13 Dec 2012

What 'Impartial' Means At The Oz

By Jake Lynch
Chris Mitchell claims The Oz is committed to running 'impartial information'. That wasn't apparent when Christian Kerr reported on Jake Lynch's boycott of a visiting Israeli academic
Journalist Christian Kerr recently filed a series of critical articles in The Australian about me over my support for an academic boycott of Israel, and then boasted to friends about using the paper to further his own views on the subject.

Kerr posted on his personal Facebook page that he was "proud of breaking the story" about my refusal to host a visiting academic from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem because, in his opinion, the boycott amounted to "institutionalised racism masquerading as a statement of liberty" and was "contemptible".

The next day, the Canberra-based correspondent reported that the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), which I head, "may be breaching the Race Discrimination Act".

Equating support for the boycott with racism is a contested question at the heart of Kerr's story. Peter Slezak, of Independent Australian Jewish Voices, described it as a "slur" calculated "to demonise those who speak out publicly in support of Palestinian human rights and international law".

Professor Wendy Bacon of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism told NM:

"When reporters have a personal stake or interest in a story, they should be very careful to give someone against whom they are making allegations the right to respond. Otherwise you can end up doing hatchet jobs, getting things wrong or creating stories to meet your own agenda".

I was not quoted in Kerr's article about the Race Discrimination Act.

In emailed replies to questions from NM, Kerr attributed his Facebook page entry to his excitement at "the feeling of breaking a story that generates an enormous amount of comment and interest".

The Australian is known for its strong editorial lines, but its mission statement, issued on the publication of its first edition in 1964, promises "impartial information". A profile of editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell, published last year in The Monthly, said "Mitchell and his staff take this credo seriously. They refer to it often and cite it in their defence when criticised".

In a telephone interview with NM, Mitchell said he was not concerned about Kerr's own political views tilting his reporting: "Any reporter is influenced by their own personal views ... you try to obtain some sort of internal balance" by using a range of sources.

Asked how this could be reconciled with the Australian's commitment to impartial news, Mitchell added: "After 40 years as a journalist and 21 years as a national newspaper editor, I wouldn't get into the idea that any reporter has ever been completely unbiased".

Peter Fray, former Managing Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, told NM, "journos obviously do have personal views and they should keep them out of news reporting", although Kerr, he believes, had "every right to get excited... I am not sure [he] was biased".

Another of Kerr's articles quoted Opposition Deputy Leader Julie Bishop, calling on Foreign Minister Bob Carr to "reveal" whether AusAID knew of CPACS' support for the boycott before granting it $47,000 under the International Seminar Support Scheme in 2010. The ISSS pays conference expenses for delegates from a list of developing countries — not Israel, which is a high-income country so it is assumed Israelis can pay their own way. As an open, competitive scheme, ministers have no role in determining the outcome of individual applications.

Professor Stuart Rees, Chair of the Sydney Peace Foundation, told New Matilda: "Julie Bishop's comments appear to make no sense. Either she was speaking with her foot in her mouth, or the reporter failed to spell out the nature of the grant [to get the quote]".

Up to the time of publication, NM was seeking a response from Bishop. Both her office and Christian Kerr declined to specify whether these aspects of the scheme were fully explained before she made her comments.

In a separate development, CPACS' governing Council this week reaffirmed its commitment to the academic boycott of institutional ties with Israeli universities, and expressed support for the stance Lynch had taken, by 16 votes to one, with two abstentions.

Jake Lynch explains why he supports boycotts here.

Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article

To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.

Enter your comments here

Posted Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 15:51

So...if we were to take ourselves back 30 years and somebody decided to boycott visiting white South African academics, would Christian Kerr have thought that was 'racist'?

Tony Windsor summed up The Australian perfectly when asked if he read it.

"No. I buy Sorbent."

Posted Friday, December 14, 2012 - 13:23

The border with Gaza is open, the fighting has stopped, there is no more justification for academic (or any other kind) of boycotts of Israel.
If you are really concerned about peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, then you would encourage both nations to have their most gifted and talented artists and academics get together and be heard by others, and to exchange ideas and focus on similarities, not differences.
If you want to boycott an academic, because they are particularly extreme and have an inability to understand another person's point of view, then by all means do so, because this is a legitimate reason to boycott a person from any nation (not just Israel) with a public profile.
Not all Israelis hate Palestinians, just as not all Palestinians hate Israelis.
And many from both sides deplore the fighting and wars.
The most important thing is to stop blaming one side or the other, because that won't help, it only hinders the progress of peace.
So if you haven't got something constructive to say about the situation as it is now between these two nations, then it's just carping criticisms from negative people that use hateful words which lead on to justify destructive actions.

Posted Friday, December 14, 2012 - 22:20

According to Denise, "The border with Gaza is open, the fighting has stopped," and presumably Israelis and Palestinians are sitting down in Jerusalem together to dine on felafel and hummus.

We know this is not the case. We know that the "fighting" (that has at least stopped) was in fact Israel raining down high-tech death on near-defenceless Gazans... again.

We know that if you are a young to middle-aged male, you are going to have one heck of a difficult time crossing that "open" border.

We know that the outrageously right-wing government in Tel Aviv not only continues to build settlements, it seems to want nothing more than open war with Iran; preferably fought by "friendly" nations such as ourselves on their behalf.

We know that Israel insists on being recognised as a "Jewish" state before peace talks (ha, ha) can resume.... though where would such recognition leave the million-plus Arab citizens of Israel?

Boycotts are not designed to convince the Denises of this world of anything. Boycotts exist to change things, whether some people like it or not.

Posted Saturday, December 15, 2012 - 01:42

The state of Israel will fail, it does not have the legs to stand on its own, and tthe support it has relied upon will disappear.

Posted Saturday, December 15, 2012 - 10:20

The old game of double standards that the Left so like to play. Go back to Paul McGeogh's biased diatribe about the Gaza flotilla where he didn't bother to disguise his allegiances.
"McGeogh's sneering comment likening Israeli forces to hyenas gives away his bias, as does his failure to report on the links of the (Turkish extremist group) IHH to Hamas, al-Qa'ida and other jihadi groups."

And all Jake Lynch has to whinge about are some exuberant comments on Kerr's FaceBook page.

Sorry Professor, if you decide to pursue a blatantly Arabist personal line in the way you operate your misnamed 'Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies' you need to be prepared to take the flak you deserve.