Jessy El Murr

I am not a Muslim. I am not a Palestinian nor do I have Palestinian relatives. In fact, as a journalist, I have yet to enter Gaza despite having reported from many countries. I am, however, a Lebanese-American Western-educated journalist who chooses to have some views – and now to express them – on the current Israeli offensive in Gaza. At the risk of being labeled “biased,” I will explain why I’ve decided to do so. Working for a 24-hour news network, I wish I could now be in Gaza reporting on the high death toll and severe humanitarian crisis there. But for the moment, my network relies on Gaza-based correspondent for its coverage. So, since the start of the offensive, I took to Twitter and followed every related hashtag: #Gaza, #IDF, #Hamas, #Israel and #Gazatestimonies. 

I figured I can at least be in Gaza in the virtual sense.

 

What I saw on Twitter was a parallel battlefield: a ferocious war of words and images complete with fighters, officials, activists, aggressors, propagandists and fabricated headlines. Oh and journalists too. Lots and lots of international journalists. 

Like many, I was horrified by the photos of headless Palestinian children entering Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza. Elsewhere, the chilling and gruesome scenes of tiny lifeless body parts in the rubble sickened me. 

But having worked in Washington D.C. for major international networks, including the BBC, I have always been advised against using images of dead children in my reporting. Images as these, I was told, are quickly dismissed as propaganda by some Western readers and many outlets. This may affect my image as an “objective” and unemotional journalist. So, for years, I succumbed. I shied away from using “graphic” images in my reporting and stuck to a sterile version of storytelling. 

But something in this so-called “war” has changed my mind about what it means to be “objective” in approaching an aggression on such a grand scale. And I am not the only one. 

When NBC’s Middle East correspondent Ayman Mohyeldine witnessed the Israeli killing of four Palestinian boys playing on a Gaza beach on July 16, he tweeted about it. He used words such as “emotional” “unbelievable” and “horror” in his tweets describing scenes of the boys’ family at the morgue. His network pulled him out of Gaza almost immediately after the incident, citing security concerns. NBC then announced it would send another correspondent to Gaza to replace Ayman. 

The Twitterati then came to Ayman’s rescue and launched a fierce campaign on his behalf. Thousands of tweets poured in questioning NBC’s decision and demanding an explanation for what seemed an attempt to influence the seasoned journalist’s work. Other American media outlets picked up on the story and NBC found itself in the hot seat.

 

Guess where Ayman is now? He was sent back to Gaza and he’s tweeting away on the carnage.

 

No such luck for CNN’s Diana Magnay. She used the word “scum” in a tweet to describe a group of Israelis who were threatening to attack her if she said anything “wrong” about Israel. Although she deleted the tweet, her network pulled her out of Israel and sent her to Moscow. 

Despite all this, I still think the definition of “objective” journalism is changing in Western media. Facing such atrocities as the ones witnessed in Gaza on a daily basis, journalists find it increasingly difficult not to use descriptive words or tweet photos previously frowned upon by their networks.

 

Objectivity no longer means that a journalist cannot express what it feels like to see a headless child, or a grieving father who lost all his children in an Israeli attack. And some major American networks with Middle East correspondents are just now coming to this realization. After all, a reporter without any views comes across as no more than a robot with a mounted camera.

 

No journalist phrased it better than British television reporter Jon Snow, who’s currently inside Gaza. He tweeted, “Were any other country on Earth doing what is being done in Gaza, there would be worldwide uproar.” 

Tweets like these have a profound impact on public opinion. With almost 250 million current Twitter users, Mashable.com has tracked more than 4 million tweets with the hashtag #GazaUnderAttack, compared to 200,000 with #IsraelUnderFire. What does that say about the current media war between Israel and Gaza?

 

Since the start of the Israeli invasion in Gaza I have been continuously asked where I stand on the issue as a journalist. I have even been ridiculously labeled a “mouthpiece for Islamists” and a “Jew hater” just for speaking against the ongoing butchering of Palestinian children. I resisted answering until today. 

As a journalist, I am witnessing a terrible atrocity taking place in an area many non-governmental organizations have rightfully described as “the world’s largest open-air prison.” Gaza is almost half the size of New York City with nearly 2 million Palestinians trapped and under siege. 

I wish I could report from inside Gaza. But until that day comes, I will responsibly report what I see and read through my tweets, where I continue to connect with doctors on the ground in Gaza who show me photos of overloaded mortuaries and horrific scenes of bloodbaths and crimes history will judge. 

Almost everything you watch and read about Gaza today has a parallel dimension on Twitter. 

There, many wrongs are made right and many other wrongs, well, remain wrong for now. But on Twitter I don’t hide my views because of my profession as a journalist. I actually have views because of it.