Much has been said and written about the British media’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza over the past five months. Experts, journalists and activists, including myself, have argued in many articles and interviews that the British media exhibits certain biases in its coverage of this war and the wider issue of Israel-Palestine.
In a new report, based on the largest ever statistical analysis of media coverage of the atrocities committed in Israel on October 7, and Israel’s genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people in the first month of the war, the Muslim Council of Britain’s media monitoring Center. (CFMM) presented empirical evidence for these observations and concerns.
Looking at around 180,000 video clips from seven UK broadcasters and three international broadcasters, as well as 26,000 news articles from 28 British media websites, CfMM assessed whether UK media reliably informed the public about the conflict. and have shared the positions of all. Related parties with responsibility.
According to the results of the small-scale studies conducted so far, it appears that Israeli narratives, voices and grievances were favored in the coverage of Palestinian voices, narratives and grievances. The emphasis on “Israel’s rights” often resulted in the elimination and elimination of Palestinian rights. Emotional language was consistently used for victims of Israeli violence, but not so much for Palestinians. Israel’s representatives and supporters were allowed to dehumanize Palestinians on air, with no special pushback from news anchors and talk show hosts.
Analyzing coverage of six themes – context, language, framing, claims, damaging Palestinian sources and misrepresentation of pro-Palestinian protesters – the research found that many news outlets chose to present news from the Israeli perspective. is, often with significant errors. In basic fact checking and verification.
Notably, the analysis revealed that Palestinian symbols, such as the Palestinian flag, were widely “used to convey anti-Semitic narratives”. It also exposed many Islamophobic aspects of the coverage, such as the framing and support of pro-Palestinian protests as inherently dangerous and equivalent to a “terrorist threat” often due to the presence of Muslims in their midst. do
The report revealed that the Islamophobic trope of “Islam being an anti-Semitic religion” was repeatedly presented – by editors, analysts and columnists alike – as the driving force behind growing opposition to Israel and its treatment of Palestinians. . Hence the 75-year conflict in Israel-Palestine was misrepresented as a “religious war” between Muslims and Jews, rather than a matter of oppression and occupation.
The report determined that pro-Palestinian voices and Palestinian activists have been repeatedly misrepresented by many British media outlets since the beginning of the conflict. It found that right-wing media have been particularly hostile to pro-Palestinian voices, “casting them as supporters of terrorism and anti-Semitism and enemies of British values”.
The analysis also uncovered several instances of misinformation through intentional omissions. Decades of Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people and occupation of Palestinian land were mostly missing from the coverage. The coverage was structured in such a way as to indicate that the conflict began on October 7. The report showed how some reports about the ongoing war failed to even mention that the West Bank is Palestinian territory occupied by Israel, and that, according to international law, Gaza. It has been effectively under Israeli occupation even before October 7 – despite the absence of a military presence on the ground since 2005.
There were also many examples of apparent “mistakes” and misinformation on British TV screens, until they confirmed Israeli traditions. In one instance, a defense analyst claimed on TV that “the West Bank is occupied by the Palestinians”. Despite such a claim having no basis in international law, or any current or historical reality on the ground, the presenter neither corrected nor sought clarification.
Misuse of images in some newspapers is another failure identified in the analysis.
For example, harrowing images of flames and widespread destruction resulting from Israeli airstrikes on Gaza were paired with headlines on October 7 regarding atrocities committed by Hamas in Israel. Attached to the headline about “mutilated children in Israel”.
Using misleading images, ignoring facts, allowing guests to spread misinformation without challenge and sharing unverified information as fact are examples of irresponsible and unethical journalism. And such actions can have serious consequences.
Misinformation and misinformation lead to hate speech, which in turn harms innocent people. Misrepresenting the current conflict as a “religious war” between Jews and Muslims, dehumanizing the Palestinians and stigmatizing their supporters around the world as terrorists or “terrorist-affiliated”, anti-Muslim , has increased anti-Arabism and opposition. Palestinian sentiments.
As a result, hatred against British Muslims has appeared on the streets and screens across Britain. According to TellMama, the UK’s leading hate crime monitoring agency for measuring anti-Muslim hatred, between October 2023 and February 2024, there were more than 2,000 cases of anti-Muslim hate in the UK – a staggering 335 per cent increase. in the. In the same period last year.
Research by UK NGOs More in Common and the Together Coalition since the start of the war in Gaza, published on March 3, highlighted anti-Muslim sentiment in the country. Of those who responded to the survey, 21 percent – one in five – said they had a “very negative” or “somewhat negative” view of Muslims.
The media’s mislabeling of pro-Palestinian protesters as “terrorist threats”, “pro-Hamas”, “extremists” and “against British values” undoubtedly contributed to the unprecedented rise of anti-Muslim hatred and bigotry in the country.
Indeed, the anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment many British Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims currently face in their schools, universities and workplaces may be – at least in part – linked to one-sided coverage. The war on Gaza is detailed in the CfMM report.
Negative labeling of pro-Palestinian protesters as “anti-British” and “anti-Western” only exacerbates the injustice of entire communities for their support of Palestinian rights and self-determination. It gives rise to existing prejudices and can incite inter-religious and sectarian tensions and violence.
As well as harming Muslims, Arabs and Palestinian Britons, the bias shown in the media’s coverage of this conflict also harms the well-being of Palestinians in Palestine and the wider region.
The report’s findings show that many journalists and commentators in the UK have knowingly or unknowingly contributed to a propaganda campaign aimed at falsely justifying Israel’s continued attack on Gaza – an attack which, in fairness According to the International Court of Justice, it could possibly amount to genocide.
The point of the CfMM report, and this article, of course, is not to make unfair generalizations about a diverse, rich media landscape and to tar all UK journalists with the same brush. A number of journalists on the ground in the UK and Israel-Palestine have produced balanced and informative journalism about the Gaza war for the British media and examples of this are included in the CfMM report.
But this report, and the many problems and flaws it highlights, should be seen by those working in the British media and covering this war as a wake-up call. They should consider this comprehensive report and its findings a valuable learning tool and evaluate their output on Israel-Palestine in light of the fair and meaningful criticisms contained within.
The magnitude of the tragedy in Palestine today, and the significant impact it has had on international relations here in the UK, requires every journalist involved in the coverage of this war to think carefully about what they convey to the public. Are delivered, and pay more attention to it. Steps to uphold the values and principles that define the profession.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.