How “Neutral” News Became Narrative News
Is mainstream media reporting on Gaza or simply reciting from a preordained script?
Lately, it's become genuinely hard to tell. Major outlets claiming to cherish impartiality—BBC, CNN, The New York Times, and Vox, that fashionable sidekick—have provided coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict so selectively slanted it could make Orwell blush. Through cunning framing, convenient omissions, and oh-so-carefully chosen language, they've constructed a narrative overwhelmingly sympathetic to Palestinians and viciously critical of Israel. The cost? Only facts, context, and basic journalistic integrity.
BBC: Language Tricks and the "Modern Blood Libel"
At the BBC, "impartial" reporting has reached peak self-parody. This is the broadcaster that bends itself into thesaurical knots not to label Hamas terrorists—even though Hamas is officially designated a terrorist organisation by UK law. Instead, Hamas members are politely labelled "militants," "gunmen," or occasionally "fighters." Even after Hamas massacred over 1,200 civilians in acts of brutality that defy imagination, the BBC steadfastly refused to use the "T-word." When Britain's Foreign Secretary, none other than David Cameron, publicly begged the BBC to finally call Hamas terrorists—“What else do they have to do? Eat babies on live TV?”—the BBC responded with the equivalent of a bureaucratic shrug. Describing a group that slaughters children as terrorists apparently risks compromising their sacred impartiality, whereas sanitising it with euphemisms maintains perfect neutrality. Welcome to Orwellian journalism, BBC-style.
This linguistic absurdity contributed directly to one of the BBC's darker fiascos: the coverage of the Al-Ahli hospital blast in Gaza. On October 17, 2023, after an explosion in a Gazan hospital, the BBC rushed to broadcast Hamas's claim that Israel had bombed it, reporting speculation as fact before bothering with trivial things like verifying sources. Days later, evidence pointed to a misfired Palestinian rocket as the culprit, and casualty figures were significantly reduced. Accused by Israeli officials of inciting hatred with a "modern blood libel," the BBC mumbled a passive-voiced mea culpa, insisting their correspondent had merely "speculated wrongly." Ah, the fog of war, or perhaps the BBC's own bias clouding their judgment?
The BBC’s woes don’t stop there. Recent months have revealed several BBC Arabic journalists openly celebrating Hamas atrocities on social media, spewing antisemitic bile, including "liking" posts glorifying the murder of Jews. One Gaza-based freelancer even cheered on Hitler’s deeds. The BBC's excuse? These aren't technically employees, just stringers—so apparently they're not responsible. It's astonishing the lengths the BBC goes to avoid confronting the deep rot in its own ranks. When your staff includes people praising genocidal violence, impartiality isn't just compromised; it’s a sick joke.
CNN: Laundering Numbers and Losing Perspective
CNN proudly claims the title "The Most Trusted Name in News," but during the Gaza war, a more apt moniker would have been "Hamas's Most Useful Name in News." CNN obsessively repeated Hamas-supplied Gaza casualty statistics, cunningly laundering them through a supposedly neutral source: the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah—despite knowing full well the figures originated from Hamas. Even after the disastrous hospital bombing coverage (where CNN, like the BBC, initially parroted Hamas's narrative), they continued amplifying dubious numbers. It's hard to escape the conclusion that CNN found Hamas's inflated casualty claims irresistible simply because they fitted the preferred narrative.
Framing by language at CNN frequently leaned towards demonising Israel ("Israel strikes crowded hospital") while Hamas's deliberate attacks on civilians became vague "clashes" or "exchanges of fire." CNN devoted wall-to-wall coverage to Gaza's suffering, ignoring vastly deadlier regional conflicts—like Yemen or Syria—unless Israel could be portrayed as the villain. Selective humanitarianism indeed.
The New York Times: All the News That Fits the Narrative
Once the "newspaper of record," the New York Times now seems content writing an emotional novel. A Yale professor analysed their coverage post-October 7 massacre: 91% of Times articles never mentioned ongoing Israeli casualties or hostages held by Hamas. The Times consistently featured heart-rending Palestinian suffering while casually relegating Israeli victims to footnotes. Hamas atrocities were often vaguely termed "deadly incursions," conveniently downplaying the massacre’s gruesome realities.
In Times-land, Israel is perpetually cast as a powerful oppressor, while Palestinians remain powerless victims. A stark headline described Hamas's massacre as mere "Violence Erupts at Music Festival"—bland enough to obscure reality, though eventually tweaked after backlash. With its relentless emotional manipulation, the Times peddled advocacy journalism dressed as news, selectively empathetic yet deeply misleading.
Vox: Explanatory Journalism or Exonerative Journalism?
Finally, we come to Vox, self-styled purveyor of "context and clarity," whose clarity on Gaza is murky as mud. Vox's celebrated video "Gaza, explained" omits a crucial detail: Egypt also enforces a Gaza blockade. But acknowledging that would spoil the tidy narrative of Israel as sole oppressor. Vox cheerfully ignores Israel's total withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, instead portraying it as still occupying. The Six-Day War is casually depicted as Israel spontaneously attacking neighbours, omitting Jordan's initial assault.
Most shockingly, Vox’s "explanation" of Gaza ignores Hamas completely—the group actually governing the territory. Mentioning Hamas might complicate Vox's clean victim-villain binary. When forced to mention Hamas violence, Vox sanitises the grotesque October 7 massacre as merely a result of an "unsustainable status quo," avoiding graphic details of butchery and rape. Euphemisms like "fighters" replace "terrorists," despite official US, UK, and EU terrorist designations. Vox's principle: if the truth undermines the Palestinian-as-pure-victim narrative, it’s best omitted entirely. Call it lying by omission or outright bias—either way, Vox's "explanation" explains very little beyond its agenda.
Conclusion: When Journalism Becomes a Soapbox
Across these outlets runs a common thread: they've traded straightforward reporting for narrative-driven storytelling. Palestinians become noble victims, Israelis are portrayed as cruel oppressors, and facts inconvenient to this simplified storyline vanish. Smart readers must remain sceptical, insisting on facts and context over manipulative empathy. In the battle between narrative journalism and truth, choose truth—always.