The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

For anyone who has been following the mainstream media’s coverage of the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas since October 7, 2023, it is clear that most news outlets have an anti-Israel bias running through their content.

This bias is evident in the stories that the outlets choose to publish, the context (or lack thereof) provided to their audience, and the sources that these media organizations rely on for their stories.

This bias has become so apparent that several academic sources have published studies of this one-sided news coverage, quantifying the extent to which an anti-Israel lens colors the average media consumer’s understanding of what is currently happening in Gaza.

In this piece, we will take a look at two recent studies that have analyzed the issue of anti-Israel bias in the media: One study surveyed several of the top English-language media outlets in the world, and the other focused specifically on the case of The New York Times, one of the most influential newspapers in the world.

Relying on Hamas, Questioning Israel: How the Media Report on Gazan Casualties

A study by Fifty Global Research Group took a look at all articles that mentioned Gazan casualties that were published between February and May 2024 by eight of the top global English-language news sources: CNN, the BBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, the Associated Press, The Guardian, and ABC Australia.

Here are some of the major findings of this analysis of the media’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas war:

• The vast majority of news stories did not make clear that the casualty figures provided by the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health include members of Hamas and other terrorist groups. Only 15% of articles mentioned the fact that the Ministry does not differentiate between civilians and Hamas, while a mere 3% provided the estimated figure of terrorist casualties.
• There is a huge difference in how various news outlets reported the above-mentioned facts. While The Washington Post and the Associated Press mentioned in roughly 40% of their articles that Hamas does not separate the numbers of civilians and combatants, the BBC, Reuters, and CNN only mentioned this fact in less than 5% of their articles.
• 100% of all articles featured Hamas-provided figures on casualties, while only 4% of these articles provided Israel-provided casualty figures.
• Roughly 80% of the articles that featured Hamas’ casualty figures informed their readers that the numbers were from Hamas and/or the Gaza Ministry of Health, while 19% of these articles did not mention the source of these figures, giving the impression that they are undisputed common knowledge.
• In 50% of articles that provided Israeli casualty figures, they were treated with skepticism and presented as “unverifiable.” The same doubt about Hamas-provided figures only exists in less than 2% of these articles.

As various analysts have noted, this blind reliance on Hamas statistics helps contribute to the validation of an internationally recognized terror group as a reliable source and has helped promote a false narrative in which Israel is recklessly or intentionally killing innocent civilians in Gaza, not terrorists.

The New York Times: A Special Case of Anti-Israel Bias

While the above study focused on several leading media organizations, an analysis by Professor Eytan Gilboa (Bar Ilan University) and Lilac Sigan focused on bias in The New York Times’ coverage for the first seven months of the war.

Of the 3,848 articles published on the Israel-Hamas war, Gilboa and Sigan looked at the 1,398 pieces that were included in the Times’ daily subscriber newsletter email as a sample size.

Here are some of the major findings of their study of anti-Israel bias at one of the most influential and esteemed newspapers in the world:

• 46% of articles solely expressed empathy for the Palestinians. At the same time, only 10% of articles expressed empathy for Israelis.
• Throughout the seven-month period, the coverage was 4.4 times more sympathetic towards the Palestinians than it was towards the Israelis. Even during October 2023, mere weeks after the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, the sympathy expressed towards Palestinians was double that expressed towards Israelis.
• Out of 50 articles about the hostages, only 28 (56%) blamed Hamas for their suffering, while 11 (22%) were critical of Israel itself.
• At the same time, out of 647 articles that were empathetic towards the Palestinians, only 2 blamed Hamas for their suffering.
• There were roughly 3 times as many op-eds that were critical of Israel (72) as there were those that were critical of Hamas (23).

It is clear that for The New York Times, Israel is seen as the primary aggressor in the conflict, with Hamas relegated to an almost secondary role in the conflict and its continuation. The same could be said for how The New York Times views the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians, focusing heavily on the Palestinian experience while largely ignoring the Israeli one.

These observations have also been made by Edieal Pinker (Yale School of Management) in his analysis of The New York Times’ coverage.

Pinker concluded that:

I found numerous imbalances in the NY Times coverage. Namely, reporting on both Israeli military and civilian casualties incurred, post October 7, is sparse. Reporting on Israeli suffering through personal accounts of non-October 7 victims is very limited while reporting of Palestinian personal accounts of suffering is very frequent. Reporting of Hamas militant casualties is sparse and reporting of Palestinian acts of violence post October 7 is very sparse. Mentions of Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran are much less frequent than mentions of Israel.

The potential net effect of these imbalances is multi-faceted. The imbalances create great sympathy for the Palestinian people while at the same time diminishing Hamas’ responsibility for their situation and the continuation of the war. Outside of the direct Israeli victims of October 7, there is little relative sympathy for Israelis, little recognition of the costs of the war to Israel, and great responsibility is placed upon Israel for the suffering of the Palestinians and the situation in the region. There is a certain irony in this pattern of coverage. The lion’s share of responsibility for the situation and its resolution is placed on Israel. Yet, at the same time the reporting does not give the reader a full understanding of how the war is being experienced by Israelis.

With such blatant anti-Israel bias in the war coverage of some of the world’s most influential and prestigious news organizations, is it any wonder that there is a rise in anti-Israel sentiment around the globe?

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

Palestinian Hamas terrorists stand guard on the day of the handover of hostages held in Gaza since the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack, as part of a ceasefire and a hostages-prisoners swap deal between Hamas and Israel, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled

Britain rejected Israeli criticism on Wednesday that it was rewarding terrorist group Hamas by setting out plans to recognize a Palestinian state unless Israel took steps to improve the situation in Gaza and bring about peace.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s ultimatum, setting a September deadline, prompted an immediate rebuke from Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, who said it rewarded Hamas and punished the victims of the fighters’ 2023 attack that triggered the war. US President Donald Trump also said he did not think Hamas “should be rewarded” with recognition of Palestinian independence.

But British Transport Minister Heidi Alexander – designated by the government to respond to media questions on Wednesday – said: “This is not a reward for Hamas.”

“Hamas is a vile terrorist organization that has committed appalling atrocities. This is about the Palestinian people. It’s about those children that we see in Gaza who are starving to death,” Alexander said. “We’ve got to ratchet up pressure on the Israeli government to lift the restrictions to get aid back into Gaza.”

Starmer’s decision follows that of French President Emmanuel Macron, who announced last week that Paris would recognize Palestinian statehood in September, becoming the first major Western power to do so, because of the dire humanitarian conditions in the enclave.

Previously, Britain and France, like other Western powers, had been committed to Palestinian independence, but as a goal that would best be achieved only at the conclusion of negotiations with Israel. In a televised address on Tuesday, Starmer said it had become necessary to act because the prospect of such a two-state solution was now under threat.

Britain would make the move at the UN General Assembly in September unless Israel took substantive steps to allow more aid into Gaza, made clear it would not annex the West Bank, and committed itself to a long-term peace process that delivered a two-state solution, Starmer said.

The most immediate impact of Britain recognizing a Palestinian state may be an upgrading of diplomatic relations, according to one British government official.

UPGRADING RELATIONS

Britain now hosts a Palestinian mission in London which could be upgraded to an embassy, and Britain could eventually open an embassy in the West Bank, the official said.

Starmer’s move “will isolate Israel more and more, but it won’t change anything on the ground,” said Azriel Bermant, a senior researcher at the Institute of International Relations Prague.

Bronwen Maddox, chief executive of the Chatham House think-tank, said the move put Britain into the forefront of countries trying to negotiate a solution, but that Starmer may have “muddled things by using recognition as a threat to Israel, when it is a goal of British foreign policy.”

“He might have done better to use other threats, for example sanctions or arms controls against Israel for the immediate crisis in Gaza, to get Israel to change its behavior there,” she said.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, Britain’s biggest Jewish advocacy group, raised concerns that similarly clear conditions had not been set out for Hamas, which is still holding 50 hostages it seized in its October 2023 attack.

Alexander, when asked whether recognition was conditional on the release of hostages, said that the government would review whether to go ahead with recognition in September and Britain had long said Hamas must release hostages.

The Muslim Council of Britain, the country’s largest Muslim umbrella organization, said that making recognition conditional contradicted the government’s stated position that statehood was the inalienable right of the Palestinian people.

Spokeswoman of Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova attends a press conference held by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the sidelines of a meeting of foreign ministers of the BRICS group of nations in the city of Nizhny Novgorod, Russia, June 11, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov

Russia said on Wednesday it was concerned about the threat of new strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and that a deal on Tehran’s nuclear program could be reached through dialogue.

Israel and the United States bombed Iranian nuclear sites in June with the stated aim of preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Iran denies any such intention.

“Regular threats towards Iran to launch new missile and bomb strikes on its nuclear facilities cannot but cause serious concern. The cynicism of such statements is added by the fact that they are made under the guise of imaginary concern for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters.

“Bombing nuclear facilities should not become commonplace, routine international practice. The catastrophic risks associated with this cannot be ignored, much less justified.”

Russia has cultivated closer ties with Iran since the start of its war in Ukraine, and this year signed a strategic partnership treaty with the Islamic Republic.

Zakharova said a sustainable peace settlement and a promise not to conduct new strikes on Iran were prerequisites for normalizing cooperation between Tehran and the UN nuclear watchdog agency.