Hamas’ surprise attack on October 7 reminded the world of this ongoing conflict…and the media that there is no more complex war to cover.
What we more broadly call the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has, for a long time, been a powder keg: tensions are constant, and clashes are never far away.
The difficulty of covering this region of the Middle East when attacks and aftershocks occur lies of course in the complexity of a historical conflict, but also in the polarization that it causes in the population: you have to be on the side of the aggressors or the side of the victims, it’s one or the other… and the side we choose decides who, in history, is judged as aggressors and victims.
The complexity of coverage for the mainstream media is precisely there: they must not favor any party, and must not even give the impression of favoring one.
Each word used to describe tensions and conflicts thus turns into a mine ready to explode at the slightest negative interpretation.
Take the October 7 attackers. Were they terrorists? Activists? Hamas fighters?
Were they serving a movement that represents Palestinians? From a resistance group? Or an organization, once again, terrorist?
The sensitivity of the matter has been all over the media in recent weeks. Because the choice of words is quickly interpreted as a choice made for one side or the other.
THE New York Times, for example, called the attackers “Hamas terrorists” in a text at the start of hostilities. Then the word was crossed out and replaced in the same article by “Hamas shooters”… and then the adjective “terrorists” was added to it.
While at Radio-Canada-CBC, on the other hand, a memo was published to journalists asking them to avoid designating specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorists, “because these words are so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion.
What should a media do in this case? In our opinion, it must be impartial and take the side of the reader, not one side or the other of the belligerents and their supporters.
A media outlet that depicts the horrors of recent weeks by choosing sides does a disservice to its readers: it gives them a unique and biased view of history.
A media outlet that refuses to use certain words to avoid giving the impression that it has chosen its side is also failing its readers: it is not telling the whole story.
The choice to qualify Hamas, its members or their actions as terrorists is a good example, since it is the official position of many countries, because speakers use it in interviews to talk about Hamas and because many consider that the attack of October 7 aimed to increase violent acts to create a climate of insecurity.
HAS The Presswe do not systematically qualify Hamas as a terrorist organization in our articles, but we regularly mention that many countries, including Canada, consider it to be one.
The word can be used in a quote from a person who describes it that way or, if the context warrants it, in a column, for example.
And the adjective “terrorist” can be used to describe the attack launched by Hamas at the expense of Israeli communities around Gaza, without it being a position for or against anyone.
The media must be neutral regarding the conflict, but they must also use the right words to describe a massacre.
This is just one example of a loaded word among many others. Every day since the outbreak of hostilities, many people have criticized us for a word here, a word there, an inaccuracy or a turn of phrase. There are even campaigns organized by influential groups to encourage citizens to write to the media every day demanding word changes.
And each time, these comments lead us to think, and we then put the reader at the heart of our decision. We aim first of all for accuracy, rigor and truth, but we also take into account the need for the reader to understand the story, to grasp all the nuances and subtleties, even if the words published can sometimes be shocking.
Likewise, we aim to offer a diversity of opinions in texts published by our columnists and contributors, and in open letters. By always being willing to question our coverage.
For example, we have been criticized in recent days for spreading hate speech, quoting Israeli representatives who maintained “that Hamas must be annihilated”, or even, that “the objective of Hamas is to exterminate all [les Israéliens]without distinction “.
In our opinion, there is no incitement to hatred in these quotes: simply a very real speech, which is expressed on the Israeli side. A speech which can shock, certainly, but which allows us to understand the hatred which fuels a conflict which has continued for a long time.
But we also agreed to rewrite the sentence of a text which lacked clarity, as we were criticized for. We wrote that construction of the tunnels in Gaza began “before Israel ended its occupation in 2005,” while the strip is still under effective Israeli control. There was simply a withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlements from the Gaza Strip at the time.
Therefore, we have modified the passage, once again so that the reader understands, in the most precise and accurate way possible, the context of the attack which brought this conflict back into the media spotlight.