Introduction
Wars are not only fought on battlefields; they are also fought in the realm of information. Narratives shape perceptions, perceptions shape policies, and policies shape lives. In Gaza, where thousands have been killed and millions displaced, the absence of international journalists has left a gaping hole in the world’s understanding of the conflict.
Now, four of the world’s most influential news organizations—BBC, AFP, Associated Press (AP), and Reuters—have joined forces in a campaign titled “We Must Be Let In.” Their message is simple but powerful: the world deserves an independent, transparent account of what is happening in Gaza.
This article explores why journalists are demanding entry, what is at stake if they are kept out, and how the battle for transparency in Gaza reflects broader struggles over press freedom worldwide.
Journalism as the First Draft of History
The saying goes that journalism is “the first draft of history.” Without reporters on the ground, wars risk being remembered only through official statements, military communiqués, or selective footage. Such one-sided accounts erase the voices of civilians—the very people who bear the brunt of the conflict.
In Gaza, the stakes are particularly high. Civilian neighborhoods have been bombed, hospitals overwhelmed, and basic necessities like food, water, and fuel have become scarce. Yet, without independent international reporting, much of the world sees these events only through the lens of governments and social media posts that may or may not be reliable.
The Call for Access
In September 2025, the world’s leading wire services and broadcasters came together to release a short campaign film. Journalists from across the globe repeated one urgent plea: “We must be let in.”
The film highlighted that without international reporters, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is being under-reported and under-verified. It was a rare moment of unity in an industry often marked by competition, showing that the need for truth outweighed commercial rivalry.
Why Gaza Is Different
Israel has cited security concerns as the main reason for barring foreign journalists from entering Gaza. Officials argue that active military operations make the region too dangerous.
But critics point out that journalists have historically reported from equally dangerous environments—Afghanistan during Taliban offensives, Syria during chemical weapons attacks, and Iraq during the fall of Mosul. In those cases, governments recognized that media access was necessary, even if it meant additional risks.
The suspicion, voiced by human rights organizations and press freedom advocates, is that Gaza is being deliberately closed off to control the narrative.
The Burden on Local Journalists
In the absence of foreign reporters, Gaza’s story has been carried almost entirely by local Palestinian journalists. These reporters are often underpaid, under-equipped, and constantly in danger.
Many have been killed while working, some alongside their families. Those who survive face immense trauma—documenting bombings, photographing dead children, or reporting from the rubble of their own neighborhoods.
While their work is extraordinary, the international media argues that global journalists must share this responsibility. Their presence could not only amplify the story but also provide protection, solidarity, and resources.
The Humanitarian Dimension
Press access is not just about politics; it is also about humanitarian response. Aid organizations rely on journalists to highlight needs, attract donations, and pressure governments into action.
When the famine in Ethiopia was covered in the 1980s, global reporting sparked a worldwide aid movement. In Bosnia, televised coverage of Sarajevo’s siege led to international intervention. Without similar coverage in Gaza, advocates fear that the humanitarian catastrophe will remain hidden, reducing the urgency of global action.
The Risks of Exclusion
If journalists remain barred, several risks loom:
- Misinformation Thrives – With no independent verification, propaganda dominates.
- Global Apathy – Without compelling stories and images, international audiences may turn away.
- Accountability Fades – Governments and armed groups can act with impunity if no one is watching.
- History Gets Distorted – Future generations may only know a partial, politically filtered version of events.
The battle for transparency, therefore, is not just about present understanding—it is about preserving the historical record.
Social Media vs. Professional Reporting
Some argue that social media already provides access to what’s happening in Gaza. Civilians upload videos and testimonies daily, giving the world a glimpse of the devastation.
Yet, while powerful, social media has limits. Posts can be manipulated, taken out of context, or dismissed as biased. Professional journalism provides verification, context, and credibility that raw footage alone cannot. This is why the demand for international press access remains urgent.
Global Support for the Campaign
The “We Must Be Let In” campaign has gained traction worldwide. Human rights groups, press freedom advocates, and ordinary citizens have echoed the call.
On platforms like X (formerly Twitter), hashtags such as #PressFreedom, #LetJournosIn, and #TransparencyNow have trended globally. The campaign has been compared to past journalistic struggles, such as Vietnam, where images from the battlefield transformed public opinion.
Press Freedom in Decline
The fight for Gaza access reflects a troubling global trend: press freedom is under attack. From Russia to Myanmar, from Sudan to Afghanistan, governments are increasingly restricting journalists in times of crisis.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) notes that 2024 was one of the deadliest years for reporters worldwide. Gaza, in particular, has become one of the most dangerous places on earth to be a journalist. The call from BBC, AFP, AP, and Reuters is therefore not just about Gaza—it is about reversing a global slide into censorship.
What Needs to Happen
For journalists to gain access, several measures must be taken:
- Diplomatic Pressure: Governments and international organizations must insist on media access as part of ceasefire and aid negotiations.
- Safety Protocols: Neutral corridors and safety guarantees must be established.
- Shared Resources: Media organizations must collaborate to provide protective equipment and emergency training.
Without such steps, the demand for transparency risks remaining only a slogan.
Conclusion
The battle for transparency in Gaza is ultimately a battle for truth. Without independent journalists, wars risk being fought in silence, atrocities risk being hidden, and history risks being rewritten by those in power.
BBC, AFP, AP, and Reuters have taken an extraordinary step in uniting to demand entry. Their message is simple but profound: the world has a right to know.
Whether governments will listen remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: the demand for transparency will not go away.
