It's been really really hard to find any
degree of light when you are reporting
on this and you're seeing the images
that I'm seeing every single day.
Obviously, it's like it takes a massive
toll on your mental health. Journalists
are very often afraid of talking about
that because again it implies you're
biased, you're not neutral, but also
like if I was to say to you, do you find
it disturbing the images that you are
seeing of Palestinian children in Gaza?
Of course you're going to say yes. Like
how can you not say yes? It is just
affecting. There's a light-heartedness
>> to illustration and to your illustration
and and a and a wit which I'm not
getting from this conversation. I mean
has something happened to you? I mean
like or
>> you're a miserable Christian that
>> well to be honest you you know you're
coming over as that and I'm wondering
were you a light-hearted witty person
who was trying to get spread messages in
a clever way who has been beaten down by
the realities of what's going on in Gaza
or you're always like this just making
witty content.
>> I don't know. I I I'm quite lost to be
honest.
[Music]
>> Hello and welcome to ways to change the
world. I'm Christian Giri Murphy and
this is the podcast in which we talk to
extraordinary people about the big ideas
and their lives and the events that have
helped shape them. My guest today is
Mona Chalabi, a Puliter Prizewinning
data journalist, illustrator and writer.
She's gained international recognition
for her distinctive illustrations which
distill complex issues like wealth
disparity and racial injustice into art
that's very relatable and easily
understood. Welcome to the podcast.
>> Hi Krishna.
>> How do you want to change the world?
>> Uh I'm going to start with a very very
humble beginning. Maybe just have
journalists describe what's happening in
Gaza as a genocide.
>> So so accuracy and truth is what you
want.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I would say that
the word genocide is a far more accurate
word for journalists to be using than
war. I think some of my work is about
trying to present the evidence for why
that language makes sense. Right. So I'm
trying to use data journalism to show
what is the most accurate language we
can be using to capture reality.
>> Okay. Oh. So so lay out for me why
genocide is the accurate way to describe
it.
>> It's funny. I think part of the reason
is because I take a longer view of
things. So I think that um for those of
us who had been watching what had been
happening in Palestine um it was very
very clear from October from November
2023 that this would be a genocide
because we've seen genocidal behavior
from the Israeli state towards
Palestinians long before 2023. So this
felt like it was a logical extension of
that. And when I talk about genocidal
behavior, I'm talking about um state
policies that don't uh allow for
for conditions of life to be bearable,
to be healthy. Um the Israeli state is
clearly upholding those conditions for
Palestinian people and has been for a
very long time.
>> So why I mean given you it's the first
thing you said, it's clearly important
to you. So why do you think it is so
important to have that word used given
how contested it is and given how easy
it is to end up down rabbit warrants
that are irrelevant to what's actually
happening which is the mass killing and
starvation of people yeah
>> in Gaza.
>> But why I'm curious why do I feel like
they're rabbit warrants like it's just
to say that mass
>> killing those arguments. What I mean is
like it's very easy to end up arguing
with somebody about whether what's going
on in Gaza is a genocide or not and
whether the intent is there or not,
>> you know, given the facts on the ground
and what they could do and how many
people they could kill if they were
trying to exterminate the population. Um
rather than actually concentrating on
what's happening, which is 50 to 60,000
people dead, people starving. That
that's the key. So I mean that that
that's why I'm saying to you sort of why
why is it why is genocide as a word as a
definition as a label for what's
happening vital to you?
>> Because the language of war implies
two-sidedness. It implies some degree of
kind of um
equality between these two powers that
are going after one another. And it
doesn't capture this idea of oppressor
and oppressed. It doesn't capture the
idea of an apartheid state. I mean, even
even those statistics that you cite,
part of the reason why they're flawed is
because because it is a genocide. You
cannot accurately count the dead during
a genocide, which is why 50,000 to
60,000 simply isn't correct. I'm not
able to give you a perfect death toll to
contradict that. But what I can say is
>> that's the number that the health
ministry put out and there's no way of
obviously corroborating. On top of that,
there will obviously be
>> death are excess deaths as a result of
what's been going on. Yeah.
>> Since October the 7th
>> um to to what would have happened
otherwise.
>> But that that I suppose leads us to what
you do which is
>> which is data. And obviously a data
journalist is only as good as their
data.
>> Yes.
>> So so h how would you how would you
describe the job of a data journalist?
>> Yeah. It's to convey information as
accurately as possible. And in conveying
accurately, you're also letting
audiences know the limitations of that
data. Right. So to go back to death to
holes, I'm not saying to people who are
viewing my work or reading my work, this
is exactly what the death toll is. I'm
saying it's somewhere between X and Y
and here's the information that we know
to give us a sense of why it is between
those two bounds. And they're things
like exactly as you were saying, like
it's things like the spread of disease.
It's do we know how many morgs are still
operating? Do we know how many hospitals
are just building mass graves outside to
put people inside? Um, so you're taking
all of the information that you have
available and communicating as as
accurately as possible as you can to
audiences.
>> How did you hit on your style?
>> Yeah.
>> Um, which is about illustration.
>> Yeah. Um, honestly, it was frustration
mostly. I was looking at a lot of these
computerenerated graphics that I feel
like actually overstate certainty. I
think um, for example, a lot of
journalists are putting decimal places
in places where they don't belong. I was
really really disillusioned actually by
watching the way that data journalism
was being used to predict US election
outcomes. So I initially moved to the US
to to be in the US to do practice data
journalism in the US. I moved in 2013.
So I watched the midterms in 2014 and
then the presidential election in 2016
and became really really frightened
actually by the way that data journalism
was being used. So I started to kind of
draw to have this much more like kind of
humble approach about what it is that
the data can tell you. and and the
drawings also imply like a person me who
has my own opinions was responsible for
drawing these illustrations and people
sometimes lose sight of that by the time
that it's kind of embedded in a
computerenerated graphic.
>> So what what was it that was distressing
you about the supposed accuracy
>> of data journalism and the decimal
points
>> um I think there's two things one is
that it's dishonest right so if you say
Hillary Clinton has a 32.4% 4% chance of
winning. That's we don't know it to a
decimal place. We don't know whether or
not it's going to rain this afternoon to
a decimal place. How could you possibly
predict the behavior of millions of
voters to a decimal place? So that's
dishonest. Like we have a responsibility
to not only say the facts, but to
communicate the degree to which we're
certain about those facts. And the other
thing is like I just think it's bad for
democracy. I don't think it's good to
say to a nation of people this is who's
going to win before people have actually
gone to the polls. And I think that we
as journalists, I'm sure you do this all
the time, Christian. And you don't just
think about like what is the information
to communicate. You're thinking about
what are the consequences of the ways in
which I'm communicating it. What are the
ways in which this this information I'm
sharing might affect people's behavior
in ways positive and negative? And you
have a responsibility to think beyond
just like what's the report. You have to
think about how that report is going to
live in the world after you've said it.
>> And so, so is that how you've approached
all your stories as well?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> So that your um you know your way of
changing the world is your journalism.
>> Yeah, definitely. And I think I think in
a way though it is still a little bit
more humble than that I would hope which
is not that I'm necessarily trying to
like make these enormous changes. I
actually think very often I'm just
trying to limit harm. Like I think that
um even this example I was giving about
the language of genocide. I think that
the language of war is harmful in
understanding what is happening in
Palestine right now. And I think the
word genocide limits that harm that is
being done in terms of misinformation.
>> I mean it I mean I suppose to come back
to that example.
>> Um it's not entirely accurate either
though, is it?
>> Because genocide
um suggests an entirely one-sided
conflict. Um which Gaza isn't? You know,
um it may not be an a war, you know, a
war between two armies. It may not be
anything like an equal battle. Um, but
there are two sides trying to fight each
other.
>> Can you give me an example of a genocide
that you that you think does meet that
definition of genocide where there was
>> Well, I I I mean genocide is not
something I ever define. I I will report
when a genocide is found. And so that
might be Cambodia or Rwanda or uh in
Bosnia Herz's governor or in the Second
World War. In all of those examples
though, were there not instances where
where there was they were a fight? Yeah.
>> Yeah. There was a fight and and I think
it is really interesting when we're
saying when do we as journalists just
say this is a genocide, right? There are
so many there are so many human rights
organizations amnesty international you
know all of them already Christian
Krishna and you know the states that
have also come up and said this is a
genocide like is it that we're waiting
for the British government to say that
it's a genocide before we then feel
comfortable
>> I think this is you know we we've got
ourselves into a real mess over calling
what's going on in Gaza a genocide or
not because we we are all waiting for a
course of law which is never going to
happen. Um and so um we you know we've
ended up in the situation where you know
mainstream media if you like it feels
unable to use the word in its normal
repotage
um because it doesn't know sort of
what's its source you know if it's
contested um you know why do you say yes
but it's been ruled as a genocide that's
the problem
>> I I hear you it is contested and you
know it's part of the reason actually
why so much of my work is focused on
Palestine is this contestation, right?
Like um what is happening in Sudan right
now is absolutely horrific and is not
getting the attention that it deserves.
And yet I'm so much of my attention is
still focused on Palestine because there
is a broad there is a broad consensus
that what's happening in
>> there is definitely genocidal intent in
Sudan
>> and there is definitely genocidal intent
in Palestine when this number of Israeli
highranking politicians have said we
want to exterminate the Palestinian
people. they have expressed genocidal
language.
>> There are people with genocidal intent.
>> Yeah. But then even in the case of
Sudan, how many politicians does it take
to express genocidal intent for us to
say it's a genocide? Like there's two
totally different standards that are
being applied. And I hear you that it's
like, you know, let's just get on with
telling the facts. But to me, let's just
get on with telling the facts is to use
the word genocide, you know? Yeah. But
but why are you why are you more
distressed, if you clearly are
distressed by it um by by this
>> mass killing uh than you are about the
one that's also going on right now in
Sudan.
>> It's not that I'm more distressed, it's
that this one is is contested in a
different kind of way. I watch my
colleagues readily using the language of
genocide in Sudan, rightly so, to
describe that scale of suffering and to
describe again it's about intent. It's
not just about the scale of the
suffering.
>> Well, the America said it was genocide.
>> Exactly. Exactly. America's come forward
and said it. And yet the the British and
the American governments are not saying
that this is a genocide. And therefore,
that's where because it's contested,
that's where I'm focusing all of my
energy. And yeah, I think I am
distressed because I feel like um these
are my colleagues that I'm witnessing
using language that I don't think is
accurate and I'm disappointed and
frustrated with that. And also because
I'm disappointed and frustrated in the
ways that Palestinian journalists are
not being heard and listened to.
Palestinian journalists are saying this
is a genocide. They are there. They are
living it day after day. They are
literally going without food as they're
trying to report. They're coming on
screen and saying that their family
members have been killed. Um, and
they're describing as a genocide and I
see no reason to not believe what
they're saying.
>> Then I suppose we have to get to sort of
what lies underneath it. Um,
>> which I guess is racism.
>> Yes. Yeah. I mean, there's plenty of
racism as well against Sudan. I want to
make that absolutely clear. Part of the
reason why the world hasn't paid
sufficient attention to the genocide
there is because of the way that black
bodies aren't respected and valued in
the same way that, let's say, bodies,
white bodies elsewhere might be. Uh,
And I would say that um the case of
Palestine, part of the reason why it
also takes up so much of my attention is
because it is this confluence of so many
things. Here is colonialism taking place
before our very eyes. Here is
Islamophobia. Here is anti-Arab hatred.
Um it's everything. H
>> how have you seen that in the course of
your work?
>> You see it in the reporting itself. One
of the very earliest pieces that I did
in October actually, um I believe I
published it like October 18th was an
analysis of pieces that were published
in the New York Times. I worked with a
researcher called Holly Jackson to do
this. Um she had already looked at bias
biases in New York Times reporting when
it came to Israel Palestine. So I
reached back out to her and she scraped
all of these New York Times articles and
looked at um and this is again just in
the first few weeks, looked at the
number of mentions of Israeli deaths
versus Palestinian deaths, was able to
show a wildly disproportionate coverage
of Israeli deaths and was also able to
show the way that the language again
language really, really matters, right?
Israelis were described as being
massacred, slain, murdered and
Palestinians were simply they weren't
even killed actually more often it was
Palestinians dead. Palestinians who have
died. Um, and we see this over and over
again, this use of this passive language
in headlines and in articles that again
implies that
there's something almost natural about
the way that Arabs die.
>> And what what was the response in the
New York Times to your observations?
>> Well, I actually pitched the data to the
New York Times initially before I
published it myself and they said, uh,
no thank you. Um,
and
uh, yeah, I wouldn't say they were
particularly interested in the same
types of articles that I was interested
in at the time. I I pitched them this
piece about um, again the
disproportionate coverage that the New
York Times has been doing. I'd also
pitched them a piece about um, how
birthright trips might change in the
future. Not particularly interested in
that. Um,
yeah, I uh,
>> just explain birthright trips. So
birthright trips are um
they are um I mean it's something that I
saw even in my secondary school. I saw
um people that were in my secondary
school go off and do birthright which is
a funded trip to Israel with the stated
purpose of improving relations with the
states only for Jewish people. Um and as
the language implies it is reinforcing
this idea that when you go to Israel
this is your birthright. this land
belongs to you. Regardless of where you
were born, regardless of where your
parents, your grandparents were born,
this is yours. It was fascinating
actually. The people that went and did
Birthright had a very different reaction
to me when they came back. I felt like
our relationships changed. I was the
only Arab person in my school and yeah,
suddenly we weren't friends anymore. And
I find it very very troubling that there
are many many journalists who have done
birthright trips who don't need to
disclose that as a potential source of
bias in their reporting. There are
journalists in very very senior
positions who have family members that
are currently serving in the IDF as well
as having done birth right themselves.
And that doesn't compromise their
objectivity. Whereas for me, the mere
fact of being an Arab means that my
opinion on Palestinian Israel is
inherently tainted. Of course, I'm
biased. Of course, I'm siding with the
Palestinians. Yeah.
>> And and did you did you just feel that
from the way people spoke to you or were
you confronted with it? You know, were
you accused of bias? accused of being
pro Palestinian because of my
>> um
you I it wasn't stated as an as a as um
well it wasn't even it wasn't an
accusation it was what happened was I
used to work for these places who would
hire me to do journalism right to do my
job which is to gather research to
gather the facts to scrutinize the facts
to question the facts and then to report
them as accurately as possible and all
of a sudden after October as I said they
said no to all of my pitches that were
based on journalism and instead I had
one approach from an opinion desk at the
New York Times saying can you write
about what it feels like to be an Arab
Muslim woman watching what's happening
in Palestine and I found that very very
upsetting and you're seeing this by the
way across the board right Arab
journalists are not really being trusted
I mean it's shifted a little bit
actually as the genocide has gone on but
especially especially early on we
weren't trusted to report on what was
happening we were being asked to write
opinion pieces and it's a way of reinfor
forcing this idea of like it's all very
complicated. It's about identity
politics. It's Muslims versus Jews,
which is also absolute crap. Um there
are still there aren't many left, but
there are still Palestinian Christians
living in Gaza today. Um
yeah, and the way that the Israeli
aparttheid state uh operates is not
based on whether you are Muslim or
Jewish. It it operates based on whether
you are Jewish or anything else. Um, so
yeah, I definitely so as soon as you
started wanting to apply your journalism
>> to this conflict
>> and
>> that was when they weren't interested.
>> Yes, absolutely.
>> And do you feel that your career as a
result
I mean is is being cancelled or
>> No, I wouldn't go that far. I think it's
um I think it's complicated. Also,
again, I think about the ways that I
talk about this stuff and the impact
that it has on people who are watching
and listening. I don't want to imply
that if you speak up about what the
truth is and that that's literally all
that I feel that I have done. By the
way, when I spoke to New York Times, I
said, "Are you able to point to any of
my work that I have done since October
that has had any factual errors or
inaccuracies?" And the answer was no.
So, I stand by absolutely everything
that I've done. And I don't want to send
a message that if you tell the truth,
you will be punished. which I think
that's really really harmful and has
such a chilling effect. I would also say
by the way um yes I pitched it to the
New York Times first before I published
it. But as journalists don't we always
speak publicly
>> in order to hold people to account like
it's such a journalistic thing to do to
say this is where things are going
wrong. And I made it very very clear
that I I actually think on many other
subjects the New York Times does
phenomenal journalism. Um uh but anyway,
I just want to quickly say that I did
write to them afterwards and said, "I
really really hope you reconsider and we
can work together again." Again, this is
very very early on in October. Things
feel very very different now. Um it
might have actually been early November.
And they wrote back and I said, "Unless
you are able to point to a single
factual error, this feels punitive." And
they said, "Unfortunately, that is our
position currently."
>> Right.
>> So
>> you you are still the data editor of the
Guardian US.
>> Um do they publish whatever you want?
No, no one gets published with whatever
you want. Of course, you still have
editors and of course there's still
negotiation, but I feel that um my job
there I'm able to report the truth more
effectively, more efficiently. Yeah.
Yeah. That's why I'm now
>> um more more truthfully.
>> More truthfully. Yeah. I I you know, for
example, I pitched an article about
Israeli settlements. It's just using UN
data about Israeli settler attacks. how
many are taking place per year, what the
nature of those attacks are,
>> and so what what has been your response
having sort of lost one of your big
outlets and the place where you won the
Pulit surprise um in the New York Times
to sort of tell your story?
>> Is it on your own platform? Is that the
answer? Because in a way this is quite a
depressing story because this is sort of
this is somebody who wants to you know
get truths out there using the skills
that you've developed and you're saying
you've hit some brick walls and pretty
depressing walls
>> which I think everyone can relate to in
so every journalist can relate to in one
way or another. Um I have been using
social media which I think is also
fraugh and flawed in all kinds of ways.
I'm at the mercy of the algorithms and
these tech companies. Um,
>> and these tech companies are not
particularly
um,
wild about the kinds of messages you're
putting out either.
>> No. No. Um,
so it's imperfect and I don't know. We
just keep on trying. Like I was like,
I'll say yes to doing a podcast like
this in the hopes that that language
about genocide, someone hears it and it
shifts someone's thinking. I don't know.
I don't know.
So, do do you have a sense of of how you
should get the truth out?
>> No, I think
>> in a world of tech
>> bros and populist governments.
>> Yeah. I think we have to just constantly
be really really creative and keep on
thinking,
not get kind of stuck in our ways. I
think a lot again I know I keep on
coming back to it, but I think a lot
about language. Like I was raised by two
parents who spoke English as a second
language and that informs my journalism
because it informs the the words that I
use for stuff. If there is a simpler
word, I'm not going to use the more
complicated word if it captures the
truth just as accurately. Like I'm
constantly trying to think about
accessibility for different audiences.
Um, you know, I think about one of the
things that I think is sometimes
effective about these charts that I make
is that you can share them on WhatsApp
with your auntie. You know, they can be
shared in diff across different
platforms. Um, I try to do like these
small little things where like I'll post
it in one color palette on Instagram and
one color palette on like Twitter or on
other platforms to see if it comes up
against in another context. I'll be able
to see, oh, where did someone like
where, you know, where exactly did they
find this potentially?
>> I mean, there's a light-heartedness
>> to illustration and your illustration
and and a and a wit
>> to it.
>> Um,
>> which I'm not getting from this
conversation. I mean has something
happened to you? I mean like
>> you're a miserable Christian.
>> Well to be honest you you know you're
coming over as that. And I'm wondering
have you been made miserable? You know
were you were you a light-hearted witty
person who was trying to get spread
messages in a clever way who has been
beaten down by the realities of what's
going on in Gaza or you're always like
this just making witty content.
you know, this playfulness that I do
sometimes using in my illustrations. It,
you know, there's often like a time and
a place where it doesn't apply to all
subjects. And I think, yeah, it's been
really, really hard to find any degree
of light when um when you are reporting
Obviously, it like takes a massive toll
on your mental health. Yeah, I'm just a
person. It's not even about like the
employment opportunities. Me, it's just
um
how it is personally affecting to be
doing some of this work. And I think
that journalists are very often afraid
of talking about that because again it
implies you're you're um biased. You're
not neutral. But also like if I was to
say to you, do you find it disturbing
the images that you are seeing of
Palestinian children in Gaza? Of course
you're going to say yes. Like how can
you not say yes? It is just affecting.
Um so yeah, I'm really really miserable.
Um it's a shame because I used to be
able to like you know have some fun on a
conversation like this and I I'm not
really feeling that right now. Yeah.
So, is what you're trying to communicate
changing then the topics you're you're
you're covering?
honest. It's like um and I feel it's the
case of so many of us. We're just like
what is it that I'm doing right now? You
know, like what how what impact is this
having? Why am I doing it? And yet the
idea of not doing what I'm doing is
unthinkable because I I simply can't do
nothing. So I just carry on and it feels
um yeah it's really difficult. It's
quite crazy making.
>> I mean one of the really interesting
things you're doing is um is a cartoon.
>> Well I mean no changing the subject but
it's also not you know that you're
you're you're doing something that's
>> um looking at uh Muslims in America and
and all the sort of the um I mean
politics with a small P around that. um
how women wear a hijab um how families
try and blend in um I mean how how did
that come about how easy was it to get
commissioned
>> yeah so Ramy Ysef who had co-created the
show with Pam Brady got in touch with me
in I the the early summer of 2020 so the
pandemic had just started he and Pam had
had this idea to create this animated
show that was set in 2001 he got in
touch with me to see if I could like
pitch on like visual ideas for the for
the language of the show. So, number
one, Happy Family USA is a animated uh
show about an Arab Muslim family and it
starts on September 10th, 2001. They're
living in New Jersey and it shows how um
their lives are kind of turned upside
down that by the political forces around
them and it was really interesting to me
again as a journalist like obviously it
was a very creative endeavor and it's
funny.
>> Um yeah, it's very very funny. Um,
obviously it was a creative endeavor,
but you know, that period also really
really informed my journalism. I'm sure
it really really informed your
journalism too, right? Like this was um
going back to the flaws of journalism
and racism. Like I watched the way that
um the leadup to the Iraq war was
reported on. I'm Iraqi. I watched those
headlines that were wrong, that were
factually misleading, false. Um, and you
know, so much of this show is about that
world and the way that like um
the way that one particular community
became really really singled out
overnight. Yeah.
>> What is the atmosphere in American TV
right now around that kind of topic?
>> Yeah. Um, I don't know if the show would
get made today to be totally honest. I
feel like um there has been a kind of
a shift I would say in a lot of media to
be like, "Oh god, uh we should probably
be con catering more to uh conservative
audiences."
>> I mean, you have networks who are
clearly afraid.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um and they're
right to be afraid. I mean, there have
been lawsuits. Uh National Public Radio
has been defunded by um this presidency.
People are losing money and um as you
know like people might have this sense
like you know we're sitting in a nice
studio um actually journalism is really
really struggling financially and um
without state support it's very very
very difficult to make good journalism.
>> And for you as a as a as a data
journalist where do you I mean like
where do you do your journalism? Can you
do your journalism at home? And do you
yearn more to be on the ground?
>> Yeah. So funny when you say on the
ground, I'm like again getting uh bogged
down in language, but I feel like so
much of journalism actually uses the
language of like warfare like out in the
field on the ground, which I find quite
these are journalistic cliches.
>> I know they're cliches, but they they
have meaning, right? Like it, you know,
it shapes the way that we think about
the work that we do. Um I do spend a lot
of the time at my desk, but I'm also
always picking up the phone. I feel like
it's really really important to ask
people who have got lived experience. So
whatever it is, let's say I'm reporting
on um I'm doing some kind of uh chart
about
I don't know um widowers and like
widowers by age. I want to speak
somebody who has had an experience of
losing a spouse partly to make sure that
the the work is tonally correct that it
feels like it's um considerate and
respectful. I also want to speak to some
people about the why. Data is so often
flawed about telling you the why. It
will tell you how something has changed,
when it changed, where it changed, if it
changed, but it's very, very bad at
telling you why something has changed.
>> Yeah. No, I mean, I ask, you know, for
me, for me as a journalist, I spend
obviously a huge amount of time in the
studio. But if I don't get out and go to
the stories as well
>> for a period of time, I I go a bit crazy
because I feel disconnected from what's
going on. So, it's very very important
for me to get out. And I, you know, I
just wonder whether you feel that more
now.
>> I do. Yeah. And I felt it before. I, you
know, again, I have this really cynical
take on data. I don't believe that it's
like this perfect more accurate way of
of understanding the world. I think very
often it like flattens out human
experiences
um in ways that are quite damaging,
right? Like if you're constantly just
reporting on, for example, like, you
know, the average unemployment rate
nationally, there are people who are
going to be in cities across this
country who are going to be like, "Wait
a second, that doesn't represent our
experience whatsoever." there's going to
be demographic groups who were like,
"Wait, that's not what things look like
for me." Um, so yeah,
>> there was a sort of fetishization of
data, wasn't there, where people
thought, well, you can't argue with
data. You can't argue with numbers cuz
they're facts.
>> Yeah. Actually, you can
>> you can even though I still think we're
part of that fetishization, I think
we're still seeing it now. I mean, it's
definitely the case in tech, isn't it?
Um, that data is everything. Um,
>> so what do you think people should
understand about data and data
journalism? I think they should
understand that it is also flawed and
that it's really really important that
they look at what the sources of that
information are and that they then go
and question the reliability of those
sources. So for example, even if it's
something as simple as like a poll,
right? So I'll give a a poll um that
comes to mind like there was a poll. Did
you see these herets polls that were
done quite recently about Israeli public
opinion and what percentage of Israelis
believed that like you know all of Gaza
should be flattened? Again, with with a
poll like that, I want to understand how
many people were asked, was it all
across the country? Which age groups
were asked? You know, generally anything
less than a thousand people really isn't
considered particularly reliable. What
was their methodology? And it's really
hard, right? Because even as I'm saying
these things, it's quite unreasonable
actually to expect every reader, every
viewer to do that work every single time
when they're presented with information.
But I think if you can do it at least
some of the time, you start to better
understand, okay, the distinctions,
let's say, between Channel 4 News and
Fox News because you'll quickly see the
way that these two sources use
information is very, very different.
>> And and do you think these are I mean,
it's like being able to spot fake news
as well, isn't it? I mean, do you think
these are skills that we we will all
have to get pretty quickly if we want to
discern the truth from the lies?
>> Yeah. I think what I worry is happening
is that a lot of people are just opting
out. Don't you think a lot of people are
just like, "This is really confusing.
>> So, just avoid it."
>> Yeah. And people are questioning whether
or not it relates to their daily lives.
They're finding it distressing. Like,
oh, it's very, very upsetting hearing
what's happening in Palestine. So,
they're just looking away. And that
really worries me as well. And that's
part again part of the reason why I use
illustration like I it is important to
show that there are um Palestinian
children who have literally been
beheaded. And at the same time there is
there is a place for those photographs
and it's not what I use in my work
partly because I know that as soon as I
publish that that photograph there are
so many people who are either going to
want to unfollow me, keep scrolling
because it's upsetting and and it should
be upsetting but also there's you know
we're all doing different roles in terms
of the visual information that we're
sharing.
And um
>> it's so rough. I'm sorry. I know it's so
miserable and like I Yeah, it's not fun.
I'm trying to think of anything that's
like less miserable to talk about.
Krishna,
>> it's well it's I mean it's um
it's it's striking, you know, how how um
do you do you feel more affected by this
than you did the art war?
>> That's a really good question, too.
I It's so different in some ways. In
2003, I was 15 years old. I don't even
think I like I actually get very upset
thinking about what my parents were
living through cuz I didn't grasp it at
all at the time.
Um,
I think I'm more affected by this in
some ways again because I'm just at a
very different place in my life, but
also because um
I feel very very afraid of complicity.
That's what I'm really talking about
when I'm obsessing over whether or not
we use the language of genocide or war.
I actually think to use the language of
war is to be complicit in the language
and the messaging that the Israeli state
wants journalists to be using. And so
that's why I'm so deeply troubled right
now is like in which ways am I complicit
by the things that I'm buying, by the
things I'm saying, by the the websites
that I'm reading. As an adult, you you
are burdened with that with that guilt
in a different kind of way.
>> Do you feel the need to start living
more more literally? you know, not
buying goods not just from Israel, but
from America or wherever else. I mean,
>> yeah, I I mean, I personally,
>> you're living in America.
>> Uh, yeah, I am. I am, which is which is
complicated. Um, I'm paying taxes in
America. I'm paying taxes in this
country. This is also a country which is
uh materially supporting the genocide.
yeah, I I I am again talking about how
journalism could change, right? I don't
see much news reporting about the
efficacy of resistance movements. That's
not really part of our vocabulary in
journalism, right? Like it feels
surprising, I guess, to imagine an
evening broadcast is talking about
whether or not BDS, for example, is
working. And I feel like actually that
is the kind of journalism that could
also help to change the world by letting
people know what works. And I do believe
that BDS it might not be working as much
as it should right now um as much as it
could um if more people are involved.
Again, for me, my main priority is to
the knowledge that I'm not being
complicit rather than this idea that
it's going to make the genocide stop. Um
but I also believe it can be effective
um in in at least slowing down the rate
of killing.
>> Well, Mona, we must leave it there.
Thank you so much for being so open
about the uh
>> the dilemas and the misery, I suppose.
around what you do. I hope you enjoyed
that. You can watch all of these
interviews on the Channel 4 News YouTube
channel. Until next time, bye-bye.