{"id":50761,"date":"2014-12-08T12:16:43","date_gmt":"2014-12-08T12:16:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=50761"},"modified":"2015-05-05T21:27:12","modified_gmt":"2015-05-05T20:27:12","slug":"palestine-is-not-an-environment-story","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2014\/12\/palestine-is-not-an-environment-story\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Palestine Is Not an Environment Story\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

How I was censored by <\/em>The Guardian for writing about Israel\u2019s war for Gaza\u2019s gas.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"gaza<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

3 Dec 2014 – <\/em>After writing for The Guardian for over a year, my contract was unilaterally terminated because I wrote a piece on Gaza that was beyond the pale. In doing so, The Guardian breached the very editorial freedom the paper was obligated to protect under my contract. I\u2019m speaking out because I believe it is in the public interest to know how a Pulitizer Prize-winning newspaper which styles itself as the world\u2019s leading liberal voice, casually engaged in an act of censorship to shut down coverage of issues that undermined Israel\u2019s publicised rationale for going to war.<\/p>\n

Gaza\u2019s gas<\/strong><\/p>\n

I joined the Guardian as an environment blogger in April 2013. Prior to this, I had been an author, academic and freelance journalist for over a decade, writing for The Independent, Independent on Sunday, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, among others.<\/p>\n

On 9th July 2014, I posted an article<\/a> via my Earth Insight blog<\/a> at The Guardian\u2019s environment website, exposing the role of Palestinian resources, specifically Gaza\u2019s off-shore natural gas reserves, in partly motivating Israel\u2019s invasion of Gaza aka \u2018Operation Protective Edge.\u2019 Among the sources I referred to was a policy paper written by incumbent Israeli defence minister Moshe Ya\u2019alon one year before Operation Cast Lead, underscoring that the Palestinians could never be allowed to develop their own energy resources as any revenues would go to supporting Palestinian terrorism.<\/p>\n

\"Gas<\/a>

Gas resources exist off Gaza\u2019s shore<\/p><\/div>\n

The article now has 68,000 social media shares, and is by far the single most popular article on the Gaza conflict to date. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Israel has seen control of Gaza\u2019s gas as a major strategic priority over the last decade for three main reasons.<\/p>\n

Firstly, Israel faces a near-term gas crisis\u200a\u2014\u200alargely due to the long lead time needed to bring Israel\u2019s considerable domestic gas resources into production; secondly, Netanyahu\u2019s administration cannot stomach any scenario in which a Hamas-run Palestinian administration accesses and develops their own resources; thirdly, Israel wants to use Palestinian gas as a strategic bridge to cement deals with Arab dictatorships whose domestic populations oppose signing deals with Israel.<\/p>\n

Either way, the biggest obstacle to Israel accessing Gaza\u2019s gas is the Hamas-run administration in the strip, which rejects all previous agreements that Israel had pursued to develop the gas with the British Gas Group and the Palestinian Authority.<\/p>\n

Censorship in the land of the free<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since 2006, The Guardian has loudly trumpeted its aim to be the world\u2019s leading liberal voice<\/a>. For years, the paper has sponsored the annual Index on Censorship\u2019s prestigious Freedom of Expression Award<\/a>. The paper won the Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the National Security Agency (NSA). Generally, the newspaper goes out of its way to dress itself up as standing at the forefront of fighting censorship, particularly in the media landscape. This is why its approach to my Gaza gas story is so disturbing.<\/p>\n

The day after posting it, I received a phone call from James Randerson, assistant national news editor. He sounded riled and rushed. Without beating around the bush, James told me point blank that my Guardian blog was to be immediately discontinued. Not because my article was incorrect, factually flawed, or outrageously defamatory. Not because I\u2019d somehow breached journalistic ethics, or violated my contract. No. The Gaza gas piece, he said, was \u201cnot an environment story,\u201d and therefore was an \u201cinappropriate post\u201d for the Guardian\u2019s environment website:<\/p>\n

\u201cYou\u2019re writing too many non-environment stories, so I\u2019m afraid we just don\u2019t have any other option. This article doesn\u2019t belong on the environment site. It should really be on Cif [i.e. the Guardian\u2019s online opinion section known as \u2018Comment Is Free\u2019].\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

I was shocked, and more than a little baffled. As you can read on my Guardian profile<\/a>, my remit was to cover \u201cthe geopolitics of environmental, energy and economic crises.\u201d That was what I was commissioned to do\u200a\u2014\u200aindeed, when I had applied in late 2012 to blog for The Guardian, an earlier piece I\u2019d written on the link between Israeli military operations and Gaza\u2019s gas in Le Monde diplomatique was part of my portfolio.<\/p>\n

So I suggested to James that termination was somewhat of an overreaction. Perhaps we could simply have a meeting to discuss the editorial issues and work out together what my remit should be. \u201cI\u2019d be happy to cooperate as much as possible,\u201d I said. I didn\u2019t want to lose my contract. James refused point blank, instead telling me that my \u201cinterests are increasingly about issues that we don\u2019t think are a good fit for what we want to see published on the environment site.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the end, my polite protestations got nowhere. Within the hour, I received an email from a rights manager at The Guardian informing me that they had terminated my contract.<\/p>\n

Under that contract, however, I had editorial control over what I wrote on my blog\u200a\u2014\u200aobviously within the remit that I had been commissioned for. From May to April, environment bloggers underwent training and supervision to ensure that we would eventually be up to speed to post on the site independently based on our own editorial judgement. The terms and conditions we signed up to under our contract state:<\/p>\n

\u201cYou shall regularly maintain Your Blog and shall determine its content. You shall launch Your own posts which shall not be sub-edited by GNM. GNM occasionally might raise topics of interest with You suitable for Your Blog but You shall be under no obligation to include or cover such topics.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The terms also point out that termination of the contract with immediate effect could only occur \u201cif the other party commits a material breach of any of its obligations under this Agreement which is not capable of remedy\u201d; or if \u201cthe other party has committed a material breach of any of its obligations under this Agreement which is capable of remedy but which has not been remedied within a period of thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n

The problem is that I had committed no breach of any of my contractual obligations. On the contrary, The Guardian had breached its contractual obligation to me regarding my freedom to determine the contents of my blog, simply because it didn\u2019t like what I wrote. This is censorship.<\/p>\n

As the Index on Censorship points out, the \u201cabsence of direct state-sponsored, highly visible censorship, which prevails in many countries around the world, may contribute to the commonly held view that there is no censorship in this country and that it is not a problem.\u201d However, \u201ccontemporary UK censorship, which sits within a liberal democracy\u201d can come \u201cin many different forms, both direct and indirect, some more subtle, some more overt.\u201d<\/p>\n

Invisible barriers<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ironically, a few days later, I was contacted by the editor of The Ecologist\u200a\u2014\u200aone of the world\u2019s premier environment magazines\u200a\u2014\u200awho wanted to re-print my Gaza gas story. After publishing an updated version<\/a> of my Guardian piece, The Ecologist also published my in-depth follow up<\/a> in response to objections printed in The National Interest (ironically authored by a contractor working for a US oil company invested in offshore gas reserves overlapping the Gaza Marine). Obviously, having been expelled by The Guardian, I could not respond via my blog as I would normally have done.<\/p>\n

That follow-up drew on a range of public record sources including leading business and financial publications, as well as official British Foreign Office (FCO) documents obtained under Freedom of Information. The latter confirmed that despite massive domestic gas discoveries in Israel\u2019s own territorial waters, the inability to kick-start production due to a host of bureaucratic, technological, logistical and regulatory issues\u200a\u2014\u200anot to mention real uncertainties in quantities of commercially exploitable resources\u200a\u2014\u200ameant that Israel could face gas supply challenges as early as next year. Israel\u2019s own gas fields would probably not be brought into production until around 2018-2020. Israeli officials, according to the FCO, saw the 1.4 trillion cubic meters of gas in Gaza\u2019s Marine (along with other potential \u201cadditional resources\u201d as yet to be discovered according to the US Energy Information Administration) as a cheap \u201cstop-gap\u201d that might sustain both Israel\u2019s domestic energy needs and its export ambitions until the Tamar and Leviathan fields could actually start producing.<\/p>\n

By broaching such issues in The Guardian, though, it seems I had crossed some sort of invisible barrier\u200a\u2014\u200athat this topic was simply off-limits.<\/p>\n

Energy is part of the environment, wait, no it isn\u2019t, not in Palestine anyway<\/strong><\/p>\n

To illustrate the sheer absurdity of The Guardian\u2019s pretense that a story about Gaza\u2019s gas resources is \u201cnot a legitimate environment story,\u201d consider the fact that just weeks earlier, Adam Vaughan, the editor of the Guardian\u2019s environment website, had personally assented to my posting the following story: \u2018<\/strong>Iraq blowback<\/strong><\/a>: Isis rise manufactured by insatiable oil addiction\u200a\u2014\u200aWest\u2019s co-optation of Gulf states\u2019<\/strong> jihadists created the neocon\u2019s best friend: an Islamist Frankenstein.\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"An<\/a>

An \u2018Islamic State\u2019 (ISIS) convoy of Toyotas. Apparently, ISIS is an environment story. But not Gaza. Hmmmm.<\/p><\/div>\n

Proposed headlines for stories that environment bloggers work on are posted on a shared Google spreadsheet so that editors can keep track of what we\u2019re doing and planning to publish. Adam had seen my proposed headline and requested to see the draft on the 16th June: \u201c\u2026 would you mind sending this one by me on preview, please, before publishing? Just conscious it\u2019s very sensitive subject,\u201d he wrote in an email.<\/p>\n

I sent him the full article with a summary of what it was about. Later in the day, I pinged him again to find out what he thought, and he replied: \u201cthanks, sorry, yes\u200a\u2014\u200aI think it\u2019s fine.\u201d<\/p>\n

So an article about ISIS and oil addiction is \u201cfine,\u201d but a piece about Israel, Gaza and conflict over gas resources is not. Really? Are offshore gas resources not part of the environment? Apparently, for The Guardian, not in Palestine, where Gaza\u2019s environment has been bombed to smithereens by the IDF.<\/p>\n

The Blair factor<\/strong><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the Israel-Gaza gas saga continues. Just over a week ago, Ha\u2019aretz<\/a> carried some insightful updates on the strategic value of the whole thing. Quoting Ariel Ezrahi, energy adviser to Quartet Middle East envoy Tony Blair (the Quartet representing the US, UN, EU and Russia), Ha\u2019aretz noted that there was a reason why Jordan\u200a\u2014\u200awhich had recently signed an agreement with Israel to purchase gas from its Leviathan field\u200a\u2014\u200ahad simultaneously announced that it intended to purchase gas from Gaza. As Israel attempts to reposition itself as a major gas exporter to regional regimes like Egypt and Turkey, the biggest challenge is that \u201cit\u2019s very hard for them to sign a gas contract with Israel despite their desperate need,\u201d due to how unpopular such a move would be with their domestic populations.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf I were Israel\u2019s prime minister,\u201d Blair\u2019s energy adviser said, \u201cI\u2019d think how I could help the neighboring countries extricate themselves from the jam, and if Israel closes the Palestinian gas market, that\u2019s not a smart thing.\u201d So Israel has to find a way to open the Palestinian gas market and integrate it into the emerging complex of Israeli export deals: \u201c\u2026 it would be wise for Israel to at least consider the contribution of the Palestinian dimension to these deals,\u201d said Ezrahi. \u201cI think it\u2019s a mistake for Israel to rush into regional agreements without at least considering the Palestinian dimension and how it can contribute to Israeli interests.\u201d<\/p>\n

Israel, backed by its allies in the west, wants to use the Palestinians \u201cas an asset as they strive to join the regional power grid, and as a bridge to the Arab world,\u201d by selling Palestinian \u201cgas to various markets,\u201d or promoting a deal with the corporations developing Israel\u2019s \u201cTamar and Leviathan [fields] that will allow for the sale of cheap gas to the [Palestinian] Authority.\u201d<\/p>\n

But there is a further challenge when considering the Palestinian dimension, namely Hamas: \u201cI can\u2019t meet with people linked to Hamas,\u201d said Blair\u2019s energy adviser. \u201cIt\u2019s a very firm ban dictated by the Quartet. <\/em>[emphasis added] The Americans don\u2019t enter Gaza either.\u201d So it is not just Israel that has ruled out any gas deal with the Palestinians involving Hamas. So have the US, EU, UN and Russia.<\/p>\n

But Israel has no mechanism to eliminate Hamas from the Gaza strip\u200a\u2014\u200aexcept, as far as Moshe Ya\u2019alon is concerned, military action to change facts on the ground.<\/p>\n

Over the 70 odd articles I\u2019d written for The Guardian, not a single piece falls outside the subject matter I had been commissioned to write on: the geopolitics of interconnected environment, energy and economic crises. The conclusion is unavoidable: The Guardian had simply decided that resource conflicts over the Occupied Territories should not receive coverage. It should be noted that before my post, the paper had never before acknowledged a link between IDF military action and Gaza\u2019s gas. Now that I\u2019m gone, I doubt it will ever be covered again.<\/p>\n

Well, at least Ya\u2019alon, and his boss Netanyahu, will be happy.<\/p>\n

Not to mention Tony Blair.<\/p>\n

Liberal gatekeeping<\/strong><\/p>\n

When I began speaking in confidence to a number of other journalists inside and outside The Guardian about what had happened to me, they all consistently told me that my experience\u200a\u2014\u200aalthough particularly outrageous\u200a\u2014\u200awas not entirely unprecedented.<\/p>\n

A senior editor of a national British publication who has written frequently for The Guardian\u2019s opinion section, told me that he was aware that all coverage of the Israel-Palestine issue was \u201ctightly controlled\u201d by Jonathan Freedland, the Guardian\u2019s executive editor for opinion.<\/p>\n

Another journalist told me that a Guardian editor commissioned a story from him discussing the suppression of criticism of Israel in public discourse and media, but that Freedland rejected the story without even reviewing a draft.<\/p>\n

Several other journalists I spoke to inside and outside The Guardian went so far as to describe Freedland as the newspaper\u2019s unofficial \u2018gatekeeper\u2019 on the Middle east conflict, and that he invariably leaned toward a pro-Israel slant.<\/p>\n

These anecdotes have been publicly corroborated by Jonathan Cook, a former Middle East staff reporter, foreign editor and columnist for The Guardian, who is currently based in Nazareth where he has won several awards for his reporting. A profile<\/a> of Cook at the progressive Jewish news site Mondoweiss <\/em>points out that a key turning point in Cook\u2019s career occurred in 2001 when he had just returned from Israel, having conducted an investigation into the murder of 13 non-violent Arab protestors by Israeli police during the second intifada the year before.<\/p>\n

The police, Cook found, had executed a \u201cshoot-to-kill policy\u201d against unarmed victims\u200a\u2014\u200aas was eventually confirmed by a government inquiry. But The Guardian suppressed his investigation, and chose not to run it at all. Cook says that while the paper does contain some exemplary reporting and insights, and even goes out of its way to condemn the occupation, there are certain lines that simply cannot be crossed, such as questioning Israel\u2019s capacity to define itself as simultaneously an exclusively Jewish and democratic state, or critiquing aspects of its security doctrine.<\/p>\n

Cook\u2019s scathing criticism of his former paper in a 2011 Counterpunch<\/em><\/a> article is highly revealing, and relevant, for understanding what happened to me:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Guardian, like other mainstream media, is heavily invested\u200a\u2014\u200aboth financially and ideologically\u200a\u2014\u200ain supporting the current global order. It was once able to exclude and now, in the internet age, must vilify those elements of the left whose ideas risk questioning a system of corporate power and control of which the Guardian is a key institution.<\/em><\/p>\n

The paper\u2019s role, like that of its rightwing cousins, is to limit the imaginative horizons of readers. While there is just enough leftwing debate to make readers believe their paper is pluralistic, the kind of radical perspectives needed to question the very foundations on which the system of Western dominance rests is either unavailable or is ridiculed.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Last month, Cook highlighted ongoing subtle but powerful insensitivities of language employed by The Guardian coverage\u2019s of the Gaza crisis<\/a> which, in effect, served to \u201cdisappear\u201d the Palestinians. He specifically identified Freedland as a major player in this phenomenon. \u201cThe Guardian\u2019s pride\u201d in having helped create Israel is \u201cstill palpable at the paper (as I know from my years there),\u201d especially among certain senior editors there \u201cwho influence much of the conflict\u2019s coverage\u200a\u2014\u200ayes, that is a reference to Jonathan Freedland, among others.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Gaza<\/a>

Gaza after Israel\u2019s \u2018Operation Protective Edge\u2019<\/p><\/div>\n

===<\/p>\n

UPDATE 4th Dec 2014 (10.13AM):<\/strong> Jonathan Freedland has offered a response this morning via TwitLonger<\/a>, as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cYour piece for Medium implies I was involved in the end of your arrangement with the Guardian. I don\u2019t wish to be rude, but I had literally not heard of you or your work till seeing that Medium piece, via Twitter, a few hours ago. (The Guardian environment website, where you wrote, is edited separately from the Guardian\u2019s Comment is Free site, which I now oversee.) I had no idea you wrote for the Guardian, no idea that arrangement had been terminated and not the slightest knowledge of your piece on Gaza\u2019s gas until a few hours ago. What\u2019s more, I was abroad\u200a\u2014\u200aon vacation\u200a\u2014\u200aon the days in July you describe. To put it starkly, my involvement in your case was precisely zero. I hope that as a matter of your own journalistic integrity, you\u2019ll want to alter the Medium piece to reflect these facts. Perhaps you\u2019ll also share this on Twitter as widely as you shared the Medium piece yesterday.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

However, Freedland\u2019s reading of this piece is incorrect. I am not implying that Freedland was \u201cinvolved\u201d in the end of my Guardian tenure. I have no clue about that, and to be sure, I did not make any such claim above.<\/p>\n

My simple point is that my experience of egregious Guardian censorship over the Gaza gas story\u200a\u2014\u200awhich Freedland does not address beyond denying his involvement\u200a\u2014\u200ahas a long and little-known context, suggesting that rather than my experience being a mere bizarre and accidental aberration, it is part of an entrenched, wider culture across the paper of which Freedland himself has allegedly played a key role in fostering.<\/p>\n

It is not my fault that the range of journalists I spoke to all described Freedland as the Guardian\u2019s resident unofficial \u201cgatekeeper\u201d on Israel-Palestine coverage. Notably, Freedland fails to address their allegations that he has previously quashed stories which are critical of Israel on ideological grounds rather than reasons of \u2018journalistic integrity.\u2019<\/p>\n

END<\/strong><\/p>\n

===<\/p>\n

This is perhaps not entirely surprising. A book commissioned by The Guardian, Disenchantment: The Guardian and Israel<\/em>, by Daphna Baram, documents clearly the connection between the newspaper and Zionism, noting for instance that Guardian editor CP Scott had been central to the negotiations with the British government resulting in the Balfour Declaration and the very conception of the state of Israel. Her conclusion is that despite becoming increasingly critical of the occupation after 1967, The Guardian remains staunchly pro-Zionist, its staff devoting \u201cinordinate time and effort\u201d to ensure \u201cfairness to Israel<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Toward a media revolution<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Guardian, quite rightly, has a reputation for breaking some of the most important news stories of the decade\u200a\u2014\u200aamong them, of course, playing a lead role in releasing Edward Snowden\u2019s revelations about mass surveillance and related violations of civil liberties. Yet hidden in the cracks of this coverage is the fact that while disclosing critical facts, The Guardian has been unable to raise the most fundamental and probing questions about the purpose and direction of mass surveillance, why it has accelerated, what motivates it, and who benefits from it.<\/p>\n

Questions must therefore be asked as to why a newspaper that sees itself as the global media\u2019s bastion of liberalism, has engaged in such grievous censorship by shutting down coverage of environmental geopolitics\u200a\u2014\u200aa phenomenon which is increasingly at the heart not just of conflict over the Occupied Territories, but of the chaos of world affairs in the 21st century.<\/p>\n

If this is the state of The Guardian, undoubtedly one of the better newspapers, then clearly we have a serious problem with the media. Ultimately, mainstream media remains under the undue influence of powerful special interests, whether financial, corporate or ideological.<\/p>\n

Given the scale of the converging crises we face in terms of climate change, energy volatility, financial crisis, rampant inequality, proliferating species extinctions, insane ocean acidification, food crisis, foreign policy militarism, and the rise of the police-state\u200a\u2014\u200aand given the bankruptcy of much of the media in illuminating the real causes of these crises and their potential solutions, we need new reliable and accountable sources of news and information.<\/p>\n

We need new media, and we need it now.<\/p>\n

As print newspapers go increasingly into decline, the opportunity for new people-powered models of independent digital media is rising exponentially. That\u2019s why I\u2019ve launched a crowdfunder<\/a> to help support my journalism, and to move toward creating a new investigative journalism collective that operates in the public interest, precisely because it is funded not by corporations or ideologues, but by people. If we can create new journalism platforms that are dependent for their survival on citizens themselves, then it is in the interests of citizens that those platforms will function. Until then, fearless, adversarial investigative journalism will always be in danger of being shut down or compromised.<\/p>\n

I believe that together, we can create a new people-powered model of journalism that will make the old, hierarchical media conglomerates dominated by special interests and parochial paternalistic visions of the world obsolete. So, if you like, pop along to my Patreon.com crowdfunder for INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a truly independent people-powered investigative journalism collective that will remain dedicated to breaking the big stories that matter, no matter what. Pledge as little or as much as you like, and join the coming media revolution<\/a>\u263a<\/p>\n

______________________________<\/p>\n

Dr Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed isa member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace, Development and Environment. He is director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development,<\/em> a bestselling author, investigative journalist and international security scholar who writes for <\/em>The Guardian on the geopolitics of environmental, energy and economic crises. He is the author of<\/em> A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It<\/a>, and the forthcoming science fiction thriller, <\/em>Zero Point<\/a>. The Sibel Edmonds memoirs, <\/em>Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story<\/a> is available from all good online booksellers.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 medium.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

3 Dec 2014 – After writing for The Guardian for over a year, my contract was unilaterally terminated because I wrote a piece on Gaza that was beyond the pale. In doing so, The Guardian breached the very editorial freedom the paper was obligated to protect under my contract. The article now has 68,000 social media shares, and is by far the single most popular article on the Gaza conflict to date.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-transcend-members"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50761","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50761"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50761\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50761"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}