Israeli boycott on al-Jazeera indicates that Arab network fulfills its journalistic mission

In praise of al-Jazeera

It happened in the past with BBC, when its programming content and criticism of Israel were not to the liking of those in charge of the public relations effort. Now, Israel wishes to do the same with al-Jazeera.

The reason for this is the network’s reporting on the mass killing of Palestinians, including children and babies, by the IDF several weeks ago. The network, Israeli officials say, adopts a pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas stance to the point of its broadcasts turning into propaganda, including repeated clips that feature close-ups of dead children. Meanwhile, the network barely reports about the suffering experienced in Israeli towns like Sderot and Ashkelon.

This principle is true for all areas dealt with by television networks and the press. In fact, it is too bad that we don’t see many more boycotts in Israel by official bodies unpleased with media outlets and journalists – because a boycott on a journalist is in fact a citation. It means that the journalist is fulfilling its journalistic mission as the public’s representative, rather than serving as the representative of the government ministry or corporation is reports on. Journalism is, by its very nature, an opposition to the government. This is its role in a democratic regime and it should be critical and biting in its attitude towards the government, towards powerful economic bodies, and towards the legal system.

The problem, therefore, is not al-Jazeera. The problem lies with the media outlets and journalists that are not boycotted on occasion. Perhaps this means they are not critical or biting enough. Therefore, here is a rule of thumb for the benefit of news consumers: Be careful of journalists who are loved by the government.