Elizabeth Jay

[Elizabeth Jay]] (also known as Elizabeth Apfel - her married name), an Israel lobbyist and PR professional, is the former chief executive of pro-Israel flak group Just Journalism. She is the former spokesperson for Community Security Trust and a contributor to Harry's Place.

Background

According to her Jewcy profile:

Elizabeth Jay grew up in London and is a specialist in corporate communications and public affairs. She was formerly a consultant at the leading corporate communications consultancy Fishburn Hedges, where she advised not-for-profit and government organisations as well as companies including the BBC, Allen & Overy and BT. Prior to this she worked in communications for a leading charity. Previously, she practiced as a barrister in criminal and common law at the Chambers of Lord Thomas of Gresford QC in the Temple. Her qualifications include an MSc Econs in International Relations from the London School of Economics. Elizabeth was appointed to the post of Chief Executive of Just Journalism in January 2009.

Role at Just Journalism

Elizabeth Apfel was appointed as Director of Just Journalism on 14 January 2009 some two weeks after the resignation of the previous director (who had never been formally appointed as a director at Companies House) Adel Darwish. Darwish had resigned over what he called a 'McCarthyist witch hunt' against journalists which he claimed was the agenda of the 'chairwoman' presumably a reference to Dana Brass the founding director. Apfel lasted less than four months in the job and her appointment as director was terminated on 8 May 2009.

In a critique of Just Journalism during Jay's tenure, Sharif Nashishibi or Arab Media Watch notes:

Elizabeth Jay's analysis of British media coverage of the recent Israeli elections, and comparison with the last Palestinian elections, is breathtaking in its selectivity, inaccuracy and exaggeration. She claims that, "by the way the results were reported in some sections of the media, you could be forgiven for thinking that Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party came in first, rather than third". This is nonsense. The media have consistently reported that his party came third, and, like the Israeli media, have accurately described him as a "kingmaker" in terms of who will be Israel's next prime minister.

Jay sarcastically criticises the media's negative reaction to the prospect of a Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu partnership. Their leaders support military occupation, ethnic cleansing, colonisation, racial discrimination and war against others in the region, notably Iran. If this is not an "extreme political force", I do not know what is. The only accusation one can make of the media's negative reaction to such a partnership is that some have portrayed Kadima and Labour as dovish, peace-loving parties, as if checkpoints, settlements, closures and the barrier have not flourished under their watch.

Jay claims that the British media were too easy on Hamas after its electoral victory. Her quoting of editorials in the Guardian, Independent and Daily Telegraph is highly selective, conveniently omitting those parts that are harsh towards Hamas and its ascent to power. Absent, too, is any mention of the Daily Mail's editorial (the only one published by the tabloids), which was particularly scathing, or the numerous other critical opinion pieces. This is no coincidence, because they go against her argument that the media are somehow pro-Hamas and inherently anti-Israel. To back up her argument, Jay refers to a report by Just Journalism, of which she is chief executive. The report vaguely categorises articles as "neutral", "less favourable", "more favourable" and "favourable" towards Israel, while admitting in its appendix that its methodology involves "subjectivity", thus crippling the credibility of its findings. Note, too, that "less favourable" does not mean unfavourable, a category that does not exist in the report.

The report clearly identifies Just Journalism's subjectivity, criticising the BBC Middle East editor for "humanising Palestinian perspectives" (how dare he depict Palestinians as human), as well as the Guardian and Independent for allegedly publishing "five times as many opinion pieces critical of Israel's occupation than supportive". Does Just Journalism really believe that balance is achieved by supporting occupation? The organisation reveals what it considers as balance. It claims that during the Gaza conflict, the media was balanced "in the amount of time and space allocated to quoting Israeli spokespeople", while admitting that "Israeli officials constituted the largest proportion of quoted individuals within the coverage as a whole," representing "more than three times as many press quotations as Hamas officials". If this is balance, who needs bias?

Affiliations

• Community Security Trust - spokeswoman
• Just Journalism - former chief executive
• Harry's Place - blogger