Over the past five months much has been said and written about the British media's coverage of Israel's war in Gaza. Experts, journalists and activists, including myself, have argued in numerous articles and interviews that the British media exhibits certain biases in its coverage of this war and the broader Israel-Palestine issue.
In a new report, based on the largest statistical analysis of media coverage of the atrocities committed in Israel on October 7 and Israel's genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people in the first month of the war, the Muslim Council Monitoring Center Britain's Media Association (CfMM) set out the empirical evidence for these observations and concerns.
After examining around 180,000 video clips from seven UK and three international broadcasters, as well as around 26,000 news articles from 28 British media websites, CfMM has assessed whether the UK media has reliably informed the public about the conflict. and they have shared everyone's positions. stakeholders responsibly.
Consistent with the findings of smaller-scale studies conducted so far, it was found that Israeli narratives, voices, and grievances were favored over Palestinian voices, narratives, and grievances in coverage. “Israel rights” were insisted upon, which often resulted in the exclusion and elimination of Palestinian rights. Emotive language was consistently used for Israeli victims of violence, but not so much for Palestinians. Representatives and supporters of Israel were allowed to dehumanize Palestinians on air, without any considerable reaction from news anchors and talk show hosts.
Analyzing coverage across six themes (contextualization, language, framing, claims, weakening of Palestinian sources, and misrepresentation of pro-Palestinian protesters), the research found that many media outlets have chosen to present news from an Israeli perspective, often with significant lapses. in verification and basic fact-checking.
Surprisingly, the analysis revealed that Palestinian symbols, such as the Palestinian flag, were “overwhelmingly used to illustrate stories about anti-Semitism.” It also exposed the many Islamophobic aspects of the coverage, such as the framing of protests and support for Palestine as inherently dangerous and akin to “a terrorist threat,” often due to the Muslim presence among them.
The report revealed that the Islamophobic trope that “Islam is an anti-Semitic religion” was repeatedly presented – by editors, analysts and columnists alike – as the driving force behind growing opposition to Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. This led to the 75-year conflict between Israel and Palestine being misrepresented as a “religious war” between Muslims and Jews, rather than an issue of oppression and occupation.
The report found that pro-Palestinian voices and Palestinian activists have been repeatedly misrepresented by many British media outlets since the beginning of the conflict. It found that the right-wing media has been particularly hostile towards pro-Palestinian voices, “framing them as supporters of terrorism and anti-Semites, as well as hostile to British values”.
The analysis also uncovered many cases of misinformation by deliberate omission. The context of decades of Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people and occupation of Palestinian territory was absent from most of the coverage. The coverage was framed in a way that implied that the conflict began on October 7. The report showed how some reporting on the ongoing war did not even mention that the West Bank is Palestinian territory occupied by Israel and that, under international law, Gaza was also effectively under Israeli occupation before October 7, despite the absence of presence military on the ground since 2005.
There were also many cases of apparent “mistakes” and misinformation that were ignored on British television screens, as long as they reaffirmed Israeli narratives. In one case, a defense analyst claimed on television that “the West Bank is occupied by Palestinians.” Even though such a statement has no basis in international law, nor any current or historical reality on the ground, the presenter did not correct him or ask for clarification.
The misleading use of images in some newspapers is another flaw identified in the analysis.
For example, distressing images showing the flames and extensive destruction caused by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza were combined with headlines referring to the atrocities committed by Hamas in Israel on October 7. In one case, a horrifying image was shown of frightened and injured Palestinian children in Gaza. juxtaposed with a headline about “babies mutilated in Israel.”
Using misleading images, omitting facts, allowing guests to spread misinformation without question, and sharing unverified information as fact are examples of irresponsible and unethical journalism. And such acts could have serious consequences.
Disinformation and misinformation lead to hate speech, which can cause harm to innocent people. The misrepresentation of the current conflict as a “religious war” between Jews and Muslims, along with the dehumanization of Palestinians and the defamation of their supporters around the world as terrorists or “terrorist-adjacent” has exacerbated anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Muslim sentiment. -Israeli. Palestinian feelings.
As a result, hatred directed towards British Muslims has manifested itself on streets and screens across the UK. According to Tell Mama, the leading hate crime monitoring agency measuring anti-Muslim hate in the UK, between October 2023 and February 2024, there were more than 2,000 cases of anti-Muslim hate in the UK, a a staggering 335 percent increase compared to the same period last year.
An investigation carried out by British NGOs More in Common and Together Coalition since the start of the war in Gaza, published on March 3, highlighted the prevalence of anti-Muslim sentiment in the country. Among those who responded to the survey, 21 percent (one in five) said they had a “very negative” or “somewhat negative” view of Muslims.
The media's false labeling of pro-Palestinian protesters as “terrorist threats”, “pro-Hamas”, “extremists” and “opponents of British values” undoubtedly contributed to this unprecedented rise in hate and prejudice. anti-Muslims in the country.
Indeed, the anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments that many Palestinians, Arabs and British Muslims currently face in their schools, universities and workplaces could be linked – at least in part – to the predominantly one-sided coverage of the war in Gaza detailed in the CfMM report.
The negative labeling of pro-Palestinian protesters as “anti-British” and “anti-Western” simply because of their support for Palestinian rights and self-determination leads to the unfair discrediting of entire communities. It fuels existing prejudices and could lead to inter-religious and inter-community tensions and even violence.
In addition to the harm caused to British Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians, the bias expressed by the media in the coverage of this conflict also harms Palestinians in Palestine and the well-being of the region as a whole.
The report's conclusions imply that numerous journalists and commentators in Britain have knowingly or unwittingly assisted a propaganda campaign aimed at providing false legitimacy to Israel's relentless attack on Gaza, an attack which, according to the International Court of Justice, could plausibly amount to genocide.
The aim of the CfMM report, and of course this article, is not to make unfair generalizations about a diverse and rich media landscape and to treat all UK journalists with the same brush. Many journalists in Britain and on the ground in Israel-Palestine have produced balanced and informative journalism on the Gaza war for the British media and examples of this are also included in the CfMM report.
But those working in the British media covering this war should see the report, and the many problems and shortcomings it highlights, as a wake-up call. They should treat this extensive report and its conclusions as a valuable learning tool and reevaluate their output on Israel-Palestine in accordance with the fair and meaningful critiques it contains.
The magnitude of the tragedy still unfolding in Palestine today and the demonstrable impact it has had on inter-community relations here in Britain demands that all journalists contributing to the coverage of this war think carefully about what they are communicating to the public and take additional measures. measures to defend the values and principles that define the profession.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.
