For anyone who has been following the mainstream media’s coverage of the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas since October 7, 2023, it is clear that most news outlets have an anti-Israel bias running through their content.
This bias is evident in the stories that the outlets choose to publish, the context (or lack thereof) provided to their audience, and the sources that these media organizations rely on for their stories.
This bias has become so apparent that several academic sources have published studies of this one-sided news coverage, quantifying the extent to which an anti-Israel lens colors the average media consumer’s understanding of what is currently happening in Gaza.
In this piece, we will take a look at two recent studies that have analyzed the issue of anti-Israel bias in the media: One study surveyed several of the top English-language media outlets in the world, and the other focused specifically on the case of The New York Times, one of the most influential newspaper in the world.
Relying on Hamas, Questioning Israel: How the Media Report on Gazan Casualties
A study by Fifty Global Research Group took a look at all articles that mentioned Gazan casualties that were published between February and May 2024 by eight of the top global English-language news sources: CNN, the BBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, the Associated Press, The Guardian, and ABC Australia.
Here are some of the major findings of this analysis of the media’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas war:
- The vast majority of news stories did not make clear that the casualty figures provided by the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health include members of Hamas and other terrorist groups. Only 15% of articles mentioned the fact that the Ministry does not differentiate between civilians and Hamas, while a mere 3% provided the estimated figure of terrorist casualties.
- There is a huge difference in how various news outlets reported the above-mentioned facts. While The Washington Post and the Associated Press mentioned in roughly 40% of their articles that Hamas does not separate the numbers of civilians and combatants, the BBC, Reuters, and CNN only mentioned this fact in less than 5% of their articles.
- 100% of all articles featured Hamas-provided figures on casualties, while only 4% of these articles provided Israel-provided casualty figures.
- Roughly 80% of the articles that featured Hamas’ casualty figures informed their readers that the numbers were from Hamas and/or the Gaza Ministry of Health, while 19% of these articles did not mention the source of these figures, giving the impression that they are undisputed common knowledge.
- In 50% of articles that provided Israeli casualty figures, they were treated with skepticism and presented as “unverifiable.” The same doubt about Hamas-provided figures only exists in less than 2% of these articles.
As various analysts have noted, this blind reliance on Hamas statistics helps contribute to the validation of an internationally recognized terror group as a reliable source and has helped promote a false narrative in which Israel is recklessly or intentionally killing innocent civilians in Gaza, not terrorists.
Related Reading: Top Israeli Daily’s Exposé Paints Troubling Picture of New York Times’ Israel Coverage
The New York Times: A Special Case of Anti-Israel Bias
While the above study focused on several leading media organizations, an analysis by Professor Eytan Gilboa (Bar Ilan University) and Lilac Sigan focused on bias in the New York Times’ coverage for the first seven months of the war.
Of the 3,848 articles published on the Israel-Hamas war, Gilboa and Sigan looked at the 1,398 pieces that were included in the New York Times’ daily subscriber newsletter email as a sample size.
Here are some of the major findings of their study of anti-Israel bias at one of the most influential and esteemed newspapers in the world:
- 46% of articles solely expressed empathy for the Palestinians. At the same time, only 10% of articles expressed empathy for Israelis.
- Throughout the seven-month period, the coverage was 4.4 times more sympathetic towards the Palestinians than it was towards the Israelis. Even during October 2023, mere weeks after the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, the sympathy expressed towards Palestinians was double that expressed towards Israelis.
- Out of 50 articles about the hostages, only 28 (56%) blamed Hamas for their suffering, while 11 (22%) were critical of Israel itself.
- At the same time, out of 647 articles that were empathetic towards the Palestinians, only 2 blamed Hamas for their suffering.
- There were roughly 3 times as many op-eds that were critical of Israel (72) as there were those that were critical of Hamas (23).
It is clear that for The New York Times, Israel is seen as the primary aggressor in the conflict, with Hamas relegated to an almost secondary role in the conflict and its continuation. The same could be said for how The New York Times views the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians, focusing heavily on the Palestinian experience while largely ignoring the Israeli one.
These observations have also been made by Edieal Pinker (Yale School of Management) in his analysis of The New York Times’ coverage. Pinker concluded that:
I found numerous imbalances in the NYTimes coverage. Namely, reporting on both Israeli military and civilian casualties incurred, post October 7, is sparse. Reporting on Israeli suffering through personal accounts of non-October 7 victims is very limited while reporting of Palestinian personal accounts of suffering is very frequent. Reporting of Hamas militant casualties is sparse and reporting of Palestinian acts of violence post October 7 is very sparse. Mentions of Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran are much less frequent than mentions of Israel.
The potential net effect of these imbalances is multi-faceted. The imbalances create great sympathy for the Palestinian people while at the same time diminishing Hamas’ responsibility for their situation and the continuation of the war. Outside of the direct Israeli victims of October 7, there is little relative sympathy for Israelis, little recognition of the costs of the war to Israel, and great responsibility is placed upon Israel for the suffering of the Palestinians and the situation in the region. There is a certain irony in this pattern of coverage. The lion’s share of responsibility for the situation and its resolution is placed on Israel. Yet, at the same time the reporting does not give the reader a full understanding of how the war is being experienced by Israelis.”
With such blatant anti-Israel bias in the war coverage of some of the world’s most influential and prestigious news organizations, is it any wonder that there is a rise in anti-Israel sentiment around the globe?
Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!
