Since the very first Russian troops made their way into Ukraine in the early hours of February 24, the Anglo-American coverage of Europe’s latest war has been full of emotion and bias. Western correspondents on the ground in Ukraine and in newsrooms across Europe and the United States not only demonstrated extremely high levels of empathy for Ukrainian civilians suffering from Russia’s provoked aggression, but also significant sympathy even for the neonazi militias « taking up arms to protect their country against the invader».
Watching British, American, Eyuropean, Western journalists in general cover this conflict not with the « blind » objectivity that in witch Western journalism in modern times enjoy taking pride, but instead using terminology that conveys the humanity and grave reality of the situation on the ground, has been eye-opening, to say the least.
From the first few days of bombardment, Russian military campaign became invasion even before there was troops on the ground. And the screens and papers were dominated by stories underlining the bravery and steadfastness everyday Ukrainians demonstrated in the face of an all-out invasion of the devil himself and his army of the apocalypse. Gradually the term “resistance” started to be routinely used to describe Ukrainian troops, volunteers and even the neonasi militias who took up arms to « defend their homeland». Western channels and websites broadcast President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s calls for all Ukrainians – at home and abroad – to come and join the fight, and pleas for military assistance from friendly nations, without censor or critical commentary. In news reports, Russia’s so-called “special operation” has repeatedly been described as an “invasion”, “assault” and “unprovoked aggression”. The Russian military has been condemned for “deliberately targeting civilians” and “shelling residential areas”, although it has made only a mistake. No weight at all was given to Russia’s baseless claims that “civilians were being used as shields or that the Russian population of the Donbass has been systematically aggressed by Ukrainian neonazi militias for the last eight years. No space for Russian narrative at all.
As a journalist who covers conflicts, I support the use of certain terms and terminologies in the coverage of the war in Ukraine and do think that the Ukrainian, like any other people, has the right to defend itself from foreign invasion. But I frown upon the manicheism of one and only perspective and narrative; I frown upon leaving no space for critical factual vision.
Mainly because I have long argued for journalists using language that accurately conveys the truth of a situation evolving before their eyes – language that is not restricted by a desire or a pressure to be “objective”, “balanced” and “unbiased” even in the face of imperial aggression, unprovoked military assault, invasion or war crimes.
But while I support the use of some of this language and terminology in the coverage of Russia’s invasion, I’m shocked and frustrated. For it is used only against the Russians, neglecting the war crimes committed by Ukrainian militias against the Russian population and also because when we journalists cover Israel’s recurrent unprovoked and inhuman “assaults” on Lebanon and Palestine for Western media, we ere never allowed to describe what is happening in the aggressed countries accurately. We are allowed to refer to the Israeli military as the “occupying force” only when it is inevitable in order to keep a semblance of impartiality, however, we are strictly forbidden to talk of “resistance” in what was/is occupied South Lebanon and in Palestine – which we can’t even call by its name but only by Gaza Strip and West Bank, to erase their right to citizenship in the eyes of the public, to deprive the Palestinians of any deserving identity. We must always describe any such action, I mean, of real resistance against the life long oppressor in occupied territories as “military operations against Israeli forces” – again to remain «impartial and loyal » to Western’s sacred editorial guidelines to paint Israel as victims when they are inhuman criminals and say repeat the mantra that Israel, the oppressor, the occupier, the plunder, the criminal regarding to international law, "has the right to defend itself" from the people they starve, imprison, harass, torture, plunder, and massacre once in a while when it feels like "mowing the lawn" to destroy every single public infrastructure and media outlets in the Strip, bombing appartement buildings and leaving the emprisoned population encircled by air, land and sea with nowhere to flee.
And for all these years, it was not just us journalists from the Global South (I’m a proud Brazilian) who can’t stand injustice who were scolded for being “emotive”, “partial”, or “not balanced” in our coverage of conflicts either. Whenever they tried to tell things as they are, our white, European and American colleagues too have faced accusations of bias and lack of objectivity.
In 2014, for example, veteran British journalist Jon Snow faced a barrage of criticism and even condemnation for publishing a video on the Channel 4 news website calling for Israel to end its brutal assault on Gaza and stop the indiscriminate shelling of the Strip which resulted in the deaths of many innocent children. Snow’s video went viral on social media almost instantly, and many members of the public congratulated him for accurately reporting on the consequences of Israel’s actions. It was mostly other journalists, pundits and analysts who criticised him for allegedly breaking British journalism’s « much-valued impartiality rule ».
As we watch the rolling coverage of the Ukraine war on British, American and Western channels and even in my South America that know very well what the USA did to us and of what it is capable to preserve its political dominance and plunder, and see journalists show empathy, emotion and humanity as they report on «atrocities» far less brutal behaviour than Israelis unravelling before their eyes, we should start questioning what objectivity, neutrality and impartiality really mean in journalism.
If I taught future journalists I would ask my students to do just that every year – I would try to encourage them to widen their understanding of notions that seem to be set in stone in the Anglo-American journalism culture only to serve the powerful. But as Western media has convinced the world that adhering to these “rules” is the only way to produce « quality journalism », not only students but also many seasoned professional journalists often struggle to see the problems with their commitment to what they define as “impartiality”.
However, I now hope that witnessing how differently Western media organisations that take pride in their “impartiality” cover a conflict in their own neighbourhood will encourage journalists to question their views on what constitutes “quality journalism”. In my view, it is to see journalism as a mission to inform accurately and give voice to the voiceless.
The United States has no moral grounds to dictate any journalistic principle, as the highest journalism prize is inspired by Pulitzer, the creator of what became known as « yellow journalism ». The fact is that after this war in Ukraine, Western journalists can no longer claim the higher moral ground – they can no longer claim that they are somewhat better, more professional, than journalists from any other journalist from the Global South, journalists from exploited or war-torn, occupied countries because of their “impartiality”, “neutrality” and “objectivity”.
Every single Western journalist who contributed to the coverage of the Ukraine war and used terms like “resistance”, “invasion” and “aggression” needs to stop and think why it was and is not acceptable for us journalists to use those same terms when we were covering the massacre of the Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila in 1982, Israel’s assaults on civilians in Lebanon in 1993, 1996, 2006, and in Gaza in 2006, 2008/9, 2012, 2014, 2019 that destroyed entirely, each time, the Strip and left thousands of civilians – mostly elderds, women and children – dead, traumatised or handicapped for life.
They need to stop and question why my sympathy for the victims of war in Lebanon, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Lybia, in Syria, in Yemen, my efforts to reflect their pain and explain their struggles were/are seen as a sign of bias and unprofessionalism, but similar coverage of Ukraine today is being saluted as exemplary and humane. It is humane, but bias. <no one can convey the Russian view, the Russian side ; is it fair ? How? When the US or any other member of OTAN or Israel bomb and invade foreign nations we have to give them time to speak on TV and space in our articles, to « be impartial ».
When we speak about Lebanese and Palestinian journalists being “contextually objective” in their coverage of the Israeli assaults against their country, their people, in the past, they were told “there is no such thing as contextually objective”. But now Anglo-American-Western journalists claim to be “contextually objective” in their coverage of Ukraine – they are actually retaining their own sentiments, values and beliefs and their own audiences’ sentiments, beliefs and values in mind when reporting.
For too long, Western journalists and audiences alike viewed objectivity and impartiality as absolute concepts that can never and should never be shaped by context.
Indeed, what does it mean to be objective as a journalist while covering atrocities committed by a foreign occupier?
Until poor Ukraine and the devil Russia invader, the mantra was « bjectivity under any condition », when OTAN or Israel was involved. Show both sides. Today, I hope Western media editors will look at the coverage of Ukraine and stop to reconsider their convictions about the « main pillars of journalism » which they undisguisedly brushed off.
With all this, my aim is not to dismiss the work some Western journalists are doing in covering the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine. Excluding the racist, orientalist and degrading sentiments expressed by journalists in reference to refugees, our colleagues are doing a good job in accurately conveying the horrors of (any) war to their audiences.
I am writing this merely to call upon Western journalists to reconsider their long-claimed upper moral grip on what constitutes professional, quality journalism – objective, non-partisan, impartial coverage – now that they are reporting on atrocities and human suffering somewhere close to home with the victim being an ally of their country, and somehow forgetting to mention the part their leaders played to build up this regrettable war.
It is time we see absolute objectivity, impartiality and neutrality is not always a prerequisite to quality journalism. In fact, when dealing with atrocities and human suffering they can be an obstacle in front of good, accurate, meaningful coverage. It is time to rethink the meaning and importance of impartiality when covering human tragedy imposed by a destructive force – be it a friend or a foe.
To be accurate I must say that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is far, very far, from what the USA, the UK, OTAN, Israel have been doing for decades elsewhere where people have no blue eyes. Which does not excuse Russia, of course, however, should make us more critical about OTAN’s shameful behaviour around the world to subjugate other human beings as worth as the Ukrainians and to exploit already poor countries' natural resources, as it did and do in Iraq, Lybia, Afganistan, Palestine, and as it want to do in Iran and Russia doing all they can to overthrow Putin and the Ayatollahs. And for what? Only to plunder their countries, to take over the national business, hand them over to their own oligarchs, and afterwards, leave chaos behind.
To be clear, I abhor any form of violence - individual or institutional - and war. I've just been trying to counterbalance Western bias coverage of this new tragedy generated in Washington.
What Russia is doing in Ukraine is humanly deplorable and unfair for the civilians, but so is to pretend that it is Putin's fault. He is to blame for the military operation that is costing losses and lives, but as he is far from being a devil or a fool, in the rules of impartial journalism, shouldn't we leave some space on TV and in newspapers to explain why it is happening?
Shouldn't we, "impartial journalists" also inform the public of the huge part of responsibility European - mainly UK's - and USA's governments have in Ukrainian disruption and suffering? Shouldn't we keep an eye on Ukrainian neonazi militias & foreign mercenaries (paid by whom, actually?) and report their crimes too?
To make a long story short, shouldn't we, "impartial Western journalists" keep at least a semblance of objectivity for the sake of Journalism?
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário