Journalistic Hypocrisy is Getting Harder to Hide – What Happened to Gabriele Nunziati?

Image - The Climate Reality Project

‍

On the 27th of October, Agenzia Nova terminated their ‘collaboration’ with the Italian journalist Gabriele Nunziati. This decision was made in direct response to the question posed by Nunziati to the European Commission on the 13th of October in Brussels:

‍

‘You have been repeating several times that Russia should repay for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Do you believe Israel should repay for the reconstruction of Gaza, since they have destroyed almost all of the strip and civilian infrastructure?’

‍

The response of the EU spokesperson was that it was ‘definitely an interesting question on which I would not have any comment at this stage’.

‍

The incident gained global attention, with many individuals (both readers and journalists alike) expressing their disdain for the actions of Agenzia Nova, who defended their decision to fire Nunziati as legitimate, arguing his question was ‘completely out of place and technically incorrect’.

‍

Institutions such as the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) have issued statements following the incident, with the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), Free Press Unlimited (FPU) and the Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropea (OBCT) releasing a joint, formal letter to Agenzia Nova expressing concern over Nunziati’s dismissal. The EFJ labelled the incident ‘a violation of media freedom and of the journalistic profession’, with the letter stating that:

‍

‘The silencing of those who carry out their watchdog role by posing legitimate public interest questions regarding the situation in Gaza represents a serious blow to freedom of information and a worrying sign for democracy in Italy, which harms not only journalists’ right to work without fear of retaliation but also citizens’ right to free, independent, and impartial information.’

‍

Expressions of concern have not only included statements from journalistic institutions and separate news agencies alike, but also from other independent journalists themselves. Vincenzo Genovese, a reporter for Euronews, publicly re-asked Nunziati’s original question whilst also asking for the European Commission to comment on the situation – stating that to him, the matter seemed to relate to the freedom of the press in Europe. The response of the spokesperson was to emphasise the importance of the freedom of the press, but that all questions concerning the specific matter of Nunziati’s termination should be directed towards the media itself.

‍

Agenzia Nova have since, on the 6th of November, issued an editorial statement in defence of their decision. The statement, which was ‘unanimously’ approved by the journalists present in the editorial office on the day of its release, describes their work as being characterised by the ‘utmost pursuit of impartiality and objectivity’. On top of this, they state the vision of the journalistic profession is one which ‘serves to report news, to inform, to shine a light on complex or, at times, forgotten issues’ and have therefore sought to avoid personal opinions which translate through such practices – arguing that ‘only facts… have the right to emerge in a news agency’s reporting’.

‍

What seems ironic is the decision to defend impartiality and objectivity within journalism, whilst simultaneously defending a decision which seemingly represents the crux of media bias concerning coverage of the genocide of the Palestinian people. In posing his question to the European Commission on October 27th, Nunziati clearly presented a solid foundation for why the question was journalistically relevant – the European Union’s stance on the war in Ukraine has been one of consistent discussion, so the logic to extend the discussions to cover different (yet somewhat comparable) conflicts elsewhere seems, to me, well-founded.

‍

In using the term ‘comparable’ to characterise the two conflicts, I mean that both cases are examples of colonial oppression, with a clear aggressor attempting to dominate a smaller, weaker territory. By ‘different’, I mean that the ‘conflict’ in Gaza has been explicitly described as a genocide by the UN and many more genocide scholars. Considering this, the question seems to gain even more legitimacy: despite the territory in question not relating specifically to the continent of Europe, most people would agree that the moral imperative to protect innocent civilians from such violent conflict should be characteristic of a peaceful, democratic body of which the foundations were laid in the Post-war era – after one of the most well-known genocides occurred. In response to his termination, Nunziati uploaded an Instagram post in which he stated:

‍

‘My question can only be considered bias if one needs to deny reality. It is a fact that Israel has almost completely razed Gaza to the ground; this is not an opinion. It is a fact that the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu and some of his ministers. These, and many others, are facts. On the contrary, it would be biased to deny them and not question them.’

‍

This incident is indicative of a much larger issue, one which has been obvious to the perceptive observer for some time – that there is a deep-rooted hypocrisy in the media coverage concerning the genocide in Gaza, and the history of the conflict in the region. However, this incident may also represent a shift in relation to media coverage of the genocide occurring in Gaza.

‍

Nunziati has not stayed silent. On the 18th of November, he moderated a conference named ‘Palestine, International Law and the Role of Europe’ alongside Francesca Albanese, one of the most notable public figures speaking out on the events occurring in Gaza. On top of this, Nunziati has been invited to appear on popular TV shows, such as Massimo Gramellini’s ‘in altre parole’ (translated to ‘in other words’), where they discussed the impact of Nunziati’s termination and the broader significance of the events which took place. Specifically, they paid special attention to the notion that ‘an act that intimidates a journalist in the performance of their work is an attack on the entire profession and calls into question its proper functioning’, as written by Nunziati on his social media.

‍

The events which have taken place following the question posed by Nunziati have been a near-perfect representation of the layered hypocrisy innate in the media conversation surrounding the genocide in Gaza. Not only does Nunziati’s question represent the beginning of a much needed conversation about the double standards of international bodies concerning the reaction towards geopolitical conflict, but it also created a new conversation which was long overdue: one concerning the deep-seated hypocrisy of the journalism relating to coverage of the genocide in Gaza, which has ultimately failed to portray the reality of the inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people by Israel.