Below is correspondence between Globe and Mail (Canada) reporter Mark MacKinnon and the Dominion’s Stefan Christoff and Dru Oja Jay on a piece ZNet published by Christoff and Jay on MacKinnon’s coverage of Lebanon:
Globe and Mail correspondent takes exception to criticism published in the Dominion, suggests it be withdrawn
In response to the article “The Manichean Middle East of Mark MacKinnon: Globe and Mail coverage of Lebanon suffers from ideological interventions”, Globe and Mail correspondent Mark Mackinnon sent the following response to editors of the Dominion and Rabble.ca (where the article also appears) as well as to the article’s authors. We reprint it here in its entirety:
* * *
Subject: Me and the Manicheans
Dear Stefan,
A few points on the attack essay written by yourself and Dru Oja Jay, which someone just forwarded to me:
– I quoted a Hezbollah source or supporter in nearly every piece while I was in Beirut for the demonstrations, as you’d know if you did your research. What you wrote on that point is an outright lie. If you’d like, I can forward you the stories in question with the quotes you skipped over highlighted for easy reading.
– If you called up Hezbollah (I can give you the numbers if you need them) and then called the Siniora government, and asked each what they think of my reporting, you’d find the truth is quite at odds with your essay. See my piece exposing Western funding of a pro-Siniora militia (West helps Lebanon build militia to fight Hezbollah; Friday, December 1, 2006) and another questioning the assumption that Syria was behind Pierre Gemayel’s murder (Connecting dots much tougher this time; Thursday, November 23, 2006). To my chagrin – unlike you, I actually strive for neutrality – my stories have been highlighted on al-Manar because they were unique in the Western press. You’ve picked on the wrong mainstream reporter, my friend.
– If you don’t understand that the United States, France and the Gulf Arab states (represented by the Siniora cabinet) are locked in a struggle for Lebanon with Iran and Syria (represented primarily by Hezbollah), you don’t know very much about the country you briefly visited this summer and now consider yourself an expert on.
– To suggest that I didn’t inform Globe readers about the damage done to Lebanon by Israel’s assault this summer is ludicrous and insulting. I was in Bint Jbeil, Aytaroun, Ainata, Tyre and Qana while you were back playing piano in Montreal. Unlike you, I didn’t leave Lebanon the second things looked rough. Did you take the free ferry out?
– Most disturbing, I cut off a very nice dinner in Damascus to make sure I was available to take the phone call of a fellow journalist. I now understand that your standards are not what they should be, and will advise anyone who asks me of that fact.
If I were you, I’d consider pulling your article from the Znet website – and advising Dominion, Rabble, the Lebanese Lobby to do the same.
Consider that professional advice.
Best –
Mark MacKinnon
* * *
The authors of the Manichean Middle East of Mark Mackinnon respond:
Dear Mark,
First of all, thank you for your response to our article. The Dominion has run many media analysis articles, and it is an encouraging, if tentative, sign of openness to dialogue and accountability in the corporate press that you’ve taken the time to address concerns about your reporting.
Our critique of your coverage is not about choosing sides, politically. Our criticism is concerned with accurate representation of the situation in Lebanon. Coverage in the western press has a direct effect on the fate of millions of Lebanese, not to mention their neighbours.
You are in a position of extreme privilege. Your ability to relate the situation of the colossal devastation in Lebanon to Canadians is shared by very few. The completeness of the destruction visited upon Lebanon is not something that has gone away, but due to recent coverage by you and others, Canadians are left with the impression that things have more or less gone back to normal. Canadians are also being kept from understanding what, in fact, is motivating such massive demonstrations in Lebanon.
It was because you have, at times, been willing to deliver coverage less compromised than that of your peers, that we directed our analysis toward your work in particular.
With great power comes the ability to threaten the careers of lesser journalists. But we like to think it also comes with responsibility. Responsibility to report accurately on the people whose lives will be affected by coverage that obscures their situation.
We’d like to address your claim of an “outright lie” on our part. Our claim that…
Despite the readily available Hezbollah spokespeople and hundreds of thousands of demonstrators clogging central Beirut, MacKinnon did not quote a single Hezbollah representative while he was there.
…is not technically correct. In eight of the nineteen articles we looked at, you did quote some sources connected to Hezbollah. The wording of the sentence was flawed. However, we cannot find more than three quotes that could have come from direct interviews, and none of those quotes are from current Hezbollah representatives.
We do regret the error in our wording, and we apologize for any damage this has caused. The online version of the original article has been changed to reflect this, and the sentence has been amended to say what should have initially appeared: that none of the few quotes you included deal with the motivations for the demonstrations.
We took the time to compile a list of all the quotes we found in the 19 articles we looked at between November 15th and December 8th, 2006. The picture that emerges is not particularly flattering. Perhaps your editors removed some of the quotes to which you refer?
In 19 articles, none of the quotes explain the political motivations behind the demonstrations. Indeed, we can only find two very brief instances where you discuss the stated reason for the demonstrations at all. All the rest of the quotes refer to the tactics used by the demonstrators, but not to the substance of their claims.
That a Globe and Mail reader has, in a three week period, a one in ten chance of reading an article about Lebanon that actually mentions the reason for what are likely the largest demonstrations in Lebanese history is, in our view, significant.
We are heartened, however, that you did not find any problems–in the remaining 1580 words of the article–glaring enough to merit a direct rebuttal. Those words contain many substantial claims about the nature of the Globe and Mail’s coverage of Lebanon and specifically your work. We can only now assume you find no fault with those, given the diversionary tack of the bulk of your remarks.
On a point of fact, Stefan Christoff has traveled to Lebanon multiple times in the past five years, living for an extended period in dahiyeh, the south suburb of Beirut which was severely bombed this past summer.
Also, we stated quite clearly that “MacKinnon’s reports are often superior to the generic newswire reports”. We’re sorry that you didn’t find that praise to be sufficient. We emphasize that we chose you as subject of the article, because your reports often include facts excluded by other outlets.
That aside, your definition of “neutrality” as the condition of having no use to anyone with substantial political views seems to us to need further consideration.
Now, to your other claims. It appears you’ve misunderstood what we wrote. If you look closely you’ll see that we don’t, in fact, claim that Syria and Iran are not “locked in a struggle for Lebanon”. We simply state that the current demonstrations are not are not being held in support of either Syria or Iran, a statement which we backed up with evidence and which it is curious that you have not rebutted, given the content of your coverage.
In response to your fourth point, we only suggested that it was very seldom (twice, very briefly) that you mentioned the bombing of Lebanon when discussing the political situation there, despite the fact that it is an incredibly important factor in the current political culture of the country. This surprised us, given your coverage during the war. How could such comprehensive destruction disappear from the pages of the The Globe and Mail so quickly?
As for what is “most disturbing”–it is, in our view, that an entire country could be destroyed, and the voices of those calling for a measure of justice would subsequently be reduced to a geopolitical ploy on the part of Syria or Iran.
We look forward to your response, and to further discussion about this important topic.
Sincerely,
Stefan Christoff
Dru Oja Jay
McKinnon replies to ZNet, again [Jan 18/07]
Hi –
Nice idea to publish the exchange, and the excerpts from my articles. Let your readers decide.
However, I must (again) take issue with – and question the motivations behind – the attempts to misrepresent my work in Lebanon.
Your annex includes my Dec. 2 article “Hezbollah protestors rally against government,” but leaves out a rather significant chunk of text which, I believe, address your concern that “In 19 articles, none of the quotes explain the political motivations behind the demonstrations.” I’ve pasted a longer excerpt below. [Note: the excerpt can be found here. –ed]
In this day and age, bloggers also have increasing power and, I hope, responsibility. Your article now takes up three of the top 10 spaces if you google my name. It’s my reputation you’ve carelessly taken aim at. Hence the tone of my response.
It should also have been pointed out, for fairness’s sake, that the demonstrations began on Dec. 1, and that I travelled on Dec. 7 to Damascus to do other reporting once it became clear that the two sides were locked in the holding pattern that we still see today. To excerpt from 16 other articles written before that date and complain that I didn’t explain the demonstrations that had not yet happened is the kind of irresponsible journalism you set out to accuse me of.
We’re really talking about three articles. One of which I’ve quoted from at length below, one which is largely about the death of a protestor (but includes the clear explanations excerpted from in your appendix), the third being a profile of Sheikh Tufeili, the founder of Hezbollah, but in your eyes not an interesting person to tell The Globe and Mail’s readers about.
Like I said, I appreciate the way ZNet has handled this. But perhaps you’d like to contrast my work in Lebanon – or The Globe and Mail‘s overall Middle East coverage – with that of the Toronto Star and the National Post? Now that would be real media analysis.
Signed,
Just Another Corporate Hack
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate