Journalism involves truth, truth can be relative, sides are thus taken and morality is then measured. Journalistic integrity involves openness to multiplicity and a willingness to engage perspective, whatever those perspectives may be. At times, when standing across the deep and cavernous valley of relativity, one person’s truth may seem like another’s lie, but as difficult as it may be, both sides must be addressed - both regions of truth must be heard. It is only then all concerned can arrive at their own conclusions and the freedom to release and thus add to our wide and wonderful world’s library of multiplicity can be employed. For RELATIVITY OnLine’s David Anthony Hohol, this is how things all come together and this is where the battle lines are drawn.
This past summer, I was offered the position of staff writer by an up and coming political website, donklephant.com. Named after the age-old symbols of the American two-party system, the Republican Elephant and the Democratic Donkey, the site professed itself to be the moderate middle representation of the dual-natured political landscape of the United States.
I was invited on board and given the unofficial title of Middle Eastern correspondent. Site editor and founder, Justin Gardner, an early 30s University of Missouri graduate and self professed Democratic blogger, extended me the invitation with enthusiasm. The process involved several emails and links to several of my editorials from RELATIVTY OnLine. He asked me to provide a genuine and “insider’s perspective” of the Arab World and touted my arrival as a contributor even before my first post:
David Anthony Hohol of RELATIVTY OnLine has lived in Dubai the last six years and during that time has also spent time in Syria, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Sudan. He’ll be giving us an insider’s perspective on issues facing the Middle East and beyond.
I looked forward to getting started and upon receiving “the keys” to his WordPress posted four blogs. The next day I was fired.
The post that led Gardner to kick me out the front door was one that cited the Israeli action in Palestine as “ethnic cleansing” and Arab World perspective of Israel as being “scheming thieves”. The subject line in my pink slip of an email message was “Scheming Thieves?” Below comes from Gardner’s message the following day.
I’m not sure what was unclear from my invitation to the site… Donklephant is about balanced coverage, not blatant advocacy.
Given that, I think it’s best we just called it a day on this partnership and left it at that. I simply can’t risk the integrity of the site.
There’s no question, Gardner’s brief and very quick reaction caught me off guard. The term ethnic cleansing was something I’d seen used several times over in publications all over the world. That very week, Time magazine used the phrase to describe how “much of the world” thinks of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. And his distaste of my stating that the Arab World perspective of Israel is that of thieves who are plotting to take Palestine away from the Palestinians was even more unexpected. I mean, this is exactly what they think and believe me, Arabs describe Israelis in far more colorful terms than scheming thieves. “What does this guy expect? Didn’t he read anything from RELATIVITY OnLine or was he desperately trying to add writers without getting to know their perspective?” I asked myself.
With a jab thrown my way, I thought it only fair I throw one of my own to even things up. Below was my response:
Hello Justin,
I must say that I am quite surprised by your reaction…. You wanted me to write about the Arab perspective (review your own description of me as an upcoming writer) and that was what I did.
My words in the article were “many in the region” (i.e. the Middle East) look at the Israelis as “scheming thieves”. That is the side, the perspective, the opinion, that offers the balanced coverage you say you want.
Balance is about both sides, not one side being free to say what they want and the other being forced to be politically correct. And when you then say, “Okay, I don’t want you to write anything at all anymore,” it makes me wonder why you even invited someone to offer you the Arab perspective in the first place. By telling me, a secular Canadian, that you don’t want me or my stories about the REAL Arab perspective on your site after asking me to do so, is COMPLETELY inappropriate and that, Justin, is where the integrity you say are trying to protect is lost.
Best of luck.
With that, I thought we each could move on in our own directions. But Gardner could not accept each of us having our own say. He wanted more. Below was his response.
David,
Actually, I said you’d be giving us an insider’s perspective, not a one-sided Arab perspective that accuses a Zionist Israel of ethic cleansing. I mean COME ON. How would you ever think that’s appropriate to post…?
What’s more… if you, as a writer for this site, use the words “scheming thieves” and then link those words back to an editorial written by you where you call the state of Israel a terrorist state, well, guess what…that makes it seems as if Donklephant is endorsing that view.
And yes, balance is about both sides. That’s why I invited you. Because I thought you were going to offer a perspective that took a look at the situation colored by more of the realities of a foreigner living in the Middle East. I can tell you that it (my post) has absolutely no integrity on the site. Think of that what you will.
And so, I once felt it only fair to even things up, and respond:
Hello Justin,
I recently posted an article about the Burka and was thinking of your last email. In the end, I guess I couldn’t resist replying to you.
It may be a rhetorical question, but when I asked you to read over my editorials so as to get a better perspective on my writing style… did you even read one article form beginning to end? If you had you would have seen where I come from and what transpired could have been avoided. You would not have wasted my time… or yours for that matter. It was unprofessional on your part not to know who it is you invite to write for you. Perhaps now you’ve learned your lesson and will be more thorough in the future.
Saying you wanted an “insider’s perspective” as opposed to a “perspective of the region” is just semantics, by the way. That phrase could be defined any number of ways. At NO TIME did you ask me for a foreigner’s viewpoint, as opposed to the Arab perspective.
Further still, calling what I wrote a “one-sided Arab perspective” is flat out wrong and prejudiced. There are many in the international community, not Arab, and not even Muslim, who hold these views. I mean COME ON, you must know this.
And this point I went on a bit of a citation rant, linking articles, news stories and even Jewish groups that hold a similiar view. I included everything from a Pulitzer Prize winning writer Chris Hedges to a story on 60 minutes. I even quoted a passage from the aforementioned Time Magazine article from July of 2009:
“And yet to much of the world, the Katzes (a family of West Bank Israeli settlers) are participating in illegal land grabs forbidden by the Geneva conventions, which do not allow an occupying power (like Israel) from settling its own civilians on militarily controlled land.”
I ended my response with the following:
The world media as a whole is shifting. You can join the fearful herd and be a follower Justin; some are better suited to do so than others. But I will join the others in the distance and lead. Being against Israeli actions in Palestine, calling them bullies… is NOT anti-Judaism. This is a manipulative lie whose shelf life is finally and thankfully reading its end. Think of that what you will.
Best Regards
Gardner once again could not simply allow each of us to have our say. He craved the last word, he needed to be one up on me, and so he let loose one more long email. In it he disputed every source or citation as isalotory or radical, even claiming the Time Magazine article was representing only one Jewish family (when the article was about the inhibiting process of Israeli settlements). I thought about evening things up one more time, but decided to just leave it. A couple of months later, the idea to write about the experience crept into my head and here we are.
I concluded my evening of writing this piece by returning to the About Us section of RELATIVITY OnLine. I read it though once more and afterwards closed my laptop for another day. A sense of purpose soon rolled through me. It also seems to be the best way to finish this discussion:
RELATVIVTY OnLine seeks to promote global citizenry through the respect, awareness, and recognition of individual perspective. Specificity over stereotypes, tolerance over dogmatism, and justice over bigotry- RELATIVITY is about the deconstruction of ethnocentrism, and its dangerous tendency to compartmentalize and diminish. There are many paths and not only one, and the values and beliefs of any single culture will never be universal.
RELATIVITY seeks to expose the bias nature of the media and the socially programmable disposition of cultures the world over. From the earliest ages, populations across the globe are conditioned into believing news coverage is both objective and factual; that television and film are agents of truth. The reality is our hard drives are bombarded with massive uploads of over-simplified, dogmatic, prejudiced information on a near daily basis. We are systematically programmed to believe what we believe and all too often, leave the act of discovery for others. The truth is found when it is sought, lies will die when they are exposed, and the beauty of freedom is often born from slavery.
Today the world is smaller than it has been at any point in human history. An international Culture War has begun and victory will come only through hope, tolerance, and understanding. RELATIVITY OnLine will stand at the front lines and we hope that you will join us.
And so the battle rages on…
Loading ...
