In August 2025, the South African National Editors' Forum (SANEF) announced its support for vigils and protests held across South Africa in response to the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The demonstrations followed allegations that Israeli forces had deliberately targeted journalists, including one from Qatari state broadcaster Al Jazeera, Anas al-Sharif.

SANEF issued a statement condemning what it described as the "continued assassination and brutal murder" of journalists. Its chairperson declared that the killings were "an evil assault on press freedom and human rights".

The vigils were attended not only by journalists but also by a range of anti-Israel activist groups. Many participants wore Palestinian keffiyehs and carried signs reading "Journalists Against Genocide", while banners explained what organisers described as "Israel's war on journalists".

Much of the impetus for these protests came from statistics published by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). At the time (August 2025), the organisation claimed that approximately 1 500 journalists were working in Gaza and that 190 had been killed since the start of the war, making it "the deadliest conflict on record for journalists".

These figures have been widely cited by media organisations and advocacy groups as evidence that Israel has deliberately targeted journalists. The CPJ has also been relied upon in reporting other highly controversial allegations, including claims that Israeli soldiers used dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners.

These assertions immediately raised questions.

Gaza is governed by Hamas, a regime that functions somewhere between a dictatorship and a theocracy, where freedom of expression is tightly controlled. International journalists have generally been barred from entering the Strip, much as they were excluded from the front lines of the war in Ukraine. This naturally prompted an obvious question: where were all of these journalists coming from?

Nor were concerns about reporting from Gaza new. As far back as 2014, a former Associated Press (AP) journalist Matti Friedman published a widely read essay arguing that international media organisations not only framed the conflict in particular anti-Israel ways but also censored reporting from Gaza because of intimidation by Hamas.

Opening Days

The opening days of the current war further fuelled these concerns. Both AP and television station CNN severed ties with freelance photojournalists after evidence emerged that they had been at October 7th massacres and had ties to Hamas.

Other reporting also came under scrutiny. Media outlets around the world initially reported that Israel had bombed the Al-Ahli Hospital, killing around 500 people. Only later, after further investigation and Israeli denials, did evidence show that the explosion had been caused by a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket. The estimated death toll was also revised radically downward.

By then, however, Israel had already faced widespread international condemnation. Although several media organisations corrected or withdrew their reports, the belief that Israel deliberately bombed the hospital remains the official position of, for example, the South African government.

Similarly, the British Broadcasting Corporation withdrew a documentary filmed about Gaza after it emerged that the child narrator presented as an ordinary civilian was in fact the son of a former Hamas minister. These were only some of the examples cited by critics who argue that reporting from Gaza has too often been compromised by poor verification, political bias, and inadequate editorial scrutiny.

Against this backdrop, scepticism about the CPJ's casualty figures grew.

Investigative journalist David Collier examined the CPJ's list of journalists killed in Gaza, comparing those named with publicly available social media profiles and other open-source information. According to his investigation, roughly half of those listed openly expressed support for, or associations with, proscribed terrorist organisations. Around a quarter appeared not to have worked as journalists at all, instead including occupations such as a graphic designer employed by a public relations firm, a builder, and an unemployed individual.

Collier further argued that many of those listed had died while at home rather than while carrying out journalistic work. Others were reportedly killed alongside senior members of terrorist organisations, including one individual who died in the home of a Palestinian Islamic Jihad commander. In another instance, the CPJ mistakenly listed a blogger from the United Arab Emirates as having died in Gaza. He identified numerous other errors, duplications, and entries that appeared to rely heavily on information originating from Hamas itself with little independent verification.

Using open-source intelligence, Collier produced more than 150 pages of analysis challenging the CPJ's methodology and disputing the claim that Israel was systematically targeting journalists.

Rejected

The CPJ rejected this type of criticism. Sara Qudah, the organisation's regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, stated: "Too often, journalists in Gaza risk or lose their lives to report the truth, only to be discredited through unproven claims of militancy. Upholding their credibility is a powerful form of resistance to this erasure."

Yet it would soon be the CPJ's own credibility that would be on the line.

For more than two years, the Israel Defense Forces had repeatedly released evidence alleging that numerous individuals listed as journalists also held positions within Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In one case, a Hamas sniper also worked for the Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera.

The CPJ's own criteria exclude individuals who actively participate in combat from being classified as journalists. Nevertheless, critics argued that the organisation largely dismissed the Israeli evidence showing this was the case. Matters became more difficult when Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad began publishing detailed obituary notices for their own members, allowing researchers to compare those names directly with the CPJ's casualty lists.

Media watchdog HonestReporting subsequently reported that the CPJ had quietly removed 20 names from its database. The evidence had become sufficiently compelling that the organisation announced a formal review of its list of journalists killed during the conflict.

Morass

It is into this morass that one Nika Soon-Shiong has now waded.

She is the daughter of Patrick Soon-Shiong, the South African-born billionaire entrepreneur of Chinese heritage who studied at the University of the Witwatersrand before emigrating to the United States (US). Through biotechnology and medical innovation, Patrick Soon-Shiong built one of the world's largest fortunes and eventually acquired both the Los Angeles Times and a minority stake in the Los Angeles Lakers.

Nika Soon-Shiong is, by all accounts, highly accomplished. Educated at Ivy League institutions and Oxford University, she speaks several languages. She is also extremely woke and has been involved in numerous social justice initiatives in both South Africa and abroad. She also serves as editor of Drop Site News, a left-wing publication that HonestReporting has criticised for consistently defending Hamas.

Although Patrick Soon-Shiong has no history of anti-Israel activism, his daughter has made the issue central to her public profile.

When the Los Angeles Times declined to endorse Kamala Harris during the US presidential election, Nika made a public statement that she had interfered in the process: "Our family made the joint decision not to endorse a presidential candidate. This was the first and only time I have been involved in the process."

She added: "As a citizen of a country openly financing genocide, and as a family that experienced South African apartheid, the endorsement was an opportunity to repudiate justifications for the widespread targeting of journalists and ongoing war on children."

Her comments prompted a rare public repudiation from her father, who stated: "Nika speaks in her own personal capacity regarding her opinion, as every community member has the right to do. She does not have any role at the LA Times, nor does she participate in any decision or discussion with the editorial board."

Nika Soon-Shiong also serves on the board of the CPJ.

She became the subject of an investigation by The Washington Free Beacon into the political views of CPJ board members. The article argued that several directors and senior staff had adopted strongly anti-Israel positions. It highlighted board members who stated that Israel's was committing a "genocide at the hands of Adolf Hitler”. It also noted staff with histories of support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, and activists involved in attempts to disrupt Israeli speakers on American university campuses.

The article also singled out board member Lydia Polgreen, of The New York Times, with previous experience reporting in South Africa. Polgreen argued against claims that Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif, whose death had caused a SANEF statement, had Hamas affiliation and dismissed Israeli evidence as lacking credibility. Yet Al-Sharif had posted celebratory messages on Telegram during the October 7th attacks and had also been photographed alongside Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.

According to The Washinton Free Beacon, the article triggered significant internal debate within the CPJ. Nika Soon-Shiong later acknowledged that the board had discussed whether Hamas members who also worked as journalists should continue to appear on the organisation's casualty list. Following the discussion, the board reportedly voted to retain its existing criteria, allowing members of terrorist organisations to remain classified as journalists provided they were not directly engaged in combat at the time of their deaths.

Soon afterwards, Nika announced on social media that she had been removed from serving on the CPJ board.

The controversy raises broader questions about the role of civil society organisations.

Free Society

In a free society, organisations such as the CPJ exist to serve as independent watchdogs, holding governments and armed groups alike accountable. The deaths of genuine journalists covering wars deserve careful investigation and international attention, as illustrated by cases such as that of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.

However, when such organisations appear to prioritise political activism over rigorous verification, they risk undermining their own credibility.

The same challenge confronts SANEF. If organisations dedicated to defending journalism wish to retain public trust, they must also be willing to acknowledge when they have relied upon flawed or politically compromised information.

Journalism is not a crime. But pretending to be a journalist while serving as a member of a terrorist organisation is one. Some of those commemorated at the vigils were not journalists killed for doing their jobs, but members of terrorist organisations who also happened to possess media credentials. It is time for SANEF to acknowledge this.