The war that broke out on October 7, the war that has been the subject of many a Jerusalem Post editorial, has brought along with it a wave of supposedly exclusive reports by journalists in Israel and abroad.
While some of these are political in nature, others reveal information that is interesting but not particularly impactful. Other reports of this sort are more within the realm of informative leaks, providing information inherent to Israel’s operations in the Gaza Strip and on the northern front.
From reports of soldier mismanagement to reports of IDF operations before they have been cleared by the military censor, Israel’s journalistic integrity is being put into question at a more crucial time than ever.
And it isn’t only journalists. Politicians and activists have been revealing information not open to the public without clearing it for permission in an effort to attract a following and for their own personal gain.
Former prime minister Naftali Bennett, for example, shared information last month on an Israeli attack on Iran that happened while he was in charge. Notably, this leak was not approved
.
More notably, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was recorded discussing classified information about an impending hostage-exchange deal with the terrorist organization Hamas, mediated by Qatar and Egypt. This recording was later leaked to the press and consequently led to harsh reactions from the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
While the leak was first condemned, the source of the matter has yet to be confirmed. That being said, the conversation was held behind closed doors with the families of those held hostage by Hamas. The families later divulged that they could not bring their cell phones into the meeting. This led to speculation, and the Prime Minister’s Office became the main suspect for the information leak.
Journalistic ethics
There is much to be said about condemning whoever was responsible for leaking the recording to the Israeli press. But also interesting to note is the dilemma reporters collectively experienced when faced with such a leak being placed in the palms of their hands. There is little room to question that this recording reveals a security breach. Any experienced journalist receiving any such report would be able to discern that fact. It leaves the journalist walking a tightrope between integrity on the one end and carefulness on the other.
On the one hand, we all have a responsibility to our country and, most of all, to our hostages held in the hands of terrorists. Receiving such information, one is faced with the dilemma of whether to publish or bury it.
If one or two reporters report the leak, they would be knowingly impacting negotiations for the hostages’ release. On the other hand, if they refuse to publish it, whoever leaked such information would simply turn to another source and publish what they wish through them instead.
The solution most journalists reach would be to publish it themselves in the vain belief that they would handle the story as responsibly as possible, which entails proper contextual framing. The journalists in question, however, would be inherently limited in what context they may divulge due to their responsibility to protect the identity of their source. They may also lack crucial context, such as in an instance of a snippet or a cropped recording. In those cases, the reporter does not necessarily have all the information, such as who was in attendance and what was said before or afterward.
Responsible journalists will discuss their said limitations in their corresponding report, but it is up to the readers, viewers, and listeners to discern the nuance of an informational security breach. Why was this revealed to the public, why now, and who leaked it?
Only through this sort of critical thinking can we be more responsible news consumers.
Comments are closed.