Who would have though the US ally is favored in US newspapers over the terrorist organization.
Here’s the beginning of the article:
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 at its headquarters in Manhattan for its coverage of Gaza –– an accusation supported by our analysis.
This is not discussing the state of Israel state versus Hamas. It talks about a bias against Palestinians and the impact of the bombing on children and journalists in Gaza, and how these newspapers have reported more emotively on the killings of Israelis than killings of Palestinians.
To read this and think it’s about allies vs. terrorists is symptomatic of the problem.
Tbf it reads like the article is more to confirm the authors’ personal political opinion on the conflict than it is a real objective research effort on the reporting by those major outlets.
Counting the number of times they mention “Israeli” vs “Palestinian” sounds real low effort, and the suggestion that these should be proportional to the number of casualties is, well, stupid. They put more time in writing the article than they did on actual ‘quantative research’.
Then they go on about how the Hamas field trip was desribed with words like “massacre” while the Israeli airstrikes weren’t. Well I’d say its logical to use that terminology when talking about gunning down kids point blank as opposed to dropping a bomb on a rooftop hoping to hit the Hamas rocket team you identified 20 minutes earlier. The latter might be detestable but I hope anyone can still see they are different
Who would have though the US ally is favored in US newspapers over the terrorist organization.
Here’s the beginning of the article:
This is not discussing the state of Israel state versus Hamas. It talks about a bias against Palestinians and the impact of the bombing on children and journalists in Gaza, and how these newspapers have reported more emotively on the killings of Israelis than killings of Palestinians.
To read this and think it’s about allies vs. terrorists is symptomatic of the problem.
Tbf it reads like the article is more to confirm the authors’ personal political opinion on the conflict than it is a real objective research effort on the reporting by those major outlets.
Counting the number of times they mention “Israeli” vs “Palestinian” sounds real low effort, and the suggestion that these should be proportional to the number of casualties is, well, stupid. They put more time in writing the article than they did on actual ‘quantative research’.
Then they go on about how the Hamas field trip was desribed with words like “massacre” while the Israeli airstrikes weren’t. Well I’d say its logical to use that terminology when talking about gunning down kids point blank as opposed to dropping a bomb on a rooftop hoping to hit the Hamas rocket team you identified 20 minutes earlier. The latter might be detestable but I hope anyone can still see they are different