Abu Yusra Chowdhury, Staff Writer
The Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) has exposed glaring biases prevalent in media coverage of Israel’s assault on Gaza. The biases are documented in a recent report published by the centre, which compiled and examined media coverage since October 7.
The study reviewed 176,627 television clips from over 13 broadcasters and 25,515 news articles from over 28 UK online media websites.
One of the key findings of the report revolves around the language used in describing the conflict, with a stark contrast between the portrayal of Israeli and Palestinian experiences. Emotive language disproportionately depicts Israelis as victims of attacks, outnumbering references to Palestinian suffering by a staggering 11 to 1 ratio.
This asymmetrical representation perpetuates a narrative that overlooks the plight of Palestinians, thus skewing public perception.
Television broadcasts, identified as a primary source of information for many, have been scrutinised for their biased framing of events.
The report reveals an overwhelming promotion of “Israel’s right” to defend itself, overshadowing Palestinian rights by a ratio of 5 to 1. Furthermore, Israeli perspectives dominate the discourse, being referenced nearly three times more frequently than Palestinian viewpoints, both on television and online news platforms.
The contextual framing of the conflict emerges as another significant issue flagged by the report. A striking 76% of online articles frame the conflict as an “Israel-Hamas war,” while only 24% mention “Palestine/Palestinian.”
This skewed framing perpetuates a narrative void of crucial context, thereby hindering a comprehensive understanding of the complex realities on the ground.
Released on March 6, the report says: “Descriptors such as ‘Hamas-run’ in relation to the Gaza Health Ministry are favoured in the Western media, possibly as a mechanism to cast doubt and delegitimise claims coming from Gaza, where international media are denied access. And hateful language used to dehumanise Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims has, on occasion, not been challenged.”
With anti-Muslim hate crimes reported to have increased by 335%, the report looked into the instrumentalisation of ‘chilling Islamophobia’ during this crisis.
It documents how many prominent media personalities, senior editors, and journalists regurgitated Islamophobic tropes about Muslim belief and identity, with the aim of undermining the Palestinian cause and/or Palestinian advocates. While some media outlets and commentators frame the conflict as Muslims versus Jews.
Among the many examples, the report referenced Richard Ferrer (Editor of Jewish News), who described the Hamas attack in The Express on October 10 as “historic Islamic bloodlust” (later changed to “Islamist historic bloodlust.”).
Tropes against Muslims persist; for example, in February this year, commentator Trevor Kavanagh declared on TalkTV that “by the very definition of being a Muslim voter, you are going to be anti-Jewish.”
The report exposes instances of misrepresentation and undermining of pro-Palestinian voices by media outlets. Pro-Palestinian activists are often vilified, with baseless allegations of antisemitism or support for Hamas weaponised to discredit their legitimate advocacy efforts.
A noted example is when a Sky News presenter falsely claimed that Palestinian Ambassador to the UK Husam Zumlot said that the ‘Israelis had it coming’. The broadcaster later apologised for its ‘misleading representation.’
The report highlights a particularly noticeable trend where Palestinian guests attempting to infuse context into the debate or discussion were silenced or accused of justifying the October 7 attacks.
Others were repeatedly asked by presenters and fellow interviewees to condemn the attacks by Hamas as a ticket to enter the discussion in the first place.
This systematic misrepresentation not only perpetuates harmful stereotypes but also undermines the credibility of pro-Palestine activists.
The report’s lead author, Faisal Hanif, said, “In the main, Palestinians should be reported on as human beings with full unalienable rights as enjoyed by all peoples. This also necessitates how those rights have been curtailed in a forever war against them that has its origins many decades before 7 October 2023.”
At a session of the parliamentary Culture, Media, and Sport Select Committee on March 20, BBC bosses were quizzed over their impartiality in the Israel-Gaza war. Labour MP Julie Elliott questioned the BBC Director-General over the broadcaster’s coverage of hearings held at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the conflict.
In proceedings held before the court in January, South Africa alleged that Israel was responsible for violations of the Genocide Convention in respect of its actions taken in Gaza, allegations that Israel rejected. Scrutinising the BBC, Julie Elliot asserted that the BBC News channel gave ‘hardly any coverage of the South African submission on day one, and yet hours and hours of the Israeli submission on day two.”
While the BBC Director General defended the BBC’s coverage, David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy, acknowledged that “when [BBC] News looked at it in retrospect, they did think that perhaps they’d made a mistake.”
On January 26, the ICJ ruled that Israel’s acts could amount to ‘plausible genocide’.
