Biased Global Media Coverage of Palestine-Israel Hostage Exchange

As the Palestinian-Israeli hostage exchange unfolds, it’s instructive to review media coverage of the events. As I wrote yesterday, when the ceasefire deal was announced, global media reported almost universally on the 33 Israelis who’d be freed in the first stage.  If anyone knew about the 1,000 Palestinian hostages to be freed in the exchange, they were keeping it a secret.  While the Israelis were in the headlines, the Palestinians were relegated to a short inside paragraph.

As expected, Haaretz, Israel’s leading (and only) “liberal” paper, covered it’s homepage with stories about the release of Israeli hostages and the domestic opposition to freeing “terrorists” by the extremist right.  But there wasn’t a single article reporting on the Palestinian hostages released, nor the reception among Palestinians.  They may as well not have existed. In an article that offered running updates on the story, there were 37 paragraphs of text. Only the last two paragraphs referred to Palestinian reaction.

No doubt, its editors’ sentiments reflect the overwhelming jubilation Israelis feel at the release of their captives.  No Israeli cares about Palestinian prisoners. So why put them on the front page?

Nevertheless, Haaretz prides itself on having “a broadly liberal outlook” on the Palestine-Israel conflict.  The Nation even once described it, in a fit of hyperbole, as “a liberal beacon.” It maintains a “left-Zionist” perspective which centers Israel and offers tea and sympathy to Palestinians.  Perhaps a scintilla more concern for them than the average Israeli media outlet.  But not much more. So in that sense, the imbalance in its homepage is to be expected.

I haven’t even reviewed other Israeli outlets because they are far more right-wing and, if anything, their coverage would be even more biased.

Arab English-language media was, of course, sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and offered the majority of its coverage to the released prisoners.  But both Al Jazeera and Middle East Eye (where I am a contributor) published at least one article each on their homepages reporting on the Israeli response to the hostage release.

Global coverage of the hostage release: a mixed bag

Global media coverage is a mixed bag.  Of the first 24 Gaza-related articles in its Middle East section, the New York Times published four articles offering the perspectives of Palestinians and their wartime experience.  Of the 17 Gaza-related articles in the Washington Post Middle East section, only four represented the point of view of Gazans.  But I guess you could say that four is better than Haaretz’s none.

Of course, I’m letting neither off the hook, since even when they do report on Palestine, it comes across as naive, ill-informed and hopelessly pro-Israel.  Biased phrasing, pro-Israel sourcing, lack of Palestinian voices all characterize much of the coverage.  But I give them an A for effort on this story.

The Guardian’s Gaza section was also mixed. It only offered five Palestine-focused articles out of 16 on its main page.  Like Haaretz, the Times and Post, the UK paper has a liberal reputation. Also, like them it is uniformly pro-Israel in its overall coverage.

Each of their respective editors recognizes that there is more than just one side and one story here.  So they at least offer some coverage of the Palestinian “angle.”  But once the story fades, they will undoubtedly return to status quo ante.