Hamas's hostages deserve to have their suffering documented honestly - editorial

On October 7, 2023, Israeli hostages endured brutal beatings, with the photographer capturing the scene. Photographer Motaz Azaiza withheld the footage, fearing it would identify and potentially lead to the deaths of those filmed. Azaiza told The Jerusalem Post that he did not want to ruin the lives of the individuals captured on camera, expressing concern over what publication might do to them.

Azaiza's account raises questions about the compatibility of his actions with journalistic standards. While news organizations often protect identities and assess risks, withholding the truth of an assault on helpless captives cannot be justified. Azaiza has also condemned Hamas leadership for the disaster they brought to Gaza, but his testimony reveals that Hamas carries out intimidation tactics, including coordinated harassment and threats against photographers who criticize the group.

The journalist's criticism of Hamas should be covered thoroughly. If journalists faced pressure to suppress criticism of Hamas, audiences have the right to know that their perception of the war is being restricted. In 2014, India's NDTV faced similar challenges, releasing a report on rocket preparations while acknowledging Hamas's hostility to such coverage.

Despite the danger to nearby civilians, the network disclosed the constraint, exposing both the danger and the pressure surrounding coverage of Hamas's military activity.

In June, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) disclosed another failure, removing eight names from its casualty database after establishing that those individuals were Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad combatants. CPJ also removed twelve other names for other reasons, initiating a review after the groups' own obituaries identified people previously listed as journalists as combatants.

Such corrections are necessary, but they also require accountability. News organizations should disclose changes and examine how verification failures occurred.

The dismissal of 24 Al Jazeera staff contracts in Gaza raises further questions. While no direct link has been made between the dismissals and a lawsuit, allegations require examination. Al Jazeera owes a detailed account of its vetting process and responses to the evidence presented against its staff. These cases involve different conduct but expose the need for scrutiny across the board.

Admiration for a photographer, sympathy for suffering civilians, and hostility to Israeli policy do not exempt institutions from scrutiny.

Palestinian journalists doing honest work deserve protection, even from Hamas's coercion. Israel should facilitate independent reporting, and editors should demand evidence for allegations against journalists, applying the same rigor to the material those journalists supply. Azaiza should face consequences for established ethical misconduct and preserve his footage for independent verification, safeguarding the victims' privacy.

Institutions promoting him should publicly investigate his explanation, as established ethical misconduct should carry consequences for commissions, partnerships, and honors. A press committed to investigating every aspect of Israeli conduct must demonstrate equal determination when evidence implicates those attacking Israelis.