Greenwald writes: "Last Thursday an Israeli soldier was arrested after the
Israeli human rights group B'Tselem posted horrific video of the soldier
shooting a 21-year-old Palestinian man in the head from point-blank range,
and killing him, even though he was already shot, wounded, and lying
incapacitated on the ground."
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)
Complying With Israeli Censorship Order, NYT Conceals Name of Soldier Who
Shot Wounded Palestinian
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
02 April 16
Last Thursday an Israeli soldier was arrested after the Israeli human rights
group B'Tselem posted horrific video of the soldier shooting a 21-year-old
Palestinian man in the head from point-blank range, and killing him, even
though he was already shot, wounded, and lying incapacitated on the ground.
The killing took place in the occupied West Bank city of Hebron after the
Palestinian man, Abed al-Fatah al-Sharif, stabbed an IDF soldier at a
military occupation checkpoint.
As The Intercept's Robert Mackey reported that day, none of the nearby IDF
soldiers or Israeli rescue workers - who had ignored the wounded Palestinian
- reacted at all to the killing, suggesting that this sort of point-blank,
cold-blooded assassination was the norm for the occupying army - except for
the fact that this time, it was captured on video. Mackey also noted that
although the soldier's face could be seen in the video, none of the Israeli
media named him, despite the fact that his name quickly circulated on social
media sites:
The soldier's name was not used in the Israeli media, but his supporters
online, calling him a hero, drew attention to what appears to be his
Facebook profile. That account, in the name of Cpl. Elor Azaria, includes
several photographs that closely match the appearance of the soldier seen in
the video, as well as a recent commendation of his service from the army.
Other writers have also subsequently named the soldier [his Hebrew name is
transliterated as Cpl. Elor Azarya or El'or Azariya] as well; that includes
Israelis and even municipalities celebrating him as a hero, publishing his
photograph and Hebrew name to do so:
The fatal shooting by Cpl. Azariya has become a major news story in Israel,
but not for the reason one might assume. There is very little outrage over
his decision to shoot a wounded, subdued 21-year-old Palestinian in the head
from point-blank range. There is, however, significant outrage at the
military for detaining and investigating him. One poll from Channel 2 News
in Israel, cited by Haaretz, found that "most of the public (57 percent)
believed there was no need to detain and investigate the soldier," while
only "5 percent defined the shooting of the wounded assailant as murder."
In today's New York Times, Jerusalem-based correspondent Isabel Kershner has
an article reporting on the controversy. There is, however, a glaring
omission: the name of the soldier who did the killing and is now under
arrest. Here's how the paper justifies that suppression:
An Israeli military court order has banned the use of the soldier's name in
all press accounts, including those of foreign news organizations accredited
in Israel, even though the soldier has a Facebook page and has been widely
identified by name in social media.
The soldier's Facebook page suggests sympathies with some far-right causes.
He told another soldier at the scene that Mr. Sharif had stabbed his friend
and "deserved to die," according to Israeli news media reports.
The NYT's compliance with Israel's censorship orders has previously provoked
controversy. In 2014, the paper's public editor, Margaret Sullivan,
described the compliance by Kershner and Jodi Rudoren with an order from an
Israeli military censor to conceal the name of an Israeli soldier who was
being held hostage.
At the time, the paper's reporters and editors insisted that they would obey
Israeli censorship orders only in the rarest and most compelling of cases.
In the 2014 case, there was a valid argument that disclosing the
soldier-hostage's identity could jeopardize his safety because he was
related to the Israeli defense minister. Moreover, in her own article
explaining the censorship, Rudoren acknowledged that the NYT "has ways to
circumvent the censor" by simply having other NYT journalists not based in
Israel report the censored information.
In this case, there's no valid rationale for censoring the name of the
soldier. He's a criminal defendant in a high-profile case that, at least
originally, involved charges of murder. His face is in the video. His name
has been spread all over the internet by his supporters heralding him as a
hero. His name has also been reported by media outlets - including The
Intercept - not subject to Israeli censorship orders.
One distinction here is that the suppression order comes from an Israeli
court rather than a military censor. During the 2014 controversy, the
Huffington Post's Michael Calderone reported that while the explicit
rationale of the paper's spokesperson was that the paper must abide by the
laws of the countries where it operates, "some of the paper's top editors
said they didn't know the Times abided by such restrictions," at least when
it came to orders from military censors.
It's true that the situation faced by the NYT here - along with other media
outlets based in Israel - is a difficult one. The paper could theoretically
lose its media credentials to report from Israel if it flagrantly violates a
judicial gag order, though it's hard to imagine Israel expelling the NYT and
other major media outlets from the country.
But there's an even greater danger from allowing a government or a court to
censor vital information that is needed to fully report on the story.
Certainly there must be some Israeli censorship order that is so offensive
to journalistic integrity and accurate reporting that the NYT would refuse
to comply with it, no matter the consequences. Remember that 45 years ago,
in the U.S., the same paper defied orders from the U.S. government to
refrain from publishing the Pentagon Papers, risking prosecution to do so.
Few things are more damaging to journalistic credibility than allowing
governments and militaries to dictate what can and cannot be reported.
The Haaretz investigative journalist Uri Blau extensively analyzed the
soldier's Facebook postings and - without naming him - concluded that his
social media output "presents a deep-rooted hatred of Palestinians."
Understanding the shooter and his motives is vital.
The complexity of the situation should not be overlooked. Violating a court
order is not an easy choice. But at the very least, the NYT should publicly
account for why it withheld this information (The Intercept's requests for
comment were not returned at the time of publication; they will be added if
they are received). And the fact that Israeli courts are protecting a
soldier charged with murder, captured on video, by censoring media outlets
from reporting his name is disturbing for all sorts of reasons.
UPDATE:
The New York Times's deputy international editor, Jodi Rudoren - who was
also involved in the 2014 military censorship order described in this
article - has responded to The Intercept's inquiry. Posted below is
Rudoren's response:
Dear Glenn,
Thanks for the interest in Isabel's story.
Whether we comply, defy, or challenge an order in court in a foreign
jurisdiction is a decision we make based on the particular facts before us.
In this case, we felt we could tell the story of how this case is roiling
Israeli society without the soldier's name. Had we thought that the court
order prevented us from providing a robust, complete version of that debate,
we would have considered workaround options we have used in the past -
reporting the story from outside Israel.
Of course we always want to give readers as much information as possible.
Indeed, we included a reference to the court order so that readers would
know exactly what was going on; that transparency is important to
understanding both our practices and how Israel functions.
As for my past comments, I'm not sure I said "compliance" would "occur only
in the most extreme cases." I think what I said - and certainly what I meant
- was that we hardly ever encounter Israel's censor. The situation you
mention, of the potentially kidnapped soldier's relationship to the defense
minister, was my first dealing with the censor. In that case, as you
probably know, the ban on writing about the relationship was lifted two days
later, and we wrote about the relationship as well as the whole censorship
process.
All best,
Jodi
I'll simply note that any censorship order from a government that has no
valid rationale - and that's certainly the case here - ought to be defied or
at least challenged given the threat it poses to journalistic freedom and
reporting accuracy.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/30/complying-with-israeli-censorship-order-
nyt-conceals-name-of-soldier-who-shot-wounded-palestinian/https://theinterce
pt.com/2016/03/30/complying-with-israeli-censorship-order-nyt-conceals-name-
of-soldier-who-shot-wounded-palestinian/
Complying With Israeli Censorship Order, NYT Conceals Name of Soldier Who
Shot Wounded Palestinian
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
02 April 16
ast Thursday an Israeli soldier was arrested after the Israeli human rights
group B'Tselem posted horrific video of the soldier shooting a 21-year-old
Palestinian man in the head from point-blank range, and killing him, even
though he was already shot, wounded, and lying incapacitated on the ground.
The killing took place in the occupied West Bank city of Hebron after the
Palestinian man, Abed al-Fatah al-Sharif, stabbed an IDF soldier at a
military occupation checkpoint.
As The Intercept's Robert Mackey reported that day, none of the nearby IDF
soldiers or Israeli rescue workers - who had ignored the wounded Palestinian
- reacted at all to the killing, suggesting that this sort of point-blank,
cold-blooded assassination was the norm for the occupying army - except for
the fact that this time, it was captured on video. Mackey also noted that
although the soldier's face could be seen in the video, none of the Israeli
media named him, despite the fact that his name quickly circulated on social
media sites:
The soldier's name was not used in the Israeli media, but his supporters
online, calling him a hero, drew attention to what appears to be his
Facebook profile. That account, in the name of Cpl. Elor Azaria, includes
several photographs that closely match the appearance of the soldier seen in
the video, as well as a recent commendation of his service from the army.
Other writers have also subsequently named the soldier [his Hebrew name is
transliterated as Cpl. Elor Azarya or El'or Azariya] as well; that includes
Israelis and even municipalities celebrating him as a hero, publishing his
photograph and Hebrew name to do so:
The fatal shooting by Cpl. Azariya has become a major news story in Israel,
but not for the reason one might assume. There is very little outrage over
his decision to shoot a wounded, subdued 21-year-old Palestinian in the head
from point-blank range. There is, however, significant outrage at the
military for detaining and investigating him. One poll from Channel 2 News
in Israel, cited by Haaretz, found that "most of the public (57 percent)
believed there was no need to detain and investigate the soldier," while
only "5 percent defined the shooting of the wounded assailant as murder."
In today's New York Times, Jerusalem-based correspondent Isabel Kershner has
an article reporting on the controversy. There is, however, a glaring
omission: the name of the soldier who did the killing and is now under
arrest. Here's how the paper justifies that suppression:
An Israeli military court order has banned the use of the soldier's name in
all press accounts, including those of foreign news organizations accredited
in Israel, even though the soldier has a Facebook page and has been widely
identified by name in social media.
The soldier's Facebook page suggests sympathies with some far-right causes.
He told another soldier at the scene that Mr. Sharif had stabbed his friend
and "deserved to die," according to Israeli news media reports.
The NYT's compliance with Israel's censorship orders has previously provoked
controversy. In 2014, the paper's public editor, Margaret Sullivan,
described the compliance by Kershner and Jodi Rudoren with an order from an
Israeli military censor to conceal the name of an Israeli soldier who was
being held hostage.
At the time, the paper's reporters and editors insisted that they would obey
Israeli censorship orders only in the rarest and most compelling of cases.
In the 2014 case, there was a valid argument that disclosing the
soldier-hostage's identity could jeopardize his safety because he was
related to the Israeli defense minister. Moreover, in her own article
explaining the censorship, Rudoren acknowledged that the NYT "has ways to
circumvent the censor" by simply having other NYT journalists not based in
Israel report the censored information.
In this case, there's no valid rationale for censoring the name of the
soldier. He's a criminal defendant in a high-profile case that, at least
originally, involved charges of murder. His face is in the video. His name
has been spread all over the internet by his supporters heralding him as a
hero. His name has also been reported by media outlets - including The
Intercept - not subject to Israeli censorship orders.
One distinction here is that the suppression order comes from an Israeli
court rather than a military censor. During the 2014 controversy, the
Huffington Post's Michael Calderone reported that while the explicit
rationale of the paper's spokesperson was that the paper must abide by the
laws of the countries where it operates, "some of the paper's top editors
said they didn't know the Times abided by such restrictions," at least when
it came to orders from military censors.
It's true that the situation faced by the NYT here - along with other media
outlets based in Israel - is a difficult one. The paper could theoretically
lose its media credentials to report from Israel if it flagrantly violates a
judicial gag order, though it's hard to imagine Israel expelling the NYT and
other major media outlets from the country.
But there's an even greater danger from allowing a government or a court to
censor vital information that is needed to fully report on the story.
Certainly there must be some Israeli censorship order that is so offensive
to journalistic integrity and accurate reporting that the NYT would refuse
to comply with it, no matter the consequences. Remember that 45 years ago,
in the U.S., the same paper defied orders from the U.S. government to
refrain from publishing the Pentagon Papers, risking prosecution to do so.
Few things are more damaging to journalistic credibility than allowing
governments and militaries to dictate what can and cannot be reported.
The Haaretz investigative journalist Uri Blau extensively analyzed the
soldier's Facebook postings and - without naming him - concluded that his
social media output "presents a deep-rooted hatred of Palestinians."
Understanding the shooter and his motives is vital.
The complexity of the situation should not be overlooked. Violating a court
order is not an easy choice. But at the very least, the NYT should publicly
account for why it withheld this information (The Intercept's requests for
comment were not returned at the time of publication; they will be added if
they are received). And the fact that Israeli courts are protecting a
soldier charged with murder, captured on video, by censoring media outlets
from reporting his name is disturbing for all sorts of reasons.
UPDATE:
The New York Times's deputy international editor, Jodi Rudoren - who was
also involved in the 2014 military censorship order described in this
article - has responded to The Intercept's inquiry. Posted below is
Rudoren's response:
Dear Glenn,
Thanks for the interest in Isabel's story.
Whether we comply, defy, or challenge an order in court in a foreign
jurisdiction is a decision we make based on the particular facts before us.
In this case, we felt we could tell the story of how this case is roiling
Israeli society without the soldier's name. Had we thought that the court
order prevented us from providing a robust, complete version of that debate,
we would have considered workaround options we have used in the past -
reporting the story from outside Israel.
Of course we always want to give readers as much information as possible.
Indeed, we included a reference to the court order so that readers would
know exactly what was going on; that transparency is important to
understanding both our practices and how Israel functions.
As for my past comments, I'm not sure I said "compliance" would "occur only
in the most extreme cases." I think what I said - and certainly what I meant
- was that we hardly ever encounter Israel's censor. The situation you
mention, of the potentially kidnapped soldier's relationship to the defense
minister, was my first dealing with the censor. In that case, as you
probably know, the ban on writing about the relationship was lifted two days
later, and we wrote about the relationship as well as the whole censorship
process.
All best,
Jodi
I'll simply note that any censorship order from a government that has no
valid rationale - and that's certainly the case here - ought to be defied or
at least challenged given the threat it poses to journalistic freedom and
reporting accuracy.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
