When an excerpt from his recently published short book, Dateline Jerusalem: Journalism’s Toughest Assignment, appeared in the national newspapers in Australia, it became a lightning rod for controversy.
Lyons’s central argument is that reporting on the Israel–Palestinian conflict, unlike reporting on any other current affair, invariably places you in the firing line of Australia’s pro-Israel lobby groups, namely the Australia-Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), a privately funded lobby group, the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) and, also, the Israeli embassy in Canberra. In turn, he says, this has led editors to self-censor and avoid covering Israel-related stories.
Within Australia’s Jewish community, few have remained indifferent to the book - and fewer still have actually read it. One prominent member described it as reminiscent of Thomas Hobbes famous quote: it is nasty, brutish and short. AIJAC responded with a blistering review, concluding that ‘[a]ll this raises serious questions about the propriety of a senior ABC […] executive essentially seeking to delegitimise the activities of one segment of Australian society – especially on the basis of factual errors, misrepresentations and blatant misuse of sources.”
 |
| John Lyons " We should be able to canvass an issue without interference." |
The ZFA issued a statement on their website: “The notion that the Australian media suppresses debate about the Israel-Palestinian conflict is patently false to anyone who reads the newspapers, listens to the radio or watches television”, writes ZFA president, Jeremy Leibler. Executive Director of the New Israel Fund, Liam Getreu, disagrees: “This furious response – especially when you take into account that it wasn’t accompanied by denials of any of the content of Lyons's essay – highlights the depth of the problem he outlines. Australians deserve a full and frank discussion about the real impact of the occupation – first and foremost on Palestinians, and also on Israel’s democracy.”
Lyons’s book contains a number of problematic issues, most glaring is his use of hyperbole. First, the title. Is Jerusalem really ‘journalism’s toughest assignment’? Tougher than, say, Afghanistan under Taliban rule? Harder than reporting from Yemen? Scarier than penning eyewitness accounts from China? More dangerous than filing stories from Iran?
The opening scene sees Lyons, at 52, running. He has been running over the course of four months, he tells us, from the full fury of Australia’s pro-Israel lobby over an investigative television program he had been working on (it was aired in 2014 on Australian television). He claims that ‘hardline supporters of Israel’ would unleash a propaganda ‘fatwa’ against him. It seems that hyperbole has been elevated to the status of neurosis.
Lyons’ claim that, in his 40 years in journalism, none of the lobby groups he has had to deal with compare with the pro-Israeli lobby in Australia, also stretches credulity. Is it truly more powerful than, say, the Australian Christian Lobby? Or the Australian Coal Association?
But style and substance are separate matters.
Lyons’s book is as crowded with details as a Brueghel painting, replete with specific events, exact dates and meticulous quotes – including footnotes and links. Clearly, he has taken his research very seriously. Despite this, the essay contains some inaccuracies. For example, referring to The New York Times in the context of how its reporter felt the brunt of pro-Israel supporters, Lyons notes, between dashes, that the paper is ‘traditionally one of the newspapers most supportive of Israel.’ This is certainly not how the Jewish community in the US views it. In the first part of the 20th century, the newspaper wasn't in any way pro-Zionist. Then, in the latter part of the century, it was seen by pro-Israel supporters as taking a harsh stand vis-à-vis Israel. Still, no one, to date, has mounted any serious challenge to the substance of the claims Lyons presents. And some of these are, indeed, very serious. For instance, the alleged relentless harassment by the Israeli Embassy in Canberra of a young Palestinian Australian journalist at The Australian until, finally, she left the building, her work and the profession.
The claim that, anticipating the reactions that coverage of stories about Israel creates reticence and, ultimately, pushes editors to go for other, less contentious, stories, is central to Lyon’s gripe. But it is, of course, hard to prove or disprove this since self-censorship rarely leaves any paper trail or forensic evidence.
“I know how coverage of Israel and Palestine can work,” writes Sophie McNeil, former Middle East correspondent for the ABC. “It’s not that anybody tells you specifically not to cover something, it is just routinely put in the ‘too hard’ basket, with editors fearful of complaints over coverage of the controversial topic.”
Ethan Bronner has a decidedly different take on this. “My experience as a correspondent in Israel three times over a total of 12 years and an additional four as deputy foreign editor of The New York Times goes largely counter to what Lyons is contending,” he says. “I was never, as a reporter or editor, asked to kill a story by Israeli officials or pro-Israel lobbying groups. I was never told by an editor that he/she'd rather stay away from a story to avoid the ire of the pro-Israel lobby. I was, however, frequently lambasted from afar and (very occasionally) over the phone by lobbyists, although almost never by officials. Groups like CAMERA and HonestReporting routinely complained about work I was involved with, contending that it was anti-Israel or biased against Israel. That was after the fact, but it was aimed clearly at influencing future coverage. In all my years, I can remember only once being yelled at by an Israeli official, again after the fact. But this was in the US, not Australia, and over a decade ago. Things may have changed since.”
Jodi Rudoren, who took over from Bronner as the Israel correspondent for The New York Times, adds: “I certainly agree with John [Lyons] that journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict routinely come under a barrage of pressure, though in my experience it was both from pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian advocates - the most intense coming from outside the region, rather than from Israelis and Palestinians themselves.”
Peter Greste, who has covered the conflict for the BBC recalls: “Over the years, I’ve spent a bit of time in both Israel and the West Bank, and always found the pro-Israel lobby to be utterly unwilling to accept anything that implied criticism of Israel, or suggested it was anything other than a victim.”
Another theme which runs in Lyon’s essay is the alleged double standards with regard news items relating to Israel that can be debated in Australia. “Material which the pro-Israel lobby opposes being published in Australia,” he writes, “is routinely published in Israel.” This is undeniable. Israel’s media is robust; readers and viewers in the country are well versed on current topics and regularly debate and criticise – often harshly – persons and policies on the national agenda. Moreover, by stifling the flow of information, Australians remain ignorant of current affairs in Israel. This includes the Jewish community, many members of which do not access Israeli media. The essay forms part of a collection called 'In the National Interest' and, without a doubt, it fits the description. What Lyons raises are very fundamental questions pertaining not only to the role of editors, but also to the rights of readers to read, to know and to judge for themselves.
In this instance, Lyons is alluding to his investigative ‘Four Corners’ television program, Stone Cold Justice, which went to air in Australia in 2014 and exposed how Palestinian children suspected of throwing stones at Israeli soldiers or settlers, were picked up in the middle of the night for interrogation before being brought through the military court system. (The program won the 2014 Walkely award for Investigative Journalism.) The reactions did not take long to arrive. And the vitriol was mostly personal, he says. The epithets include a “Hamas smelly used tampon” and other invectives not fit for publication.
But one epithet has the most chilling effect on journalists: being labelled antisemitic. It comes at a time when a new working definition of antisemitism is being proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and is hotly debated among different factions in Australia’s Jewish community. Lyons suggests that critics of Israel or its army are often branded antisemitic but offers no specific examples in the essay. Such an omission is wholly inadequate. The ZFA responded by declaring that “contrary to Lyons’s claim that the “accusation of antisemitism” is used to shut down debate, no communal group has suggested or believes that legitimate criticism of Israeli Government policies or practices is tantamount to antisemitism.”
However, in an online opinion piece in response to Lyons’s extended essay, principal of Melbourne’s Mount Scopus College, Rabbi James Kennard compares Lyons’s references to the “pro-Israel lobby” with “the ancient trope of powerful Jews controlling others,” and concludes that “Mr Lyons’s view of Israel might be a product of antisemitism after all.”
Exactly what motivated Lyons to write this book may remain conjecture to many. Some say he has an axe to grind with AIJAC for its unrelenting, personal attacks against him over his Stone Cold Justice documentary, and that this is his revenge, served cold. His detractors are convinced that he is driven by a deep animosity toward Israel. Others still, credit him with attempting to shine a light on a subject that is 'in the national interest' but is rarely openly debated.
Whatever the motivation, this short booklet has not just rattled a few cages, but it has brought into sharp relief the fault lines dividing journalists, lobby groups and the Jewish community. Fault lines which look unlikely to be removed or redrawn any time soon.
Lyons’ claim that, in his 40 years in journalism, none of the lobby groups he has had to deal with compare with the pro-Israeli lobby in Australia, also stretches credulity. Is it truly more powerful than, say, the Australian Christian Lobby? Or the Australian Coal Association?
But style and substance are separate matters.
Lyons’s book is as crowded with details as a Brueghel painting, replete with specific events, exact dates and meticulous quotes – including footnotes and links. Clearly, he has taken his research very seriously. Despite this, the essay contains some inaccuracies. For example, referring to The New York Times in the context of how its reporter felt the brunt of pro-Israel supporters, Lyons notes, between dashes, that the paper is ‘traditionally one of the newspapers most supportive of Israel.’ This is certainly not how the Jewish community in the US views it. In the first part of the 20th century, the newspaper wasn't in any way pro-Zionist. Then, in the latter part of the century, it was seen by pro-Israel supporters as taking a harsh stand vis-à-vis Israel. Still, no one, to date, has mounted any serious challenge to the substance of the claims Lyons presents. And some of these are, indeed, very serious. For instance, the alleged relentless harassment by the Israeli Embassy in Canberra of a young Palestinian Australian journalist at The Australian until, finally, she left the building, her work and the profession.
The claim that, anticipating the reactions that coverage of stories about Israel creates reticence and, ultimately, pushes editors to go for other, less contentious, stories, is central to Lyon’s gripe. But it is, of course, hard to prove or disprove this since self-censorship rarely leaves any paper trail or forensic evidence.
“I know how coverage of Israel and Palestine can work,” writes Sophie McNeil, former Middle East correspondent for the ABC. “It’s not that anybody tells you specifically not to cover something, it is just routinely put in the ‘too hard’ basket, with editors fearful of complaints over coverage of the controversial topic.”
Ethan Bronner has a decidedly different take on this. “My experience as a correspondent in Israel three times over a total of 12 years and an additional four as deputy foreign editor of The New York Times goes largely counter to what Lyons is contending,” he says. “I was never, as a reporter or editor, asked to kill a story by Israeli officials or pro-Israel lobbying groups. I was never told by an editor that he/she'd rather stay away from a story to avoid the ire of the pro-Israel lobby. I was, however, frequently lambasted from afar and (very occasionally) over the phone by lobbyists, although almost never by officials. Groups like CAMERA and HonestReporting routinely complained about work I was involved with, contending that it was anti-Israel or biased against Israel. That was after the fact, but it was aimed clearly at influencing future coverage. In all my years, I can remember only once being yelled at by an Israeli official, again after the fact. But this was in the US, not Australia, and over a decade ago. Things may have changed since.”
Jodi Rudoren, who took over from Bronner as the Israel correspondent for The New York Times, adds: “I certainly agree with John [Lyons] that journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict routinely come under a barrage of pressure, though in my experience it was both from pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian advocates - the most intense coming from outside the region, rather than from Israelis and Palestinians themselves.”
Peter Greste, who has covered the conflict for the BBC recalls: “Over the years, I’ve spent a bit of time in both Israel and the West Bank, and always found the pro-Israel lobby to be utterly unwilling to accept anything that implied criticism of Israel, or suggested it was anything other than a victim.”
Another theme which runs in Lyon’s essay is the alleged double standards with regard news items relating to Israel that can be debated in Australia. “Material which the pro-Israel lobby opposes being published in Australia,” he writes, “is routinely published in Israel.” This is undeniable. Israel’s media is robust; readers and viewers in the country are well versed on current topics and regularly debate and criticise – often harshly – persons and policies on the national agenda. Moreover, by stifling the flow of information, Australians remain ignorant of current affairs in Israel. This includes the Jewish community, many members of which do not access Israeli media. The essay forms part of a collection called 'In the National Interest' and, without a doubt, it fits the description. What Lyons raises are very fundamental questions pertaining not only to the role of editors, but also to the rights of readers to read, to know and to judge for themselves.
In this instance, Lyons is alluding to his investigative ‘Four Corners’ television program, Stone Cold Justice, which went to air in Australia in 2014 and exposed how Palestinian children suspected of throwing stones at Israeli soldiers or settlers, were picked up in the middle of the night for interrogation before being brought through the military court system. (The program won the 2014 Walkely award for Investigative Journalism.) The reactions did not take long to arrive. And the vitriol was mostly personal, he says. The epithets include a “Hamas smelly used tampon” and other invectives not fit for publication.
But one epithet has the most chilling effect on journalists: being labelled antisemitic. It comes at a time when a new working definition of antisemitism is being proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and is hotly debated among different factions in Australia’s Jewish community. Lyons suggests that critics of Israel or its army are often branded antisemitic but offers no specific examples in the essay. Such an omission is wholly inadequate. The ZFA responded by declaring that “contrary to Lyons’s claim that the “accusation of antisemitism” is used to shut down debate, no communal group has suggested or believes that legitimate criticism of Israeli Government policies or practices is tantamount to antisemitism.”
However, in an online opinion piece in response to Lyons’s extended essay, principal of Melbourne’s Mount Scopus College, Rabbi James Kennard compares Lyons’s references to the “pro-Israel lobby” with “the ancient trope of powerful Jews controlling others,” and concludes that “Mr Lyons’s view of Israel might be a product of antisemitism after all.”
Exactly what motivated Lyons to write this book may remain conjecture to many. Some say he has an axe to grind with AIJAC for its unrelenting, personal attacks against him over his Stone Cold Justice documentary, and that this is his revenge, served cold. His detractors are convinced that he is driven by a deep animosity toward Israel. Others still, credit him with attempting to shine a light on a subject that is 'in the national interest' but is rarely openly debated.
Whatever the motivation, this short booklet has not just rattled a few cages, but it has brought into sharp relief the fault lines dividing journalists, lobby groups and the Jewish community. Fault lines which look unlikely to be removed or redrawn any time soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment