A new report exposes exactly how biased the media have been in regard to it’s covering of the Israeli genocide.
The dispossessed people of Palestine, who have little to no voice in Western media outlets, have been treated in a hostile manner in the coverage of this war, whilst giving unconditional support to Israel. In interviews, such as with newly elected George Galloway, interviewers have objected to the term genocide being used and one always had to firstly condemn Hamas.
Now a new report Media Bias Gaza 2023-24 published by the Centre for Media Monitoring delves into the media reporting on this war. The Centre was founded by Miqdaad Versi, the media spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, to promote fair and responsible reporting of Muslims and Islam.
The report focuses it’s attention on the first month following events of October 7 and scrutinises media coverage in the UK and the extent to which core facts were presented. It is based on data analysing 176,627 television clips from over 13 broadcasters and 25,515 news articles from over 28 UK online media websites.
These are it’s key findings
Unverified Claims
361 TV news clips where the term “beheaded” and “babies” were found. Almost 50% of these were on the two right-wing British channels Talk TV (27%) and GB News (20%) with Sky News accounting for (14%). Of the 361 mentions there were only 52 which showed any sufficient challenge, rebuttal or questioning of the claims.
Contextual Framing
The report revealed that a significant majority of online articles framed the conflict as an “Israel-Hamas war,” while only a small percentage mentioned “Palestine/Palestinian.” This skewed framing perpetuated a narrative that lacked crucial context and failed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the conflict.
Framing of Events
Television broadcasts overwhelmingly favoured “Israel’s right” to defend itself, effectively overshadowing Palestinian rights by a ratio of 5 to 1. This biased framing contributed to a distorted portrayal of the conflict, reinforcing narratives that prioritised Israeli perspectives over Palestinian voices.
CfMM also found that TV reporting of Israeli perspectives was referenced almost three times more (4,311) than Palestinian ones (1,598). In online news it was almost twice as much (2,983 v 1,737).
Language Utilisation
The analysis of language usage in media coverage highlighted concerning trends where emotive language disproportionately highlighted Israeli suffering, while downplaying Palestinian casualties.
This disparity in language perpetuated a narrative that undermined the plight of Palestinians and reinforced biased perspectives.
Misrepresentation and Undermining
Pro-Palestinian voices faced misrepresentation and vilification by media outlets, with allegations of antisemitism and terrorism weaponised to discredit legitimate advocacy efforts. This systematic misrepresentation perpetuated harmful stereotypes and undermined the credibility of pro-Palestine activists.
For example, GB News and Talk TV accounted for 42% of total references to protestors as being ‘pro-Hamas’ despite the protests highlighting the plight of Palestinians and calling for a ceasefire.
Atrocities
Since this report was written leaked emails have revealed that the New York Times story about rape on 7 October was a fabrication. This story has revealed how the push to cover the Israeli position favourably came from on top, and the ‘journalists’ chosen to write the story entitled ‘Screams Without Words’ were instructed to basically come up with this by the editorial staff.
It’s publication galvanised the Israeli war effort, showing how important media stories are. However, internally it was met with scepticism by other journos at the NYT. To put it simply, it didn’t pass the smell test. With bias this extreme even the presstitutes are wondering what balanced reporting might look like.
The Flour Massacre
Recently Israeli soldiers opened fire on Palestinians waiting for food from an aid truck. They were fired on by tanks and automatic rifles. At least 112 were killed. The way the event has been characterised in the media is yet another example of this overwhelming media bias.
Deaths were caused by a human stampede. The soldiers felt threatened. Too dangerous for aid trucks. See the headline from the Washington Post;
Chaotic aid delivery turns deadly as Israeli Gazan officials trade blame.
From The Guardian;
Biden says Gaza food aid-related deaths complicate ceasefire talks.
From the BBC;
More than 100 killed as crowd waits for aid, Hamas-run health ministry says.
For those of us who have long understood the press are no more than propaganda cheer leaders for war won’t be surprised by this report. However, for those still wavering the facts are always welcome. They want you to believe they are reporting impartially on this war. They are not. They want you to support a genocide. If at this point you don’t support the Palestinian people, for whatever reason, be clear you are supporting a genocide.
