A tale of many headlines
One year on from the Hamas attack on Israel, the debate continues about how news media is covering the conflict. Has it been fair, accurate, impartial? Who can be believed? Are the Palestinians or the Israelis the greater victims?
With 90% of Gazans and some 1 million Lebanese now displaced as a result of Israel’s military action, and more than 100 Israelis still captive in Gaza, the war is now a zero-sum game in which news media is inexorably caught up.
Just a few days before the first anniversary of the Hamas attack, a time destined to be emotionally charged for all, Al Jazeera published a story titled ‘Failing Gaza: Pro-Israel bias uncovered behind the lens of Western media’, based on a documentary released by the Qatar-based organisation. In it, ten journalists who have been covering the war on Gaza for CNN and BBC detail the journalistic practices they say have led to ‘pro-Israel bias in coverage, systematic double standards and frequent violations of journalistic principles’. These include preferencing Israeli perspectives and guests over Palestinian voices, and airing Israeli-government propaganda despite concerns about veracity. There was no follow-up reporting of the documentary’s findings.
In Australia, October 7 was marked by a very sharp news-media divide. News Corp’s The Australian decided on a full-throated expression of sympathy and support for Israel. Its largely pro-Israel coverage over the past year culminated in a series of front pages in the lead up to October 7 which left readers in no doubt where it stood. On October 3, ‘War and Appeasement’ lambasted Prime Minister Albanese for urging diplomacy over military action to punish Hezbollah for its 200-ballistic-missile attack on northern Israel the day before. On October 4, ‘Repugnant Diplomacy' criticised the government for failing to expel the Iranian ambassador to Australia for heralding the Israeli-assassinated Hezbollah leader as a remarkable leader. On October 5, ‘Abandonment of Israel’ accused the Australian government of an ‘historic betrayal of Jews’ in Israel’s darkest hour and creating an explosion of anti-semitism. And on October 7, the Australian’s front page blared ‘Israel protecting the free world’. All of which was not quite the same tone taken by other news media.
The Sydney Morning Herald on the same days: October 3 – 'Israel Vows to Fight on'. October 4 – 'Protest, Vigil to Proceed'. October 5 – 'Premier Gives Stern warning to Protesters'. October 6 carried a report on an Israeli family who fell victim to the Hamas attack, a report on Israeli strikes in north Lebanon and another on Gazan families finding new lives in Australia. October 7 carried two reports - Voters Oppose Protests and another headlined ‘“Evil Walked the earth” on October 7’. The tone was altogether more subdued, though many critics of Australian media coverage of the war also claim the same pro Israel bias can be seen in the SMH and The Age coverage. CMT is currently examining these claims and will (hopefully) bring you more soon.
Newspapers have always exercised their right to take a stand, even to fiercely advocate. Whether it helps or hinders civil discourse is another question.
Monica Attard, CMT Co-Director
