Can Western Journalists report freely from Lebanon?

A short footage (interestingly not found on the Sky News website) shows how Sky News reporter Alex Crawford is attacked while reporting live from the Dahia suburb, Hezbollah’s stronghold in Beirut. The fury of the unidentified person confronting her was ignited by her use of the word “militia” referring to Hezbollah (the US and 60 other states and organizations designated Hezbollah as a terror organization). This self-appointed “editor” preferred “freedom fighters” and warned Crawford “you speak in the middle of Dahia, you have to be careful in what you speak”.

This is an enlightening piece, bringing to the forefront what usually remains in the shadows: the atmosphere in which journalists reporting from areas controlled by terrorist organizations work. It can be direct or tacit, blunt or sophisticated, but intimidation and violence is always in the air. I am sure that journalists working in Lebanon are aware of the history of western journalists and other western citizens abducted by Hezbollah in the eighties and nineties. Probably the most famous one is Terry Anderson, AP correspondent who was held for seven years as a hostage until freed. Others were less lucky, murdered in captivity and later having their bodies damped on the streets.

How can one fairly expect impartiality, balance and accuracy from reporters under these conditions? Perhaps this is the proper context to understand Crawford’s reports from Lebanon.

She supported Hezbollah outright lie denying responsibility for the rocket attack that killed 12 children in Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights. Ironically, Sky News in Arabic reported that  United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has found Hezbollah to be responsible for launching the rocket. The US Security Council attributed responsibility to Hezbollah in an official statement.  The same conclusion was reached by AP, after visiting the scene and consulting with experts.

Even more problematic is Crawford’s concluding sentence accompanying an interview with Lebanese foreign minister after the Majdal Shams massacre: “Lebanese authorities who’re in direct contact with their Hezbollah partners are urging restraint whilst encouraging the Americans to leverage pressure on the Israelis to rein in their lust for revenge“. Note how the Lebanese are portrayed as “moderate” while Israelis have “a lust for revenge”, a sentence bearing antisemitic connotations justifiably bringing a  complaint from the board of Deputies of British Jews. However, choice of words aside, Crawford fails to recognize that since Hezbollah began to attack Israel on October 8^th, in support of Hamas massacre of Israelis, it has rejected diplomatic efforts to establish a ceasefire if the terror organization will only withdraw north of the Litani river, as already stipulated by UN Security Council resolution 1701 of 2006, ending the previous war. Who is the party with a lust for war?

However, hard questions should be asked also at the editorial and managerial levels of Sky News: Can a journalist report freely from a territory controlled by terrorists? Even if the urge to have a reporter on the ground is irresistible, is it a good idea to expect her to fairly analyze the broader picture, rather than reflect local perspectives? And finally, aren’t Sky News viewers entitled to a proper discloser of the restraints facing their reporters in such areas, as so vividly seen in this footage?