by SARA QUDAH
The CPJ’s public methodology, independent research and commitment to evidence are at the heart of its work, writes MENA Regional Director Sara Qudah.
I had no intention of writing about the organisation I work for. Institutions should be judged by their work, not by opinion pieces written in their defence. But I am writing today because the allegations directed at the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) no longer concern the organisation alone. They call into question the integrity of people I know, misrepresent work I have been part of, and cast doubt on a documentation process to which entire teams have devoted themselves during one of the most complex wars of our time.
This is not a statement on behalf of CPJ. It is my personal testimony.
I joined CPJ in April 2025 as Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa because I believed in its mission long before I worked there. I have often said that working at CPJ was a professional dream of mine. After more than a year inside the organisation, I can say with confidence that what I witnessed did not diminish that belief—it strengthened it.
From the inside, I experienced successive crises, unprecedented pressure, and wars in which every piece of information became the subject of political and media contestation. It is in moments like these—not in times of calm—that an institution’s independence is truly tested.
Throughout this period, not once did anyone attempt to influence my professional judgment or direct my decisions. I was never instructed to alter a conclusion, remove a name, add another, or align research findings with a political position, the wishes of a donor, or the views of the Board of Directors. I was never asked to compromise my principles or the standards by which I work. I was never asked to change my language or soften my words.
Had that happened, I would not have stayed for a single day. This is not an abstract position. It is the reality I live every day.
That is why I feel compelled to respond to allegations that CPJ has changed—or intends to change—its definition of who qualifies as a journalist, or that it has altered its methodology in response to political pressure. I witnessed nothing of the sort, and such claims are entirely inconsistent with the organisation I came to know.
The methodology governing CPJ’s documentation of journalists, both globally and in the Middle East, has not changed. It is publicly available and open for anyone to examine. What occurred recently began as a review of a limited number of cases after new evidence emerged, including statements issued by armed groups identifying some individuals previously documented in CPJ’s database as members of their military wings. Following an independent assessment of that evidence, the records were updated by applying the same methodology that has guided CPJ’s work for years—not by adopting new standards.
After additional information emerged, I requested that management authorise a comprehensive review of the entire database. That request was met with neither objection nor attempts to influence the process.
To be clear, this review—led by a small team within the Middle East and North Africa program—is entirely independent. It began at the start of June and remains ongoing. It was prompted solely by the emergence of new evidence that warranted re-examining parts of the database.
Nor is this the first review CPJ has undertaken, and it is unlikely to be the last. The organisation has long treated its database as a living record, updating it whenever credible new evidence becomes available. The current review focuses on cases documented between 2023 and 2026 involving journalists killed or targeted by the Israeli military in Gaza during the genocide.
That is the essence of responsible documentation: the willingness to revisit the record when new facts emerge.
NA for more