Global media outlets are facing near-unprecedented challenges in their coverage of the Israel-Hamas war as conflicting propaganda, social media pressure and charged public opinion require them to exercise extreme caution.
Lack of foreign media access to Gaza, with both the Israeli and Egyptian access points closed, is adding to reporting difficulties the likes of which journalists say they have rarely seen before.
“This war is one of the most complex and polarizing stories we have ever had to cover,” Deborah Turness, chief executive of BBC News, said in an online post this week.
Palestinian reporters in Gaza provide global media outlets with images and information, but their work is hampered by the bombing of the territory, power cuts and shortages of gasoline.
Their union says 22 journalists have been killed in Gaza since Oct. 7, the day militants belonging to the Hamas movement attacked Israel.
“In previous conflicts we were always able to send special envoys, but this time our teams in Gaza are cut off from the rest of the world,” Agence France-Presse (AFP) global news director Phil Chetwynd said.
AFP, whose permanent bureau in Gaza employs about 10 journalists, has had to move them out of Gaza City to the south of the territory, where they are living in precarious conditions, with some sleeping in tents.
A total of 2,050 journalists have traveled to Israel to cover the war, Israeli government data shows.
The biggest contingent, 358, is from the US. British media are second with 281, followed by French outlets with 221.
Media in Ukraine, which is itself fighting a war at home, have sent two journalists to Israel.
Reporters Without Borders, a nonprofit organization defending press freedom, has accused Israel of “suffocating journalism in Gaza.”
For the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), this has forced reporters to rely heavily on “official” sources, without being able to verify their claims.
“Confusing haste with speed, many media have published false information and images that have not been contextualized, verified or presented as reliable,” the IFJ said.
One notable example was the claim that Hamas militants had beheaded babies, which got widely picked up in media, including in a live report on CNN, without having been confirmed.
“I needed to be more careful with my words and I am sorry,” CNN anchor Sara Sidner later posted on X after reporting the claim live on air.
Another example is the high-profile case of the Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza.
On Oct. 17, several media, including AFP, reported on a statement by the Hamas health ministry that 200 to 300 people had been killed in a strike on the hospital, for which it blamed Israel.
Israel later denied the claim, saying a “misfired rocket” by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad had caused the damage.
Several media have since leaned toward Israel’s version, based on intelligence reports and video analysis, but extensive checks of footage, and interviews with analysts and weapons experts, do not allow ruling out either scenario, or determining the number of victims.
The New York Times and French paper Le Monde have since acknowledged that initial reporting fell short of their usual standards.
“The early versions of the coverage — and the prominence it received in a headline, news alert and social media channels — relied too heavily on claims by Hamas and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified,” the New York Times said on Monday.
“We lacked caution,” Le Monde said a day later.
Chetwynd said that “we should have been more careful in our wording, and given more context on what we did not know.”
“It is easy to say this with hindsight, but less obvious in a real-time news situation,” he said.
Adding to the pressure on news organizations is the growing role of social media, where any statement or image can go viral and spark angry accusations of bias in the media.
“We need to remind ourselves in every conflict that knowing with certainty takes time,” Washington Post international editor Douglas Jehl said.
“It’s particularly difficult in this case, given the passions on both sides, the often opposite viewpoints that each side brings to the conflict and scrutiny that everyone brings to our coverage,” he told the Recode Media podcast.
Global media have also been giving priority to scrutiny of which terms to use — or avoid — in their coverage of the war.
“Terrorism” and “terrorist” are often top of the list.
The BBC, sometimes called out for avoiding either term when describing Hamas, has said it would use “terrorist” only in quotes, but not in its own reporting.
AFP has adopted a similar policy.
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
RSS