Can you spot a difference between the two statements mentioned above?
The BBC News/World official Twitter account used the words “dead” for those murdered in Gaza and “killed” for those killed in Israel, prompting people to consider the use of language in reporting and how it may be used to alter facts and emotions in certain ways.
In response to a Sky News anchor, Palestinian reporter Yara Eid garnered attention and offered a crucial reminder that the language used by journalists and the media matters.
The anchor for Sky News addressed how two weeks have passed since Hamas began its initial offensive on Israel, which resulted in 1,400 people being killed, and that Palestinian sources claim that over 4,000 people died in Gaza since then.
“When you first introduced what’s happening, you said more than 1,400 have been killed in Israel and more than 4,000 in Palestine have died,” was Yara Eid's response. She continued by emphasizing the importance of language use concerning the ethical duty that falls on journalists to report on current events. Palestinians don't just die, they get killed.
To prevent hate speech and warmongering, people must be informed as accurately as possible during times of war and conflict, when misinformation is most heavily circulated.
The prejudice in media coverage is not new and has been present for quite some time. In a 2011 study of BBC news broadcasts, the Glasgow Media Group looked at the differences in language between journalists covering Israelis and Palestinians. According to the report, the BBC frequently referred to Palestinians as “terrorists” and used phrases like “atrocity,” “brutal murder,” “mass murder,” “brutal cold-blooded murder,” “lynching,” and “massacre” to characterize the murders of Israelis.
Furthermore, in an attempt to downplay the gravity of the violent act, the New York Times altered its headlines regarding the hospital attack in Gaza after it happened. It first said “Israeli attack,” then “attack on the hospital in Gaza,” and lastly “explosion at the hospital in Gaza.”
These instances are just a few of the many that highlight just how biased the media coverage, essentially the Western media coverage has been when it comes to reporting on the matters of Israel-Palestine.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be impacted and influenced by media bias in the coverage, which may ultimately affect policy responses in addition to the general public’s perception of the issue. The terminology used in this kind of media coverage may just cause someone who is not seeing things from a critical perspective to feel sympathy for Israelis, dehumanizing the Palestinians in the process. It ultimately takes away the gravity of the situation.
Governments around the world can sway media coverage to support their interests and narratives since they have their geopolitical agendas. Since the government distributes information with a bias to indoctrinate the population into believing and thinking like them, it is all the more crucial that the media be factual and impartial in a situation like this, where many governments throughout the world favor Israel. They may aid in countering the misleading information that the government distributes by delivering various perspectives, thorough coverage, and humanization of everyone involved. When it comes to forming narratives and shaping opinions, the media can be very influential.
For instance, some time ago, unconfirmed claims from political parties in Israel found their way into Western media. The recent accusation that Hamas beheaded “40 babies” is one such. Despite the lack of supporting data, The Independent, CNN, Fox News, and the New York Post all reported on the claims. On October 12, even US President Joe Biden remarked that he had seen images of babies that had been severed. Later, the White House took back his remarks, claiming that Biden had only seen news stories and had not seen any such photographs.
According to Lina Mounzer, a Lebanese journalist and critic who has written for prominent Western news agencies, such claims—along with other unproven claims like Hamas soldiers raping hundreds of Israeli women—are done in an attempt to create public sympathy for Israel's military in Gaza.
For those who consume the media, it is crucial to comprehend the intricacies of bias in coverage since it shapes their opinions and behaviors. People need to have access to accurate information because the knowledge they are given impacts their understanding, which in turn affects their willingness to participate actively, advocate for causes, and even choose and create correct policies.
Since the media is the foundation of democracy, their impartiality is crucial. When media sources present information objectively, people are better equipped to form educated opinions and hold governments responsible. In instances where governments may possess prejudices or vested interests, impartial media coverage is even more crucial for maintaining transparency and accountability.
References
This is an interesting and crucial analysis that you have brought out Varalika. Indeed the concept of security has evolved over time, and media becomes a means through which our perception of security is formed with regards to contemporary issues. I was wondering, how do you think media bias plays a role in administering and governing populations? In the sense, can the essence of biopolitics, as defined by Fouccault be applied to media controlling actions/behavior of bodies? Since Media bias clearly leans towards a State's goal, political ideology/thought or the global order.
Thank you for this insightful analysis of the media bias present in reporting of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine . It has made me realize how we have to be critical of whatever we read and make sure we are looking at both sides of the story .