Since the announcement of the Israeli military’s invasion of southern Lebanon, the Israeli army has been regularly sharing videos showing its soldiers entering Lebanese territories, accompanied by statements attempting to justify the invasion and the systematic bombardment and destruction that followed.
In an effort to present its narrative, the Israeli military organized a tour for several Western media correspondents, including reporters from The Washington Post, The New York Times, Agence France-Presse, The Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph, BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, and others.
The tour was framed by the Israeli forces as an opportunity to inspect Hezbollah tunnels and bases, with journalists’ movements restricted to a limited area. Journalists were also required to obtain the Israeli military’s approval before publishing any photos or videos taken during the tour.
This is not the first time that journalists have accompanied invading or occupying forces. The tour has raised significant legal and ethical concerns, bringing the issue of embedded journalism and journalists accompanying the military back to the forefront. Similar controversies emerged during the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and more recently during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The debate around these types of tours and coverage is not new, but it resurfaces with every armed conflict. Such tours raise ethical and legal questions, especially when journalists enter occupied territories under the escort of military forces that control the narrative. Some argue, however, that embedded journalism is a practice that allows access to images, information, and facts that would otherwise be unavailable, and the key issue lies in how the material is presented and the integrity of the reporting.
Veteran Lebanese journalist Nada Abdelsamad, who worked for the BBC for over two decades, told Daraj: “The phenomenon of embedded journalism is not new; it dates back to World War I when some journalists wore military uniforms and accompanied armies. What happened in Lebanon involved a group of journalists entering an occupied area with occupying forces. This does not, in itself, violate international law for journalists. The key question is: Do journalists have the freedom to report what they see? Are they free to move around? Can they maintain objectivity, or will they become tools for propaganda? Media institutions must answer these questions before sending their reporters. If objectivity and truth are compromised, journalism turns into propaganda. Therefore, it is essential to assess the value of sending a reporter with Israeli forces into an occupied area.”
Following the media tour organized by the Israeli army, Hezbollah issued a strongly-worded statement condemning all agencies that participated, with a particular focus on the BBC, which had published a report on the tour. “Not only did the BBC, across all its platforms and languages, display blatant bias towards the killers and criminals, justifying the Zionist barbarism against the Palestinian and Lebanese people, but it also shamelessly sent a team of journalists who entered one of the southern villages accompanied by the occupying army, violating Lebanese territory, sovereignty, and laws, as shown in the reports published by the organization…”
Hezbollah later expanded its criticism to include all media outlets that took part in the tour. “Further to our previous statement regarding the propaganda tour organized by the Zionist occupying forces for a number of Western media outlets, it has been confirmed that in addition to the BBC, networks and institutions such as The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph, Fox News, Reuters, The New York Times, The Financial Times, the Associated Press, and others also participated. We reiterate our condemnation of this dangerous behavior and call on the relevant authorities to take the necessary legal and political measures.”
Hezbollah’s statement ignited internal conflict within the BBC, which has a major office in Beirut. Several BBC staff members in Beirut decided to suspend their work in protest against the report published based on the tour with Israeli forces. They stated that they would not return to work unless the BBC issued an official apology for the report or took disciplinary action against the team that accompanied the occupying forces, according to Megaphone.
Ethical, Legal, and Professional Challenges
Embedded journalism, or the practice of reporters accompanying military forces, often lacks balance, providing unequal coverage of both sides in a conflict. While embedded journalism offers unique access to information and exclusive images, it is susceptible to bias and manipulation, underscoring the need for a critical reassessment of the ethical issues associated with this form of reporting. There is a clear need for greater transparency and independence in such journalistic endeavors.
Tim Sebastian, a well-known British broadcaster and former veteran correspondent for the BBC, commented in an interview with Daraj: “I don’t see an ethical issue against the BBC if they are transparent about operating under conditions imposed by the Israeli forces, and if we, as viewers, understand what those conditions are. There would only be an ethical problem if they entered without disclosing the circumstances under which they were working. Invading armies do this; it happened when the United States invaded Iraq, and it’s happening now with Russians taking their bloggers to Ukraine… It’s a standard practice in times of war.”
However, Sebastian emphasized that journalists must determine whether they are gaining access to information that cannot be obtained by other means, and whether that information justifies accompanying an occupying army, as was the case with the Israeli army’s tour.
Nada Abdelsamad views such tours as “easy scoops,” where journalists are invited by occupying forces to enter occupied areas to showcase their advances. “Sending journalists on tanks or military vehicles to occupied territories requires a thorough assessment of various factors. Media organizations must strike a balance; every investigation or report that touches on the safety of journalists demands a reevaluation. The key question here is: Was the decision to send reporters from international media outlets with journalists already stationed in Beirut properly assessed? Was there consideration of how this might impact the safety of reporters working in the Lebanese capital? This decision should be carefully evaluated by the organizations to determine if it affects their safety. Although international law protects journalists as civilians, there should be no linkage between these two situations,” said Abdelsamad.
Abdelsamad also argues that calls to prosecute media organizations and their staff, or actions by the Minister of Information, constitute an attack on press freedom. “There should be no threats to those working for media outlets associated with foreign organizations… Such actions infringe on press freedoms. The content generated by the tour is met with coverage revealing the actual reality on the ground, leading to a battle over narratives and truth. No step of this kind should threaten the safety of employees and journalists working for media outlets that chose to send reporters alongside Israeli forces.” Abdelsamad noted that all reporters acknowledged their movements were restricted during the tour.
This is not the first time the Israeli army has invited media outlets on field tours in territories it has invaded or occupied, including during the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Foreign media channels such as the BBC and CNN were also invited to Gaza. The purpose of these invitations, according to an article by the Al Jazeera Media Institute, was to prove the presence of tunnels beneath hospitals and to report on this specifically. However, journalists were not invited to conduct independent research; they were brought to see what the Israeli army wanted to showcase.
A BBC correspondent who participated in a tour with the Israeli army in southern Lebanon admitted that her presence was facilitated by the military, which limited her freedom of movement. This same correspondent had previously accompanied Israeli forces when they entered Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza, where they claimed to have found weapons. The subsequent bombing of the hospital resulted in casualties, with Israel justifying the attack by citing the presence of weapons. Journalists, including the same correspondent, were brought to provide coverage that, at the time, served as propaganda for the incident, according to Abdelsamad.
“It has always been safer to cover war from one side of the conflict than to be caught in a neutral zone, trying to take notes while bullets are flying from both directions. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but it’s no match for a missile,” noted the British Front Line Club, adding that “embedded journalism has become more organized since the Iraq War. In an era where freelance journalism has become increasingly dangerous, this method of reporting has become an important lens through which we view conflicts.”
A study titled “Embedded Journalism as a Strategic Enabler in the Justification of Controversial U.S. Foreign Policy: Evidence from the Iraq Invasion of 2003” argues that in contentious conflicts, such as the 2003-2011 Iraq War, the U.S. government strategically leveraged control over the information accessible to the media. This allowed them to share narratives with the public that facilitated local support for the war, which was crucial in controversial conflicts.
The study interviewed eight journalists who worked as embedded or independent reporters during the Iraq War and analyzed forty embedded and independent articles from The New York Times and The Washington Post published during that period. The findings showed that the information obtained by embedded journalists was limited and controlled by the U.S. military, with coverage skewed to legitimize the conflict. “Embedded reporting during the Iraq War seems to have been more inclined to justify why the conflict is necessary, and how it is and will be successfully unfolding, in comparison to unilateral reporting.”
Thus, media outlets must carefully evaluate the added value of such tours alongside invading forces against the various risks that may affect their credibility and the safety of their staff in certain regions. Other factors must also be considered before deciding to send correspondents with occupying forces.
