107

Coverage of Gaza War in the New York Times and Other Major Newspapers Heavily Favored Israel, Analysis Shows (theintercept.com)

submitted 10 months ago by Linkerbaan@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza showed a consistent bias against Palestinians, according to an Intercept analysis of major media coverage.

The print media outlets, which play an influential role in shaping U.S. views of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, paid little attention to the unprecedented impact of Israel’s siege and bombing campaign on both children and journalists in the Gaza Strip.

Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians; and offered lopsided coverage of antisemitic acts in the U.S., while largely ignoring anti-Muslim racism in the wake of October 7. Pro-Palestinian activists have accused major publications of pro-Israel bias, with the New York Times seeing protests Opens in a new tabat its headquarters in Manhattan for its coverage of Gaza –– an accusation supported by our analysis.

all 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

WELL NO DUH. Is this really something people didn't know? The media as a whole is incredibly slanted towards Israel. The fact that none are calling out the genocide that's happening is a big fucking clue.

[-] fastandcurious@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Why will they care, Palestinians are a touch brown, you can’t make money off them, and they are muslims? No thanks /s

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The open-source analysis focuses on the first six weeks of the conflict, from the October 7 Hamas-led attacks that killed 1,139 Israelis and foreign workers to November 24, the beginning of the weeklong “humanitarian truce” agreed to by both parties to facilitate hostage exchanges.

The stakes for this routine devaluing of Palestinian lives couldn’t be higher: As the death toll in Gaza mounts, entire cities are leveled and rendered uninhabitable for years, and whole family lines are wiped out, the U.S. government has enormous influence as Israel’s primary patron and weapons supplier.

In a notable exception, the New York Times ran a late-November front-page story on the historic pace of killings of Palestinian women and children, though the headline featured neither group.

On October 13, the Los Angeles Times ran an Associated Press report that said, “The Gaza Health Ministry said Friday that 1,799 people have been killed in the territory, including more than 580 under the age of 18 and 351 women.

Despite this asymmetry, polls show shifting sympathy toward Palestinians and away from Israel among Democrats, with massive generational splits driven, in part, by a stark difference in news sources.

The original article contains 1,783 words, the summary contains 231 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago

The open-source analysis focuses on the first six weeks of the conflict, from the October 7 Hamas-led attacks that killed 1,139 Israelis and foreign workers to November 24, the beginning of the weeklong “humanitarian truce” agreed to by both parties to facilitate hostage exchanges. During this period, 14,800 Palestinians, including more than 6,000 children, were killed by Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. Today, the Palestinian death toll is over 22,000.

This paragraph mentions Palestinian deaths three times but Israeli deaths once. Therefore the Intercept is biased, according to the Intercept.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I suggest you read the articles, they have graphs and stuff.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I did read the article. I think the methods are questionable. Making a graph doesn't mean the methods are sound.

For example:

For every two Palestinian deaths, Palestinians are mentioned once. For every Israeli death, Israelis are mentioned eight times — or a rate 16 times more per death that of Palestinians.

In other words "There have been 20000 Palestinian deaths and 1000 Israeli deaths" is considered biased, and that sentence should have used the word "Palestinian" twenty times because there were twenty times as many deaths.

[+] StrongHorseWeakNeigh@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

[deleted]

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The rest of the article is also flawed.

For instance "[the media] mentioned antisemitism more than Islamophobia". This presupposes that antisemitism should not be mentioned more than Islamophobia. But why?

If I said "The media mentioned Islamophobia more than Francophobia" then that's not an example of bias, because Islamophobia has been newsworthy for years and nobody pays attention to the French.

So is antisemitism more newsworthy than Islamophobia? Maybe so, given the Stefanik hearings. Maybe not. But the Intercept hasn't even considered this.

Likewise, they count usage of words like "massacre" and "slaughter". But what is that supposed to prove? The Intercept presupposes an unbiased source would not associate "massacre" with Hamas more than Israelis, but why?

Finally, the Intercept wonders why "children" is not used more often in reporting. Here's one possibility: the media treated dead adults and dead children equally, lumping them together in "total dead". They are not singling groups out in a way that the Intercept would prefer. That's the opposite of bias.

Thought experiment: if the media constantly reported "X deaths, of whom Y were Christians" wouldn't that be kind of creepy? Why does someone's religion even matter when tallying the dead? Well, the same could be said of someone's age.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I'm unsure what your point is.

This is only in the first six weeks, current bias against Palestinians is even higher.

The Intercept doesn't report on the deaths. It's not a classic "news" site in the way these papers are. They mainly break scandals and leaks such as CNN and the IDF Censor .

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The Intercept is measuring "bias" by comparing the ratio of Palestinians/Israeli deaths to the ratio of using the words "Palestinian" and "Israeli" in the media.

Which means according to the Intercept, if CNN writes "There have been 20000 Palestinian deaths and 1000 Israeli deaths" then this is another example of bias, because CNN only used "Palestinian" once in that sentence. Which is nonsense.

[+] Arete@lemmy.world -6 points 10 months ago

Consider how time works. Every article about bombings in Gaza also includes references back to October 7th in giving background information. Thousands of articles in the immediate aftermath of a 9/11 scale event didn't mention a Palestinian death toll because there weren't even numbers available.

Some of the "quantitative" techniques used in this article are downright stupid. Dividing word counts for "Israel" and "Palestine" by the number of deaths in each region? Expecting no drop off in reporting over a six week period? Expecting article counts to scale linearly with reported death counts?

They've measured interest, not bias.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Not at all. This article confirms other research such as from three months ago by Holly Jackson:

The New York Times has consistently mentioned Israeli deaths more often than Palestinian deaths overall from 10/7 to 10/22. Israeli deaths have been mentioned the most on 10/12 and 10/13, even though Israeli deaths plateaued since 10/12 and Palestinian deaths have skyrocketed.

Coverage of Israeli deaths increased as Palestinian deaths began to skyrocket.

In addition to the bias in sheer volume of coverage, there was a huge difference in the language used. The word “slaughter” was used 53 times in these articles since 10/7 to describe the deaths of Israelis and zero times to describe the death of Palestinians. The word “massacre” shows up 24 times in reference to Israelis and once in reference to Palestinians in the tagged sentences.

The articles rarely mention the names of Palestinians who die — instead using terms like “mourner”, “resident”, “assailant” or “militant”.

In one article, a murdered Palestinian was simply referred to as the “bloodied corpse” of a presumed "terrorist". This is still counted as a mention of a Palestinian death in the data despite the framing. Israelis who died were often mentioned individually and by name with reference to their families and professions which humanized them in comparison to anonymous Palestinians.

So not only is the reporting frequency different, the language use is also completely different depending on which party is being reported on.

This combined with the fact that multiple reporters have now leaked that their articles have to pass the IDF and get edited by them before being allowed for publication, often softening the language towards israel.

[-] Arete@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago

Ok can you understand how words like "slaughter" and "massacre" may more aptly apply to the October 7th attack than to the subsequent invasion?

On one side we have a mass terror attack involving 1000+ deaths. These were often done individually, with a single terrorist targeting and shooting a person in their home. Often these were accompanied by acts of torture, rape, mutilation, and desecration of corpses. In many cases children were shot in front of their parents. Oh and several hundred people were kidnapped. This invokes words like "slaughter", "massacre", "brutal", "inhuman", "sickening", etc.

On the other side we have a large scale counterattack with huge amounts of bombing, refugee camps, and urban warfare. This invokes words like "destruction", "uninhabitable", "aggressive", "excessive", etc.

It's completely unfair to call someone biased for using different diction to describe these events.

[-] NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The point your making is at best that journalists aren't biased in favor of Israel as a country, they are biased in favor of nation-state sanctioned slaughter. When a "terrorist" attacks people in their homes, that is horrific. When a nation-state levels an entire neighborhood, that's a "counterattack." The most charitable version of your argument is that these publications don't just devalue Palestinian lives, they simply devalue all civilian lives when a nation state uses indescriminate force. So long as the people doing the killing are flying a internationally recognized flag and doing that killing in an impersonal way, it is not "tragic" or "horrific" or a "slaughter." The fact that the human suffering that results is on a far greater scale is of no consequence, if a nation state does it it's fine. Your argument is arguably far worse.

But that's not what is happening here. If Russia or China had clustered two million minorities in a small walled area, and then bombed the ever living shit out of them, killing at least 10,000 women and children, displacing 90 percent of the population, cutting off food, water, and power for months at a time, do you think the NYT or WaPo would refrain from calling that a "massacre" or "slaughter" or "horrific"? Of course not, the bad guys killing civilians gets emotionally charged language. The "good guys" killing civilians is just the unavoidable consequence of a "counterattack" after a "horrific slaughter", proportionality be damned.

This article actually does a great job of quantitfying this bias, I encourage you to actually read it.

In conclusion, take your head out of your ass.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No bombing little kids with amputated legs inside a hospital is far worse. Hamas didn't shoot a single child.

What israel does is indiscriminate slaughter and Genocide.

You seem to still be repeating false propaganda from said outlets. The rape was a made up lie that has been debunked already.

October 7 was not an indiscriminate slaughter whatsoever. 1/3 of the casualties were military and that's including a huge part of the civilians were killed by the IDF, who killed them to prevent hostages being taken.

[-] Arete@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Hamas didn't shoot a single child

Ok mate you do you.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Crazy statement isn't it. Goes to show how much brainwashing the media has done that you find it strange.

Only 35 deaths on Oct 7 were children. And we have zero evidence of Hamas killing any of them. Much evidence of israel killing them by shelling the Kibbutzes though. And not to forget lying about it afterwards that Hamas did it.

https://electronicintifada.net/content/israeli-child-burned-completely-israeli-tank-fire-kibbutz/41706

We have plenty of evidence of Hamas gunmen sparing children too. https://youtu.be/mc5iG3DX7ho

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 10 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/mc5iG3DX7ho

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] Arete@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago

Ah yes, electronicintifada.net, well known for fact-based unbiased reporting. I think your tinfoil hat may be on a bit too tight, but again, you do you.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

I'm sorry they're not making up rape fictions about Hamas. You're going to have to do with an article that actually has verifiable sources and evidence inside of it.

[-] Flyswat@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I salute your patience.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Thanks. It's the least we can do. Palestinians are being Genocided while our "reputable media" manufactures consent with articles like this

[-] Arete@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Well shit this article says some of the freedom fighters were actually raped by the festival goers, so I take that back.

this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024

107 points (89.6% liked)

World News

38977 readers

2373 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.