly towards Israeli government and military policy.
In a pointed essay on the Guardian, written by correspondent Chris McGreal on Friday, the veteran journalists asks "if evolving conversations on the ground" in Gaza demand probing questions for U.S. television news audiences, "Why does [American] TV news look like a Netanyahu ad?"
Following its reporting of the latest events in the Gaza Strip on Friday, including available details about an IDF soldier captured by Hamas soldiers early in the day, the New York Times was contacted by Israel's military censor and told that future reporting related to the capture would need to be run through its office before publication.
The Times updated their original story by adding:
"...the military's censor informed The New York Times that further information related to the soldier would have to be submitted for prior review. Journalists for foreign news organizations must agree in writing to the military censorship system to work in Israel. This was the first censorship notification The Times had received in more than two years.
Israel's policy of placing 'gag rules' over foreign correspondents is well known to reporters who have worked in the country, but rarely acknowledged by U.S. outlets.
In response to the notice given to the Times on Friday, the Freedom of the Press Foundation--which advocates on behalf of journalistic freedoms--tweeted its advice to the newspaper:
Writing on his Pressing Issues blog, freelance journalist and media critic Greg Mitchell notes, "that the Times has been criticized in the past for agreeing to what they call 'gag orders,' including by its public editor, when it revealed that it had buckled under to Israeli censorship in the past. Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren defended that when it was exposed. "The Times is 'indeed, bound by gag orders,' Ms. Rudoren said. She said that the situation is analogous to abiding by traffic rules or any other laws of the land."
Noting that he had not seen an Israeli objection mentioned by other large outlets that reported on the captured soldier--including an Associated Press article published within a similar time frame--Mitchell wondered: "Was NYT singled out for this (despite very favorable coverage from Jerusalem bureau in past?) because of its importance? Or did compliant Times reporters just mention it as explanation to the Israelis that this story had already appeared before the censorship demand?"
The episode comes amid increased criticism of how many U.S.-based news outlets--including outlets like MSNBC and the Times which are often categorized as "liberal" by many--skew and bend their coverage in order to offer a narrative more friendly towards Israeli government and military policy.
In a pointed essay on the Guardian, written by correspondent Chris McGreal on Friday, the veteran journalists asks "if evolving conversations on the ground" in Gaza demand probing questions for U.S. television news audiences, "Why does [American] TV news look like a Netanyahu ad?"