Interview conducted by: Mohammed Ahddad
Asef Hamidi, Managing Director of Al Jazeera Arabic Channel, says the Gaza coverage was a professional duty, not activism, and that true objectivity means reporting crimes clearly rather than hiding behind false “balance”.
Q: Was Al Jazeera’s reliance on continuous live coverage of the Gaza war an editorial decision imposed by the pace of events? And did this approach contribute to the absence of human-interest reports and investigative pieces that could later constitute evidence and historical documentation of Israeli crimes?
Covering the war on Gaza is unlike any other journalistic coverage in terms of scale, duration, the horror of the scenes, or the intensity of successive events directly linked to the issue. The truth is that it was not so much an editorial choice as a professional “imperative”; because conveying the truth live, amid everything that happened, was both a professional and ethical duty. In this case, the image was more eloquent than words. Therefore, open-ended coverage was a professional necessity that no other programmes could compete with. As for investigations and investigative programmes, these come later, after evidence has been gathered and events documented. But the priority at the time was to report what was happening moment by moment.
Covering the war on Gaza is unlike any other journalistic coverage in terms of scale, duration, the horror of the scenes, or the intensity of successive events directly linked to the issue.
Q: But dedicating open-ended coverage to the war of genocide overshadowed other events that could have been given news priority, such as what is happening in Sudan. How can that be explained from a professional standpoint?
We are not in the business of ranking causes, but even the people of Sudan followed what was happening in Gaza and their hearts were with its people. The Palestinian cause is a central cause around which everyone unites. Al Jazeera is also not a single screen, but a network that includes multiple channels and platforms, Al Jazeera Mubasher, English, Documentary, and digital platforms, among others, each of which covers different files. Even so, the channel always feels that it falls short, despite its pride in what it offers, and that is a healthy thing in order to provide the best for its audience. Therefore, it cannot be said, under any circumstances, that the channel neglected other files; because the force of the event and the depth of the cause are what imposed on us the allocation of the largest share of space to the war on Gaza.
Q: The occupation killed 12 journalists and camera operators from Al Jazeera’s team, and targeting operations were often preceded by public incitement campaigns, as happened with colleague Anas al-Sharif. Yet professional safety remains the highest priority, ahead of the news story. Was this contradiction discussed inside the newsroom?
This discussion was always present. We realise that Gaza, with everything it witnessed, was an exceptional environment unlike anywhere else in the world. We must keep that in mind, as we always seek to maintain the equation of preserving the lives of our colleagues while conveying the truth; because many people discuss the subject as though we had the luxury of choice. The situation was very clear: there was no safe place in Gaza, and Israel targets journalists as a systematic practice, not as an isolated case.
The absolute priority was safety, and our conversations with our colleagues were always focused on caution, then caution, then caution for their lives and safety. When Wael al-Dahdouh was able to leave, we received him in Doha and did not ask him to continue; because his life and safety take precedence over any other priorities.
We also always stressed: safety first, and the news comes second. But what many people also miss is that our colleagues in Gaza insisted on staying, of their own complete free will, despite the danger. This is a sign of courage, resilience and steadfastness, because they felt a doubled responsibility: they are the people of the place, and no one but them could convey the picture from inside. They used to say: if we do not report what is happening, who will? Although we provided the maximum possible protective measures, there was in reality no safe place in Gaza, as I mentioned. We appreciate the courage of our correspondents in conveying the truth, and we have paid a heavy price for it. We are keen, by every possible means, to protect the lives of our journalists.
We always stressed: safety first, and the news comes second. But what many people also miss is that our colleagues in Gaza insisted on staying, of their own complete free will, despite the danger. This is a sign of courage, resilience and steadfastness, because they felt a doubled responsibility: they are the people of the place, and no one but them could convey the picture from inside.
Q: During the Arab Spring, part of the audience assessed media coverage from a political perspective, and even in the Gaza war some believe the channel moved closer to political activism at the expense of journalistic practice. How do you read this judgement?
Let me put the question the other way round: if we had not covered what happened, should we have turned off the cameras so as not to be accused of political activism? Our duty is to report the event as it is. There are American and European channels broadcasting widely that covered what is happening in Gaza extensively, so what about Al Jazeera, which is closest to the field? Was it expected to remain silent? These are old smear campaigns launched by parties harmed by the exposure of the truth, and by those whose thinking aligns with those parties. Nevertheless, I say: our work is human work and may contain some gaps; it is not angelic work. But the most important thing is that Al Jazeera adheres to its professional standards. Professionalism is the oxygen of our survival, and opinion and the other opinion are the foundation of our continuity. What governs our professional practice inside the newsroom and in the field is recourse to professional and ethical standards. This is the secret of our continuity and also the secret of the audience’s trust in us. Al Jazeera is a channel that influences public opinion, and it is natural that some voices, and I say some voices, should emerge that believe the truth is not in their interest.
If we had not covered what happened, should we have turned off the cameras so as not to be accused of political activism? Our duty is to report the event as it is. There are American and European channels broadcasting widely that covered what is happening in Gaza extensively, so what about Al Jazeera, which is closest to the field? Was it expected to remain silent? These are old smear campaigns launched by parties harmed by the exposure of the truth.
Q: In the context of covering the war of genocide, what were the most prominent moments in which you had to make difficult editorial decisions or judgements?
Media is not an exact science like physics or mathematics, but a human and creative practice resulting from human effort. That is why judgements arise that are linked to the nature of the image and the scene. For example, when some harsh scenes reached us, we would discuss inside the newsroom: should we show them as they are, or should we obscure them out of consideration for the viewer’s feelings? Some believe that blurring conceals part of the truth, while others see it as respect for the dignity of the victims and the feelings of the recipient. Over time, these discussions became clear standards that determine how shocking scenes should be shown without compromising the truth or public taste.
It is difficult for us to assess ourselves; that freedom is left to the audience, and it is an intelligent and aware audience. But we affirm that we carried out our professional duty in conveying the truth and clarifying the contexts. We are proud of what we have presented and always seek to do better. Media is a creative field with no ceiling, and there are always spaces for renewal in methods and formats.
It is difficult for us to assess ourselves; that freedom is left to the audience, and it is an intelligent and aware audience. But we affirm that we carried out our professional duty in conveying the truth and clarifying the contexts. We are proud of what we have presented and always seek to do better. Media is a creative field with no ceiling, and there are always spaces for renewal in methods and formats.
Q: Do you think audience pressure and audience biases affect the form of coverage and the editorial decision-making process?
The audience’s opinion is certainly respected, as is its taste, but we must first know who the audience is. The audience is not one single bloc, and it has diverse opinions. No media outlet can adjust the form of its coverage to satisfy one group at the expense of another. What guides our work are the professional and humanitarian standards to which Al Jazeera has been committed since its establishment. These values are what guarantee our continuity and credibility, and on their basis Al Jazeera earned the trust of its audience. As I said, the audience has different backgrounds, cultures and inclinations, and belongs to multiple generations. Al Jazeera has always stood with the human being, and will remain so. That is the essence of its message. Objectivity and fairness are among the values that we translate into our daily work. Objectivity is not neutrality; neutrality can sometimes be a form of bias. When a journalist stands silent before a clear crime, that is not neutrality, that is blatant bias. Objectivity, by contrast, is to present the truth as it is, in its full context, without falsification or selectivity. Let me give an example to make the point clearer: suppose there is a nuclear state bombing a besieged people who possess light weapons. In that case, we cannot place the two sides on the same footing in the name of neutrality. Our mission is to narrate what is happening as it is, and to give the viewer the tools to understand reality in its human, logical and political depth, not to hide the truth under the slogan of balance. Otherwise, that slogan becomes false.
