Recently, a group of more than 70 news media and civil society organisations signed an open letter urging Israel to allow foreign journalists “independent” access to the Gaza Strip.
The letter argues that the complete absence of foreign media in Gaza is raising pressure on local journalists and allowing space for misinformation and disinformation to flourish. The letter, the majority of whose signatories are based in the West, highlights how information from Gaza is becoming harder to obtain, with more than 100 journalists killed so far, and how even the news that manages to be delivered is constantly questioned over its integrity.
While the letter addresses how Palestinian journalists are operating under extreme conditions, it is important to emphasise that they have been the primary source of information about the unprecedented scale of human suffering in Gaza for the last 10 months. And even if foreign correspondents made their way into Gaza, they would still need to partner with local journalists to be able to report efficiently.
The ongoing genocide in Gaza and the crucial role played by local Palestinian journalists in documenting it professionally despite the absence of (largely Western) foreign correspondents in the besieged strip has finally proven to be the albatross that exposes how local journalists in conflict zones are systematically relegated to the background of global conflict reporting. The nature of the political economy of conflict reporting makes local journalists almost invisible to a global audience until a Gaza-like situation arises.
The practice of de-professionalising local journalists by Western media isn’t unique to Gaza. “Local hands”, “Our eyes and ears on the ground”, “the paid best friend of a foreign correspondent”, and “additional information filters”. These are some of the terms used by journalists working for global media outlets primarily based in the West to refer to local media workers in conflict zones, many of whom are trained journalists with years of experience working for the local press.
The choice of words used to describe them – fixers, producers – is indicative of the deliberate de-professionalisation suffered by local media actors, who are important enough to be hired to produce the story but not when it comes to receiving recognition for their professional contributions.
Challenges faced by local reporters
This normalisation of a hierarchy when it comes to global conflict reporting – where local journalists are rendered invisible and foreign correspondents affiliated with Western media receive all the credit and recognition – is exploitative, has a significant impact on their financial security, and stunts professional growth.
Several eminent global media outlets that hire local journalists for conflict reporting pay them at significantly lower rates for their work in comparison to staff reporters. In addition, a 2019 study conducted by Colleen Murrell reveals how some foreign journalists gatekeep the contact information of talented locals so they are not easily ‘discovered’ by competitors. Therefore, subjugation to a “local status” by global media limits career advancement opportunities for media workers based in conflict zones.
This questioning of the legitimacy of the reporting done by local journalists is also captured in the letter by foreign media organisations calling upon Israel to allow them independent access into Gaza.
Regardless of their invaluable local and contextual knowledge and the help they offer foreign journalists in navigating linguistic and cultural barriers, they’re often ignored when it comes to providing other editorial inputs, such as the right angle or focus of a story, despite demonstrating their ability to do so.
Furthermore, in the few instances that these local reporters are able to put forth editorial inputs, they are met with excessive scrutiny from their foreign counterparts. This questioning of the legitimacy of the reporting done by local journalists is also captured in the letter by foreign media organisations calling upon Israel to allow them independent access into Gaza.
Other grievances of a more severe nature raise serious questions about ethical standards in conflict news gathering and reporting.
The lack of editorial control sometimes leads to situations where local journalists have found the outcome of their original reporting to be heavily modified upon publication. The lack of acknowledgement by way of a byline – and sometimes even of a formal contract – leaves them with little recourse against such deceitful practices which could endanger them and destroy their credibility within the communities they live and work in, as well as with their sources.
If local voices are erased, does the audience get the whole picture?
While mainstream news gathering and reporting on conflict poses several challenges for local reporters, they can also have consequences for the audience’s understanding of conflict in general.
One of the primary arguments used by Western journalists to exclude local journalists from providing editorial inputs is a presumed bias that emanates from their proximity to the conflict being reported.
However, according to research by Omar Al-Ghazzi, associate professor in the Department of Media and Communication Studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science, this argument has been crushed.
Al-Ghazzi conducted a study in which Syrian reporters were interviewed regarding their experience working with Western media. Results of this study revealed that their closeness to the conflict is the source of the “embodied” knowledge that potentially enhances the accuracy of the reporting.
It is therefore doubtful that subsuming local reporters’ voices leaves audiences with a better understanding of the realities of conflicts.
Local reporters’ role in humanising conflicts
While one of the main objectives of foreign correspondents working for global media is to report on the conflict factually in terms of the number of casualties or displaced individuals, most local reporters, who are themselves living through a conflict, find their mission to be the documentation of human suffering and giving voice to local communities.
In a way, they are not just carrying out the simple task of reporting but also performing emotional labour. This affords them a unique vantage point, making them better suited to tell stories that humanise conflicts, bring the audience closer to voices from the ground, and elicit empathy.
During a conversation with Norul Hoda Khokan, a fixer and media worker based in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, who often works with global media outlets to report on the Rohingya refugee crisis, I asked him how he perceives his role. His response was quite striking. He said he sees his reporting as “humanitarian work” rather than strictly journalistic. Ro Yassin Abdumonab, a fixer from the Rohingya refugee community, presents himself as a “humanitarian and social activist” in addition to being a fixer on his X profile.
This is in sync with how humanitarian journalists view their role and work practices to be different from those of traditional journalists, and warrants discussion on the humanitarian values enmeshed in the journalistic practices of media workers who live and work in conflict zones. Media organisations such as The New Humanitarian, HumAngle and a few others are rare exceptions that commit to a distinct category of conflict reporting centring and amplifying local voices from the epicentres of conflict zones, which is the need of the hour.
In the past few years, the world has seen the highest number of conflicts since World War II, and there are more refugees in the world than ever before. Therefore, the need for a humanitarian angle to be a considerably larger part of conflict reporting by mainstream media organisations with global audiences has never been this urgent.
This can only be achieved by forging meaningful professional partnerships with local media workers based in conflict zones, treating their editorial inputs seriously, ensuring the voices they represent are not made invisible, and reporting on the events that affect them the most.
