Inside AFP

AFP has been no exception, even if it does not produce content for the general public but for other media, its clients. In Paris, critics have come together to push the old idea that AFP actually stands for Agence France-Palestine. But the French reader might be surprised to learn that AFP gets even more criticism – and not just in the Middle East – for being an agent of Israel.

The Agency is also criticised for excessive caution, in which supposedly lurks a hidden bias. In Paris, AFP is attacked for semantic meekness, because it does not call Hamas a terrorist group, never mind that the Agency has applied this rule for 20 years to every group, no matter how horrible.

In Beirut, people are surprised that AFP waits to have every last piece of proof before blaming Israel for the strikes that seriously wounded one of its photographers and hit its Gaza bureau. Never mind that the reason for this is that the Agency is following its own rules for attributing responsibility.

Or fingers are pointed at AFP for not paying attention or not being reactive enough, such as for being late to report on a screening organised by the Israeli authorities. Never mind that the Agency, because it has a permanent team on the ground, had been providing its own unvarnished description of the October 7 atrocities from the very beginning, using its own images, its own words.

It is not a fair fight to take one subject or one story, then focus on just one piece of the puzzle to discredit the entire coverage. To be fair to our critics, it is true that it is difficult to have a complete vision of our production when you consider the Agency sends out 4,000 text stories, 3,000 photos and 300 videos every day.

The Agency takes heed of all criticism and there is a lively internal debate, as there is in many newsrooms all over the world. AFP has no problem admitting it is not perfect. Its stories are sometimes updated several times over one hour, as the news develops, and these updates include a transparent mention of any correction if there is one.

AFP has already publicly acknowledged factual errors and debatable editorial choices. It is fully aware of the responsibility it bears, especially in Gaza where the media are totally dependent on the Agency, as they have no presence there themselves. As it was immediately obvious that the conflict would be complex to cover, AFP stepped up its vigilance and quickly sent reinforcements to its Jerusalem bureau and its regional hub in Nicosia. And the Agency continues to look critically at its own coverage every day. This is the role of the chief standards and ethics editor, who scrutinises the content, lays out guidelines, corrects certain imbalances. He does not shy away from the task.

While AFP accepts criticism, the Agency also calls for a bit of understanding sometimes of the difficulties its teams on the ground are facing. AFP teams are working under real-time pressure, editorial decisions are taken in the heat of the moment: “breaking news” does not operate in the same time-frame as a commentary made after the whole story has unfolded.

Its journalists are working in a context of huge disinformation, with all sides manipulating information for their own ends.

As if this wasn’t enough, AFP journalists now know that they are under constant surveillance, that their production will be picked apart on social media, where they will perhaps also suffer harassment, and that they can be threatened when reporting from the ground due to a supposed bias towards one camp or another.

Mistakes do not imply bias. The accusation of bias can be a deadly poison and the Agency’s Statutes, unchanged since 1957, are crystal-clear in this regard: Article 2 states that “Agence France-Presse may under no circumstances take account of influences or considerations liable to compromise the exactitude or the objectivity of the information it provides.” This mission to report the facts is precious, and surprisingly modern.

The coverage of the current conflict by 50 journalists in Jerusalem, Ramallah and Gaza is impressive because of the number of topics covered, the variety of the angles, the human touch of the reportage: AFP is a global agency everybody can be proud of.

Information and politics do not mix well, so the Agency is determined to stay within its own area of expertise. The only bias AFP has is to the facts. Its journalists will bear witness free from any bias. As Charles Péguy said about the Dreyfus affair : “One should always say what one sees. Above all, one must always, which is more difficult, see what one sees.”