Arguably, a history of media bias has helped shape the degree to which pundits and politicians have embraced the Israeli version of current events. A few academics have documented the predisposition. In a 2018 study entitled “Bias Detection of Palestinian/Israeli Conflict in Western Media,” researchers found that a higher number of media outlets carried pro-Israeli stories compared to channels that carried pro-Palestinian content: “Pro-Israeli bias has the majority by 5 [media] outlets and 2 for Pro-Palestinian through western [sic] media coverage for [the] 2014 Palestinian–Israel conflict.” Similarly, in a 2021 analysis of 33,000 New York Times articles during the First and Second Intifadas (uprisings that took place in the occupied territories), a Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher noted “clear patterns of bias against Palestinians in the Times’ coverage through two main linguistic features: (1) a disproportionate use of the passive voice to refer to negative or violent action perpetrated towards Palestinians and (2) use of more negative and violent rhetoric about Palestinians compared to Israelis.” In fact, as far back as 1993 Janice Shamon of Boston Media Action conducted a review of 93 New York Times articles on Israel’s deportation of Palestinian Islamists and concluded that “reporting and analysis…reflected time and again the point of view of the Israeli government.”

The roots of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are far more nuanced than many are willing to consider or accept, and the ongoing media misrepresentation of certain aspects of the war serves to reinforce biases rather than impartially present facts. A CNN article detailing the experience of an elderly Israeli woman who was kidnapped and subsequently released by Hamas is one example. While the article’s title reads “I Went Through Hell,” its content reflects a different reality, particularly as international media broadly reported the woman’s acknowledgment that she was treated well. While the journey through the tunnels was undoubtedly frightening and traumatizing, she explains that upon reaching their destination she was greeted by “people who told us we believe in the Quran” and promised “not to harm” the hostages. She then recounts how she and the other hostages ate the same food as the fighters and were given adequate medical attention by doctors.

CNN editors selected an inflammatory quote to headline their piece as an illustration of the good versus bad dynamic pushed by Israeli commentators. Complicity or fear of recrimination has even led numerous news outlets to apologize for any insinuation that the Israelis are committing war crimes, let alone unjustified violent acts.  Following the bombing of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, the New York Times reported that the Israelis were responsible for the blast, relying possibly on a now-deleted post by Hananya Naftali, a digital aide to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stating “Israeli Air Force struck a Hamas terrorist base inside a hospital in Gaza.” However, soon thereafter the publication issued an editor’s note stating that they relied too heavily on initial reports from Hamas and should have been more careful with the presentation of content and transparency of sources. Rollback from such a major news source has been interpreted by some as the result of pressure from pro-Israeli groups.

Palestinian rights advocates criticize the media for their historical hypocrisy toward the conflict. Major Western media outlets do not report the atrocities committed regularly in the occupied territories. Before the current crisis this year alone, major shifts in Israeli policies to undermine Palestinian rights took place. Examples include the property expropriation and shooting of civilians in Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah district earlier this year. Increased incursions by settlers and far-right militants onto Palestinian property caused significant damage, attacks, and closures of the Dome of the Rock Mosque, expansion of settlements, and so on. In fact, in the first half of this year, almost 200 Palestinians had already been killed by Israelis. Tor Wennesland, UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, told the UN Security Council that “the unabated expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, Israel’s demolition of Palestinian homes, operations by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank areas under Palestinian administrative and police control, and attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinian villages” caused growing despair about the future among Palestinians. These events are hardly covered in Western media, and almost no coverage occurs in mainstream American channels with any depth.

Violence and censorship further exacerbate the effective delivery of news. Reporters who try to relay the Palestinian perspective have voiced their fears about covering the war. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that at least 24 journalists have been killed as of October 26^th. Israel has also issued emergency regulations to control content and broadcasts about the war. AlJazeera, an award-winning Arab broadcaster, faces ongoing threats that they will be shuttered. These and other deterrents against any critical analysis of the Israeli narrative have impacted what is broadcast to international audiences.

Media portrayals of the conflict can also be skewed by the approach to polling whether their own or taken from other sources. Mainstream outlets may not have representative demographics in their methodology, often showing one set of results for all those surveyed while then highlighting a focused set of data from college-educated whites. Some channels recognize that respondents from different racial and/or religious backgrounds are under-represented; however, this doesn’t deter the publication of the results.

The Hill and other media outlets, for example, published results from a Quinnipiac University study on October 17^th in which registered voters responded to questions about their opinions on America’s response to various crises. The primary topics were the Ukraine and Israeli wars. According to this poll, a considerable number of white and Hispanic voters believe that supporting the Israelis is in the U.S. national interest. Nevertheless, with 168.42 million registered American voters in 2022, it is reasonable to question the validity of polls that limit the entire voting spectrum to 1,000 respondents across all demographic segments.

Media outlets may not always use scientific methods in crafting their queries. A USA Today survey, for example, asked a question of whether readers were in favor of supporting the Israelis as they responded to “the Hamas terrorist attack.” In scientific terms, the phrasing of the question is leading, which can impact the outcomes.
Notwithstanding the slant, according to the results, 58% of Republicans were predictably in favor of stronger military support while 35% of Democrats agreed.

Recent polls, however, do highlight a generational divide regarding foreign policy that can be attributed to the difference in media consumption between generations where older generations tend to consume information through carefully crafted content while younger audiences take in the news through crowdsourcing on a wide range of social media platforms. It is on these sites that unfiltered, live content is accessible since it comes from individuals or groups that are on the ground. Despite concerted efforts by the platforms to validate or censor content as well as organized efforts by special interests to control the narrative, all indicators are that traditional editorial approaches are becoming less effective in framing the news.

The contrast between traditional outlets and content creator news, and the attempts of social media platforms to police the content has been particularly challenging during the current Gaza crisis. In a Brookings Institution commentary, Valerie Wirtschafter observes that “[t]he fragile ecosystem built up around the online information space — and how it has fueled the media — may be irreparably broken.” It is the next generation of pundits that will repair that fragmented environment, and media channels wishing to reclaim legitimacy as impartial purveyors of the facts will face a stark reckoning as a result.

In a 2022 report entitled “The changing news habits and attitudes of younger audiences,” Dr. Kirsten Eddy demonstrated that 34% of 18–24-year-olds rely on news sites or apps as their main source, compared to 50% in 2015, while 39% rely on social media, compared to 25% in 2015. While ratings and the quest for advertising dollars have all but eliminated the incisive, investigative journalism of the past, there remains a need for legitimate journalism. That void, however, will soon be filled exclusively by social media influencers and content creators reporting on their surroundings, while traditional channels that have tried to control public perceptions will either go bankrupt, become entertainment outlets, or finally catch up with the new generation’s demand for honest reporting.

Pro-Palestinian Protestors Targeted

Pro-Palestinian protestors are being unconstitutionally targeted. (Photo from Reuters)

Actions Taken Against Pro-Palestinian Protestors are Unconstitutional

By Colin Bailey

The successful suppression of the pro-Palestinian movement has been widespread with several major conferences canceled for spurious reasons such as unsubstantiated claims that protests are a front for Hamas (the political arm of the Islamic Resistance Movement which the United States classified as a terrorist organization in 1995). College campuses have become the epicenter of pro-Palestinian activism, and hundreds of people across the country have lost their jobs for expressing support for Palestine on social media platforms and elsewhere. For example, Ryna Workman, a New York University Law School student and student bar association president had her job offer from an international law firm rescinded when she spoke publicly about Palestinian human rights. Organized efforts have been made by groups like the Canary Mission and Facts and Logic about the Middle East (FLAME) to condemn universities for allowing pro-Palestinian events. Pro-Israeli groups have virulently labeled student protestors terrorist sympathizers and antisemites.

On October 8th, Harvard’s Palestinian Solidarity Committee released a statement cosigned by 34 students in which they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.” Harvard University was met with an immediate backlash by lobby groups, US officials, and media outlets. Two days following the statement’s release, a letter signed by over 350 Harvard faculty members denouncing the activists was published, asserting that the student stance amounted to “nothing less than condoning the mass murder” and that the “Israeli security forces were engaging in self-defense against this attack while dealing with numerous hostage situations and a barrage of thousands of rockets hidden deliberately in dense urban settings.” Nevertheless, despite the acquiescence, Harvard and other universities have seen donors cut funding for allowing pro-Palestinian protests on campus grounds. This backlash has taken a toll, silencing thousands of would-be demonstrators over fears of violent retaliation or loss of income, whether individual or institutional.

America’s politicians have also weighed in on the debate, decrying the freedom given to those who voice their support for Palestinians. Texas Senator Ted Cruz advocated the deportation of non-US citizens who attend pro-Palestinian protests. Presidential candidate and Florida governor Ron DeSantis has also made repeated calls to deport international students sympathizing with Palestinian dissent. Other GOP presidential candidates as well as South Carolina representative Tim Scott joined his deportation calls. DeSantis also instructed Florida’s state universities to dismantle chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) citing the group’s alleged “support for terrorist groups.” Unsubstantiated accusations conflating protest with terrorism raise concerns about the integrity of official institutions, and circumventing due process to silence voices is also an alarming violation of the First Amendment. The PSJ, a student group with ties to numerous colleges across the country, has denounced the move saying DeSantis “continues to disrespect American values, such as freedom of speech.”

The objections of student and activist groups have, however, largely been disregarded. Palestinian groups have reported almost 200 examples of the “suppression of Palestinian rights advocacy.” Over 300 pro-Palestinian activists chanting phrases such as “ceasefire now” and “free Palestine” were arrested on October 18^th after they held demonstrations in Congress’ Cannon House Office Building. Suppressive behavior is nothing new during times of conflict as seen throughout U.S. history; however, the intensity of rights violations has rarely been as blatantly dismissive of American and international law as during the Gaza anti-war protests.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in both the United States Bill of Rights and Article 19 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Article 19 further affirms: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Yet officials and administrators have all but suspended the validity of these rights while dealing with Palestinian advocacy.

Although “the establishment” appears to have no qualms about selectively allowing dissent, Generation Z (children born after 1996) have not only refused the premise, but many also reject the narrative that dehumanizes the civilian population of Gaza. Their activism during the ongoing conflict demonstrates a deep disapproval of Israeli tactics. In a recent Axios poll, only 28% of Gen Z Americans supported the Israeli state compared to 56% of Baby Boomers in the United States. Several walkouts took place across the country in schools and over 100 campuses in support of the Palestinian people during October.

Nevertheless, university and high school students remain afraid to express their views while on campus grounds. For example, NBC News interviewed a Colombia student who claims to have been harassed online and in person. He shared his views on condition of anonymity, stating that the “atmosphere on campus” was not conducive to a robust geopolitical debate. The student went further to clarify that “If you cannot speak freely or engage in intellectual curiosity on a university campus, then the university has failed its students.”

Organizations advocating for Palestinian rights have had greater difficulty operating beyond campus grounds. It appears city officials may have standing instructions to deter demonstrations as indicated by their actions during two large protests in the nation’s capital. One occurred in Lafayette Square in front of the White House where police arrested 49 people, and the other happened on Capitol Hill where 335 people were detained. While dozens of pro-Palestinian protestors have been jailed, the only pro-Israelis that have been incarcerated are New York lawmaker Inna Vernikov and Pennsylvanian Richard Kevin, both of whom brandished guns at Palestinian rallies.

Even politicians have been harassed with Ilhan Omar smeared as antisemitic and “booted off [the] US foreign affairs panel” according to the Jewish Chronicle. While it is common to see Israeli flags in official spaces, Representative Rashida Tlaib sparked controversy by placing a Palestinian flag outside her office in response to an Israeli ban of the national symbol, sparking calls to ban all foreign flags from Congress. However, no such calls were made to ban foreign military uniforms in Congress, like the Israeli army garb Rep. Brian Mast wore to work.

Authorities are obliged to uphold the spirit of the law and ensure violations, perceived or real, are put through due process. They also do have the right to limit the “time, place and manner” of protests, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. But as the ACLU has also noted “it’s easy for police to abuse their discretion and exercise their arrest power against those with whom they disagree.” The current spate of harassment is creating a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression; and, whether this is calculated or unintentional, it is an alarming portent of how American officials may start dealing with any group that doesn’t toe the line of those in positions of authority or influence. Measures must be taken to ensure that the right to express one’s views nonviolently and freely, no matter how distasteful to some, be upheld. All protestors must be protected else partisan actors may undermine the very freedoms the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution.