Ep 250. - Gaza: How The Mainstream Media Laundered the Truth | Hamza Yusuf
Since the brutal ongoing genocide in Gaza, we have witnessed not only a deepening humanitarian catastrophe but also cracks appearing in Western narrative control. Stories are changing, editorial lines are shifting, and public trust in legacy media is eroding. At the same time, Palestinian voices, once pushed to the margins, are being amplified like never before through social media and alternative platforms. What we’re witnessing now isn’t just a shift in how Gaza is covered, but who gets to shape that coverage. For years, the dominant narrative has been tightly controlled: Israel as the democratic victim, Palestinians as aggressors. But that story no longer holds, at least not unchallenged.
You can find Hamza Yusuf here:
X:https://x.com/hamza_a96
IG: https://www.instagram.com/hamza.a96_/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7vXiAjVFnhNI3T9Gkw636a
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-thinking-muslim/id1471798762
Sign up to Muhammad Jalal's newsletter: https://jalalayn.substack.com
Transcript - This is an automated transcript and may not reflect the actual conversation
Introduction
0:00
The BBC has committed to laundering Israeli war crimes and yet the Daily Express laundered it, whitewashed it and diluted it. They made their objectives clear and the media effectively
0:09
covered for them. What's your reflections on on the way the Guardian have acted over the past 2
0:14
years? The groundwork was laid by the media. It framed the entire thing as war, as self-defense, Israel's right to defend itself. No amount of this audacious backpedaling is going to wash
0:22
its hands of its complicity. We need people who are going to actually shatter that and say Israel is a settler colonial state. kind of the monopoly on the truth has now changed.
0:29
The mainstream media has whitewashed Israeli crimes for the past 20 months. Independent
0:34
investigative journalist Hamza Yusf explains why the tide is turning on this genocide and
0:40
how perceptions of this apartheite state will be shaped for generations to come.
0:50
Hamza Yalamlaykum and welcome back to the thinking Muslim. Pleasure to be here. It was really great
0:57
to have you with us. Now the last time we had a conversation, it was a good maybe a year ago or at least within a year. Um we spoke about the complicity of the media and how the British media,
1:08
the international media has operated in a way in which they have accepted given uh credibility to
1:15
this genocide. Things have changed. There's been a palpable change in the last few months and more
1:22
critical headlines. Even for Daily Express had a front page uh which was quite critical,
1:28
very critical of Israel. That picture of the aerial shot um in I think it was a Jordanian
1:34
airliner has made its way around and maybe a year ago and a half ago, we would not have got
1:42
uh messages and and pictures like that on our on our mainstream media on sort of the
1:49
uh the the print media and otherwise. So things have changed and I just want to understand the nature of that change today. Now maybe a good place to start is the Guardian because for a long
1:59
time especially Muslim Muslim communities but also progressives have seen the Guardian as as probably
The Guardian’s role
2:05
the better of the papers you know the the type of paper that does challenge authority. But over
2:11
the last nearly two years, since October the 7th, uh the Guardian has has played a horrible role in
2:19
um in not being a voice for the public conscience, but actually e it's echoed the worst impulses of
2:26
this sort of genocidal state of fascism or genocidal Israeli state. Um uh let's just
2:33
talk about the Guardian. Like what's what what's your reflections on on the way the Guardian have
2:39
acted over the past two years and where they are now? I always say we've we've had conversations
2:47
across the board communities and we've spoken about you know that what would do we do moving forwards kind of the reckoning and and and how you move away from entrenched mindset. Yeah. And
2:57
I've said one of the fundamental ones is leaving behind this idea of the Guardian as a as a kind of a source of thorough journalism, as a bastion of good investigative journalism. It hasn't just
3:08
been a a passive bystander. It's been an active participant in this genocide. And you know, it had the aerial shot like most other outlets the other day. It ran a front page and in its article
3:17
it said it's it looks like the aftermath of an apocalypse. Now, that's not the conclusion that The Guardian was drawing for us before. If you take a look at the coverage from quite early on,
3:26
um you look at as as in what I call the critical moment post October the 7th, right,
3:32
when you needed um really thorough journalism, you needed to be objective and the commitment to what the Guardian's own website says, the commitment to factecking, truthtelling. It wasn't that. 18th of
3:42
October, they had the the aftermath of the first bombing of the hospital at Ali Hospital. and the
3:48
Guardian ran a thorough investigation about that and concluded it was actually a failed explosive. Now that that's not just incorrect, but it's also that gave that gave credibility and legitimize
3:59
this notion that yes, Hamas and other Palestinian groups use hospitals, use civilian infrastructure
4:04
and effectively justified Israel's uh subsequent sustained assault on hospitals. That was 18th of
4:10
October 2023. 11 days in some of the articles and some of the um reporting afterwards it effectively
4:19
uh was a continuation of that around I think it was the 24th of October um they had a a roundup
4:25
a daily roundup of all the days events and they included that uh Israel has been uh attacking terrorist targets in Gaza no caveat no qualification that was included then included
4:36
the death toll a few paragraphs down and that included the Hamas run health ministry and also said we can't independently verify these claims. So the Israeli side is given uh complete
4:46
you know freedom that Israeli lies or Israeli press releases are effectively regurgitated in Guardian articles right at the beginning. Yeah. Few days later the 24th of October um sorry the
4:56
27th of October they had an article about the Hamas run health ministry. Can we trust the
5:02
Hamas run health ministry? That was the 27th of October. 30th of October 2023. They then said,
5:08
"What are human shields and how has Hamas been accused of using them?" A few a few paragraphs down in that same article, it said, "Uh, the evidence shows that Hamas um fighters protect
5:18
themselves from the IDF using these hospitals." So again, this is effectively Israeli propaganda being incorporated into the Guardian's articles. And that was for me, I think when you look back,
5:27
that was a moment in which the Guardian should have been um kind of questioning, challenging, and doing actual journalism. Rather, it seems they were they were operating from
5:36
a set conclusion where Israel is protecting itself. Israel is um waging a a campaign of self-defense in in accordance with international law. And you know that is I think a plain uh a
5:48
textbook case of manufacturing consent. When you needed the Guardian to challenge these narratives, it didn't and it quietly manufactured concern for Israel's barbarity. So as far as I'm concerned,
5:56
when you look at now the coverage when they talk about apocalypse, that is because of the Guardian's coverage. And all of these examples is how um the garden continued. If you look at they
6:07
they used to run uh frequent podcasts where they kind of interrogate the day's events and and and look through there was one in November 2024 looking at you know the moment in which the
6:16
settler movement was had their eyes on Gaza. Yeah. And they just had the headline as set preparing to move to Gaza. That's not that's that's a a kind of a real deceptive framing of what's happening.
6:27
Yeah. Really pass a very ambiguous language within the description. and it said uh Palestinians are forced to flee. Now, they're describing land theft, systematic dispossession, ethnic cleansing,
6:35
but they're not using those words. 15th of May, I think it was, they had another podcast, um where they were talking about the the settlers obstructing the aid. Yeah. And
6:45
they they they framed this was at the peak of um when the blockade was was in action, the re the
6:50
reimposition of the blockade. And they described it as well um Israel accuses Hamas of stealing
6:55
aid. Hamas denies it charge. And then it it was basically left as an allegation. you make up your mind, he said, she said. So rather than frame things and report things as categorical facts,
7:06
again, they're reducing it to to allegations. Um, what I found the most egregious from the Guardian
7:12
was irrespective of the facts, they continued to report with a with a particular conclusion in mind. So there was one which was striking was on the 23rd of March this year, which was
7:22
a a thorough report about um speaking to doctor at NASA hospital in Gaza. Um and their kind of their
7:30
claims and their their testimonies revealed that as we obviously seen the footage that children are overwhelmingly and disproportionately impacted by Israel strikes. Yeah, that's the 23rd
7:39
of March. 24th of March, the NASA hospitals bombed by Israel. In the report, it says that this was an
7:46
attack on Hamas militants and based on extensive intelligence and Israel took steps to mitigate harm. Why is that sentence included if by the garden's own account evidence exists to suggest
7:56
otherwise? And this happened a few times. There was another one where one of the correspondents um in July actually uh 2nd of July ran an exclusive that if you remember the beach calf
8:06
massacre a few weeks ago that um 500 bombs were used um and they said it's you know this is this
8:13
shows the indiscriminate nature of Israel's bombs and this may constitute a war crime 3rd of July.
8:19
The same person who wrote the article then carried out a report about the intensifying bombardment in
8:24
Gaza. Yeah. and again included the claim that this appeared to be targeting Hamas terrorists. So that
8:30
is in my eyes a failure of journalism. You have facts, you have context that can be applied and woven in and you're choosing not to include them. Instead, you're repeating these narratives. And
8:39
if you go through the archive, if you go through the Guardians coverage from October 7th till now, there's been a shift of late, but there's always these kind of caveats and qualifications. Israel
8:48
operates um in accordance with international law. They've they've even recycled press releases. Like
8:54
there's I've read articles and it says Israel has not commented but has previously said it targets hospitals because Hamas uses human shields. You've got these constant sentences are inside
9:03
the Guardian's own report. So they're they've basically committed um whether it's editorial
9:08
policy whatever it might be the reason they've committed to to um providing only a partial picture very deceptive picture and and and effectively under reportporting the reality.
9:18
Yeah. Now the reason we know this that it's a conscious decision is if you look at the coverage since in the last few weeks there has been a bit of a shift. One I think example was the other
9:29
day I think 31st of July um and it had an article which the headline was how Israel caused a famine.
9:35
So now they're accepting that it says calculated policy. Inside the article it included a line that
9:41
Israel has been calibrating hunger in Gaza for decades. So that information is readily available
9:46
to the editorial team to journalists to reporters and that's not included. August the 4th there was
9:51
another article from um quoting UN experts that this is unsurprising that Israel has been um using
9:58
starvation as a weapon of war. It has been the policy of mass starvation has been Israeli policy for a while. within that it included a segment or the quote of Yo Gallant, then defense minister in
10:08
October 2023 and his his um when he imposed the siege and you know it said human animals and will
10:15
be treated as such but it had the fact that a siege had been imposed in October 2023 and by
10:20
December the impacts were clear. So this was this was this context was included. There was another one on the 25th of July um as kind of pressure was building up about the aid distribution which
10:30
have you know they've been called um orchestrated killing sites now by a whole host of human rights
10:36
organizations. Yeah. One of the correspondents at the Guardian penned an analysis and and and
10:42
basically took apart Israel's lies. It said Israel claims that Hamas is stealing aid but these um
10:48
there is no proof to suggest so um and provides no evidence. And it also included that Israel as an
10:53
occupying power has certain duties it must uphold. So these these little nuggets of information
10:59
suddenly they were challenging Israeli narratives. Suddenly it wasn't just Israeli propaganda being amplified. Why did it take so long for that? And and the fact that it's now included suggest that
11:09
information was readily available a long time ago. Yeah. What I find um really which is why
11:15
effectively I said this is self-preservation and damage control. Yeah. these articles that we've we've spoken about of late where they've accepted that there is a famine taking place
11:24
where the garden's own admission is that Israel caused a famine when this was imposed on in 18th
11:31
of March if you remember following a ceasefire where Israel planned to cut off electricity and supplies and and effectively reimpose um the blockade and siege collective punishment a
11:40
violation of international law. Yes, there were two articles, the 3rd of March and 9th of March
11:45
from the Guardian and they described it as a plan um to impose pressure on Hamas to force Hamas's
11:50
hand to return hostages. No mention it's violation of international law. No mention his collective punishment. We now know the Guardian is is party to the fact Israel has been calibrating hunger for
12:00
decades. Why was that not included? We know that according to the Guardian, Israel makes claims and doesn't back them up. Why was that not included? So suddenly there's this this um a critical lens
12:10
is applied from the Guardian but throughout it has been a consistent um it's played a consistent
12:17
role throughout this genocide. It's it's it is complicit and no amount of self-preservation now no amount of this audacious backpedaling is going to wash his hands of it complicity. And that's
12:25
why I always say when we when we kind of look back and we talk about moving forwards and a reckoning
12:30
and accountability, this idea that the Guardian is is a is a kind of a standout in the in the
12:36
media ecosystem, I think it has to be shattered completely. Today, over 2 billion people lack
Donate to Baitulmaal
12:42
access to safe drinking water. Their daily reality means walking miles for a basic life necessity,
12:50
water. With polluted waters, every sip carries risks of chalera, dysentery, and typhoid. Diseases
12:58
that claim millions of lives every year. You can change this reality by sponsoring life-saving
13:05
water wells in places like Pakistan, filling water trucks in places like Gaza, or distributing
13:12
water bottles in times of crisis. The prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said, "Giving water
13:19
to drink is the best of charities. Follow in his footsteps and give the gift of clean water today.
13:29
Turn your compassion into hope. We should abandon any belief that the guardian stands for values
The Guardian malignant?
13:39
uh which are separate, independent from the state. And actually a guardian like any other
13:44
broadcaster has a very sort of malignant uh approach to uh to uh events and to issues to
13:52
conflicts in this case to genocide uh if these uh genocides are inconvenient uh for the state. Yeah.
14:00
I mean in effect Israel has been committing an uncompromising genocide and the Guardian committed seemingly to preventing the public from um piecing together that reality. Yeah.
14:11
There there may be roots to this. You know, if Declassified UK revealed um that in November 2023,
14:16
one month into the genocide, bear in mind 10,000 Palestinians were killed by that point, we saw the scenes, systematic carpet bombing, ruthless pummeling of Gaza. Yeah. And the the
14:25
editor, Kathina, alongside the editor of the Financial Times and the BBC met with an Israeli uh former Israeli uh army chief. Wow. On his what they called is really like a propaganda tour to
14:36
see where the media is and how it can insulate and and and promote Israel's war. Yeah, I mean you could look at that as cause and effect. I did an investigation for Declassified in February this
14:46
year where I spoke to uh I spent weeks speaking to countless journalists in different newsrooms. The
14:51
one at the Guardian that I spoke to said that they've got a comprehensive spreadsheet where they've documented and logged the Guardian what they say malpractice. The Guardians failures by
15:02
by by their using their words and one of the key things was the usage of the word uh the phrase the
15:07
Hammers Health Ministry. And yes, that did stop in December, but that's because of internal pressure. They they mentioned things like um if if the if the liberal Zionist newspaper like Harets can use
15:17
words ethnic cleansing, why can't the Guardian? Now, the Guardian on the 11th of May ran a piece
15:23
and editorial that um talked me said that Trump should end this horror and in it contained the
15:28
sentence, if this is not genocide, then what is? But it wasn't using those words before and
15:33
staff picked up on that. So, there's definitely been a shift. There's definitely been something of a backpedaling, whatever you want to call it. I call it shameless self-preservation. And yeah,
15:43
the Guardian, as as we've mentioned, has been uh complicit in this. And I think the barometer is if
15:48
I was to to send you an article now from the Times or the Telegraph, you'd be you'd be a bit like,
15:54
oh, that's that's Rbert Murder or the Telegraph, that's right-wing broad sheet. You know that the Guardian doesn't have that caveat within our communities. It's seen as still whether it's
16:02
a up and cominging journalist, they they'd like to have a column in the Guardian. Yes. Or it's seen as if you share the guardian like oh that's good thorough journalism. I
16:09
think that has to be ditched completely. Yeah. Exactly. Permanently because it's shown it sings from the same himsh sheet. It's operated from the same playbook and if the media as a whole
16:18
the mainstream media ecosystem has been complicit that includes a guardian. So let's then uh look at
Media’s narrative change positive?
16:24
the the general landscape. Right. You've called it shameless self-preservation. Uh we've seen
16:29
changes as I I mentioned in the introduction. The Express had this front page where it showed the
16:34
aerial footage of the devastation of of Gaza. Uh we've had a number of outlets that are now
16:40
far more critical of Israel. Um some would argue that's positive. You know, we've we've moved the
16:48
conversation finally in a direction which is more favorable uh to reporting the facts. Um
16:55
do you see any glimmer of of positiveness in in this change? No, I think yeah, I think it's
17:00
moral grandstanding. I think, as I said, it's shameless self-preservation. Um, and it's very audacious and I think they're trying to rewrite history. Um, the Daily Express you mentioned,
17:09
that was almost a a watershed moment. That was a real moment of poignency where everybody was like the the image of the the malnourished child with the mother holding them and that kind of created
17:20
shock waves and I think the Guardian ran with it as well. Um, an image on social media by the political editor. But let's now again I go back to this critical moment of where journalism really
17:29
had to stand up and be accounted for. And that's post October the 7th. Yeah. The Daily Express on the 10th of October ran the beheaded baby story. It said pure evil beheaded babies by Hamas. On the
17:39
same day there's an article still up on its on its um online website digital page. One of Israel's
17:47
oldest reserve fighters as just as all the other Israeli officials were queuing up to express
17:52
genocidal intent. They said maximum damage, no accuracy. We reduce cars at city of tents. All
17:57
of this this this is what they promised. That is what they did. He said, um, erase them and their
18:03
families, make leave nobody behind. These animals don't deserve to live. Those were his words. That
18:09
was reported in the Daily Express in the headline. It said, "Israel's oldest fighter send his message of hope to boost troop morale." That's not what he did. He made explicit genocidal intent. That is as
18:19
explicit genocidal rhetoric as it gets. Yeah. And yet the Daily Express laundered it, whitewashed it, and diluted it. And that is a metaphor for what they've done throughout. So as far as I see
18:29
it, when the Daily Express shifts now, it's too little too late. And again, as you mentioned, everybody's doing it. the independent um international correspondent, chief international
18:38
correspondent was aboard one of these planes, the Jordanian airdrops uh the aid airdrops and
18:43
they um kind of they had a they released a video Instagram social media, sorry, the independent
18:50
social media and an article and they described it as chilling. They they described the devastation
18:55
that was that was that they witnessed in Gaza. Again, this same this is the author of the of
19:02
the the article that's still up. Uh I believe it's still up on the on the website, but at at the very least it was the front page of the independent on 11th of October that Hamas decapitated beheaded uh
19:12
Hamas decapitated children. Um so again that is as clear as you want that is the quiet manufacturing
19:18
of consent when you're witnessing now and you're describing these chilling scenes that is because of outlets like yours at the Independent and the BBC. What I found one of the most shameless acts
19:28
was Jeremy Bowen. Yeah. Who is again a bit like the Guardian is widely seen as this um standard
19:33
bearer of principal journalism. Now he was aboard the plane before these scenes came out. I think him and uh BBC and Sky were were allowed access. And they made the point that we're not allowed to
19:43
film. But he said, "I've stood outside looking at these I've stood up from these window looking for about 10 minutes. And he said there's nothing left. Entire communities have been flattened."
19:51
Yeah. But his broadcaster, his employer has played an indispensable role in laundering Israeli war
19:56
crimes. Think back May 2025, the European hospital was bombed. How did the BBC describe it? Um,
20:02
Israel targets hospital um Hamas control and command center and use precision uh uses precise
20:08
strikes. Think back to one of the worst cases I think of Hindra Rajab who had 335 uh bullets
20:16
from a tank fired at her mercilessly killed her and it was described as Hindra found dead. Think
20:21
back to the ground the groundbreaking Amnesty International report of um concluding Israel's
20:27
committing genocide and how that was described. Think back to the the Amnesty International report in 2024 that concluded Israel's committing genocide. Yeah, when the BBC news was reporting
20:37
that it had a line at the bottom, Israel denies fabricated claim of genocide. So the BBC has
20:43
committed to to laundering Israeli war crimes. Israel has committed a litany of war crimes, crimes on an industrial scale, and they've been repackaged and exported to the public as as just
20:53
standard military strategy. Now, Jeremy Bowen himself, he wants to seemingly wants to now be
20:59
remembered as the one who was a critic who who undertook comprehensive, thorough journalism. Yeah, he's pinned a few articles of late where he's looked at this um Israel, he's talked about
21:08
Israel's isolation. He's talked about uh kind of he's got a long read, I think it was in June,
21:13
where he looks at the wider context that the genocidal intent that was made, the rhetoric, the
21:18
fact that Yalan and Netanyahu have arrest warrants out for them. He's looked at um the the death toll
21:25
and actually can and actually said there are credible reports that it's not um it's much higher than it's been reported. So he's shifting a little bit. Let's go back to 2024, the end of 2024
21:35
when Israel was waging um war on on Lebanon. They claim it's a campaign against Hezbollah. We saw
21:41
the destruction in Lebanon. The Pager attack that was uh deemed by Amnesty International immediately
21:47
as a as a war crime and UN experts and the human rights community were in unison that
21:53
this was a a grave violation of international law at the very least. Jeremy Bowen's got an article still up of analysis of this attack, this Israeli pager attack. He called it a triumph,
22:04
a tactical victory, a spectacular coup. That's how Jeremy Bowen was describing Israeli war crimes.
22:09
That's how he was whitewashing and diluting it to the public. So when he now stands above Gaza and he talks about the destruction, it's because of the coverage that he has allowed. It's because
22:17
of the coverage of the BBC. It's because of the tools that were used to downplay, to distort, and to dilute Israel's war crimes. So this is, I think, textbook cause and effect. when these
22:26
journalists stand stand up and and talk about the destruction of Gaza, it's because of the practices and editorial standards that they that they committed to uh for the last 22 months. And we've
22:36
we've identified a few from the Daily Express to the Independent, the BBC, all of them have done it. The Daily Mirror has got um I think it was one of the first with kind of the front pages. I
22:45
think it was back in maybe maybe April or May and again it had a picture of a a malnourished child
22:52
and a plea from the mother. Um the author of the article is the defense and security editor at the
22:58
Daily Mirror. That was the front page. He's got an article still up on the Daily Mirror's online
23:04
um online feed. I did and and it's he's quoting an Israeli official. And he says, "I didn't just
23:10
see I didn't just see the Hamas beheaded babies. I held beheaded the behead the head in my hand."
23:15
Right. This is the author who's now asking for the for the wider public to to help with Gaza. And
23:20
that never happened. Exactly. That never happened. And there hasn't been an apology, by the way. There hasn't been any retraction. Nobody has stood up and said, "Well, actually, this wasn't this was
23:29
a lie. We pedled Israeli propaganda." None of that. So, there's a consistent theme here. They are trying, in my opinion, to engage in damage control. They're trying to to say that, you know,
23:39
actually we are we are against this malnutrition, this famine, this engineered famine in Gaza. But everything that came before, they wholeheartedly endorsed, supported, enabled via their coverage.
Manufacturing consent
23:50
You've used the term manufacturing consent there and I it's it's a term now that's been utilized
23:55
on on a number of occasions by you and others when describing just how complicit the media has been.
24:01
explain that idea to us please that you know what what is m manufacturing concern quite simply um
24:07
if we're if we're linking it to Gaza specifically post October the 7th Israel needed cover Israel as
24:14
as I've said look at the the rhetoric from Israeli officials they said burn Gaza erase Gaza they've
24:19
said maximum damage not accuracy they've said it's an entire nation out there that is responsible we're going to reduce Gaza to sit of tents they made their objectives clear and the media
24:28
effectively covered for them because throughout about rather than the media cover these crimes, rather than Israel be held to account, rather than that the media frame this as as a genocide,
24:37
rather frame it as a campaign of mass slaughter, systematic pummeling of Gaza, they instead consistently covered for Israel, they insulated the public from the reality of Israel's
24:47
uh violence and and systematic uh destruction and annihilation of Gaza. So they laid the groundwork
24:53
for Israel to continue. the articles you mentioned of about the Hammeran Health Ministry and the Guardian that cast a bit of doubt in people's minds about can can it be trusted when
25:01
you're talking about um hospitals being bombed and residential communities entire you know
25:07
civilian infrastructure being targeted and it being described as a precise attack or precise using precise munitions to mitigate civilian harm. All of this is propaganda. All of that is allowing
25:17
Israel to continue its bombardment safe in the knowledge that it won't be held to account. It won't be described vividly and categorically. it'll be reduced to aversion or an allegation
25:25
or at least to a um a kind of a legitimate military strategy. So the groundwork was laid
25:30
by the media. It framed the entire thing as war, as self-defense, Israel's right to defend itself rather than look back at it and say Israeli officials vowed to destroy Gaza and they are
25:39
now doing so by targeting hospitals by discrim indiscriminately and overwhelmingly targeting
25:45
children. The facts on the ground were not described. Instead, justifications and narratives
25:50
were built to allow Israel to sustain its uh its its destruction of Gaza. Over the last 22 months,
Good journalism?
25:56
um have you seen examples of good journalism? Because of course uh the media isn't a monolith
26:02
and and yes, certainly it seems to me that institutionally the media were manufacturing consent, the mainstream media were manufacturing consent. There must be occasions where individuals
26:13
they fought against uh that. I mean Channel 4 News comes to mind actually as an institution that maybe has done a better job has it you know in the last 22 months. Uh James O'Brien on LBC
26:23
maybe you know has he has he done a better job in in holding uh the uh the powers that be to
26:29
account. Uh Ishan Terru comes to mind Washington Post. You know you've had some examples of of good
26:37
journalism or positive journalism possibly. I mean how would you evaluate these individuals?
26:42
Just a point on channel 4 which I found interesting. Um if you remember the I think the
26:47
5-year-old Palestinian girl w there was a f there was the infamous clip now she's going through the
26:53
flames all her family's killed. This was a few a few months ago and I remember channel 4 did and channel 4 have done a lot of good reporting. I remember channel 4 doing a good report on this
27:04
um and Christian and Guru Murthy who's obviously renowned presenter and he he put a tweet out and
27:10
he said great report you know everybody must watch this social media user commented below and said
27:16
great work it's finally good to see channel 4 engaging in good journalism Christian Gurumoth replied and said that's fine if you believe that but clearly you haven't been paying attention but
27:26
actually channel 4 as well kind of engaged in this um kind of Maybe not to the same degree as others,
27:32
but I remember November 2023, Krishna Gurumi aggressively grilling Benjamal, director of PSC,
27:38
Palestine solidarity campaign about from the river to the sea. And you you know is was that the best
27:44
use of resources, best use of time as Israel was waging a campaign of mass slaughter on Gaza. Yeah.
27:49
And I remember the clip at the time and Christian Gurum is is is effectively asking him like are
27:55
you calling for the destruction of Israel etc. as Israel has called and is destroying Gaza. So yes,
28:02
there has been good journalism, but across the board, even James O'Brien, who admittedly within the first two weeks quickly shifted and said, you know, it's clear what Israel is doing. But
28:11
there are moments in which it depends on how far they are they're willing to go. So individually, some journalists have been good. Um there has been some good um instances of, you know, reports
28:20
and investigations and kind of thorough a thorough breakdown or challenge of Israel's narratives. But
28:26
on the whole, I'd say the majority of the media ecosystem and kind of the notable correspondents,
28:32
journalists, reporters, editors have largely sunk from the same himsh sheet and that that is the one
28:37
characterized by laundering Israeli war crimes and effectively um selling a different story to the
28:43
public as a genocide wages. What do you make of the most recent economist front page again which
Economist front page
28:48
seemed to be at least on face value quite critical of Israel? I think it had the picture of the um
28:54
uh the destruction and and um it was a a a title and I can't remember you probably remember the
29:00
title but Israel needs to self correct itself you know with and and um if Israel is is to continue
29:07
as a liberal democracy then it needs to face up to you know what it's done um like h evaluate
29:15
that for me like you know because again on on face value it seems like this is it you know they're
29:20
being very critical of Israel. Yeah. Israel must hold itself to account. Yeah. And and it's still
29:26
I think in the article it still called it a just war and it was still fairly justifiable in their
29:31
eyes. And again this represents the shift. Yes. They're calling a bit more critical. They they've published a few articles of late where they're looking into Israel's isolation
29:38
and the consequences of this. But I I remember an article by the Economist in November 2023. Um
29:45
I think it was an editorial and it said why Israel must fight on. Yeah. And that was a month in where
29:51
again the signs of destruction were clear, the intent was clear, and Israel's um campaign of annihilation was clear for all to see. So I always whenever I see something today or in recent weeks
30:01
or recent months, I go back to what they were saying when it mattered. And so the Economist, yes, has joined in this chorus of condemnation. But the way I see it is that when it mattered,
30:10
they weren't they weren't using that language. They were justifying and and actively calling for Israel to continue and sustain its its its genocide. So yeah, I think that encapsulates all
30:19
the all the editorials you'll see all the front pages you see. Now I think it's important for people to go back to the archives and to then see what people are saying, what outlets were saying
30:27
and different commentators, broadcasters, the press ecosystem where they were and they were in unison that Israel is allowed to carry this out. Um and they they're now viewing as if it happened
30:37
in a vacuum. They're now seeing the destru Oh, look at the destruction. Oh, look at look at the horror. the horrors is the depth of the horror is because of the practices that you sustained and
30:46
and the the legitimacy you gave to Israel and the cover you provided them with. Uh so this chorus for condemnation that we now see I mean apart from self-preservation what else is behind that
Public opinion’s role
30:56
I mean would you argue that just public opinion grassroots activism has kept the attention on Gaza
31:04
and has in a way embarrassed the newsrooms into uh into a position that um at least have been mildly
31:12
if not completely critical of of Israel. There's definitely a sense that pressure has has built
31:18
up and it's now almost impossible to ignore. And again, it goes back to if they're now reporting on
31:23
things now, the question is, in my opinion, should not be right, let's applaud them for it, for this
31:28
noble journalism. It should be, well, then if you knew this information, why did you not release it sooner? A very good example of this in the last, I guess, 48 hours at the time of recording, yeah,
31:38
is this the spy flights. There is now an admission and there's coverage from the times, times radio,
31:44
ITV and the Guardian. Like Matt Kennard was alone for a while. Yeah. Matt Kenned did a lot of work
31:49
on this. Declassified UK did a lot of work on this. Declassified UK doors stopped one of the the
31:54
head of the RAF and asked him about this. I saw that. So this has been in the public conscience
32:00
if you like not as a result of the mainstream media and now they're running it and the times is is now saying well you know we we know that RF spites are still in the air etc. But this has been
32:10
known for a long time. But because it's almost now borderline impossible to ignore, the public know
32:15
everybody's know because of because of alternative journalism, because of independent journalism, because of public pressure, because they're realizing maybe the depth and degree of Britain's
32:23
complicity. And so there are aspects which are almost impossible to ignore. They now have to run these. Um I do think there was an element of protecting protecting themselves and now suddenly
32:34
shifting um where the the kind of British state and and the politicians are slowly shifting and so the media must too cuz they're always in unison anyway. So yeah, there's definitely
32:43
I think when you look at the pressure that's come from from below, whether it's journalism, whether it's grassroot activism, whether it's the protest, whether it's the continued calls for
32:50
accountability, raising questions in parliament that are that the mainstream would rather not be mentioned. I think all of that has played a part and it has contributed to something of an
33:00
awakening which has long been in the making at the grassroots level, but the media can't ignore it because it's now, you know, when it becomes, as I said, impossible to ignore. But I go back to it.
33:10
They've known about this. the fact that they're reporting on things now as if they're common knowledge. They're trying to absorb themselves from that complicity because all of this would
33:18
have been information readily available. On the spy flights, there was a an event in parliament
33:24
uh where I I I challenged Richard Burgess, who's the head of uh BBC news content, and I asked him,
33:30
"How come we've got one article since December 2023 about this spy flight that are flying daily,
33:35
almost daily?" And he said, "Well, you know, we just don't deem them important enough. shouldn't overstate Britain's role in this. But now everyone's running them. The Guardians run it, the
33:44
the the Times, Times Radio, ITV. So clearly they were all collectively kind of withholding that
33:49
information and now suddenly they're releasing as if it's you know public knowledge and you look at our great journalism. As you said, Matt Kenned and other journalists have been raising this for
33:57
a long time and I think it does go to show there is a shift somewhat. You don't have to now solely rely on the mainstream media. there are other avenues um where maybe that monopoly of before has
34:06
been lessened and and to to to great degree now you've got uh more of a presence from alternative
34:11
and independent media. Can I can I maybe quickly talk I know we're talking about the media here but um a very similar thing has happened in politics over the last couple of weeks we've seen more
Perspective on political shift
34:22
critical voices from you know K star and David Lamin. Apparently the Labor government has has
34:28
changed track and and are more willing to accept the Palestinian state and have said that they'll
34:34
declare one in September. Like what are your thoughts as a Palestinian journalist? What are your thoughts on this about turn politics? Um you know would you put it down to self-preservation
34:45
again? What's happening there? Yeah, I think I think the same. I think they've realized that maybe within their constituencies um more and more people are raising it up. It's simply like
34:53
an issue that won't go away and rightly so. And I think they they're realizing that they have to
34:58
adopt stances. The book by the Palestinian author um his name I can't remember his name and he says
35:07
uh the title one day everyone will always have been against this. Yes. And that I think that's
35:13
what this is. There is a maybe a recognition that there is a shift taking place that hold on a minute history won't judge us kindly. there will be a reckoning and will be will be held to account
35:22
and I think they're slowly trying to maybe rewrite history a little bit. I think that's what it is. Put aside maybe other um political motivations for maybe people like we're treating maybe leadership
35:32
um leadership ambitions. David Lambie the same um as foreign secretary maybe doesn't want to he
35:37
wants to maybe depart from the leadership and and maybe look at the fact that well actually I I did take a stance but again he met with he met with Netanyahu he shook his hand when there
35:47
was an arrest warrant when there was attempts for an arrest warrant I think it was golan who
35:52
is the Labour party leader in Israel when he was here um David Lami I think personally intervened
35:58
to ensure that wasn't the case or at least promised him that nothing would come of it so the these people have shielded Israel Well, from at every every chance now any shift is is rooted
36:08
in in in self-preservation and and I just think cynical damage control. I mean, some people have
“TikTok Intifada”
36:13
described this moment as the Tik Tok in Tifada, uh, a digital uprising, not just about Gaza,
36:20
but all sorts of, you know, um, injustices in the world and Gaza has been the lightning rod. Um,
36:26
would you go as far as to say that there's been a a a really substantial shift in the way narratives
36:33
are now weaved into public consciousness? Yeah, I think 100%. I think people aren't aren't waiting
36:38
for BBC News at 10 to find out what's happened. They're not waiting for news. They're not waiting for the press preview. Facts are being spread and amplified and propagated from much earlier in the
36:47
day. You've got things, you know, something happens in Gaza. You've got instant footage. You've got Telegram. You've got Tik Tok. We've got Instagram, Twitter, raw, unedited footage.
36:55
Whereas before, they could frame it, they could repackage it, they could sell it to the public as, you know, this is with all the caveats we've just described, you know, this is within international
37:03
law talking civilians. But when you see, as we've unfortunately seen all the tragic scenes, all the devastating scenes, you know, beheaded babies, we've seen mangled bodies, we've seen,
37:12
you know, limbless bodies, we've seen shredded bodies, we've seen burnt bodies, we've se we've seen everything. And so people are seeing that and then also seeing the media's description of it and
37:20
thinking something's not adding up here. And I think there are a lot of people if you if you want the the indifferent or the the fence sitters who probably that's who the media may be trying to
37:30
reach but it's just not having the same impact. I think everybody has now largely made up their minds where they stand on this. And that's because the the the fabricated narratives that you would
37:39
have you would have seen in years gone by the the the kind of the concealing of the reality and the
37:45
the the projection of partial perceptions that we would have witnessed before that has now changed. you've got raw unedited footage from the people on the ground which is conveying the realities
37:54
and and so when now I think when people watch the media like myself if I tune in every morning and read the Guardian Times, Financial Times, I know what's happened the night before because of
38:04
Instagram, Twitter, I'm not looking for the flaws in their reporting rather than go to them for the
38:09
for the full picture. So you see a hospital being bombed and you read in the Washington Post or the New York Times or the Guardian of this attack on a control and command center, but you've seen the
38:17
unedited footage. you've seen the destruction and the annihilation and the campaign of erasia has taken place. So yeah, I think the the kind of the monopoly on the truth has now changed. I think the
38:27
media is not um necessarily a leader but possibly a follower in this in the sense it's now as with
38:32
the spy flights forced to break things not because it's the it's taken a lead but because others have broken and there's now a call and urgent action from the public for the media to also follow
38:42
through. I mean is there a danger having said that of us creating our own echo chambers here
Alternative medias
38:48
and you know alternative medias will have their own constituencies you know so so Navara media
38:53
whatever it may be you know you you mentioned a number of of alternative uh media organizations
38:59
today um they will have their audiences and those audiences somewhat maybe bubbles uh whereas you
39:07
know mainstream media will be able to at least historically uh all constituencies would access
39:13
to BBC would access Channel 4 News, right? Um, is there a danger that we delude ourselves and
39:19
I mean delude probably that's just too strong a word, but we we fool ourselves into thinking that
39:24
alternative media outlets are impacting public consciousness where in reality they're um uh no
39:32
more than substantiating uh in the minds of people who already know there's a genocide taking place.
39:40
uh that you know they're giving sort of the details about genocide. Do do you get my question like how do we make sure that alternative medias actually do access broader spaces? Yeah,
39:49
I think that's an important question because social media is an example of echo chamber where you think you've you the views that you see daily and you know the different versions and different
39:59
approaches because there are still people out there who haven't seen you know that devastation that you talk about. I mean, if you if you step out of the kind of the metropolitan cities and you
40:09
might think, oh, you know, we've got a largely guard and and the polls do do reflect that the
40:14
public is with on the side of Gaza and and kind of categorically rejects Israel's campaign, but in terms of nuance perspectives, you talk about, you know, people are maybe still wedded to
40:24
old old theories and old ideas like the two-state solution. Yeah. So when you when you then you're
40:29
kind like you mentioned you're in a bit of an echo chamber in the sense you're preaching to the converted whereas you need to have that broad church I think and I think that comes with a
40:38
rejection of the mainstream media and a and a and a credible alternative in the space and I think that's happening slowly I think if you look at the growth of places like declassified UK Palestine
40:47
deep dive middle east eye double down news people are seeking and you speak to people in events and you think people it's not just your demographic it's not just your community people across the
40:56
board have rejected the mainstream monopoly the the establishment across the board and it's I think building that um that wide range of support but it comes it's it's not easy because again
41:06
obviously they have media has much more resources um you know it's it's got it's had decades in the
41:11
making of building the infrastructure that it has whereas independent alternative media is mainly you know small teams and everybody kind of working 10 times harder but with a rejection of
41:20
the status quo which you're probably seeing within the politics and media arena when an
41:25
alternative is sustain and built then you maybe have more chance of of it going longer term and reaching more people rather than having you know YouTube show and everyone that tunes in believes
41:34
in the same thing. You want to be able to reach those people on the fringes as I said the fence sitters the indifferent who we have seen to be fair people that are now saying oh the two-state
41:43
solution is an illusion that's not going to work and people understanding oh this isn't complicated you know this is set the colonial state it didn't start on October the 7th these narratives and how
41:52
you cultivate them and and and kind of propagate them I think that's an important aspect which is where all the different investigations the analysis the different commentary comes into it
42:00
where people are eager to learn more to see more to understand more and you provide that with them
42:05
rather than just simply say, well, don't listen to the BBC. What should I listen to? Well, I don't know. You have to have a readymade alternative, which I think in the media is is probably better
42:14
equipped than maybe other arenas. In a sense, there is a good there's a good foundation there, especially some of the ones I've mentioned here. I I wonder I mean I'm just want to go back a little
Importance of basic activism
42:22
bit to the the importance of of sort of like ground activism, demonstration, protests and
42:31
um uh writing to your MP and trying to uh make it make sure that at a local constituency level
42:37
especially where there are high concentrations of Muslims that our voices are heard and like how
42:42
important are these activities? because you know I I I came across a scholar recently whose name is
42:49
not dissimilar to yours I have to say um uh he was almost given the impression that yeah you can do
42:54
this stuff but it's not going to work like you're not going to change the genocide like almost like a zero sum game these things are fine it may make you feel better but they're not going to really
43:03
stop the genocide the genocide will stop you know by and I don't know how it will stop but in his
43:09
mind but it's not going to stop by these sort of very small microlevel activities how valable
43:15
people in your mind. Tomorrow is a protest. I'm going to it. You're going to it. And it's it always so happens that we bump into each other in these protests. Alhamdulillah. Uh but um a lot
43:25
of people aren't going to it because maybe they're deluded or they think that these activities aren't
43:31
that important. Just talk to me about that aspect of of um uh of keeping that public consciousness
43:40
and that solidarity alive. Yeah, I think sometimes it's not mutually exclusive. You can you can have
43:46
protests here and also have direct action elsewhere. You can have you can write to your MP but also be taking up other alternative aspects of holding to account. And I think people
43:54
sometimes assume that if you're engaging in one, you only believe in that one as as the kind of the root. I know it's limitations. I I know it's like tomorrow we're going to turn up and I know
44:02
that there are lots of limitations about them. I'm sure you do as well. Yeah. But it's it's one of those where you need a multipronged approach. you need because if you weren't a lot of people
44:11
say well you know that you get permission from the police you protest what do you achieve but you're you're still agitating you're still raising awareness and one aspect which I think is crucial
44:20
which probably understated is the impact of people in Palestine when they see this I send the clips
44:25
all the time people see them all the time and they say you know it's good that the flag is still being waved literally and metaphorically so there is that as well and like I said you have to
44:33
have a multi-pronged approach you've got we've seen direct action okay that's been prescribed but you've got other other aspects you've got People are protesting outside RAF bases. People
44:41
protesting in specific constituencies or David Lammy who's not too far from my from my area.
44:47
Uh large protest there the other day. People are in the spirit of protest taking it taking it that
44:52
bit further. The Saturday one is maybe the one where you come together and you know collective conscience and you know that sense of like the togetherness. But that doesn't mean that's the
45:00
only thing that's being done. There's a lot of work behind the scenes being done and it it all plays a part. Uh the way I see it is okay, if you weren't attending a protest on a Saturday,
45:08
what would you be doing? Is that significantly better than than attending a protest at least, you know, to for the for the to build on that conscience to to because if if everybody thought
45:18
the same way 200 people turn up, but everybody's now saying, let's take that extra step. Let's all
45:23
go there. Let's raise the banner. Let's let's make it clear to the politicians, to everyone, cuz these these the footage comes out and people see the videos and it shows the spirit is is
45:31
unbreakable. And there are other aspects to it. You know, there's so many different ways. You write to MP, you hold that to account, you engage in media work, you you you agitate,
45:39
you there are different ways of doing it. You still campaign on on the on the uh with daily
45:45
things with within the constituencies. Uh so, you know, there are different there are different ways of doing it. Um and I think a lot of people want to almost rubbish or downplay one side, but again,
45:55
it goes back to with the media. So, what's the what's the alternative? Unless you're providing alternatives, maybe it's not the best thing kind of from your ivory tower to criticize uh
46:04
others who are engaging in it. And as I said, that doesn't mean that protests are the sole avenue,
46:09
but it's one avenue among a multipronged approach of holding to account, of raising the flag, of building pressure, sustaining pressure. And there is a lot of good work done at the
46:17
grassroots level, whether it's alternative parties, whether it's different mobilization, different forms of agitation, it all plays a part in the end. young people, young Muslims, young uh
Advice to young Muslim Journalists
46:27
conscientious people. A lot of them uh inevitably want to go into the world of journalism,
46:33
but we've seen just how bereft mainstream media is and how uh maligned it acts and how close it is to
46:42
power and the narratives that come out of power. So, what are the options? Because of course these
46:48
media organizations that you've talked about, they don't have funding and uh very rarely are they
46:53
able to build very big teams. They can't scale to the size of say the BBC or or other media outlets.
47:00
How does a young person who aspires to be a journalist like yourself, you know, uh how do they um remain true to uh their political and moral u basis but at the same time
47:14
um enter this world of journalism? See there there are two ways. So we know that there's a lot of people of color, minority communities, etc. um within mainstream organizations. Now they may
47:25
be producers, they may be researchers, they may be presenters. You could argue they are learning the skills and then maybe transfer them elsewhere to build and sustain the alternative media landscape.
47:34
That is happening. There's a lot of people who have left major in mainstream organizations and are now contributing for other organizations and you've got that skill set and you learn and you
47:42
if you like infiltrate from within to you know to as Graham Shield say to bring down the system
47:48
afterwards. Um that's one option but also there's nothing wrong with g it might sound hypocritical
47:54
given the criticism of the media but you can kind of learn the trade gain that experience and then use it elsewhere because if you as you mentioned if you want to learn journalism you might try you
48:03
know middle east side or one of these other places who do great work but maybe as you say they don't have the resources maybe others don't have the same capabilities but if you take what you've
48:12
learned from somewhere else it could be LBC it could be channel 4 it could be BBC it could be Sky News and then use that otherwise to then spread a different type of message, different
48:20
type of narrative at Middle East side. That's also beneficial. Equally, journalism doesn't have to be a path that you take as you know it doesn't have to be linear. You can work in what the other field
48:30
that you're in. It could be corporate, it could be whatever else you're doing, but also commit to whether it's blogging, whether it's vlogging, whether it's engaging in some level of journalism,
48:39
a masters in journalism, a degree in journalism and understanding the trade, learning the trade, and then applying that later on. You don't have to make the jump and, you know, lose
48:46
financial security, etc. and then say, "Oh, well, this didn't work." You can build and sustain, which which I did. I worked full-time elsewhere and then slowly, you know, pitched a few things,
48:54
articles, and continue doing that. Set aside some time. And that's not to say that might work for everybody else. But it doesn't have to be one where you leave and jump head on um and you know,
49:06
oh, this didn't work or it did work. There are different ways, but I do encourage people. It's one of the fields I think which still dominated by uh kind of privately educated, middle class. It's
49:16
very it's still very kind of socially exclusive as an industry especially in the mainstream that
49:21
yes we're countering that in the independent uh sphere but we need more people who understand cuz
49:26
as I said the mainstream media works with set conclusions on Israel they have the conclusion it's a legitimate right to self-defense it's not committing a genocide and that's incorporated
49:35
into its coverage we need people who are going to actually shatter that and say this is what Israel is doing there is a lobby with with significant influence you know Israel is a settler colonial
49:43
state the terminology matters the linguistic tools matter but to maximize that you need to be a place where you have the freedom where you're not constrained by editorial standards and policies
49:52
and that's how we build infrastructure and and like I said there's not one way to build Rome wasn't built in a day there are ways to build and sustain the the infrastructure and the landscape
50:00
it just requires I think sometimes some courage some bravery and also some some encouragement people I speak to I was at an event two weeks ago and somebody said raised the same question
50:09
like should I go into journalism I'm I'm a bit ambivalent about it I said do it go for it go you
50:15
obviously protect your interests as well and you know you have fun to provide for etc. But it's a field that I still feel we're underrepresented in and hopefully the more people see kind of success
50:24
of other um outlets they can continue and feel like that's something they can contribute because it is I think a pathway to hold into account I think it's the the benefits and the fruits of
50:35
good thorough journalism has been important in Gaza. Journalists have paid for their lives for it. You know, a lot of people see it as a means of narrative and truthtelling and storytelling and
50:44
getting an alternative perspective out there and in in the in the fight against, you know, not just
50:51
the the establishment kind of settler colonial state in Israel and the wider system. That's important. I'm Jazer for all you do and thank you very much for your time today. Pleasure always.
51:04
Please remember to subscribe to our social media and YouTube channels and head over to our website thinkingmuslim.com to sign up to my weekly newsletter.