The New York Times Building in New York City. (Photo: flickr / cc / ALec Perkins/NYT)
Aug 01, 2014
Following its reporting of the latest events in the Gaza Strip on Friday, including available details about an IDF soldier captured by Hamas soldiers early in the day, the New York Times was contacted by Israel's military censor and told that future reporting related to the capture would need to be run through its office before publication.
The Timesupdated their original story by adding:
"...the military's censor informed The New York Times that further information related to the soldier would have to be submitted for prior review. Journalists for foreign news organizations must agree in writing to the military censorship system to work in Israel. This was the first censorship notification The Times had received in more than two years.
Israel's policy of placing 'gag rules' over foreign correspondents is well known to reporters who have worked in the country, but rarely acknowledged by U.S. outlets.
In response to the notice given to the Times on Friday, the Freedom of the Press Foundation--which advocates on behalf of journalistic freedoms--tweeted its advice to the newspaper:
\u201cThe New York Times has received a censorship notification from Israel. They should refuse to comply. https://t.co/y7RjoZcYU4\u201d— Freedom of the Press (@Freedom of the Press) 1406907858
Writing on his Pressing Issues blog, freelance journalist and media critic Greg Mitchell notes, "that the Timeshas been criticized in the past for agreeing to what they call 'gag orders,' including by its public editor, when it revealed that it had buckled under to Israeli censorship in the past. Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren defended that when it was exposed. "The Times is 'indeed, bound by gag orders,' Ms. Rudoren said. She said that the situation is analogous to abiding by traffic rules or any other laws of the land."
Noting that he had not seen an Israeli objection mentioned by other large outlets that reported on the captured soldier--including an Associated Press article published within a similar time frame--Mitchell wondered: "Was NYT singled out for this (despite very favorable coverage from Jerusalem bureau in past?) because of its importance? Or did compliant Times reporters just mention it as explanation to the Israelis that this story had already appeared before the censorship demand?"
The episode comes amid increased criticism of how many U.S.-based news outlets--including outlets likeMSNBC and the Times which are often categorized as "liberal" by many--skew and bend their coverage in order to offer a narrative more friendly towards Israeli government and military policy.
In a pointed essay on the Guardian, written by correspondent Chris McGreal on Friday, the veteran journalists asks "if evolving conversations on the ground" in Gaza demand probing questions for U.S. television news audiences, "Why does [American] TV news look like a Netanyahu ad?"
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Following its reporting of the latest events in the Gaza Strip on Friday, including available details about an IDF soldier captured by Hamas soldiers early in the day, the New York Times was contacted by Israel's military censor and told that future reporting related to the capture would need to be run through its office before publication.
The Timesupdated their original story by adding:
"...the military's censor informed The New York Times that further information related to the soldier would have to be submitted for prior review. Journalists for foreign news organizations must agree in writing to the military censorship system to work in Israel. This was the first censorship notification The Times had received in more than two years.
Israel's policy of placing 'gag rules' over foreign correspondents is well known to reporters who have worked in the country, but rarely acknowledged by U.S. outlets.
In response to the notice given to the Times on Friday, the Freedom of the Press Foundation--which advocates on behalf of journalistic freedoms--tweeted its advice to the newspaper:
\u201cThe New York Times has received a censorship notification from Israel. They should refuse to comply. https://t.co/y7RjoZcYU4\u201d— Freedom of the Press (@Freedom of the Press) 1406907858
Writing on his Pressing Issues blog, freelance journalist and media critic Greg Mitchell notes, "that the Timeshas been criticized in the past for agreeing to what they call 'gag orders,' including by its public editor, when it revealed that it had buckled under to Israeli censorship in the past. Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren defended that when it was exposed. "The Times is 'indeed, bound by gag orders,' Ms. Rudoren said. She said that the situation is analogous to abiding by traffic rules or any other laws of the land."
Noting that he had not seen an Israeli objection mentioned by other large outlets that reported on the captured soldier--including an Associated Press article published within a similar time frame--Mitchell wondered: "Was NYT singled out for this (despite very favorable coverage from Jerusalem bureau in past?) because of its importance? Or did compliant Times reporters just mention it as explanation to the Israelis that this story had already appeared before the censorship demand?"
The episode comes amid increased criticism of how many U.S.-based news outlets--including outlets likeMSNBC and the Times which are often categorized as "liberal" by many--skew and bend their coverage in order to offer a narrative more friendly towards Israeli government and military policy.
In a pointed essay on the Guardian, written by correspondent Chris McGreal on Friday, the veteran journalists asks "if evolving conversations on the ground" in Gaza demand probing questions for U.S. television news audiences, "Why does [American] TV news look like a Netanyahu ad?"
Following its reporting of the latest events in the Gaza Strip on Friday, including available details about an IDF soldier captured by Hamas soldiers early in the day, the New York Times was contacted by Israel's military censor and told that future reporting related to the capture would need to be run through its office before publication.
The Timesupdated their original story by adding:
"...the military's censor informed The New York Times that further information related to the soldier would have to be submitted for prior review. Journalists for foreign news organizations must agree in writing to the military censorship system to work in Israel. This was the first censorship notification The Times had received in more than two years.
Israel's policy of placing 'gag rules' over foreign correspondents is well known to reporters who have worked in the country, but rarely acknowledged by U.S. outlets.
In response to the notice given to the Times on Friday, the Freedom of the Press Foundation--which advocates on behalf of journalistic freedoms--tweeted its advice to the newspaper:
\u201cThe New York Times has received a censorship notification from Israel. They should refuse to comply. https://t.co/y7RjoZcYU4\u201d— Freedom of the Press (@Freedom of the Press) 1406907858
Writing on his Pressing Issues blog, freelance journalist and media critic Greg Mitchell notes, "that the Timeshas been criticized in the past for agreeing to what they call 'gag orders,' including by its public editor, when it revealed that it had buckled under to Israeli censorship in the past. Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren defended that when it was exposed. "The Times is 'indeed, bound by gag orders,' Ms. Rudoren said. She said that the situation is analogous to abiding by traffic rules or any other laws of the land."
Noting that he had not seen an Israeli objection mentioned by other large outlets that reported on the captured soldier--including an Associated Press article published within a similar time frame--Mitchell wondered: "Was NYT singled out for this (despite very favorable coverage from Jerusalem bureau in past?) because of its importance? Or did compliant Times reporters just mention it as explanation to the Israelis that this story had already appeared before the censorship demand?"
The episode comes amid increased criticism of how many U.S.-based news outlets--including outlets likeMSNBC and the Times which are often categorized as "liberal" by many--skew and bend their coverage in order to offer a narrative more friendly towards Israeli government and military policy.
In a pointed essay on the Guardian, written by correspondent Chris McGreal on Friday, the veteran journalists asks "if evolving conversations on the ground" in Gaza demand probing questions for U.S. television news audiences, "Why does [American] TV news look like a Netanyahu ad?"
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.