|
Palestinian media caught in internal
crossfire
By Ferry Biedermann
Ramallah, West Bank, Feb. 20 (IPS) — The editing room of
Al Quds educational TV is still riddled with bullet holes. The poor
Palestinian broadcaster has little money to replace the equipment damaged
in an attack by three armed men earlier this month.
Damaged premises, journalists getting beaten up, and other forms of
harassment have become almost a badge of honor among Palestinian news
media trying to maintain their independence.
Instances of intimidation have by all accounts escalated over the last
few months. The increase coincides with rising tensions within the Fatah
movement, journalists say. Fatah is the party of power in the Palestinian
Authority (PA).
“The attack on us was meant as a signal to others,” says Ibrahim
Khleife, deputy director of the Institute for Modern Media at Al Quds
University which runs the education channel. “The message was to
stay in line, not to diverge from the consensus.”
This time it is not the Israelis making life hard for journalists; they
blame the political tensions within their own society.
The attacks have become so frequent that 42 lawmakers have signed a
petition calling for Parliament to discuss the problem. The Cabinet
has said it will look into security for journalists.
The attack on Al Quds was blatant. “Three men armed with M16 machine-guns
stormed into the room and demanded a cassette,” says Haroun Abu
Arrar who was working with a colleague in the editing suite to prepare
the morning broadcast. “Before I could ask what cassette, they
started beating me.”
Khleife says it is unlikely the men were looking for some cassette.
The station mostly broadcasts programs for youth and women, and concentrates
on social issues. “I think we were just an easy target for them
to make a point to Palestinian journalists in general. These men are
trying to create an atmosphere of fear.”
The Arab satellite news channel Al Arabiye has more luxurious offices
on the other side of town. The shiny new furniture and equipment means
at least they had the money to repair the damage from a raid.
Five masked and armed men had stormed into the office that Arabiye shares
with other Arab broadcasters in September last year. The attack came
shortly after the news organization received complaints about its coverage.
The armed men locked up Khatib and two employees in a room and proceeded
to wreck the premises.
“I asked why but they didn’t say,” recalls Khatib. “They
only said that this was the last time they paid us a visit without killing
us.”
Many journalists bemoan the self-censorship that they say Palestinian
media organizations practice, though this is not a recent phenomenon.
The controversial head of the Journalists’ Syndicate, Naim Toubassi,
blames the low standards of many Palestinian journalists for a part
of the trouble. “Some of them act as if they are spokesmen for
one faction or another,” he says. “No wonder they get caught
up in the violence.”
But many journalists see Toubassi as a PA stooge. They say his demands
would lead to even more self-censorship.
At Arabiye, Khatib says he feels immune form such pressures. “Local
media will only publish something controversial after we have already
broken the story, that is why we remain in the frontline.”
Last month the Arabiye correspondent in Gaza was beaten savagely at
gunpoint.
Most of the threats come from the more militant elements in society
who oppose any discussion on the future of the conflict, Khleife says.
Journalists and PA officials agree that lack of security and the weakness
of the central authority is one of the biggest problems. This allows
people with a grudge to take law into their own hands with little fear
of being punished.
The incidents are backed by a political push, and also made possible
a form of societal breakdown in the wake of more than three years of
violence, journalists here say.
The situation is threatening to turn into a free-for-all, says freelance
journalist Walid Batrawi. “It is often not even about the issues
but about persons. The most dangerous thing to do now is to threaten
the reputation of someone or to damage their interests.”
Amendment deception needs media clarity
Feb. 16 — Backers of a constitutional amendment to ban
same-sex marriage have created a misleading impression of their legislative
plan — a deception that some media outlets have not properly explained
to readers and viewers.
The dispute centers on the fact that some advocates claim that the proposed
Federal Marriage Amendment would permit states to allow civil unions
for gays and lesbians. On Feb 11, ABC World News Tonight correspondent
Terry Moran explained that the amendment “would define marriage
as a union between a man and a woman, but allow states to establish
civil unions for gay couples.” Moran continued by saying that “some
conservatives are unhappy that the proposed amendment would allow civil
unions for gay couples.”
But the language of the amendment introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave
(R-CO) suggests otherwise: “Marriage in the United States shall
consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution
or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be
construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof
be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
Some legal scholars point out that the “nor state or federal law”
clause would make it difficult for states to pass any civil unions legislation
for gay couples. Unfortunately, some media outlets have failed to clarify
the issue by offering only what amendment supporters are saying. The
New York Times, for example, explained (2/8/04) that “the proposed
amendment would allow state legislatures to recognize gay civil unions,
a provision that had alienated many conservatives.” The Times wrote
that some on the right “considered it far too permissive”
because they believe the amendment would allow for civil unions.
Other papers have managed to convey the legal dispute. The Washington
Post (2/14/04) devoted a whole article to the topic, reporting that
“the amendment’s possible interpretations are a matter of
furious debate among constitutional scholars and political activists,
with some contending that it would allow Vermont-style civil unions
and others saying it would not.” The Post noted that two of the
amendment’s authors “contend that the opening sentence also
would forbid some kinds of civil unions,” though others aren’t
so sure.
The federal marriage amendment could be a key issue in the 2004 presidential
campaign — as ABC’s Moran put it, “White House advisors
say it is just a matter of when, not if, the president comes out in
favor of amending the Constitution.” Considering that political
reality, journalists should set the record straight on its potential
consequences.
Source: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
|
