Email This to a Friend
When it Comes to Al-Dura, Journalists Are Against Free Speech
Despite the Al-Dura ruling, reporter Charles Enderlin can still count on his colleagues to stand by his story.
As I discussed in my analysis of the original judgment against Karsenty two years ago, what has always been at stake in the Karsenty case is not the authenticity or otherwise of the Al-Dura report but the very right to freedom of opinion. As a public figure discharging a highly public function affecting a matter of obvious public interest — and for a public television channel no less — Charles Enderlin can hardly claim to be immune from public criticism of his work. Nor, of course, can France 2, as the public television channel in question.
It is this insight — an insight that one would expect to be entirely banal in a democratic society — that underlies the higher court’s ruling. The court did not find that the fraudulence of the Al-Dura report had been “proven,” but it found that Karsenty offered sufficient and sufficiently serious grounds for the claim of fraudulence to make it a legitimate matter of public debate.
To have ruled otherwise — as the lower court did in its original ruling — would be, in effect, to institute a sort of crime of lèse majesté protecting journalists and news organizations from criticism: placing them above society and the mere “lay persons” who are then supposed to accept the claims of the “news professionals” without question. Le Nouvel Observateur’s “Appeal for Charles Enderlin” positively exudes such a sense of corporate privilege, as Richard Landes and his commentators on Augean Stables were quick to point out.
The judgment “surprises us,” the authors of the “Appeal” complain, “since it gives the same credibility to a journalist known for the seriousness and rigor of his work…and to his detractors…who have no knowledge of the reality on the ground and no experience of reporting from a war zone.” (As so happens, many of Enderlin’s principal critics have as much if not more experience “on the ground” as Enderlin and some, like retired Le Monde correspondent Luc Rosenzweig, are also well-known “professional” journalists.)
In a sort of mini-revolution, commentators on Le Nouvel Observateur’s own website were equally quick to point out the disdain involved in such words and to reject the pretensions of the “news professionals” to being the guardians of truth. One commentator, for instance, wondered why Le Nouvel Observateur did not reproduce the court decision, as Augean Stables had, so that readers could judge for themselves. “The French are intelligent enough to understand,” the commentator added pointedly. With the reactions in the comments sections running overwhelmingly against Le Nouvel Observateur’s initiative, however, the editors quite simply suppressed the comments link. (Though the link is gone, as of this writing the comments pages can still be consulted here.)
Regarding the signatories of Le Nouvel Observateur’s “Appeal” Richard Landes has written that “in the future, [they] will be part of a list of ignominy.” It is interesting to note some of the names on this list.
Among the sixty or so original signatories, one finds at least two journalists who have themselves gained notoriety as the authors of extravagant, unverified reports concerning alleged Israeli misdeeds. Thus, in March 2002, Sylvain Cypel of the daily Le Monde published an article announcing the “dismantling” of “a vast Israeli spy network operating on American territory.” The “network” was supposed to have comprised some 120 persons who had already been “arrested or expelled.”
Citing details from a Fox News report and the supposedly independent research of French “intelligence expert” Guillaume Dasquié, Cypel declared the alleged operation to be “undoubtedly the most important Israeli espionage affair in the United States” since the Jonathan Pollard case and he mused darkly about circumstantial evidence apparently connecting the Israeli “spies” and several of the hijackers responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
The second name that stands out in this regard among the journalists is that of Sara Daniel: one of the large cohort of original signatories from Le Nouvel Observateur and, as so happens, the daughter of the founder of the publication, Jean Daniel. In November 2001, Ms. Daniel would provoke controversy by publishing an article in Le Nouvel Observateur in which she accused Israeli soldiers of raping Palestinian women “while perfectly cognizant of the fact” that the women would later be killed by their families as a matter of honor. Ms. Daniel described the alleged Israeli practice as a “war crime.” She and her father would later claim that the passage was the result of a “technical” error.
The most prominent of the “personalities” featured in the list of signatories is none other than former French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine. Védrine was French Foreign Minister in September 2000, at the time the French public television broadcast its Al-Dura report and offered the controversial footage free of charge to other news organizations around the world. Barely a year and a half later, in January 2002, he would respond to the first manifestations of what would become a massive upsurge of anti-Semitic incidents in France by archly observing: “One shouldn’t necessarily be surprised that young French people from immigrant families feel compassion for the Palestinians and get agitated when they see what is happening” (Radio Classique, 12 January 2002).
But what if what the young French people “see happening” — notably, on the nightly news — is not in fact happening? As one of the most dogged partisans of France’s traditionally pro-Arab Middle East policy, it is not hard to appreciate how Védrine would have an interest in suppressing criticism of France 2 and its Al-Dura report. (For Védrine on French “Arab Policy,” and many other things, see here.)
Perhaps the most notable member of this “list of ignominy” is Robert Ménard, the founder and Secretary General of the Paris-based NGO Reporters Without Borders: or “RSF” as per its French acronym. Ostensibly dedicated to the defense of press freedoms and freedom of speech around the world, RSF’s reports are frequently cited in the American press and blogosphere: including by “pro-American” and “pro-Israeli” bloggers. In recent years, RSF has specially cultivated the goodwill of the blogosphere by launching initiatives like the “First Online Free Expression Day” and compiling a list of countries it designates as “Internet Enemies.”
As I noted in a recent exposé of the organization, however, RSF has maintained a conspicuous silence on the Al-Dura affair and France 2’s prosecution of Karsenty. At first glance, this might seem surprising, since Karsenty would appear to be the very model of what RSF colorfully refers to as a “cyber-dissident” in other contexts and the prosecution of him by France 2 would appear to be a textbook example of an attempt by a state agency to suppress speech. It is far less surprising, however, when one realizes that RSF receives a substantial chunk of its annual budget from the French government — including direct subsidies from the French Foreign Ministry — and major financial contributions from the European Commission as well. (On the RSF financials, see part I of my exposé here.)
It is on account of this massive funding by France and the European institutions that I have suggested that RSF be referred to not as a “non-governmental organization” (NGO), but rather as a “para-governmental organization”: a “PGO” whose supposedly objective assessments of the situation of press freedoms around the world are in fact largely and obviously influenced by the political agendas of its principal state sponsors. (See part II of my exposé here.)
Robert Ménard’s attitude to the Al-Dura affair is just further confirmation of the “PGO” status of Reporters Without Borders. By breaking his silence and signing the Nouvel Observateur “Appeal,” Ménard has now explicitly come out in favor of suppressing Philippe Karsenty’s right to criticize Enderlin and France 2. He has thereby pulled off the remarkable feat of outing himself and the “press freedoms” organization he heads as, in effect, enemies of free speech.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
John Rosenthal’s writings on European politics and transatlantic relations have appeared in English, French, and German in such leading publications as Policy Review, Les Temps Modernes, and Merkur. He holds a PhD in philosophy and he taught political philosophy and classical German philosophy before turning to journalism. More of his work can be found at Transatlantic Intelligencer.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
14 Comments
1. Augean Stables » Omerta and the European MSM: Rosenthal on the Al Durah Case:[...] to all of you who have contributed. When it Comes to Al-Dura, Journalists Are Against Free Speech Despite the Al-Dura ruling, reporter Charles Enderlin can still count on his colleagues to stand by [...]
Jun 20, 2008 - 4:53 am 2. Sissy Willis:It sounds like gang warfare, with the Cliques [Enderlan and the signatories] facing off against the Outlanders [Karsenty and his fellow seekers of wisdom and truth], and Richard Landes gets it just right:
“I put up the following astonishing ‘public letter of support’” for Charles, that paragon of journalistic virtue who is inexplicably allowed to be the target of criticism from people who are not part of the clique. It’s classic ad hominem with no regard for the evidence. In the future, these cosigners will be part of a list of ignominy, the in-crowd that kept the al Durah affair from seeing the light of day for so long. Amazing.”
Against the need to regain lost “honor” amongst their peers, mere truth is nothing to the Cliques. As Shelby Steele wrote In another context regarding what motivates leaders of the Islamist terrorist community, they “have used menace to make their people visible in the world, to bring them back into the scheme of history.”
Jun 20, 2008 - 5:41 am 3. Richard Landes:this list of signatories will supply a generation of graduate students with the beginnings of thesis research on the dysfunctions of the MSM in early 21st century Europe.
Jun 20, 2008 - 9:02 am 4. expat:I cannot believe that the Nouvel Obs just deleted the link to the commentaries on this petition – if they felt there were ‘inflammatory’ or ‘racist’ or any other type of inacceptable remarks (by using well-known standards…) they could have just deleted/moderated these out – but to delete everything! Why has this been noticed only by a very few people (and blogs)? For me this is a VERY black/white situation, the Nouvel Obs is also fighting AGAINST free speech. Thank you very much M. Rosenthal for talking about this situation in a very clear, objective way. I just wish the NYT, or the IHT, or the WSJ, or Le Monde, or Le Point or any of these guys would give this issue a really good look (while using the FACTS). I read the Appeal Courts ruling (in French) – wow the facts kind of speak for themselves!
Jun 20, 2008 - 10:04 am 5. Steynianism 174 « Free Mark Steyn!:ps – was also very interested in your report on RSF – I was surprised and rather destabilised by that signature, now I understand why…
[...] PAJAMAS MEDIA– “When it Comes to Al-Dura, Journalists Are Against Free Speech” …. [...]
Jun 20, 2008 - 11:36 am 6. Georges:Thank you for writing this article .
Among the sixty or so original signatories you can also find Jean Lacouture who was “grand reporter” till 1975 at “Le Monde”.A very well known ,even famous “journalist”.
This is what I wrote as a reaction to the “Appeal”: (From Wikipedia in french)
En novembre 1978, Jean Lacouture reconnait ses erreurs sur ses présentations du Viêt Nam et des Khmers rouges. Dans un entretien à Valeurs Actuelles, il déclare :
« avoir pratiqué une information sélective en dissimulant le caractère stalinien du régime nord-vietnamien. Je pensais que le conflit contre l’impérialisme américain était profondément juste, et qu’il serait toujours temps, après la guerre, de s’interroger sur la nature véritable du régime. Au Cambodge, j’ai péché par ignorance et par naïveté. Je n’avais aucun moyen de contrôler mes informations. J’avais un peu connu certains dirigeants actuels des Khmers rouges, mais rien ne permettait de jeter une ombre sur leur avenir et leur programme. Ils se réclamaient du marxisme, sans que j’aie pu déceler en eux les racines du totalitarisme. J’avoue que j’ai manqué de pénétration politique. »
(Wikipedia).
Vrai ?
Il a signe ?
On reconnait ses “erreurs” et tout rentre dans l’ordre ?
Ethique ?
Vive le journalisme !
06.06 à 06h58
A lesson for the next generation of journalists !! Lacouture confesses he lied ,knowingly in his articles !! 2 million people died and he says he did lack political insight !He signs again . He is 86 ,he didn’t learn anything !
Jun 20, 2008 - 12:19 pm 7. Marina W.:Let us all thank G-d Sarcozy is a new President. The process has started with Chiraque being a president. And we all know how biased and anti-Semitic alumni from ENA are, no matter what a party they belong to. I have followed the whole process on the http://www.camera.org. And with the French “democracy” and “freedom of speech” it seemed to have only one end: Karsenty had to loose. But the appeal happened after the elections. And the new president is’t anti-Israel and anti-Semitic at all. It shows of course how powerfull a French president is in a matter like this, but this time the bad guys lost, and that was great.
Jun 21, 2008 - 11:45 am 8. Bernard:I’ve read the shocking article in the Nouvel Observateur and thought: oh my! They mean it serious! All that stuff they say! They really protect MSM journalists from the freedom of speech. They ATTAC not merely Karsenty but the freedom of speech and don’t even feel ashamed! I cannot imagine a NYT correspondent being so shamelessly open. An American MSM journalist would probably cover his or her hatered under a clever or stupid pretext of “justice” or “democracy” or “sencitivity”. But French ones doesn’t even need pretexts. Actually they say that it’s wrong to give everyone the right to defame a respected journalist. Wow. Wow! I read this and think: G-d bless America. And thank you, G-d, France has the new, non-anti-Semitic president.
http://www.amnestyinternational.be/doc/article7893.html
Jun 22, 2008 - 10:57 am 9. Bernard:En novembre, le commandant d’une compagnie de l’armée israélienne a été acquitté de tous les chefs d’accusation concernant l’homicide d’Iman al Hams. Cette adolescente de treize ans avait été abattue par des soldats israéliens en octobre 2004 à Rafah, dans le sud de la bande de Gaza, alors qu’elle passait à proximité d’une tour fortifiée de l’armée israélienne érigée en face de son école. Selon un enregistrement des transmissions de l’armée, le commandant avait affirmé que « tout ce qui bouge, se déplace, dans la zone, même un enfant de trois ans, doit être tué ». Le chef d’accusation d’homicide n’a pas été retenu contre le commandant ni contre aucun autre soldat, le tribunal ayant considéré que l’officier supérieur n’avait pas enfreint les règlements relatifs à l’utilisation des armes à feu. Le tribunal s’est limité à la question de savoir s’il avait eu un comportement inconvenant en tirant à plusieurs reprises sur l’enfant alors qu’elle était blessée ou déjà morte.
Snipers with children in their sights
Palestinian civilians have been killed by the army with impunity
* Chris McGreal
* The Guardian,
* Tuesday June 28 2005
* Article history
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/28/comment.israelandthepalestinians
This article appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday June 28 2005 . It was last updated at 00:01 on June 28 2005.
It was the shooting of Asma Mughayar that swept away any lingering doubts I had about how it is the Israeli army kills so many Palestinian children and civilians.
Asma, 16, and her younger brother, Ahmad, were collecting laundry from the roof of their home in the south of the Gaza Strip in May last year when they were felled by an Israeli army sniper. Neither child was armed or threatening the soldier, who fired unseen through a hole punched in the wall of a neighbouring block of flats.
The army said the two were blown up by a Palestinian bomb planted to kill soldiers. The corpses offered a different account. In Rafah’s morgue, Asma lay with a single bullet hole through her temple; her 13-year-old brother had a lone shot to his forehead. There were no other injuries, certainly none consistent with a blast.
Confronted with this, the army changed its account and claimed the pair were killed by a Palestinian, though there was persuasive evidence pointing to the Israeli sniper’s nest. What the military did not do was ask its soldiers why they gave a false account of the deaths or speak to the children’s parents or any other witnesses.
When reporters pressed the issue, the army promised a full investigation, but a few weeks later it was quietly dropped. This has become the norm in a military that appears to value protecting itself from accountability more than living up to its claim to be the “most moral army in the world”.
As Tom Hurndall’s parents noted yesterday after the conviction of an Israeli sergeant for the manslaughter of their son, the soldier was put on trial only because the British family had the resources to bring pressure to bear. But there has been no justice for the parents of hundreds of Palestinian children killed by Israeli soldiers.
According to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, the army has killed 1,722 Palestinian civilians – more than one-third of them minors – as well as 1,519 combatants, since the intifada began nearly five years ago; the comparable Israeli figures are 658 civilians killed – 17% minors – along with 309 military. The army has investigated just 90 Palestinian deaths, usually under outside pressure. Seven soldiers have been convicted: three for manslaughter, none for murder.
Last month, a military court sentenced a soldier to 20 months in prison for shooting dead a Palestinian man as he adjusted his TV aerial, the longest sentence yet for killing a civilian, and less than Israeli conscientious objectors have got for refusing to serve in the army.
B’Tselem argues that a lack of accountability and rules of engagement that “encourage a trigger-happy attitude among soldiers” have created a “culture of impunity” – a view backed by the New York-based Human Rights Watch, which last week described many army investigations of civilian killings as a “sham … that encourages soldiers to think they can literally get away with murder”.
In southern Gaza, the killings take place in a climate that amounts to a form of terror against the population. Random fire into Rafah and Khan Yunis has claimed hundreds of lives, including five children shot as they sat at their school desks. Many others have died when the snipers must have known who was in their sights – children playing football, sitting outside home, walking back from school. Almost always “investigations” amount to asking the soldier who pulled the trigger what happened – often they claim there was a gun battle when there was none – and presenting it as fact.
The military police launched an investigation into the death of Iman al-Hams last October only after soldiers went public about the circumstances in which their commander emptied his gun into the 12-year-old. He was recorded telling his men that the girl should be killed even if she were three.
Colonel Pinhas Zuaretz was commander in southern Gaza two years ago when I asked him about the scale of the killing. The colonel, who rewrote the rules of engagement to permit soldiers to shoot children as young as 14, acknowledged that official versions of several killings were wrong, but justified the tactics as the price of the struggle for survival against a second Holocaust.
Perhaps that view was shared by the soldier who shot dead three 15-year-old boys, Hassan Abu Zeid, Ashraf Mousa and Khaled Ghanem, as they approached the fortified border between Gaza and Egypt in April. The military said the teenagers were weapons smugglers and therefore “terrorists”, and that the soldier shot them in the legs and only killed them when they failed to stop.
The account was a fabrication. The teenagers were in a “forbidden zone” but kicking a ball. Their corpses showed no evidence of wounds to disable them, only single high-calibre shots to the head or back. The army quietly admitted as much – but there would be no investigation.
Jun 22, 2008 - 10:57 am 10. ‘Inner struggle’ kills our people, Musulmaniacs rape our women » Winds Of Jihad:[...] * When it Comes to Al-Dura, Journalists AreAgainst Free Speech [...]
Jun 23, 2008 - 9:01 pm 11. tehag:By publicly stating their convictions, the signatories become known as people who can be trusted to side with right people. From the list of signatories to the online petition supporting Enderlin will come future employees of France 2 and the EU.
Jun 24, 2008 - 3:23 am 12. G.F. Budapest, Hungary:Bernard, spare us your sweating exhaustion and “work”. We all know your sources, Der Gurdian, “B’Tselem” and “Hujman Rights Watch”. I think at moments like this at official press-conferences the asked person reply with the fancy formula: “No Comment!”. Have you ever heard it Berny?
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:00 am 13. adon:Thanks to John Rosenthal for excellent coverage of European hate and hate apologists.
Jun 30, 2008 - 1:54 pm 14. Augean Stables » The Nouvel Obs Petition Signers: Study #1 - Jon Randal:[...] as having behaved like Enderlin, guilty of the same journalistic offenses. And John Rosenthal identified a number of people who had not business signing so partisan a petition. I’d like to begin a series here on some [...]
Aug 10, 2008 - 7:54 pm