This July, the New York Times published an inflammatory Op-Ed from Bret Stephens, titled “No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza.” The article is a harrowing exercise in ethical dissonance, asking why there hasn’t been “hundreds of thousands of deaths” instead of just “nearly 60,000”, if Israel is truly committed to genocide. The platforming of such voices entirely minimising the starvation and suffering of millions has caused many, myself included, to question the so-called ‘paper of record’.
The Genocide in Gaza has created a crisis of journalism that goes beyond the killing of over 210 on-the-ground reporters.
While mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and the BBC are repeatedly failing to report the extent of the devastation wrought by Netanyahu’s occupation campaign and elevating Zionist voices, social media is filling the gap as a platform for Palestinian voices to be shared. Yet the operators of these platforms are signing $50 Million agreements with the Israeli government to display propagandic advertisements, restricting content access in Gaza and the West Bank, and tightening moderation of Palestinian content. This has resulted in a conflicted and hostile media environment, with accusations of bias and misinformation on all sides distracting from the urgent and critical situation of two million Palestinians fighting to survive bombardment and enforced famine.
The fact that Stephens was even writing about the topic for the NYT is a display of questionable journalism, when he has a clear conflict of interest- he is employed by the Maimonides Fund, a pro-Israel advocacy group, as the editor-in-chief of their journal Sapir. This is not disclosed anywhere on the NYT website, or in his profile where he excludes it from his list of previous and current external roles. This is only one example of the NYT’s failure to cover the full story with regards to Gaza. A look through the last months’ worth of headlines under their “Middle East” section shows a marked absence of any mention of famine, healthcare crisis, or the ever-mounting number of Palestinian casualties. The images chosen are of diplomats, bombed-out buildings, or silhouetted hordes of refugees, but never any faces of Palestinian suffering. This has a harrowing effect of real-time dehumanisation and manufactured blindness to the undeniably extant conditions of famine and bombardment faced by Gaza’s two million residents.
Closer to home, platforms like the BBC are also failing to give adequate validity to Palestinian voices. They don’t shy away from images of the devastation caused by Israeli forces as much as the NYT, yet pictures cannot speak for a people, and a study from the Centre for Media Monitoring last year found the BBC ran twice as many interviews with Israelis as Palestinians. While they funded and broadcast a documentary explicitly showing the devastation of the occupation, “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone”, it was removed from all streaming services shortly after its release in February. This was in response to pressure from Zionist lobby groups and journalists like David Collier (who is quoted as saying Palestinian refugees were ‘created’ as a ‘weapon against Israel’). The day after its broadcast, Collier denounced the documentary on the grounds that 14 year old Abdullah, the narrator, was the child of ‘Hamas royalty’, (his father was deputy minister for Agriculture in the Hamas government) and the BBC’s failure to disclose this was a breach of their policy.
Even though Abdullah’s narration was entirely scripted by the production, with no mention or feature of his father in the documentary, I agree it was a fault of the production company not to disclose such a detail. However, rather than adding a disclaimer, the documentary is still missing from BBC services, and a subsequent planned documentary, ‘Gaza: Doctors Under Attack’ was shelved. The result is the loss of a comprehensive and otherwise verified source of information for the people of Britain on a contentious and vital topic, and the silencing of Palestinian voices on a mainstream platform.
So when the traditionally trusted news channels are repeatedly failing to address the scale of the inhumane violence faced by Gaza’s two million residents, those wishing to follow the Palestinian cause are left to find alternative sources. Indeed, social media has become perhaps the most important tool for pro-Palestinian activism, providing a direct platform for individual Palestinians to share their stories of life under genocide, and fundraise to feed their families. But the aspect of this I find the most harrowing is the desperate battle for engagement these people fight- appeals for help from mothers of sick children hidden behind a short clip of celebrity gossip or slime ASMR in an attempt to stop people from instantly scrolling past. Starving people begging for 30 seconds of viewing time, a like or a comment, so maybe they can get a few pennies from the creator fund.
This is not how humanitarian aid should work. This is not how news content should work. The social media ‘solution’ is fundamentally unstable and unsustainable. The platforms hosting these activists and initiatives are controlled by corporations that have no moral or monetary interest in promoting truth.
Recently, news broke of a $50 million advertising deal between Google, YouTube, X, and the Israeli Government Advertising Agency, Lapam. These platforms agreed to distribute a PR campaign designed to sow doubt that Gaza is experiencing a famine, something that has been ratified by the WHO. Advertisements show footage of bustling Gazan markets, question the accuracy of the IPC famine report, while sponsored search results link to websites calling UN refugee agencies a ‘front for Hamas’.
Additionally, activist accounts are permanently removed or have content deleted for ‘violating platform guidelines’. Meta and TikTok can ‘shadowban’ profiles, meaning their content is restricted and hidden from viewers without the creator’s knowledge. This occurs disproportionately to creators who are outspoken about the genocide happening in Gaza, with a Drop Site News report alleging over 30 million such posts were removed, suppressed, or banned by Meta.
The result of all this is a fraught and contentious media environment that serves to distance the public conscience from the plight of Gaza’s residents. While there are many independent journalists doing excellent work covering the crisis, it is ultimately the giants like the BBC and NYT that hold influence over general consensus. The world cannot ignore what is happening in Gaza. 39,000 children have been orphaned- reporting that fact should not be considered political bias. It is the purpose of journalism to serve humanity, not to facilitate its destruction by contributing to a narrative of dehumanisation.
