The Committee to Protect Journalists board of directors voted 17‑1 to retain its current definition of a journalist, a decision that has reignited debate over the scope of the list of casualties it maintains.
Definition and defence
The definition, which the board says is grounded in international humanitarian law, extends protection to individuals affiliated with militant groups and excludes those who engage in combat or incite imminent violence, according to the board chair.
Criticism and examples
Critics argue the definition is overly broad and has resulted in confirmed terrorists being recorded as journalist casualties in the Israel‑Gaza war. Reports over recent weeks have highlighted numerous cases where people listed by CPJ were active combatants for Hamas or other terrorist organisations.
One high‑profile example is Mohammed Samir Washah, identified by Al Jazeera as a correspondent, who was killed in April by Israeli forces. CPJ listed him as a journalist casualty while describing him as a key terrorist involved in Hamas rocket and weapons production.
Watchdog findings
The watchdog group HonestReporting has documented dozens of instances where CPJ included confirmed terrorists on its casualty list, noting that the organisation sometimes removes those names without public notice. CPJ says it has removed at least 20 names after confirming they were armed terrorist operatives.
Media reaction
Fox News highlighted the single dissenting vote on the board and publicly criticised the definition, saying it undermines journalism’s integrity and puts legitimate journalists at risk. Some CPJ members celebrated the vote as a victory for press freedom, while other observers warned that the decision could endanger legitimate journalists and damage the credibility of the profession.
Broader debate
The controversy has sparked a broader discussion about the role of journalism in conflict zones and the need for clear criteria for who qualifies as a journalist. Media outlets and watchdog groups have called on CPJ for greater transparency and accountability regarding its definition.
CPJ maintains that its definition is necessary to protect journalists working in dangerous and unpredictable settings, acknowledging the difficulty of drawing a line between reporting and activism in war zones.