By Delaney Newhouse | Copy Editor
Journalists can’t just write whatever they want.
It seems like a strange statement in an era where accusations of “fake news” abound. So-called independent journalists often run rogue, and it’s far more common to get filtered, entirely biased information from social media influencers than going straight to the source.
I can’t blame people for this. It’s encouraged by the algorithm.
The fact is, though, that journalists don’t get to choose everything we write. We are held to a variety of professional standards. In the U.S., most publications use a set of guidelines set forth by the Associated Press — the AP stylebook.
The stylebook can be useful. It’s good to have consistency both within and across publications, and it ensures that everyone uses standardized spelling and efficient syntax.
This need for consistency, however, can turn stifling with topical guides.
On recent issues, the Associated Press writes, “Use Palestine only in the context of Palestine’s activities in international bodies to which it has been admitted. Do not use Palestine or the state of Palestine in other situations, since it is not a fully independent, unified state.”
It seems reasonable.
After all, the AP is right. Palestine is not a fully independent, unified state. There are even caveats — if I am referring to both Gaza and the West Bank, I can call these areas the Palestinian territories, with a lowercase “t.”
But then I see the inequities. The AP allows me to write about Kurdistan and use its name. Taiwan, Somaliland, and even the wildly-disputed Transnistria do not have these restrictions.
Maybe the issue isn’t that it’s not a unified, independent country. Maybe the issue is that the existence of Palestine — historically, factually and prophetically — is inconvenient for the U.S.
AP style ultimately makes its topical guides so as not to offend the public. This means staying within the Overton window — in other words, within the bounds of what is considered “normal” and “acceptable” at this time.
Typically, the bombing and starvation of a civilian population on the basis of a terrorist attack would not be acceptable. Frankly, it should never be acceptable.
This is where that topical guide comes into play. Israel is not in a “conflict,” and certainly not with Gazans or Palestinians in general. AP style says this series of war crimes must be referred to as the “Israel-Hamas War.”
The fact that Israel has made ground incursions into the West Bank where there is no Hamas, killing hundreds in October alone, is irrelevant.
The fact that Israel has denied Palestinians the right to return to their homes, displacing 1.9 of Gaza’s 2.2 million residents this year? Irrelevant.
And the fact that nearly 70% of those killed in this so-called war on Hamas are women and children? Well, that certainly can’t be considered relevant.
Israel is fighting Hamas, after all, not Palestine. There is no Palestine.
By calling these devastating acts a “war,” we refuse to recognize the truth: the Israeli military is attacking Palestinians because they are Palestinian, not because of Hamas, an organization that the Israeli government funded for decades.
And by refusing to recognize Palestine, we are further promoting the idea that Palestinians have no claim to their own homeland.
In a country where congressional officials attack university presidents for recognizing students’ rights to protest for Palestinians, speech is becoming more difficult and dangerous, and our journalism merely reinforces the idea that dissenting voices in this U.S.-backed campaign of terror do not — or should not — exist.
In a congressional hearing, Rep. Rick Allen asked Columbia President Minouche Shafik if she had read the Bible. “Are you familiar with Genesis 12:3,” he asked. He argued that it was the responsibility of all people to support and “bless” Israel, lest they be cursed by God.
As a Christian, I can tell Rep. Allen he needs to read Romans 9:6-7. As an American, I can say that threatening a university president with curses on the basis of out-of-context Bible verses is not how we ought to govern. As a journalist, I weep, because this was treated as normal by most media outlets.
Our government uses threats to enforce by constantly working within the duality of Republican and Democrat. Looking to create a false impression of objectivity through balance between the platforms of two remarkably similar political parties, journalists are failing to live up to their ultimate purpose on this issue. We aren’t afflicting the comfortable, and we certainly aren’t comforting the afflicted; we can’t even acknowledge their country exists.
The things we say and write matter. The words we use shape the understanding our readers and listeners have of the world.
How can I talk about the massive injustice done to Palestine — the state, the nation, the political identity, the people — if I can’t say Palestine?
