Cross-posted from The Times of Israel where Prof. Richard Landes' essay appears today as an op ed.
The ongoing French legal proceedings in which the national television network France2 seeks a criminal defamation judgement against the media critic Philip Karsenty over the network's launch of the Aldurah Affair in September 2000 comes back yet again before a Paris appellate court on Wednesday January 16, 2013. It's an important case for multiple reasons, and we plan to add our own views about it during the next few days.
Prof. Landes is an American historian, associate professor in the Department of History at Boston University, and an author specializing in millennialism.
The ongoing French legal proceedings in which the national television network France2 seeks a criminal defamation judgement against the media critic Philip Karsenty over the network's launch of the Aldurah Affair in September 2000 comes back yet again before a Paris appellate court on Wednesday January 16, 2013. It's an important case for multiple reasons, and we plan to add our own views about it during the next few days.
Prof. Landes is an American historian, associate professor in the Department of History at Boston University, and an author specializing in millennialism.
Al-Dura and the tragic legacy of lethal journalism
Richard A. Landes
Lethal narrative, murderous icon |
The
French have a saying for the idea of a public secret, un
secret de Polichinelle dans le tirroir – a humiliating fact
still hidden in the drawer that will eventually come out, like an unwanted
pregnancy. And France has one of those secrets, but rather than a life, this
particular one gives birth to hatred, vengeance, and death. The drawer rattled
recently when Mohamed Merah, native-born of Algerian parents, killed seven
people, including three Jewish children in cold blood (he filmed himself), to
avenge the way “the same Jews” kill his “Muslim brothers and sisters in
Palestine.” And many in the French Muslim community considered him a hero,
imitating rather than drawing back in horror from his violence. The prognosis
for a civil society with such an “enmity movement” in its midst is not
encouraging.
And
the secret in the drawer is the colossal failure of the French media in the
case of Muhammad al-Dura from its original occurrence in 2000 to this very day.
Al-Dura was the 12-year old boy whose alleged death from Israeli bullets in his
father’s arms shocked the world and became the emblem of the Oslo Intifada, an
image, it turns out, as false as it was powerful. So, for many good reasons,
the French, indeed every civic-minded citizen of the global community, should
pay attention to what is happening today in France’s Court of Appeals in Paris.
For
the sixth time in as many years, the courts will hear accusations by France2
against citizen Philippe Karsenty for accusing them of having run “staged”
footage as news in the case of Muhammad al-Dura. To his devotees, “le petit
Mohamed,” as he’s known in France, is “martyr of the world” because, thanks to
France2, “the whole world saw” him shot dead, the “target of fire from the
Israeli position,” dying in his father’s arms. Except that no one saw him die
on film, much less in his father’s arms. On the contrary the overwhelming
evidence suggests that it was a scene staged by France2’s cameraman, Talal abu
Rahmah, which Charles “Scoop” Enderlin, unknowingly or not, turned into
sensational news.
Indeed,
few stories better embody the lethal secret de Polichinelle that
haunts France today. France2 (and everyone else, as Enderlin is quick to point
out), runs staged footage – Pallywood – all the time: it’s a public secret that
they openly admit in private but deny in public. “They do it all the time,”
Enderlin and his bosses confided privately when confronted with the extensive
evidence of staging in his cameraman’s work. But publicly Enderlin insists,
especially when confronted with claims that he staged the al-Dura footage, “I
have 100 percent confidence in my cameraman, so much that I wouldn’t even think
of questioning him.” And yet, when the judges in the last trial saw the footage
shot by the key “witness,” France2’s Palestinian cameraman, they dramatically
reversed the lower court’s finding, with harsh criticism of Enderlin’s
journalistic standards. “And to think I asked for that footage as a favor to
France2,” one of the judges later remarked off the record.
Rather
than provoke an “aha” moment among the broader profession, however, this
decision inspired Enderlin’s colleagues to close ranks. The
prestigious Le Nouvel Observateur sponsored
a petition in defense of both his honor, and of journalistic right to report
freely, without the “chilling” criticism of lay citizens “sapping the energies
of good journalists.” The reactions combined medieval honor-driven guild
solidarities with medieval credulity: “I don’t care if it’s the Virgin Birth
affair, I would tend to believe him. Someone like Charles [Enderlin] simply
doesn’t make a story up.”
Meanwhile
Charles’ employer, the state-owned media giant France2, appealed to the highest
court, which, despite a strong opinion against from the “Parquet,” (which
vigorously defended the value to civil society of allowing such criticisms),
ruled that the appeals court had no right to demand the footage, nullified
their opinion, and sent the case back to appeals court where it arrives today,
same room, same “Palace of Justice” in Paris.
The
story of Muhammad al-Dura and the lethal journalism it has spawned deserve the
close attention of anyone who cares about press freedom and the democratic
culture it serves and preserves. No single incident better illustrates why the
West has so far fared so poorly in its encounter with the forces of global
Jihad in the new millennium, why Western progressives have consistently lost
ground to some of the most repressive forces on the planet.
The
affair combines three traits in a deeply toxic stew: the absurdity of the
narrative in the face of the evidence (Sherlock would not give it a second
glance); the way in which some fashioned that narrative into weapons in a Jihad
of vengeance against the Jews (Bin Laden and other recruiters for global
Jihad); and the determined refusal of journalists, whose profession is to
investigate, to re-examine the matter despite the extensive
damage it occasioned. The result has been more than a decade in which credulous
journalists have pumped poisonous lethal narratives about Israel into Western
information systems as news, feeding the worst instincts of a radicalized
minority, and crippling the ability of more sober people to understand the
situation, much less resist what Bin Laden called, “the strong horse” of global
Jihad.
Karsenty
accused Enderlin of “being duped and in so doing duping us,” and that, claims
Enderlin, is an intolerable and unacceptable blow to his honor. (He’s right
about all but the “unacceptable.”) The accusation can be extended to the mainstream
news media: they are duped by Jihadi cognitive warriors who manipulate them
with an apparently irresistible supply of lethal narratives about Israeli
malfeasance, and in so doing, blind us to the threats around the world to the
very decency and humanity towards which modern, enlightened peoples everywhere
strive.
In
a Dreyfus Affair of global significance, will the French
appeals court decide in favor of the right of their citizens to criticize their
media professionals, or in favor of what Daniel Dayan has called the “new
sacred institution,” the news media, and its right to use the power of the
state to save its honor by silencing criticism of its prerogative? Is freedom
of the press a privilege or a responsibility? And if it is a responsibility – to us!
– dare we stand by silently while some with access use the levers of power to
assert it as their privilege?
[All the references for this piece can be found at The Augean Stables. This essay originally appeared on the Times of Israel website on January 15, 2013.]
No comments:
Post a Comment