Ramallah – How does a Palestinian journalist choose the right term to describe an event? Does the diversity of Palestinian media discourses weaken the broader narrative, or enrich it? How can journalists maintain professional standards when publication itself becomes a source of risk? What should they do when a digital platform removes or restricts their content? And how can they protect their accounts, sources, and data before a breach occurs?
These questions, among others, shaped two days of discussions during a workshop organized by the Palestine Journalism Hub (PJH), bringing together journalists and representatives of media organizations from the West Bank, Gaza, and the 1948 areas, alongside academics and experts in media, law, digital rights, and digital security.
The discussions were grounded in the everyday realities of journalists and newsrooms, but went beyond simply identifying challenges. They sought to develop practical questions and approaches that can help journalists think more critically about language, sourcing, safety, and editorial decisions, while also protecting themselves, their sources, their content, and their data in the digital sphere.
The Palestinian Narrative: Difference Is Not the Problem
One of the most substantive discussions focused on the relationship between the Palestinian narrative and the terminology used in media coverage.
Saleh Masharqa, a media lecturer at Birzeit University, presented the narrative as something broader than official statements or political discourse. It is also shaped by collective memory, the details of everyday life, and the experiences of ordinary people.
In this sense, a small detail from the life of a Palestinian child, a farmer trying to reach his land, or a family living through displacement can sometimes explain part of the reality and communicate it to audiences more effectively than an entire institutional message.
The discussion led to an important distinction between the narrative itself and the discourses through which it is expressed.
At its core, there is a clear historical Palestinian narrative rooted in the experience of a people displaced and uprooted from their land and homes, who continue to struggle for their rights, return, and freedom from occupation and injustice.
At the same time, Palestinians live different realities in Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem, the 1948 areas, and the diaspora. It is therefore natural that these experiences produce different forms of expression and different media discourses.
The existence of multiple discourses is not, in itself, the problem. The challenge begins when these discourses contradict one another in ways that obscure context, or when journalism reproduces concepts and terminology without critically examining whether they correspond to the reality it is trying to explain.
This makes a journalist’s awareness of every word, image, source, and description part of professional responsibility.
Terminology Is Not Just a Word
Media terminology is not simply a linguistic choice detached from journalism. It is part of the framework through which audiences understand an event and its context.
Participants discussed how language originating in political, international, or Israeli sources can move into newsrooms and then reach audiences without sufficient scrutiny of the context in which it was produced.
During an online intervention, Dr. Mona Magdi referred to a recent report titled “How Does the Israeli Narrative Reach Arab Screens?”, which examines how terminology and narratives originating in Israeli sources can enter Arab media coverage. She encouraged participants to review the report.
This places journalists before a set of editorial questions: Is this my professional language, or the language of the source? Does the term describe reality, or does it carry a political or ideological judgment? Should it be attributed to the source rather than presented as fact? What context does the audience need in order to understand it properly?
Precise journalistic language does not mean language detached from reality, and professionalism does not mean stripping an event of its context.
Safety Is More Than a Helmet
In a session examining the relationship between professionalism, safety, and legal risk, legal expert Walid Al-Sheikh raised a dilemma facing journalists working in complex environments:
Do I protect my professionalism, or do I protect my safety?
The discussion showed that journalist safety extends beyond physical protection in the field. Risks may also be legal, digital, psychological, institutional, political, and social, and may come from the field, the law, authorities, a media organization, or the surrounding community.
Al-Sheikh stressed that journalistic risk cannot be eliminated entirely. The goal is to understand it, reduce it, and prepare to deal with its consequences when it occurs.
Risk management, however, does not mean withdrawing from sensitive subjects. Some of the issues that most require journalism are located precisely along political, social, and economic fault lines.
The challenge is not to avoid those subjects, but to ensure that journalists have the knowledge, context, and legal awareness needed to cover them, and that newsrooms can support professional decision-making while reducing unnecessary risk.
Reporting Reality Does Not Mean Reporting Without Context
The session examined a number of editorial dilemmas involving inciting speech, public anger, shocking images, and the terminology used in news coverage.
A journalist may, for professional reasons, need to report inciting speech in order to explain an event. But reproducing such speech exactly as it was delivered may also contribute to reproducing the incitement itself.
The question then becomes: What does the audience actually need to know, and how can it be reported with proper attribution, explanation, and context?
The same dilemma applies to documenting public anger. A journalist may be accurately reporting what is happening, while the way the material is presented may turn documentation into mobilization or incitement.
Similar questions arise around shocking images. The fact that an image is authentic does not automatically make publication the right editorial decision. Journalists need to consider its news value, its impact on victims, families, and audiences, and whether it contributes necessary understanding or merely uses shock to attract attention.
Description Is Also a Professional Decision
Every time a journalist describes an event, a term is selected, and every term carries meaning and context.
Using a particular description raises a professional question: On what basis is the term being used? Is it a journalistic description of the event, a legal classification, or wording taken from a source that should be clearly attributed?
This does not mean avoiding words that accurately describe reality. It means being professionally able to explain and justify the choice.
It also underlines the importance of journalists understanding legal definitions related to incitement, hate speech, defamation, insult, contempt, reputational harm, and other concepts that may intersect with journalistic work.
Verifying a Source Means More Than Knowing Their Name
Another important point raised in the discussion was the need to broaden the concept of source verification.
Knowing who a person is does not necessarily make that person a sufficient source for the information being provided.
Journalists should also ask: Is this person authorized or qualified to speak on the matter? What is their relationship to the information? What responsibility do they hold? How did they obtain the information?
Accurate attribution is therefore an essential part of verification: What did the source actually say? What did the journalist infer? Where does the news report end, and where does commentary begin?
This also reinforces the importance of clearly separating news from opinion, using multiple sources, and avoiding situations in which a journalist’s interpretation is presented as an unattributed fact.
Taking Something Out of Context Can Change the Truth
The discussion also emphasized the risks of extracting statements or information from their original context.
Taking material out of context is not always simply a matter of shortening it. Removing part of the surrounding context may alter the meaning of a statement or event and produce a version of the story that differs from the reality the journalist intended to convey.
This becomes particularly important with the spread of short-form social media content, where a few seconds from a long interview can circulate independently of everything said before and after.
The professional question should therefore not only be: Is the quotation accurate? It should also be: Does it still carry the same meaning after it has been extracted?
Before You Press “Publish”
A significant part of the discussion can be summarized in a set of questions that should accompany editorial decision-making:
Does publication serve the public interest? Have I verified not only who the source is, but whether the source is qualified to speak? Have I placed the statement or image in context? Have I separated news from my own opinion or commentary? Are the terms I used accurate and professionally defensible? Am I reproducing inciting speech unnecessarily? Could publication expose a source, victim, or journalist to avoidable harm?
These questions do not always have one definitive answer, but they can make editorial decisions more deliberate and less driven by speed or competition for a scoop.
When the Algorithm Controls Reach
The second day shifted to another challenge that has become central to Palestinian journalism: the digital environment and the policies of social media platforms.
Jalal Abukhater, Policy Manager at Hamleh, and Ahmad Qadi discussed digital rights violations, the policies of major technology companies, and their impact on Palestinian content.
Participants were introduced to 7or – the Palestinian Observatory of Digital Rights Violations, which receives, documents, and follows up cases involving content removal, account closures, reduced reach, and other digital restrictions.
One of the issues discussed was shadow banning, where the reach of an account or piece of content may be significantly reduced without the user receiving a clear notification that a restriction has been imposed.
The session also examined Meta’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals (DOI) policy and the way automated moderation systems may associate certain words, names, or symbols with classifications that result in content restrictions or removal.
One example discussed was the Arabic word “shaheed” (“martyr”). According to the speakers, its use is not automatically prohibited in all cases, but restrictions may arise when it is associated with a person or entity classified by the platform under its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy.
The broader concern, as reflected in the discussion, was not one particular word, but the interaction between context, language, geographic location, algorithmic classification, and the level of transparency surrounding platform enforcement decisions.
Palestinian Content and Platform Policies
The session also addressed what Hamleh described as disparities in the enforcement of platform policies on Palestinian content compared with the treatment of inciting Hebrew-language content.
The speakers presented examples and monitoring data and referred to cases followed up with Meta in which the company later acknowledged that removal decisions had been made in error.
The relationship between Hebrew-language online incitement and violence against Palestinians on the ground was also discussed, alongside restrictions that may affect Palestinian content even when it is journalistic or documentary in nature.
This creates a dual challenge for journalists: complying with professional standards and platform rules, while also understanding their rights and the mechanisms available for appeal and documentation when they believe content has been restricted unjustifiably.
Do Not Make a Social Media Platform Your Entire Media Organization
One of the clearest practical messages from the session was directed at both journalists and media organizations:
Do not place your entire archive, audience, and professional presence on a single platform.
If a media organization’s archive and audience exist only on Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok, one decision by a private company can put years of work at risk.
Maintaining an independent institutional website, preserving copies of content and archives, and diversifying publishing and distribution channels therefore become part of protecting the media organization itself.
Social media platforms are important tools for reaching audiences, but they are not a substitute for institutional ownership of content and archives.
Content Removed? Document Before You Appeal
When a post or account is removed or restricted, the quality of documentation can be critical to any follow-up.
Journalists should retain the original content link, account name and identifier, screenshots of the content and the platform decision, the date of removal or restriction, the date of any appeal, the case reference number, and any response received from the platform.
It is also important to follow the case from the first sign of restriction rather than waiting until the entire account is closed.
Ideally, documentation should begin before the problem occurs. Journalists and media organizations should preserve essential information relating to accounts and content in advance, as some information may no longer be accessible once an account has been removed.
Hamleh representatives also explained that the center can follow up cases submitted to it and engage with platforms, and that in some situations there are channels that may help move automated enforcement decisions toward human review.
Digital Security Starts Before the Breach
Digital security is not a program installed after something goes wrong. It is a series of everyday decisions and practices that begin with one basic question:
What am I trying to protect?
Data classification was among the first practices discussed. What information is public? What is personal? What is sensitive enough that exposure could harm the journalist, source, or media organization?
A published article does not require the same level of protection as the identity of a confidential source. A public archive should not be treated in the same way as unpublished interviews or personal data.
The next step is deciding who needs access to the information, where it should be stored, and whether local or cloud storage is more appropriate for its level of sensitivity.
One Password Can Open Every Door
The workshop emphasized the use of long, unique passwords for each account and avoiding the reuse of the same password across multiple services.
If one reused password is compromised, an attacker may gain access to several accounts at the same time.
Participants also discussed the importance of password managers and multi-factor authentication (MFA), with authentication applications or physical security keys offering stronger protection in some circumstances than relying on text-message verification alone.
At the institutional level, media organizations should also regularly review who has access to professional accounts and avoid making secure account management dependent on one person or one device without clear continuity arrangements.
Do Not Trust a Message Simply Because You Recognize the Name
Phishing is among the everyday risks journalists face.
A message may display the name of a familiar person or organization while actually being sent from a different address, or the domain name may contain a small variation that is easy to overlook.
Journalists therefore need to examine the sender, the content, and the context together.
Was I expecting this message? Is the email address correct? Is it normal for this person to ask me for a file, password, or money transfer? Does the link actually lead to the organization it claims to represent?
No single warning sign automatically proves that a message is fraudulent, but several suspicious indicators together should be enough to stop and verify before clicking a link or downloading a file.
An Image May Reveal More Than You Can See
One risk journalists may overlook is metadata.
Photographs, videos, and documents can contain information that is not visible in the content itself, including location data, device information, and other technical details.
In a high-risk journalistic environment, such information can expose the location of a journalist, a source, or someone appearing in an image.
Sensitive files should therefore be checked before they are shared, and unnecessary identifying information should be removed where appropriate, including metadata, full names, phone numbers, addresses, faces, medical information, or financial details that could put people at risk.
Here, digital security directly intersects with basic journalistic principles: source protection, privacy, consent, and the principle of doing no harm.
Tools Matter, but Behavior Matters More
The workshop discussed different tools for browsing, communication, storage, password management, and privacy, but the conclusion was not that journalists should install as many applications as possible.
What matters is understanding why a tool is being used, what it protects, and what it cannot protect.
A VPN, for example, is not a universal solution to every internet risk. Likewise, using a secure messaging application will not protect a journalist if the device itself is insecure or login credentials have been compromised.
Digital security is ultimately an ongoing practice, not a collection of applications.
A Safer Newsroom Begins Before the Crisis
A common thread running through many of the discussions was that skilled journalists alone are not enough to build resilient journalism.
Newsrooms also need clear editorial policies, verification procedures, legal awareness, mechanisms for difficult decision-making, systems for protecting data, accounts, and sources, and ways to document violations and learn from them.
The principle linking field safety, legal safety, editorial safety, and digital security is similar:
Not every risk can be eliminated, but risks can be understood, reduced, and prepared for.
Gaza, the West Bank, and the 1948 Areas: Difference Is Part of the Picture
The workshop also created space for journalists from Gaza, the West Bank, and the 1948 areas to compare their professional experiences.
The discussions highlighted how different the legal, political, security, and social environments can be across Palestinian geographies. They also revealed gaps in how much journalists in one area know about the day-to-day realities faced by colleagues in another.
These differences, however, brought the discussion back to its starting point: a shared narrative does not require identical experiences or identical ways of speaking.
Understanding difference may, in fact, be necessary to understand the full Palestinian picture.
The role of journalism, then, is not to search for one uniform discourse that erases all others, but to produce accurate, context-aware journalism capable of accommodating different experiences without allowing those differences to become contradictory discourses that obscure reality rather than reveal it.
In an environment where political, legal, social, and digital risks overlap, a journalist’s awareness of context, tools, and the consequences of editorial decisions becomes part of professionalism itself:
to know what to publish, why to publish it, which language to use, which sources to rely on, what harm publication may cause, and how to protect oneself, one’s sources, and one’s journalistic material without giving up the public’s right to know.
