How To Evaluate Media Coverage Of This War

Suggestions on what to look for, and four examples of New York Times reporting – from biased to first-rate.

Context is a key missing element that runs through problematic reporting on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Too often the media fails to note that Israel is at war with enemies that seek to destroy the Jewish state and replace it with a caliphate.

When I was editor of the Baltimore Jewish Times in the 1970s, the local Jewish community often complained about the Mideast coverage of The Baltimore Sun, the state’s leading source of news, with a Mideast bureau based in Arab countries – first in Beirut and then moved to Cairo. Many Jewish readers thought the reporting was biased against Israel and that the paper under-reported news from the Jewish state. 

At one point, several prominent local Jewish leaders met with the paper’s editors and urged them to move the bureau to Israel. To the surprise of many, the paper soon decided to do just that. 

Within a few weeks, The Sun correspondent in the region was writing frequent bylined stories from Israel about societal divisions over religion, politics and economics, as well as tension with Arab communities.

Dismayed by the coverage, the Jewish leaders called for another meeting with The Sun editors to voice their concerns. But at the outset of the meeting, one of The Sun editors said, “before we begin, I just want to thank you for your suggestion about moving the bureau to Israel. Our bureau chief there is so impressed with Israel’s open society. There are so many stories he can write from there that would never have been allowed in the autocratic Arab states. We’re so grateful.”

Lesson learned: Beware of what you ask for.

Five decades later, the profound imbalance between foreign media coverage of Israel and of much of the Arab world still holds true, with the stakes even higher. Israel, a vibrant democracy, is an open book for the foreign press, including the damaging, racist rants from the far-right of the government’s coalition. By contrast, Gaza, Lebanon (under Hezbollah’s sway), Syria, Iran and Yemen are ruled by autocrats who firmly control the press and punish critics. The result is that we know little of the internal politics, social issues and scale of violence that takes place in those countries while it seems as if we know every thought going through Bibi Netanyahu’s mind. 

Of course that’s the price a democracy is willing to pay, at least in normal times. But this is a war where much of the international media has branded Israel, the victim of a brutal Hamas attack on October 7, as genocidal. And Hamas, whose stated goal is to destroy Israel and kill Jews, is portrayed as the victim – and champion of Palestinian rights. Our duty is to call out the false moral equivalences in this war and hold the media to its journalistic obligations of fairness.

Here are a few observations and suggestions related to evaluating media coverage of the Israel-Hamas war:

. What you don’t see: You will never see armed Hamas terrorists in photos or reports from Gaza. That’s because Hamas prohibits it. Foreign media reporters and photographers are almost exclusively limited to showing destroyed buildings, mourning men and women holding wounded or dead children, and chaotic hospital scenes. But the media doesn’t mention this reality.

Similarly, you won’t see any bomb shelters to protect Gazan civilians. You won’t see them escaping the fighting by entering the hundreds of miles of tunnels. Those tunnels are exclusively for Hamas. It is Israel, the enemy, which has sought to provide safe spaces and passage for Gaza’s civilians, warn them of impending attacks and bring in humanitarian aid and polio vaccines.

. Check the labels: Is Hamas made up of “terrorists,” “militants,” or “fighters”? These descriptions are used interchangeably. But every story about Hamas or Hezbollah should have at least one reference to the fact the U.S. and many Western nations have defined each of them as a terrorist organization – no different from other radical Islamic groups such as Isis and Al-Qaeda. 

“Pro-Palestinian” is a benign, common description for protesters and “activists” that often means “anti-Zionist” and “pro-Hamas,” which in actuality is not at all pro-Palestinian, given that Hamas cares not a whit about an independent Palestinian state. Its goal is to establish a caliphate, an Islamic state, in Israel’s place. That fact should be provided for context in news stories but rarely is. The same holds true for letting readers know that the Hamas foundational charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews.

. Be aware of ‘the minders’: Terror groups like Hamas accompany reporters with “minders,” who not only provide translation for interviews – common for foreign media – but also steer the journalists to scenes and people they want to be covered. And a Gazan citizen being interviewed is keenly aware of the presence of the “minder.” Most importantly, while the “minders” protect the journalist from harm in dangerous areas, their presence is a form of intimidation, an implicit reminder that reporters or citizens who don’t obey the rules are often threatened with physical harm. Unfortunately, media organizations don’t acknowledge this in their reporting. 

. Blurring the line between news and opinion: The separation between news and opinion, once a foundational policy of major newspapers, has gone the way of the typewriter. News stories often have subjective points of view mixed with factual reporting, tainting the validity of the report, the publication and the reputation of the reporter as an objective journalist. 

. Lost in the cacophony: The influence of legacy news media – major newspapers, national television networks – has diminished as more and more people get their news from social media. Never has there been such a flow of information, but much of it is unaccountable, unreliable and untrue. And even leading newspapers seek highly “clickable” stories – often fluff — to maintain their readership.

. The race to be first: As social media has become more dominant, mainstream news companies put ever greater emphasis on being first with breaking news, scoops, etc. It used to be a competition to be first with the full story. Now, in this highly competitive field, it’s “get the story posted online first, and if we need to make corrections, we’ll do that later.”  The faster the effort, the more prone the errors of fact and judgment. The Al-Ahli hospital fiasco last October is a case in point where initial headlines regarding the attack were wrong on every count.

. Pre-ordained perspectives: Too much journalism today begins with an ideological or political point of view already in place. Readers deserve journalism that begins with a blank slate, a mission of open exploration.

. Where’s the story placed? Be aware of which stories make it to the front page, and “above the fold,” and which are found on inside pages. Also key in terms of what gets the most attention is the length of the article, size of accompanying photos, the frequency of a topic making the news, who’s writing it, etc. Look for persistent patterns in coverage of the war.  

. What’s missing?  An often forgotten factor in evaluating a news story is considering not just what’s in it but what isn’t. Have enough voices with different points of view been presented? Who is not being heard? Also, who or what is the source of information? Media often provides Gaza casualty figures from the Gaza “Ministry of Health” without making clear that it is a wing of Hamas, a terror organization with a history of providing misleading information.

Mainstream media has improved in noting, but not always, that the Gaza casualty figures Hamas provides do not differentiate between civilians and fighters. In other words, no Hamas fighters in this war have been reported killed or wounded.

. Why is Israel at war with Iran?  Countless articles about Israel’s use of sabotage, cyberattacks and alleged assassinations of key scientists to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon fail to explain why these acts are taking place. Today (September 18), The Times, reporting online on the pager attacks in Lebanon, states: “Israel has carried out a series of clandestine attacks against Iran and its allies as part of a yearslong shadow war,” citing several examples. These reports should note – but rarely do – what may seem obvious to some readers, but not all, that Iran’s religious, political and military leaders have long called for the destruction of the Jewish state, described as a “cancer” requiring a “final solution.” No other country regularly calls for the destruction of any other. That’s why Iran is, as described in The Times, “Israel’s No. 1 enemy.”

. On Hezbollah and ‘fighting fair’: The news of the day (September 18) is of the dramatic pager attack on Hezbollah operatives in Lebanon, presumably carried out by Israel. The Times has extensive coverage online, which invariably will be updated, but for now it has quoted the UN human rights chief asserting the attack “violates international human rights law.” Where are comments – and even praise – from those who would point out that Israel, faced with the moral dilemma of minimizing civilian casualties while fighting brutal terrorists who wear civilian clothing, seems to have managed to do just that?  

. Who gets the last word?  One way to tell a reporter’s political leaning on an issue is to see who gets the last quote in the article. It’s the quote that stays with the reader. 

That’s why this section will end with a quote from Israeli author and journalist Matti Friedman, who asserts that “the ascendant force in our part of the world is not democracy or modernity. It is rather an empowered strain of Islam that is willing to employ extreme violence in a quest to unite the region and confront the West. Those who grasp this fact will be able to look around and connect the dots.” 

Let’s hope so.

A Closer Look At Recent New York Times Reporting:

‘Total of 17 Are Killed in Israel’s West Bank Raid’

August 30, The New York Times, Page A6. Photo of damage from the raid; another photo of Muhammad Jaber cheered by a crowd in April.

The article begins, “Israel’s military stormed a mosque in the occupied West Bank on Thursday where it said weapons were being stored, and engaged in gun battles that left at least five Palestinians dead, including a young militant commander who Israel says was responsible for attacks against Israeli civilians.”

The 19-paragraph article describes the commander, Muhammad Jaber, in his mid-20s, as accused by Israel of being involved in “numerous terror attacks, including the murder of an Israeli civilian in June.” The article says he “gained a kind of cult status in April” when, after being reported killed during a raid, “emerged alive at the funeral of other Palestinians killed during that same raid, to joyous shouts from residents.”

Not until the fifth paragraph of the article do we learn Israel’s response. The graph says: “Wafta, the Palestinian Authority’s official news agency, said 17 people had been killed in total in the raids across the West Bank that began before dawn on Wednesday, without specifying whether militants were among them. The Israeli military said that 16 militants had been killed across the West Bank.”

Analysis: The headline is wildly misleading – 16 of the 17 Palestinians killed were militants. A more appropriate headline might be: “Israel Kills Elusive Islamic Jihad Commander in West Bank Raid.”

‘Anti-Polio Campaign in Gaza Enters New Phase as Airstrikes Continue’

September 6, The New York Times, Page A12, three-column wide photo of destruction; two-column wide photo of anti-government protest in Tel Aviv

The article begins, “Hours before families in Gaza lined up Thursday to start the second phase of an emergency polio vaccination campaign, a deadly Israeli airstrike hit near a hospital in an area where a previous round of inoculations had just concluded.”

The 31-paragraph article cites the Palestinian Authority in the third paragraph, saying the strike killed four people and wounded others. In the sixth paragraph, the Israeli military is reported to have confirmed the strike but not the death toll or the proximity to the hospital. According to the IDF, the goal was “to remove an immediate threat” at a Hamas command center that was “embedded” within a humanitarian area.

The article describes the anti-polio campaign being carried out by the World Health Organization, a three-part process to vaccinate 640,000 children under the age 10. It notes that polio is a threat because “the vast majority of Gaza’s population has been displaced in the war and countless families are living in cramped tents with little access to sewage or water.” The story also reports on the cease-fire negotiations, and the release by Hamas of videos of two of the six hostages killed by Hamas, recorded before their deaths. 

Analysis: No mention or credit is given to Israel for agreeing to three 3-day pauses in the war to protect children in Gaza. There is no reference to Gazans living in such conditions because Hamas leaves its citizens to fend for themselves, with no protection. And the report does not say that Israel has created humanitarian areas for the populace but that Hamas fighters “embed” themselves in those spaces, endangering their citizens.

‘Israeli Raids Trap Fearful Palestinians in Their Homes’

September 6, The New York Times, Page A12, three-column wide photo of destruction

The article begins, “Five Palestinians were killed by an Israeli airstrike on their vehicles early Thursday, Palestinian news media said, as one of the longest and most destructive recent Israeli military raids in the occupied West Bank stretched into a ninth day across several cities.”

Most of the 14-paragraph story describes the devastation in Jenin, Tulkarem and the town of Far’a. It quotes a father from Jenin who says he and his family were unable to leave their home for five days and were “terrified that Israeli soldiers would return.”

The only Israeli “voice” in the article is in the third paragraph, which reads: “The Israeli military said the strike in Far’a targeted armed fighters who hurled explosives and shot at security forces. It has described the raids as an effort to crack down on Palestinian armed groups and combat rising attacks against Israelis.”

Analysis: The headline evokes sympathy for innocent Palestinians but the article devotes only a single phrase as to why the IDF conducts these raids in response to “rising attacks against Israelis.” 

‘Hamas Uses Brutal Tactics To Maintain Its Grip On Gaza’

September 15, Page A1, five photos on jump pages 12-13, including two large photos of mourners at a funeral and an Israeli air strike, and a smaller photo of a Palestinian critic of Hamas severely beaten by the group for speaking out.

A detailed look into Hamas intimidation —and worse —of its citizens. But what took The Times until this past weekend to report on this important issue?

This deep-dive report describes how Hamas “puts Palestinian civilians in peril” in the current war and “violently represses dissent,” according to the article’s subhead. The piece was written by four reporters, including Ronen Bergman, a first-rate Israeli investigative reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize as part of The Times team covering the Israel-Hamas war. It leads with the story of Amin Abed, 35, “a Palestinian activist who has spoken out publicly about Hamas,” and as a result, was severely beaten by Hamas “operatives.” The article notes that others have suffered a similar fate. A photo shows Abed in a hospital bed in Gaza, his eyes swollen shut and his arms swathed in bandages.

The article includes interviews with several Gazans, who despite the risk, blame the group for hiding among civilians and for hiding hostages in civilian homes, sometimes causing deaths when Israel attempts to rescue them. Hamas officials, responding to criticism, “broadly argue that the suffering of the Palestinian people is the cost of fighting against the Israeli occupation of Gaza.”

Analysis: This is an example of The New York Times at the high level of reporting we expect. The major complaint about it is: what took so long? Only now, 11 months into the war, is there an in-depth article detailing how Hamas puts civilians “in the line of fire and violently represses its critics.”  The piece suggests that many Gazans blame Hamas, along with Israel, for the heavy civilian casualties in the war, though, understandably, few risk saying so publicly. And Hamas officials are not defensive about failing to protect their women and children. Unfortunately, the article does not make clear that heavy Gaza civilian casualties are essential to Hamas’ s strategy of waging war.  

In case you missed them:

 Part I of this Media Monitor series:  “How And Why The Media Targets Israel,” 

Part II: “All The News That’s Fit To Tint.”

I encourage readers to share one or more of these three pieces with friends and colleagues who may be interested.

Thanks to each of you for your support. As always, I welcome your comments.