In a previous article, I addressed the question: "Can we talk about moral media?"
And last Tuesday, I was invited to speak - within the forum organized by Al Jazeera Media Institute - about "media ethics in the digital age", which is an occasion to complete what I started in the previous article, especially with the ethical and professional problems imposed by the recent Israeli war on Gaza in May 2021 on some Media organizations and social media platforms.
Recently I was caught by 4 news related to this topic:
The first:
that a leaked message from CNN directed reporters to include the name of Hamas whenever they mentioned the number of dead and injured as a result of the Israeli bombing of Gaza. “When we mention the latest numbers of dead and injured, we must attribute them to the Ministry of Health in Gaza, and we need to say that the ministry is supervised by Hamas.” This directive appears to be aimed at questioning the credibility of the figures; By declaring that it was issued by "Hamas", which Israel claims to be waging war on, not against the Palestinians, and then the numbers become doubtful; Just because it is not issued by an “independent entity”; Which begs the question: Why can't these numbers be considered "official sources"? Are news from the Israeli side treated in the same way?
Second:
A statement was also leaked from the Voice of Germany or Deutsche Welle (DW) in which the agency prohibits its reporters and editors from covering apartheid and the persecution of the Palestinians or allowing any criticism of Israel, and this was contained in a new evidence sent to the task force during the recent war; He makes it clear that no questioning of the legitimacy of Israel and the Jewish state can be allowed; Because Berlin has a special responsibility to it; Because of the Holocaust, any attempt in this regard would be considered anti-Semitism.
Third:
Many testimonies on Facebook pages indicated that his administration banned many comments and accounts issued by or pro-Palestinians. During the last war, on May 14, 2021, Israeli Minister of Justice Benny Gantz (who is also the Minister of Defense) met with the executives of Facebook and TikTok, and the directors of global public policies for the two companies, and asked them to urgently begin removing the content who incites against Israel, and Gantz said that his country "is going through a state of social emergency and is waiting for your help." In reference to the power of social media. And Israeli media reported, “The officials pledged to cooperate and quickly act effectively to prevent incitement through their sites.” Facebook’s behavior during the recent war confirms this meaning; This prompted activists to launch a campaign against Facebook to stop what they called "digital lynching".
It is useful that this Facebook policy is not new. The Independent published a report
on October 25, 2016 stating that the Facebook administration "deliberately targeted" Palestinian accounts - after a meeting with the Israeli government in September 2016 - under the pretext of "" Addressing hate speech and incitement.
Fourth:
that young Jewish journalist Emily Wilder was fired from the Associated Press during the last war;
Because she defends the rights of Palestinians, she issued a statement detailing her experience.
It is not possible to speak of complete or complete objectivity in the field of the humanities;
Because there is no person stripped of all his thoughts and feelings, and not interacting with his subject in any kind of interaction;
There are natural human biases, feelings and emotions, spatial and religious affiliation, and there are ideas and ideologies that move people and influence their assessments and actions.
These four news bring us back to a central concept, which is objectivity, a principle agreed upon by the press and media ethics charters adopted by major media institutions and formations in the world. The concept of objectivity is problematic in origin, but in the digital age it has become more complex; On the one hand, the digital world provides a broader authority that is able to control and prevent through algorithms and artificial intelligence techniques, and on the one hand that the digital world or some of its workers may be under the illusion or delusion that the use of such technologies provides the conditions of objectivity and science; Arguing that artificial intelligence is a technical issue free of human bias.In addition, the companies that control artificial intelligence technologies, communication platforms, and major media institutions belong to a very specific and limited geography, and therefore it is not possible to talk about a balance in the policies for combating hate speech and incitement, and there are no fair and transparent standards that apply to various parties, and to types Content, in the case of Palestine, for example, there is no indication that the standards that are applied to Arabic content are the same as those applied to Israeli content.
Let us return to the central concept in this discussion, which is objectivity, a concept corresponding to subjectivity. We can distinguish here between two types of thinking in this concept:
The first type
: philosophical thinking, where the concept of objectivity is subject to controversy and criticism, and several developments have taken place;
In the 17th century, the subjective was called the subjective features of the subject in isolation from perception, and the objective was called the subjective feeling of the observer. With Descartes, objectivity began to be linked to the perceived ego. But with Kant and most Western thinkers, the phenomena of the world became divided into two types: objective phenomena, meaning they exist outside the mind, and Subjective in the sense that it depends on the mind, and this means that the objective refers to the existence of the thing in itself independent of the beholder.
Critics of objectivity believe that no observation of human affairs can be freed from the human criteria that control the process of observation itself, and then some of them see that objectivity - in fact - is the term that expresses the complex images of mutual compatibility between the different selves, which occur with the laxity of time , but this perception would lead to relativism;
Because it would mean that there is no thing in itself in human phenomena, which is contrary to reality.
The second pattern:
practical thinking, and here we find that there is a kind of consensus today that objectivity is synonymous with words such as: impartiality, impartiality, and impartiality.
The importance of objectivity comes from the belief that an objective observer can provide a reliable account of events;
because he has no interest in its outcome (i.e., he is not a party to it);
Because his role is that of an observer.
But the concept of objectivity needs a critical view on two levels: theoretical and practical.
On a theoretical level, it is not possible to speak of complete or complete objectivity in the field of humanities;
Because there is no person stripped of all his thoughts and feelings, and not interacting with his subject in any kind of interaction;
There are natural human biases, feelings and emotions, spatial and religious affiliation, and there are ideas and ideologies that move people and influence their assessments and actions.
Based on the foregoing, objectivity in the field of journalism is a problematic issue, and its complexities can be clarified through 3 sides:
The first aspect: the relationship between the subject and the object, and here we can distinguish between 3 types:
Proximity and spatial distance, which is necessary in journalistic work to accurately examine reality, but we may disagree about “belonging to the place” and its impact on the accuracy and objectivity of the novel;
On the one hand, we find that belonging to the place injects emotional and identity factors that may affect the behavior and assessments of the observer, but on the other hand, the person who belongs to the place prefers the visitor to the place in that belonging to the place may make the owner informed of the place, its details and history.
Proximity and the human dimension, such as the existence of social and emotional ties to the subject, and this proximity is often viewed as violating objectivity; Because these relationships involve some kind of "emotion", it is assumed that emotion affects accuracy and impartiality of judgment.
Proximity and intellectual dimension. In Orientalist studies - for example - it was believed that when a Muslim studies Islam, its rulings are not objective; Because he studies himself in a way, but this perspective assumes that when a non-Muslim studies Islam, he is free from prejudices and purposes, while the student himself may be biased against the subject studied, or have an aversion and aversion to it. This applies to the ideologues of the left and the right, secular and Islamic and so on. In contrast to the bias of the subject there is the bias against the subject, and in contrast to the inclination to the subject there is an aversion to it, and neither of the two positions is better than the other. In political and cultural matters a priori impartiality cannot be assumed in (merely) detachment from the subject; Because there are cultural prejudices imposed by several factors, such as bias - for example - against everything that is Muslim, or bias for everything that is Jewish on the pretext of anti-Semitism, both of which are present in the European media to varying degrees, and are rising in countries such as Germany and France.
The second aspect: There is a close relationship between the media, politics and money
Media organizations are not charities or just missionary organizations;
It is subject to the interests of its owners and financiers, and therefore the media cannot be separated from the influence of politics and money.
Because the press is an authority, even if there is a disparity in degree between the different media within the professional work ladder.
The third side: journalistic and media work is part of the cultural act
Rather, it constitutes an important arena for the manifestations of this wide cultural difference, even if the rules and ethics of the profession are united in terms of the sentence. Therefore, defining the profession of journalism as conveying the truth or portraying reality is an abstract saying; Because perceptions of what is real and what is reality differ according to geography and based on hidden cultural biases or phenomena that embody the different ruling value systems (such as the attitude towards Islam, stereotypes of blacks and Muslims, and the attitude towards immigrants), and this is intensified in light of conflict, conflict and domination.
Consider, for example, the coverage of news of the Palestinian resistance or the position of any political movement based on an Islamic basis, or the idea of applying Sharia. In my previous article referred to at the beginning of this article, I explained that the cultural act affects the vision of reality and its narration. There, she distinguished between 3 concepts: the faces of reality, the parts of reality, and the criteria for determining the most important and most important of the details of reality.
As for the practical level, if we agree on the meaning of the impartial/objective observer, the problem will arise in the field of application and downloading to reality, and about downloading this meaning to individuals and press institutions, and whether this observer or that is objective or not, and this difference is very noticeable in my field Politics and the press.
This difference is due to a number of factors:
Ideological difference: such as the division between left and right, a dichotomy that controls the view of the American media - for example - between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, or the dualism of secular and Islamic that characterizes the Arab world.
Cultural difference about the issues covered: such as the difference in looking at reality and the angle of view of it, which sometimes seems to bias the issues and priorities of the consensus of the Western mind controlling news agencies and media such as feminist issues (although we acknowledge the importance and priority of women’s issues), homosexuality and circumcision and others, as opposed to minor Other issues, such as the imprisonment and abuse of Islamists, are not of equal importance if the topic is the persecution of a human rights activist linked to international organizations, for example. This is an issue that refers to criteria for classifying what is a priority, and includes an implicit justification for the issues neglected in the coverage.
Consider, for example, the difference about the cartoons of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. They reflect two valued perspectives: freedom of expression and respect for beliefs, which of them have priority and absolutism. However, the same relativity of freedom of expression that is claimed for absolutism appears in other issues such as what is related to Jews and Israel. Because it is classified within the so-called anti-Semitism, which here outperforms and restricts freedom of expression, which loses the value of freedom of expression in its absoluteness or refers to cultural and political duplication and prejudices that undermine objectivity.
political inconsistencies or appeal to legalized or recognized prejudices; Because it simply reflects the official or political position imposed by the dominant powers, such as issues related to Israel and the Palestinian issue, and the position on the military coup in Egypt and its recognition of the de-facto legitimacy with complete neglect of its victims who are in prison, the unfair sentences issued against them and the way they are treated, as well as the position on what is called terrorism and extremism. . For example, similar formations are not classified within the lists of terrorists: such as the extreme right-wing parties, the extremist Shiite militias, the Houthis, and even the Assad regime, which killed hundreds of thousands and used chemical weapons several times, which raises many questions about the criteria of the terrorist and the biases inherent in his classifications.
We must abandon the idea of ideal objectivity, and put up against it the idea of possible objectivity or disciplined objectivity governed by transparent standards, meaning that objectivity here does not negate absolute bias, but rather admits the existence of biases, but removes them from the circle of the unspoken or hidden to the circle of “reasonable” by providing rational justifications to these biases by setting standards that control journalistic work
Based on the previous dispute and its causes, we can explain many journalistic facts that involve certain political biases and choices and do not meet the requirement of objectivity (impartiality), and I will mention here 4 examples in journalistic work:
The use of terms that imply a preconceived position, such as the use of Israel instead of Palestine;
which implies the legitimacy of Israeli actions in the face of its enemies;
Simply because it is issued by other parties in the face of a “state” that enjoys legitimacy and official recognition, and the use of the term war instead of siege;
Which jumps on the fact that the conflict in Palestine is not between two states, but between an occupying state and a people defending their land, and the descriptions of terrorism and extremism referred to previously, which is a stigma that involves a pre-judgment of values against those described as such;
Which means bias towards them.
Silence and obscurity on specific aspects of reality, such as: avoiding talking in media coverage about the siege, occupation and apartheid, and not criticizing Israel or not covering its crimes;
On the pretext that this falls under anti-Semitism, or claiming historical responsibility for the Holocaust, as Deutsche Welle did, for example.
Classifying certain terms used by the Palestinians as incitement to violence, such as martyr and resistance, Al-Aqsa, Hamas and others, and then withholding them, as happened from the Facebook administration, which recently apologized for some of them under pressure and after some Palestinian officials contacted them in this regard.
The shorthand version of reality: As France 24 did, for example, when it summarized in its report the recent Israeli war on Gaza by saying: “The fighting that lasted 11 days between Israel and militants in Gaza last month, which also caused violent incidents between Jews and Arabs in Israel.” It has reduced the entire conflict to being between the State of Israel and a hardline group of Palestinians!
But does denying the existence of complete or complete objectivity mean that there are no standards in professional journalistic work, or that all media are equal?
It is true that no person is completely abstract, but on the other hand, no one denies the importance of distinguishing between rational judgment and emotional or ideological judgment (that is, unable to see reality except through preconceived thought templates that he has created for himself).
How do we solve this problem then?
We must abandon the idea of ideal objectivity, and put up against it the idea of possible objectivity or disciplined objectivity governed by transparent standards, meaning that objectivity here does not negate absolute bias, but rather admits the existence of biases, but removes them from the circle of the unspoken or hidden to the circle of “reasonable” by providing rational justifications To these biases by setting standards regulating journalistic work, and these standards must be subject to the traditions of the journalistic profession as formed through long practice on the one hand, and subject to the editorial policy of the particular media outlet on the other hand.
Thus, biases are subject to standards and lack coherent mental justifications that explain why this or that institution has chosen such biases, and does not claim disguised and abstract integrity, and then the discussion shifts from the discussion about the principle of abstract objectivity to the discussion about the choices of each institution and its explanations for its biases, and to what extent. Conformity of the declared standards with the editorial policy followed within the institution. Talking about the principle of abstract objectivity would remain idealistic; Unless we bring it down to the field of application and refer to it for clear and detailed explanations and criteria that govern journalistic practice and are subject to public discussion and evaluation by the community of journalists and the audience of social media alike.
Hence, the media vary, and will vary among themselves in the degree of their bias, which is the distance that separates what we call the professional and the non-professional. The professional is driven by the determinants imposed by the traditions of the profession itself in terms of the duties and management of the relationship with the authority, the methods of writing the news, and setting the editorial policy , and so on. Denying the existence of complete objectivity or proving the bias of everyone, albeit to varying degrees, does not eliminate the crude distance that clearly separates professional journalistic work from propaganda and political drumming that commands the authority or speaks in its name and works to serve it.