27 November 2016

AKEED, Amman

Local media outlets carried a news story on withdrawing Jordanian passports from some Palestinian leaders. They had copied the story, verbatim, from Rai al Youm, which is a non-Jordanian electronic newspaper published in London, despite the fact that the news story is Jordanian par excellence.  The media outlets that carried the story were careful to refer to its source in the body, but most of them used headlines that suggest that the story was true.

According to correct professional practice, when a local media outlet is faced with a story that has local content from a foreign source, this outlet must follow up on the story with the relevant competent agencies to obtain correct information and confirm or deny what the source stated, especially when the matter has to do with sensitive issues, as is the case here. However, this did not happen at all. Jordanian local media outlets carried the story as is, thus promoting information, which, through a quick investigation, proved to be false. Besides, the information was not attributed to any source, be it known or unknown. The London-based newspaper only stated that the story was "exclusive from Amman."

We in AKEED are interested in reporting the story and publishing it locally, which makes it within the scope of our work. The story alleged that Jordan was inclined to change the administrative and legal classification of passports and other travel documents carried by senior Palestinian Authority leaders to make them T.S. (Arabic initials for "taht al sahb," meaning to be withdrawn) so that it would be easy to decide on these documents and withdraw them later. This would be an introduction to withdrawing national numbers and changing the Jordanian passports given to them from "permanent" to "temporary." The story further said that Jordan was planning to withdraw Jordanian citizenship from some members of the Fatah Movement who will participate in Fatah"s seventh congress on 29 November.

The Jordanian Media Credibility Monitor (AKEED) conducted an interview with a senior official, who preferred anonymity and who is directly involved with this issue. He said: "There was no discussion at all of withdrawing Jordanian passports. What was rumored about withdrawing national numbers or passports has no truth whatsoever. Publishing it reflects lack of journalistic professionalism. A significant number of leaders of the Palestinian National Authority handed their national numbers back several years ago. A number of Fatah leaders in Jordan--they are not many--still keep national numbers, but they are not in violation of the disengagement decision issued in 1987."

The source added: "What was rumored is made up. It is true that a number of Palestinian leaders hold Jordanian citizenship and that some of them previously relinquished it, but this does not mean that Jordan is planning to withdraw this citizenship."

The source noted that "what was rumored about the classification "T.S.", meaning that citizenship is to be withdrawn, is a lie and does not exist in national records. Although Article 2 of the Instructions on Disengagement of Administrative and Legal Ties with the West Bank states explicitly that employees of the Palestinian Authority shall not carry documents of Jordanian citizenship, Jordan has allowed this duality and provided Jordanian passports for them as a form of political support for the Palestinian people and to facilitate the movement of leaders of the National Authority."

Al Ghad newspaper had reported the government statement that contained the official denial by Jordan and added to the report another statement by Azzam al-Ahmad, member of the Fatah Central Committee, in which he confirmed that "we have not been officially informed about any Jordanian inclination to withdraw citizenship from prominent officials and members of the movement. He lauded deep-rooted Jordanian-Palestinian relations."

Local media outlets quickly carried the new report, which denies the first story, but this time citing Al Ghad newspaper.

The press coverage of this story offers an example of an unprofessional media practice, which is prevalent in media outlets, particularly electronic sites. Here, the media outlet in question only carries the story and then carries its denial without taking the trouble to do any follow-up or investigation despite the fact that it can do this effortlessly.