The role of the language used by the media plays a prominent role in how the public receives and comprehends information. The use of a specific style in news framing can lead to the presentation of misleading information without it appearing blatantly false. For example, focusing on specific aspects of the story and employing vague and biased terminology in news framing can lead to the loss of the original essence of the story.
At the outset of the Israeli war on Gaza, Western media outlets were accused of using misleading editorial language and adopting a narrative biased toward the Israeli perspective, deviating from the professional journalistic standards they claim to uphold.
The 'October 7 Attacks' as a Central Point in News Framing
Western media outlets took the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation as a central event in framing the news and narrating the events. They adopted it in the introduction of most articles and news reports and, at the same time, reduced the focus on post-attack developments and the lengthy historical background of the occupation. This resembles the pattern that was used following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. In this pattern, the post-attack phase and the war on terrorism were considered a state outside of history, where all the professional rules of journalism were suspended, and human rights principles were frozen in a manner similar to declaring a media state of emergency that justifies everything. The victims became secondary details in the narrative, and they were seen as side effects of the attack that could not be avoided.
Western media outlets exploited the Al-Aqsa Flood to place it on their front pages and at the beginning of every news piece. For instance, by reviewing the coverage of The New York Times, whose main headline was titled "Israel-Hamas War," we find that the news introduction contained simplified terms that did not provide an accurate picture of the events. The newspaper mentioned that thousands of Palestinians and Israelis had been killed since the conflict began. This framing does not present a fair image of the event and equates the huge number of Palestinian victims to the number of Israeli victims. It creates an impression that what is happening is an equal war between two parties and ignores the developments that followed October 7 and the collective revenge operation carried out by Israel against the Palestinians. This leads to undermining sympathy with the Palestinians and normalizing their suffering.
“Do You Condemn Hamas?”
News anchors and TV presenters in Western media repeated this question to every pro-Palestinian guest, until it became like a ticket for hosing guests who don’t support Israel.
For example, on October 10, 2023, the BBC had an interview with Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian Ambassador to the United Kingdom. During this interview, the host asked Zomlot about what happened to his family in Gaza. Zomlot responded with pain, indicating the loss of six members of his family in an Israeli airstrike. The interviewer expressed her condolences briefly, but immediately added, "You can't ignore the killing of civilians in Israel." Despite Zomlot answering the question and not justifying the attack, the interviewer appeared to be trying to link the events, suggesting blame on the Palestinians and justifying the violence against them.
Using Hamas as a Source When Covering Israeli Airstrikes
Some media outlets deliberately used a biased journalistic style in their coverage of Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip. They attributed news about the aftermath of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza to Hamas, despite the availability of various diverse sources to attribute the news to. This approach appeared to undermine the credibility of the news by relying on a source that had previously been subjected to a wide smear campaign. Israel and some Western media outlets had previously promoted the narrative that Hamas is a criminal organization similar to ISIS. Israel also garnered international sympathy to promote this narrative.
For example, TalkTV used the headline "Hamas: Hundreds killed in Israeli airstrike on a Gaza hospital" in its coverage of the Baptist Hospital massacre. CNN also used a similar wording in the lead of its report on the massacre, and they included the word "Hamas'' in the headline. Consequently, the audience's focus shifted from the event itself to the source.
Understanding News Framing Bias in Western Media’s Coverage
News framing in Western media’s coverage of the Gaza war reveals a strong inclination towards the Israeli narrative. Editors strategically arrange news elements to spotlight what they deem most crucial, often sidelining or burying the Palestinian narrative.
Let us take Fox News, for instance. An exploration of their "War on Israel" segment necessitated scrolling through 31 lengthy articles, or approximately two and a half minutes of quick browsing, to find sparse information on Palestinian casualties buried beneath dominant Israeli narratives.
Headlines: Powerful Tools for Narrative Construction
Perhaps one of the most significant forms of media bias evident in Western media coverage of the war on Gaza is the focus on the headline and its framing to align with the Israeli narrative. News headlines play a crucial role in shaping initial impressions of events for individuals. According to a study, 59% of people read the headline without reading a single word of the text, and many of them share the news based on the headline or accompanying image.
Some media outlets, such as the New York Post and The Times, have repeatedly used biased headlines in favor of the Israeli narrative. These newspaper headlines, often prominently displayed, emphasize terms that are in line with Israeli propaganda, such as terrorism, blood, and jihad. As an example, the New York Post published an image of Palestinians wounded due to Israeli airstrikes with the headline " Islamic Terrorists Blew up Their Own People in a Hospital Explosion, Then Blamed Israel Falsely.”
Additionally, The Times newspaper used several misleading headlines on its front pages. They published phrases like "Hamas Beheads Children" and used an image of Palestinian children in a headline related to Israeli children who were killed. Furthermore, they focused on headlines containing provocative terms to attract Western international sympathy in favor of Israel, such as jihad, alongside images of Palestinians.
Similarly, on October 19, the British Daily Express newspaper published a headline that occupied half of its front page, stating, " Proof That Israel Was Not Responsible for the Gaza Hospital Explosion." This headline suggests to the reader that Israel has conclusive evidence that absolves it of responsibility for the hospital bombing. The problem with such headlines is that they provide a final verdict on the event and do not encourage the reader to continue reading the details of the news or further research. In fact, the average reader is more likely to be satisfied with just the headline as a result.
How Ambiguity is Used To Obscure the Palestinian Narrative
As the violent Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip escalated, Western media outlets attempted to provide background and historical context on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, some deliberately used vague language to portray events in Palestine as a complex and lengthy conflict or a two-sided war, with less focus on the waves of violence and displacement carried out by Israel over decades. This type of framing obscures a significant part of the truth, deterring the audience from clearly understanding what is happening and implying that comprehending the situation is a difficult and complex process.
For example, as part of Fox News' coverage of the war in Gaza, American journalist Will Cain presented an extensive historical review of what he called a deep dive into the history of Israel and Palestine.
Cain began with a highly theoretical introduction that was the main theme of the entire 45-minute episode. His primary argument in this review was that the behavior of invasion is part of human tribal nature, and the land does not belong to the Palestinians or the Israelis, but to those who historically control it through force. He argued that humans, biologically, are governed by conflict, and all peoples of the world have taken lands from other peoples at different historical stages.
Broadcasting this review at this specific timing may lead the audience to conclude that this conflict is complex and lengthy and can justify the atrocities and violence occurring. It undermines the fundamental right of Palestinians to exist within their state.
BBC presented a recent review of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part of its coverage of the developments in Gaza. However, they used terms that do not accurately reflect historical information. For example, they mentioned that the existence of Israel resulted from the escalating tensions between Arabs and Jews before 1948, leading the international community to charge Britain with establishing a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine.
There is a significant difference between saying that the international community charged Britain with establishing a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine and asserting a colonial consensus on the administration of Palestine by Britain. Using such terminology, especially the issue of the United Nations tasking Britain, implies that the state of Israel came into existence as a result of natural circumstances and international consensus.
On the other hand, historical information indicates that the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, through which Britain promised to establish a national homeland for the Jews, was taken by Britain unilaterally, without direct authorization from the international community to make this decision. The Balfour Declaration was written by Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary at the time, to Lord Rothschild, the British Jewish community's representative in Palestine. This contradicts the claim made by BBC in its Arabic version on its website, where it stated that the reasons for the Balfour Declaration were both religious and political.
Amendments Reveal Suspicions About the Political Use of Terminology
Western media, especially those with a long history of claiming neutrality, have found themselves in a global embarrassment, especially with the evolution of unofficial media coverage. Activists and fact-checking platforms have played a key role in conveying the truth of what is happening, making it much harder to spread a misleading narrative about events, given the large volume of information transmitted by activists about the practices of the Israeli occupation army.
As a result, several media outlets have been forced to reassess their editorial policies. For example, The Washington Post changed the name of the war from October 10 from the Hamas-Israel War to the Israel-Gaza War. This change reveals that the previous war names did not accurately reflect the reality of the situation, even though the majority of Western media outlets continue to use them.
Despite Western media's continued claims of neutrality in their coverage of events in Gaza, it is clear how these media outlets have employed terminology and media language to prioritize the official Israeli narrative and avoid explicit criticism of Israel's policies and the crimes committed in the Gaza Strip.
Read More
Lack of Evidence to Support Israeli Claims of Hamas Headquarters Beneath Gaza's Al-Shifa Hospital
AI-Generated Images Compromise Integrity During the War on Gaza
