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 Opens in a new tabat its headquarters in Manhattan for its coverage of Gaza –– an accusation supported by our analysis.
deleted by creator
No, the article doesn’t even attempt to measure the rises, much less show that they were similar.
No, the Intercept is again looking for an axe to grind. For example:
Here the Israeli children are uncounted. Is that an example of anti-Israeli bias? No, because despite counting only Palestinian children the media made the mistake of describing their methodology: children are those under 18. Less precise language would be better. Does “children” even appear elsewhere in that article?
Clearly those are Israeli children. No? They are Palestinian? Yeah but this was 10/13 so what about all the mentions of Israeli children still in hospitals? None? The same article only mentions Palestinian “children” in hospitals? Ok, well the Intercept will have to report that as a counterpoint. Just kidding, this is the Intercept after all:
The Intercept is worse than lazy, they think their readers are too dumb to remember the news.
Just the first six hits from just one Google search:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/19/world/middleeast/premature-babies-al-shifa-hospital-gaza-evacuation.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-health-ministry-says-no-objection-moving-babies-no-mechanism-do-so-2023-11-14/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/abandoned-babies-found-decomposing-gaza-hospital-evacuated-rcna127533
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/11/14/gaza-hospital-al-shifa-supplies-incubators-israel-hamas-war-nada-bashir-dnt-tsr-vpx.cnn
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/premature-babies-evacuated-from-shifa-hospital-to-southern-gaza-trauma-patients-remain
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/03/gaza-premature-babies-dead-nasr/
deleted by creator
I don’t insist that, at all. Maybe they do.
I’m just evaluating the Intercept’s methodology, which is garbage. So the article doesn’t persuade me in either direction, and like you I’ll have to do my own research.