U.S. media “objectivity” still favors Israeli narratives. Why?

U.S. news coverage of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine has showed mainstream news media remaining steadfast in its devotion to principled neutrality. Both-side-isms are used as a method of covering the “full story.”

But such reporting has only intensified the decades-long debate about the role of objectivity in media, with the concept misconstrued to mean the impossible: As journalists, we act as people completely free from bias. 

Yet bias is behind a consistent pattern of coverage favoring Israel and the intense newsroom retaliation for journalists who have challenged newsrooms to speak out against Israeli apartheid and Palestinian genocide. A number of students and professionals I spoke to feared job loss, doxxing, and other forms of retaliation and felt they could not safely go on the record for this piece. 

“It’s an asymmetrical conflict,” said Maryam Ahmed, a sophomore at the University of Texas-Austin. “One side has [at least 41,615] deaths and the other has [one of] the most advanced militar[ies] in the world.”  

More than a year after Israeli bombardment on the Gaza strip began, young journalists who covered Palestinian solidarity encampments are fighting that standard of a dishonest “objectivity” as the cornerstone of quality reporting. The profession of journalism is premised on the importance of stories that speak truth to power, but J-school curriculum has not reflected the importance of that same moral clarity in reporting on Palestine while mainstream newsrooms display clear, repeated bias toward Israel. 

“Objectivity” rebutted by journalistic malpractice 

Journalism has a historical precedent of celebrating reporters who were once ostracized for wielding their platforms for justice. 

Ida B. Wells is now heralded for taking a stance against lynching, Christianne Amanpour was once criticized for using the word “genocide” to describe a mass killing of Muslim Bosniack men in Srebrenica and is now CNN’s chief international anchor of her own global affairs program. Both are strong examples of the impact journalism could have when journalists center morality over “objectivity”. 

Tom Rosenstiel, co-author of the Elements of Journalism, a fundamental text in journalism education, summarized: “The method is objective, but the journalist is not.”

Originally popularized by Walter Lippman, the concept began appearing in the industry around the 1920’s, during the time Sigmund Freud was developing his theories of the unconscious. But Lippman’s objectivity made no claims to individual neutrality. 

“Objectivity called for journalists to develop a consistent method of testing information — a transparent approach to evidence — precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work,” writes Rosenstiel. Yet journalists at mainstream newsrooms have failed even at this standard.

An analysis from The Intercept showed major outlets like the New York Times favored Israel, using more descriptive and humanizing language than when they covered Palestinian deaths. CNN’s protocol for covering Israel and Palestine was also called into question by staffers who say all coverage regarding Israel and Palestine was first routed to their bureau in Jerusalem, according to an audio file of a meeting obtained by The Intercept.

Some of the most powerful people in news media also have a track record of supporting Israel. Media magnate Rupert Murdoch has supported Israel over the years, calling pushback against Israeli occupation a “soft war” to delegitimize the state. Jeffery Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, has also volunteered as a prison guard for the Israel Defense Force during the First Intifada at Ketziot prison camp, which was condemned by human rights groups such as Amnesty International for violating the Geneva Conventions. 

To further complicate coverage, antisemitic incidents aren’t accurately tracked. While the Anti-Defamation League reports that antisemitic incidents rose 361% from the previous year, Jewish news outlet The Forward was the first to report one big problem with the numbers: They include nonviolent rallies in support for Palestine into its count. Outlets such as CNN, NBC, and Axios picked up the report without checking the data behind the claim, further blurring the lines differentiating antisemitism and Zionism. 

Still, there is an effort to provide nuanced, accurate coverage not intended to favorably cover Israel’s actions, from people throughout various stages and positions in journalism. Over 60 journalism professors have called for the New York Times to do an independent review of their story of alleged Hamas mass rape on Oct. 7. They’re among a growing number of educators and professionals criticizing reporting methods from the mainstream press, particularly its hypocrisy. 

What appears on the surface to be a debate over new vs. old is more of a question of the fundamental role that media should play as violence unfolds in real time. Are journalists simply silent observers? How should journalists wield their platforms? 

Some early-career journalists say it’s clear: “Our job is to seek the truth and report it. I also believe it is to fight injustice,” said Aaron Stigile, a senior at Arizona State University’s Cronkite School of Journalism, on Twitter. 

Pursuing this misinterpreted idea of objectivity, Stigile said, can also validate bigotry. 

In the case of Israel and Palestine, he added, “you can make it seem like a genocide is a legitimate and okay thing to be happening, like it’s just a disagreement of viewpoints or values.”

J-schools, standards fail to support the totality of students’ lived experience

As conversations about “objectivity” and its failures are borne out in coverage of Palestine, schools continue to teach standards that don’t reflect students’ lived experiences. 

Sonya Fatah, an associate professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, says one challenge for journalism educators is that many have been practitioners for decades and “have been attached to news organizations that have trained them to specifically practice in such a way that it [becomes] part of their being as journalists.” 

“For them to question that, and to realign themselves, means for them to question their own body of work in a really intentional way,” she said.

Fatah also explained that an educator may have difficulties reflecting on how their previous work has contributed to wider, systemic problems.

That can be evident in feedback on student assignments, which happened with recent Temple University graduate Mariyum Rizwan. 

“I used the word genocide in an assignment and my professor made a note on my draft that said, ‘While I may or may not disagree with the use of this word, I think we should follow AP Style,’” Rizwan said. 

While she said she understands the benefit of learning AP Style, she doesn’t always agree with the standards. AP Style guidance has been to use “Israel-Hamas War.” 

Ahmed, the UT-Austin sophomore, also echoed Rizwan’s disagreement of AP guidance. 

“I completely reject that paradigm because I don’t think it’s based in truth … How can we serve our readership if that’s not the reality for many people?” she said.  

History and research also back up what Ahmed says.

May marked 76 years since Nakba, Arabic for “catastrophe,” referring to the mass deportation of Palestinians and destruction of over 530 Palestinian villages that followed the establishment of Israel’s apartheid state. The decision to use this language wasn’t reached lightly by researchers, as Eric Goldstein, the former deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch wrote for The Forward in 2021. 

“At the height of the first Intifada, I documented inhumane acts as the Israeli army used brutal tactics to repress the popular uprising in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip,” Goldstein wrote. “And it has become clear over the years that there is systematic oppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territory.” 

Rizwan added that widespread conversations about Gaza and Palestine were common in her home growing up.

“[My] identity, plays a really big role in, I think, in how I’m looking at this genocide,” she said. “I am Muslim. So for me, I feel that this issue and this conversation didn’t start on October 7th.” 

Changes are possible: At The Daily Texan, her school newspaper, Ahmed said that, ultimately, her editors were open to her not using the word “war” to describe the conflict and allowed other reporters to use alternative language that they felt comfortable with. 

Ahmed also said that coverage of encampments seemed more like “fact-finding missions” that didn’t reflect why the encampments were there in the first place. 

“I think the fix to that is really listening to students and asking them why they’re here,” Ahmed said. “Centering their message throughout the story: Vote for divestment, financial transparency … and for Palestine.” 

Rizwan, who visited the encampment at the University of Pennsylvania, says that big outlets missed an opportunity to spotlight how encampments provided mutual aid to the university community, such as food, reading materials, and other community needs.

As students return to their classes, professors have an opportunity to provide alternative frameworks for impactful reporting. Solidarity journalism, movement journalism, and community engagement have the potential to fundamentally improve our methods of reporting.

Students and professors (including those I spoke to, who would not go on the record for fear of retaliation) need the opportunity to teach and practice what has been “objective” all along, starting from a place that acknowledges that the justice scales are not balanced. 

Anything else is nothing short of a disservice. 

---

Kristine Villanueva is an independent journalist and educator focusing on information access and community engagement.

This story was edited by James Salanga. Copy edits by Omar Rashad.