Al Jazeera Ban Benefits Western News

Israel has banned Al Jazeera from reporting within their territories, deeming it a "criminal act." This, as The Catch has written on before, is part of Israel's unending assault on Gaza. Without journalists broadcasting a perspective different from that of the Zionist state, less of their crimes will be held to scrutiny. Immediately after the ban, Al Jazeera was removed from broadcast in Israel, and their offices were raided.

Make no mistake, the move was reported on by some outlets. Examples include The Guardian, while agencies like CTV News and CBC News carried a wire report. However, even though organizations like Reporters without Borders have denounced the move, the condemnations from news agencies are few and far between. At time of writing, no Editorial from the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star or the National Post was issued in condemnation. Global News had no report of it.

The journalism industry in the US and Canada, much like their governments, have caused irreparable damage to their credibility through their framing of Israel's mass attacks on Palestine. As covered before, the slant against the protestors and the favouring of Israeli perspectives has revealed the bias of our capitalist system.

Al Jazeera is not an anti-capitalist organization by any means. However, its interests, and that of its viewership and ownership model, mean they favour a perspective counter to that of the US-dominated anglosphere. Indeed, the most pushback from the US State Department on this blatant attack is that they are "quite concerned." No sanctions. No condemnation. Nothing.

Our news agencies share the same complicity as the US State Department. In fact, they benefit from Al Jazeera's shut-down.

Al Jazeera's censor by the Israeli government is intrinsically tied to the wider state of journalism and their approach to the destruction of Gaza. In order to dive into this relationship, the encampments demanding divestments from university administrations must be discussed.

It's been impossible to ignore these demonstrations in recent weeks. Thankfully, student journalists have tirelessly been covering the state crackdown on the protests. These students have faced police intimidation in multiple instances as well as attacks by pro-Israel demonstrators. Their reporting has been covered by bigger outlets, yes, but condemnations of the crackdowns they've faced have been few and far between, with the exception of Reporters Without Borders.

Columbia University, possibly the most prestigious university to be associated with journalism, also holds the Pulitzer Prize Ceremonies. Columbia was integral to these encampments, being one of the highest profile examples and the first to bring their use to the international stage. The Pulitzer Prizes, therefore, couldn't ignore this situation and released a statement on May 2 commending student journalists. Notably, they acknowledged the work of the reporters, but didn't condemn the NYPD. Its only mention of their threats were that the student journalists covered the police action "under difficult and dangerous circumstances and at risk of arrest."

Four days later, as the award announcements were made, the Pulitzer for international reporting was given to the New York Times.

To recap, the most prestigious awards in journalism was given by an institution that didn't condemn police crackdowns on student journalists at the university in which its based. Then it announced an award for international reporting would be given to an entity that published a terribly researched piece on an international issue that was debunked on nearly every point it contained.

The Intercept also reported that the New York Times instructed reporters to not use the words "genocide," "ethnic cleansing" and "occupied territory."

Words fail me. This is nothing short of putrid and disgusting.

In this instance, we have possibly the perfect encapsulation of the US-dominated view towards journalism. Re-enforce the status quo, especially in geopolitics, at all costs. This example alone makes it clear that this industry simply does not care about press freedom, or even accuracy, beyond empty and milquetoast words.

Banning Al Jazeera is integral in understanding the environment in which this farce of a scenario occurred. Al Jazeera, at least on the subject of Palestine, is committed to broadcasting a perspective not widely seen by English-speaking audiences. Additionally, Al Jazeera has been very vocal about the faults of US media in the latest assault on Gaza, even in their coverage of the student encampments. This perspective is not something that our news media wants and it has repeatedly shown us this.

Reports from The Breach have shown CTV News, CBC News and Canadian newspapers have routinely favoured Israel. CNN runs its coverage of Gaza past its Jerusalem office, which is subject to IDF censorship. The New York Times, as previously mentioned, disproportionately favours Israel to the detriment of accuracy. Reporters from ABC, NBC and CNN have embedded with the Israeli military, operating under terms dictated to them. This isn't even beginning to delve into the unabashed right-wing news media, which is openly anti-Palestinian.

News agencies that broadcast a perspective contrary to this framing are not colleagues, they are competitors. Yes, it would be erroneous to think anyone in our legacy news media is actively plotting or fomenting a ban on outlets like Al Jazeera. In fact, there are almost certainly reporters in these agencies demanding a statement be put out on the ban. However, this is not about an individual issue. This is systemic.

After eight long months of provably dishonest coverage, we can't assume the best of intentions by these outlets. We've seen the silence on this when Ukraine also banned news channels and restricted journalist access. This is a pattern. It doesn't matter that their actions consistently undermine their work, weakening trust in news and the systems in which they operate. It doesn't matter that their colleagues are being censored, banned, and attacked for their diligent reporting. It doesn't matter that the New York Times has destroyed any credibility it has by publishing shoddy reports. The banning of news agencies by a US ally means the breadth of perspectives in the field will be less crowded.

After all, they'll win the Pulitzer anyway.