Nov 6, 2024 7 min read article

The Role of the Mainstream Media in the Genocide of Gaza

By Beneath The Olive Tree | 6-11-2024

Language is the most powerful tool outside of the battlefield, and the western media knows this and is using it well to the advantage of Israel.
- Abdulkader Assad, linguist

The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Media’s Role in Shaping Perceptions of Occupation

The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip, following the Six-Day War in 1967, has been a longstanding focal point of international debate. The conflict exemplifies how media coverage can shape public perception, often in alignment with the positions of Western governments, particularly the United States, which has been a close ally of Israel. Coverage by mainstream Western media has often sparked controversy, with critics arguing that it frequently mirrors the perspective of Western governments, downplaying Palestinian voices and obscuring the realities of occupation.

Media Framing and Language Choices

In Western media, terminology used in coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict often reflects the Israeli government’s preferred framing. Terms like “security barrier” instead of “separation wall,” and “terrorist” rather than “militant” or “resistance fighter,” are commonly used, subtly suggesting that Israel’s actions are defensive, while Palestinian actions are inherently aggressive. This language frames Israel’s policies and military actions as necessary for national security, overshadowing the broader context of occupation. Conversely, the media’s portrayal of Palestinian responses often focuses primarily on violence, with less attention given to the daily conditions of life under occupation.

The choice of framing has profound implications. By adopting terminology that aligns with the Israeli government’s perspective, mainstream media reinforces a narrative of Israel as a nation under constant threat and Palestinian actions as sources of instability. This is particularly evident in coverage that emphasizes acts of Palestinian violence against Israelis while often relegating the impacts of Israeli policies—such as the construction of settlements, checkpoints, and roadblocks, and the displacement of Palestinian families—to secondary coverage or brief mentions. Studies, such as Bad News from Israel by the Glasgow Media Group, have shown how this selective framing can influence public perception by prioritizing certain events and perspectives while downplaying others.

Key Events and Media Narratives

The Intifadas (1987-1993 and 2000-2005):
- The First and Second Intifadas were significant uprisings against Israeli occupation, marked by widespread protests, confrontations, and violence. The Israeli government portrayed these as waves of terrorism that justified military crackdowns and control measures. In both cases, Western media often framed the events through Israel’s lens, emphasizing Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians and portraying Israeli military actions as responses rather than examining the systemic issues of occupation that fueled these uprisings.
- Media outlets focused on scenes of Palestinian stone-throwers and violent incidents while providing less coverage of the economic hardships, restricted movement, and daily struggles that Palestinians experienced. In The Battle for Justice in Palestine, Ali Abunimah highlights that while Palestinian perspectives were sometimes represented, the structural impacts of occupation were largely absent from mainstream Western coverage, leading to a skewed understanding of the uprisings.
Gaza Blockade and Military Operations:
- Following Hamas’ electoral victory in Gaza in 2006, Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza, resulting in severe restrictions on goods, movement, and resources. Israeli governments justified the blockade and subsequent military operations, such as Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009), Operation Pillar of Defense (2012), and Operation Protective Edge (2014), as necessary measures against Hamas. Mainstream Western media often emphasized Israel’s security concerns and the stated need to eliminate Hamas’ influence while downplaying the humanitarian impact of these actions on Gaza’s civilian population.
- Coverage of these operations frequently focused on rocket fire from Gaza and ignored or underplayed reports of civilian casualties, displacement, and destruction in Gaza resulting from Israeli airstrikes and ground incursions. Reports from Human Rights Watch and the United Nations documented these impacts, but such reports often remained secondary to the narrative of self-defense that prevailed in mainstream outlets. This selective framing has contributed to a public perception of the Gaza conflict as a one-sided threat against Israel, rather than a complex situation exacerbated by the realities of occupation and blockade.

Disproportionate Coverage of Deaths

In the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, mentions of "Israeli" or "Israel" exceed those of "Palestinian" or related terms, despite Palestinian deaths significantly outnumbering Israeli deaths. On average, Palestinians are mentioned once for every two Palestinian deaths, while Israelis are mentioned eight times per Israeli death — a rate 16 times higher per fatality than for Palestinians.

Study of 1100 news articles by the Intercept

Israelis are massacred, Palestinians are not

Intensely emotive language describing the killing of civilians was almost exclusively used for Israelis killed by Palestinians, rather than for Palestinians killed by Israelis.

The term “slaughter” was used by editors and reporters to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1, and “massacre” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 125 to 2. “Horrific” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 36 to 4.

Palestinian children are not children

Although Israel's war on Gaza may be among the deadliest for children, references to "children" and similar terms appear only rarely in the headlines of articles reviewed by The Intercept in their study.

On October 13, the Los Angeles Times published an Associated Press report stating, “The Gaza Health Ministry said Friday that 1,799 people have been killed in the territory, including more than 580 under the age of 18 and 351 women. Hamas’s assault last Saturday killed more than 1,300 people in Israel, including women, children, and young music festivalgoers.” Notably, young Israelis are referred to as "children," while young Palestinians are described as "people under 18."

Palestinians die, they aren’t killed, as if their death is a fault of their own.
- Elena Dudum

Passive vs Active Voice

The mainstream media’s choice between active and passive voice can shape the perception of events, subtly influencing readers' understanding and emotional response. Here’s how these choices impact reporting:

Assigning Responsibility vs. Obscuring Agency:
- Active Voice: When the media uses active voice, it emphasizes who performed an action. For instance, "Russian airstrike destroys civilian building" directly assigns responsibility to the Russian army. This is often used to clearly identify the agent, especially in cases where accountability is crucial.
- Passive Voice: In contrast, passive voice can obscure or downplay who is responsible. For example, "Beirut attack leaves at least 22 dead" omits the actor, which can deflect focus from aggressor as the primary agent. This might be used in politically sensitive contexts where direct blame is avoided.
Sympathy and Victim Narratives:
- Active Voice: When describing events involving victims, especially when the intent is to evoke empathy, active voice can draw readers into the human impact. "The hurricane devastated thousands of homes" is more visceral, painting a direct link between the disaster and the people affected.
- Passive Voice: However, in cases where the agent might be a sensitive topic, like police actions, passive voice is often used. For example, "A protestor was injured during the demonstration" sidesteps who caused the injury, which can reduce public scrutiny on authorities.

Several large publications have deliberately used vague language to describe devastating attacks on Gaza, yet in contrast language to describe the attacks on Israel of 7 October was incredibly clear and descriptive
- Lara Gibson, linguist