It was a classic performance by an Arab state broadcaster: one part journalism, two parts propaganda. Habits, after all, are hard to break.
“It was important to let the world know he was alright,” Amin said in defense of the interview. If she had stopped there, critics would have had a bit less ammunition.
Still, journalists in glass newsrooms might want to hesitate before lobbing verbal rocks. Let’s recap the ethics of journalism when it comes to the Middle East:
• It’s OK to air bin Laden interviews, until the White House says it’s not;
• It’s OK to show John Walker Lindh, “the American Taliban,” strapped naked to a stretcher, but images of U.S. POWs are verboten;
• And it’s wrong to show dead Americans, but it’s OK to endlessly loop video of bleeding and/or dead Gaddafi.
On the morning Gaddafi was killed, an ebullient Wolf Blitzer told Sen. John McCain that he knew the senator was pleased on “this very special day.” The look on Blitzer’s face and the celebratory tone of his network left little doubt that he—or CNN—agreed.
As I said, “basic journalistic ethics” can be a slippery thing.
Correction: We originally reporters that Gilad Shalit had spent two years in captivity. In fact, he had spent five years in captivity. The relevant sentence has been corrected. CJR regrets the error.
The only thing slippery about this is the logical contortions you use to justify unethical behavior: “the other guy did it”, “no one cares”, “it’s a really good story”. Just come out and say what’s really on your mind: the ends can justify the means sometimes. After all the Geneva Conventions are great and all but, but its ok to violate them when it serves our purposes as journalists. What else can we expect from situational ethics like this … anything can be justified unless our ox is the one getting gored.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 27 Oct 2011 at 04:02 PM
Great article! However, the writer says that the Geneva Conventions prevent reporters from interviewing POWs. Actually, it's not applicable to journalists, which may be why no one objected when he aired his report on CBS News. News outlets that are not under the control of a government are not bound by the Conventions. And that's what raises another big question about what the Egyptian reporter did here! State-owned media outlets (like Egypt TV) are arguably subject to Geneva.
#2 Posted by Josh Hogan, CJR on Thu 27 Oct 2011 at 07:34 PM
Props to CJR for stating the rather obvious point that Shahira Amin was functioning at least as much as a government functionary as a journalist. She can only hide for so long behind her posture a brave journalist who quit Nile TV during the uprising (at a time when Murbarak's downfall seemed almost certain, of course).
Had she just simply said "I'm sorry, I was wrong," there would be no controversy. One must question the sincerity of her repeated efforts to justify the unjustifiable. Her subsequent comments concerning Israel indicate perhaps the true attitude being expressed here, which was a desire to further torment Shalit.
Anyone seeing the video could see the kind of mental/physical shape/duress Shalit was in, and her rationalizations and lies are frustrating to behold. CNN should fire her. Her lack of integrity may be within the standards of conduct of Egyptian television bu not the west.
However, you ruin your piece by your "journalists in glass houses" riff at the end. Journalist attitude toward the White House et al have absolutely no bearing on the horrendous exploitation of Shalit.
#3 Posted by Alan Hess, CJR on Fri 28 Oct 2011 at 11:49 AM