The corporate media across the collective West loves to uphold the claim that it is objective and that its journalists and coverage are not biased. In Palestine and Lebanon, over the past 12 months, that narrative has lost all validity.

At the beginning of the Ukraine war in 2022, Western media and governments were quick to claim they opposed illegal invasion, occupation, and then annexation of territory by force. To justify their clearly anti-Russia coverage, international law and liberal values were employed in an attempt to portray the situation as a clear-cut case of good versus evil, completely rejecting any element of Russia’s narrative.

The truth then began seeping its way through, as Western journalists began talking about how Ukrainians “are not obviously refugees trying to get away from areas in the Middle East that are still in a big state of war; these are not people trying to get away from areas in North Africa, they look like any European family that you would live next door to.” A senior CBS News correspondent, Charlie D’Agata, even said that “this isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European – I have to choose those words carefully, too – city where you wouldn’t expect that, or hope that it’s going to happen.”

Then there were the countless other similar expressions of outrage across the Western corporate media. In one case, on the BBC, a guest even stated, “It’s very emotional for me because I see European people with blonde hair and blue eyes being killed every day”, to which the presenter responded with, “I understand and of course respect the emotion”, instead of jumping in to point out how incredibly racist the remark was.

All of this was justified under the mantra of sticking to international law, to the decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC), the United Nations' various organs, and the leading international human rights organizations. Yet, the reality was that what underpinned all of their reporting was allegiance to “the West”, their governments' official policy positions, and deeply rooted ideas of White Supremacy.

We know this now to be true because the ICJ, ICC, every organ of the United Nations, and every leading human rights group have all concluded that "Israel" is committing war crimes. The Zionist regime stands plausibly accused of genocide at the World Court, which also ruled its occupation illegal. The Israelis illegally occupy territory in Lebanon, Syria and of course the entirety of Palestine. The Zionist entity also repeatedly lies and lies and lies again, so many times, and about so many different incidents over the course of not only the past 12 months but the last 77 years. However, the corporate media start the clock where they see fit and continue to repeat Israeli propaganda uncritically.

Now, with the Israeli assault on Lebanon, the Western media and political elites are so pro-Zionist that they again refuse to challenge the same tired narrative that was employed against Hamas, which is again being used against Hezbollah. Leading corporate media outlets like The New York Times and broadcast media shows have openly lauded the Israeli pager and walkie-talkie explosion attacks, which were detonated in civilian areas across Lebanon and murdered/maimed countless civilians, despite even the former CIA director, Leon Panetta, calling them terrorist attacks.

It suffices to say that anyone who takes a critical look at the media coverage across the mainstream corporate press in the West can see that their reporting is replete with bias. Yet, they still continue to try and pass themselves off as impartial, categorically rejecting the notion that they are not completely “objective”.

The myth of objectivity in media

Dealing with the word “objective”, it is utterly implausible that anyone can be completely “objective” as we are all impacted by life experience and our own subjective understanding of the world around us. For instance, if you are to take a condemnatory tone on any issue, for any reason, whether that be down to a monetary, ideological, or ethical stance, it is instantly a subjective take. Objectivity is not actually possible when arguing something is right or wrong, because you must first come to that perspective/conclusion based upon the subjective experience that led you to believe something is illegal, incorrect, or immoral. 

For example, let us say that a local reporter in the US State of Colorado describes a racially motivated murder of a Native American by a White American, in 2024, as “horrific”, before suggesting that the racist individual should rightly be imprisoned for the act, either in a direct or indirect way. What is this condemnatory tone based upon? One may say it is based on the legal system. Well, in 1864, it wasn’t only legal for such a racially motivated killing to occur, there was even an order given to White people to kill Native Americans and seize their properties. So, would it be acceptable to say that this crime would have been justified back in 1864 because of the legal system? Evidently not, because the legal system is also subjective and even the enforcers of that system of law are constantly seeking to interpret and reinterpret the application of the law, this is why we have lawyers, a jury, and judges. Hence laws are frequently amended.

The answer to such a question then may lie in a blanket condemnation of violence and killing, loosely based upon a violation of collectively agreed-upon liberal understandings. This is again a logical fallacy, because killing is sometimes viewed as justified in self-defense or in the interest of “the greater good”. After all, there are not many who would argue that a police officer shooting a man who is about to kill civilians is wrong. It may be tragic, but the police officer would not be condemned if they had no other option. Even in the event that the police officer would be condemned by some, it would be based upon people’s subjective experiences with the police and their understanding of intent.

The only way it would make logical sense to claim that you are being objective about the use of force would be to argue that this point of view came from God, but even then, your personal application of this ruling could come into play. In addition to this, you would be aligning yourself with a Monotheistic Religion, which would then make you biased toward a certain group's interpretation on a range of issues. As an example, as a Muslim, I am well aware that there are key principles to which every Muslim is to adhere, however, there are some issues that different schools of thought will deal with differently and therefore there is an element of subjectivity there on the part of the individual/s.

Why go through the process of giving such examples? Because they work to demonstrate that it is beyond ridiculous to suggest that an entire Western media outlet and all of its journalists can be completely objective on all issues. Not even the public who consume the mainstream media truly believe it to be the case and we know this because there is a direct correlation between someone's political leanings - that is to say their subjective understandings of the world - and the outlets they choose to watch, read, and listen to. 

The true problem here is not that there is bias in the media, of course, there is. The issue is in the way the Western media lie about it and present themselves as superior due to their alleged “impartiality”, “objectivity” and “balance”. Even the idea of balance is ridiculous, because you cannot calculate “balance” in mathematical terms between two sides of a conflict or argument and then apply this across all reporting. If there was truly “balance” for instance, the BBC would barely ever mention Israeli casualties, because statistically, they are so insignificant compared to the sheer scale of Palestinians and now Lebanese killed. 

Others would say that “balance” is presenting the arguments from both sides, which without any interference or commentary, would literally be the equivalent of just reproducing propaganda equally and letting the viewer decide which side to choose. Clearly, this isn’t the function of these media outlets either, and if there was to be “balance” in that respect, they would have to employ a Palestinian for every Israeli they employ to talk about the war in Gaza, vetting them all first to make sure they have opposing views.

At the end of the day, a lack of objectivity is not what is wrong with Western corporate media, it is their incessant lying, their inability to provide context, and their undermining of reputable sources of information, combined with a constant effort to shape the confines of the “acceptable” boundaries of our discourse.

Like has been demonstrated by the outrageous double standards in the way Palestinian suffering is covered, opposed to Ukrainian suffering is, or how Israeli attacks on Iran are covered, opposed to the other way around: They are cartoonishly biased.

If a war reporter like Gaza’s Wael Dahdouh uses condemnatory language, such as describing an Israeli airstrike that killed his own family members, as a massacre, or if he described someone as a martyr, is this unacceptable? Of course not. After all, if you are in the middle of a warzone and are personally affected, you can still do your job and tell the truth, but evidently, you are not able to claim full objectivity, because you are quite literally part of the story you are covering. 

As journalists, we have to be truthful and not ignore the facts, even if we don’t like them. That is what separates good journalism and analysis from useless propaganda. This way, there is always value in such a journalistic endeavor, even if the reader/viewer/listener disagrees. 

The Western corporate media specializes in storytelling, narrative building, and regime propaganda for the most part. Except for a small portion of Western mainstream media reporting on Palestine, which is occasionally good journalism, the Israeli Hebrew media are actually a more valuable source of information, because at least when you are reading their news, you can understand the perspective of the oppressor. As an analyst myself, I prefer to read Arabic media and translations of Hebrew media, while also examining the details of UN and human rights reports to arrive at my conclusions. While I monitor Reuters and the Associated Press, which are the two largest news providers in Western media, they aren’t often all that valuable. 

What is evident is that Western corporate media doesn’t give a Palestinian, Arab, Iranian, or even an Israeli perspective; it provides a carefully constructed narrative that is specifically designed to portray the Zionist regime in a positive way. Not in the way Israelis see it, but instead, there is a mythical “Israel” that has been created to make its actions congruent with a liberal Western point of view.

As a journalist, it is completely normal for you to hold points of view, especially if you are personally tied to a conflict, but what is unacceptable is hiding why you believe what you do. The only reason to hide your own perspective is because you understand that it would be unacceptable to the public should they come to understand your intentions. If you are tasked with accounting certain events in a report, for instance, you may be giving a live report from the location of a current event, opinion should not be involved, which is where there is an element of concealing beliefs and withholding opinions. Yet, even in the midst of reporting these facts, often there is a selective nature to which facts the reporter will consider relevant and repeat, which then brings in an element of opinion. In this case, as long as there is an effort to maintain truth, the job is considered well done.

Another great example to use would be of a battered woman who had suffered years of physical and psychological abuse at the hands of her husband, leading her to attack him with a hammer and injure him in self-defense one day. If a witness to the situation - let’s say the next-door neighbor - were to present an argument in court, it may well be favorable to the woman as the years of torment that preceded her actions would be factored in. Is this witness perhaps expressing bias and their subjective understanding of what happened, because they note the context? Perhaps, but they are also accurately describing what they saw and so it would be deemed a legitimate account of events.

On the other hand, the defense lawyer for the husband would try to argue his case forcefully, claiming the other side is biased toward the woman and that nothing could justify her picking up a hammer to defend herself. A smart lawyer would seek to perform a kind of character assassination, or process of delegitimizing the witness's account and painting it as one-sided, attempting to present balance by perhaps building the argument that the wife has also occasionally acted against her husband and that the scenario is not quite as simple as the witness suggests. However, when more witnesses come forward and there is physical evidence that also matches witness descriptions, the lawyer is then in trouble and must double down in whatever way they can, sticking to familiar tactics that have won them previous cases.

The Western corporate media is just the Israeli defense lawyer. It has a vested interest in making you believe that everyone is out to get their client and that everyone who accurately depicts their crimes is plagued with bias that delegitimizes their case.

As a journalist, you can’t be fully objective, it isn’t possible. Yet, what you can be is a truth-teller, you can do your best to represent the facts as you see them and be open about what knowledge you do and do not possess. From there, it is on the consumer of that information to make their own choice on what they believe.