"Freedom of the press in bourgeois society means freedom for the rich, systematically, unremittingly, daily, in millions of copies to deceive, corrupt, and fool the exploited and oppressed mass of the people the poor"

 

- Vladimir Lenin on the freedom of the press. 

The discourse on the integrity of the press has been both extensive and enlightening when the matter at hand examines a direct byproduct of systems of oppression against entities that have been in constant cycles of despotism and discrimination.

When an inherently white supremacist news media outlet servicing the imperial state, in this case, the US government, is tasked with reporting on the suffering of a people it cannot relate to, the perceived reality of events gets distorted. 

As a result, the language used will automatically diminish the value of the topic of literature, creating a written, documented bias that ultimately erases the struggle of the oppressed to secure the oppressor's conscience, be it the author, federal state, or the reader from higher society. 

Bearing this in mind, an analysis by The Intercept showed substantial evidence that news media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, foster clear biases against Palestinians in their coverage of the genocide in Gaza.

Consequently, I will be critiquing the linguistic element that speaks miles to American media's portrayal of the realities seen in Gaza. 

The media's downplay of Palestinian struggle 

To begin with, little to negligible analysis of the unfolding of Operation Al-Aqsa flood was examined, actively dismissing the Palestinian struggle witnessed in Gaza before the brutal war "Israel" launched. This creates a sense of spontaneity in terms of the events of October 7, making it seem like the Resistance's operation was launched out of a vacuum and was not grounded as a defensive reaction against a 15-year embargo imposed on Gaza, and the continuous violations and murder of Palestinians in the Strip and all of Palestine. 

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, according to Hamas Political Bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh, was the appropriate response to the occupation's unconventional war tactics, which were effectively and continuously used against Palestinians, not only in Gaza but in all occupied territories. 

In this case, we consider the struggle between the Israeli oppressor and oppressed Palestinians as the main drive for a revolution that birthed Al-Aqsa Flood. In bourgeois mediocre analysis, it was limited to a brutal attack that shed blood on an Israeli holy night, against upholders of peace and advocates for a two-state solution that would not secure Palestinians' rights, rather than a movement that symbolically transported the historic mission to liberation to entirely different heights.

Therefore, what we saw in commercial media outlets barely scratched the surface of Palestinian oppression, because it is a territory that had not been experienced by the West. In fact, it was a violation of "Israel", the West's colonial baby that secures Western society's interests in the Middle East.

The news outlets then opted to consistently downplay the magnitude of Palestinian losses in passive remarks, but have emphasized the incomparable losses among Israeli ranks.

Most reports published by media outlets choose to dismiss the destruction Gaza has endured as a result of "Israel's" savage attacks. For example, a recent report published by The Washington Post described Gaza as a graveyard, "residents say". 

The second half of the description not only undermines the intensity of the damage done in Gaza but also presents it in a selective form of belief. What is meant in this case is to deliver Gazans' testimonies on the state of their city but in the most ambiguous, doubt-inducing manner. The term "say" does not confidently echo what Gazans are trying to deliver to the world, but holds undertones that dismiss the fact itself, that Gaza is indeed a graveyard, and that it has been utterly destroyed by "Israel". 

In the same report, The Washington Post says the following about "Israel": "Israel today is a nation heavy with shock, looking for answers and often also for vengeance. The streets are slowly coming back to life, but they feel anything but normal."

When a reader senses the emotions spilling from the sentence above, thoughts of Israeli suffering inevitably pour in. The ambiance the WP has painted is that of looming desolation stemming from an event that has shaken the occupation and has given them the right to "vengeance". 

Of course, actual material destruction was barely an issue in the occupied territories, so the news cannot possibly report on that. 

As the genocide entered its fourth month, major Western media covered the events extremely disproportionately, with an explicit focus on the first 6 weeks that highlighted Israeli losses, versus meek mentions of Palestinian suffering even as the death count exceeds 23,000, most of whom are women and children, and even as entire cities, buildings, and hospitals are pulverized to rubble.

The Intercept indicated that this could be due to the correlation between the media's influence on public opinion and the US government's unwavering support for genocide. This essentially means that the media does not want to broadcast Israeli crimes to avoid public backlash against the government's policies regarding the genocide. 

The statistics obtained from The Intercept's analysis also showed drastic discrepancies between the mentioning of Palestinians and Israelis, or Palestine and "Israel". For example, every two Palestinian deaths are mentioned once, while each Israeli death is mentioned eight times. 

The intentional selection of words 

According to The Intercept, even when mentioning death tolls, the media enterprises employed an abundance of ethos for the Israeli side, with overdone empathetic connotations, in contrast to the Palestinian side. 

For instance, the introduction of the Israeli death toll almost always begins with selected terms that describe October 7's operation as a brutal, terrorist attack led by Hamas, insinuating blame on Palestine and essentially justifying the "Israeli response". Concerning the latter, it is painted as a reaction that is at best coined as "disproportionate". 

Related News

Why Europe's regulatory power is no longer enough: FT

Valery Zaluzhny: From Ukraine top general to presidential prospect

Moreover, specific terms are reserved for Israelis, like "slaughtered" and "massacred" to describe their deaths, while Palestinians are just "killed". The action of killing Palestinians is not attributed to a perpetrator, essentially signifying that Palestinians die, while Israelis are brutally killed by known actors.

Statistics showed that the term "massacre" was used in a 125-to-2 ratio for Israelis, "slaughter" in 60-to-1, and "horrific" in 36-to-4. 

In terms of headlines, the following NYT example shows a clear difference in tone, wording, and importance when writing an Israeli-centric article relative to a Palestinian-centric one: 

“They Ran Into a Bomb Shelter for Safety. Instead, They Were Slaughtered" was the title of an article regarding Israelis who were killed. In comparison, another article written at the same time detailing "Israel's" war strategy of massacring children was titled "The War Turns Gaza Into a ‘Graveyard’ for Children". 

There are two major key points to consider: 

1. The utilization of the term "war" in a broad climate implies it is an equally aggressive conflict from both sides when in reality, there is a clear oppressor that continuously deliberately targets children and civilians as a strategy that aims at annihilating Palestinians. 

2. The addition of quotes to the word graveyard, which was borrowed from a United Nations statement, erases its weight and depth, obliterating the dangerous undertone it holds. 

Palestinian children and journalists: A foreign concept to US media 

"Israel" has killed over 10,000 children and over 100 journalists, a fact that has become very well and widely known. However, when the NYT ran a special for their front page detailing the horrifying numbers, the headline itself failed to mention both children and journalists. 

This not only misleads the audience but also blacks out the severity of the material. Headlines are used to attract the audience into reading, so when a headline intentionally dismisses the main idea and opts for another passive title that does not include any shocking factor that prompts the reader's curiosity, this indicates that the publishers are obligated to write the material, but do not want the audience to actively read it. 

Moreover, comparing the Ukrainian-Russian war with the Israeli genocide in Gaza, US media outlets showcased bias when reporting on the killing of children and journalists. Extensive literature was published when six journalists were killed in Ukraine during the first six weeks of the war, while concise and untoned (and very few) pieces were published when dozens of journalists were actively targeted and killed by "Israel" in Gaza. 

The same thing can be observed when reporting the killing of children in Gaza. But to worsen the reality of American journalism, NYT, WP, and their likes, coined Palestinian children "individuals under 18".

The following is an example written by the Los Angeles Times: “The Gaza Health Ministry said Friday that 1,799 people have been killed in the territory, including more than 580 under the age of 18 and 351 women. Hamas’s assault last Saturday killed more than 1,300 people in Israel, including women, children, and young music festivalgoers.”

Of course, that is when Palestinian children are mentioned at all, under whatever synonym the media giants opt to use. 

The Washington Post, for example, did not include the mention of Palestinian children as part of Palestinian prisoners detained by the Israeli occupation and liberated in the exchange deal. 

Read more: Palestine vs Ukraine: How Pro-Israeli lobbies ensure a double standard

Inadequate reports of ideological hate

American media also exhibited their bias toward "Israel" when the spillover effect of October 7 poured into American society. 

Media outlets reported exponential cases of antisemitism through pro-Palestinian protests, accusing demonstrators of wanting to annihilate the Israeli settler state through chants like "from the river to the sea", linking it to Judaism and alluding that pro-Palestinians oppose Jews, not settlers that have invaded the land and killed its people for 75 years. 

However, Islamophobia, which saw a drastic spike following October 7 was relatively barely mentioned or analyzed. Collectively, WP, NYT, and LA Times mentioned antisemitism 549 times, and Islamophobia 79 times only. The tally excludes the university campus frenzy against antisemitism, triggered by Republicans in Congress.

Although Islamophobic hate crimes were executed in the US, Islamophobia mentions in literature spiked at 13% compared to antisemitism's 87%, The Intercept found. 

The moral of the story 

Lastly, The Intercept concluded that US media barely humanized Palestinians throughout the 4-month genocide, but indirectly and directly sided with "Israel". 

Despite US media's failure in the realm of just and ethical journalism and its influence on the general public's opinion, empathy with Palestinians has been growing in American society, compared to the sloping support for "Israel". 

Mid-December statistics showed that support for "Israel" has dropped by a drastic 14% between October and November of this year. Polling company YouGov conducted a survey asking respondents which side of the war they sympathized with more over multiple time integrals. Right after October 7, US adults' net sympathy for "Israel" spiked to 38% but saw a rapid decline to 24% just a few days later. 

So in the grand scheme of things, the tired attempts that US media employed to restrict Palestinian solidarity in American society not only failed but was transformed to become a sphere of critique. 

And despite an intense propaganda and media war, Palestine prevails as righteous in its defense, undeserving of what has been forced upon it, and finding solidarity all over the globe, while facilitators of genocide walk a path that shows them for who they truly are.