The debate surrounding journalistic objectivity and framing in contemporary media has reached a critical juncture following the release of Assal Rad’s new book, Don’t Say Palestine: How the Media Manufactured Consent for Genocide. Rad, an activist and Middle East historian, has spent years meticulously examining how major Western news outlets cover the military campaigns in Gaza. Through her analysis of headlines, word choices, and reporting patterns, Rad argues that the mainstream press has systematically failed to properly inform the American public, often leaning on traditional definitions of neutrality that inadvertently obscure state-sponsored violence and legitimize aggressive military actions.
Background Context of the Event
The intense scrutiny on media framing stems from the escalation of hostilities following October 7, 2023, when a major military campaign was launched in the Gaza Strip. The subsequent operations resulted in unprecedented civilian casualties, widespread infrastructural destruction, and severe humanitarian crises, including mass displacement and acute food insecurity. Amidst the daily influx of reports, international bodies, humanitarian organizations, and legal experts have raised serious concerns regarding potential violations of international humanitarian law. However, the terminology deployed by mainstream journalistic institutions to describe these unfolding events has remained a subject of intense global debate. Critics and analysts like Rad point out that passive voice, sanitized terminology, and a reliance on official military assertions have fundamentally shaped public understanding and perception of the conflict.
The Power of Framing and Headline Architecture
At the core of Rad’s critique is the profound impact of headline writing on public consciousness. Because modern news consumption often relies on passive engagement—such as scrolling through social media feeds, viewing news tickers in public spaces, or encountering paywalled articles—headlines frequently serve as the primary source of information for the general public.
Rad frequently highlights instances where major publications omit the actor responsible for lethal actions. For example, a headline reading “How Palestinian First Responders Ended Up in a Mass Grave in Gaza” detaches the event from agency, whereas an active-voice alternative clarifies accountability: “Israeli Forces Killed Palestinian First Responders and Buried Them in a Mass Grave in Gaza.” According to Rad, this systematic removal of agency masks military culpability and normalizes extreme violence under the guise of objective reporting.
Supporting Data and Chronology of Media Discrepancies
Statistical disparities further illustrate the disconnect between ground realities and public awareness. Rad points to a March 2024 Pew Research Center poll revealing that only about half of Americans could correctly state whether more Palestinians than Israelis had been killed in the conflict. This knowledge gap, she argues, is a direct consequence of framing that treats vast disparities in casualties as mutual tragedies of war rather than asymmetric outcomes of a specific military campaign.
The chronology of the conflict has also introduced specific reporting challenges. Following the implementation of a declared ceasefire in October 2025, hostilities and localized strikes continued. According to regional reports, more than 1,300 people, including at least 300 children, were killed in the period following the official ceasefire announcement. Despite these ongoing casualties, press coverage significantly declined, creating a public perception that the crisis had stabilized and allowing media outlets to pivot toward other domestic and international stories while conditions on the ground for Gazan civilians remained largely unchanged.
The Safety and Targeting of Media Workers
The toll on journalists and media workers operating within the conflict zone represents another major pillar of Rad’s critique. By the end of 2025, data compiled from regional monitors indicated that hundreds of media workers, alongside hundreds of their family members, had been killed in the line of duty.
Rad draws a direct historical line from the 2022 killing of prominent Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh—a United States citizen killed in the West Bank—to the subsequent high rate of journalist casualties. She argues that the lack of international accountability and independent enforcement mechanisms in cases like Abu Akleh’s created a dangerous precedent. When internal military investigations consistently clear armed forces of wrongdoing—a pattern observed in numerous incidents, including the deaths of international aid workers—a facade of procedure masks total impunity.
Furthermore, Rad notes how professional terminology is frequently weaponized to legitimize attacks on press personnel. The application of qualifiers such as “Hezbollah-affiliated” or “Hamas-linked” to journalists and humanitarian infrastructure in reporting creates an implicit justification for targeting civilian spaces. Incidents such as the August 2025 multiple-strike attack on Nasser Hospital, initially reported using unverified military assertions of targeted threats, demonstrate how uncritical adoption of official narratives can distort facts on the ground.
Double Standards in Geopolitical Reporting
A central comparative element in Rad’s work involves the contrasting rhetorical approaches utilized by Western governments and media institutions when covering different international conflicts concurrently. The diplomatic and journalistic response to Russia’s military actions in Ukraine serves as a primary benchmark for comparison.
During the conflict in Ukraine, Western political leaders and media outlets readily employed explicit legal and moral frameworks, swiftly identifying violations of international law, condemning the targeting of journalists, and characterizing the restriction of food supplies as “starvation as a weapon.” In contrast, when addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza—characterized by rapid-onset hunger and unprecedented blockades—reports frequently framed the catastrophe through the passive lens of natural disasters or tragic byproducts of war.
Similarly, official statements from diplomatic representatives initially resisted defining actions as war crimes during active engagements in Gaza, contrasting sharply with determinations made regarding other geopolitical adversaries. This divergence, critics argue, highlights institutional double standards that undermine the universal application of international law and human rights norms.
Linguistic Contrasts and Domestic Reporting
Language disparities extend beyond international bodies into regional reporting comparisons. Rad highlights that domestic Israeli outlets, such as the newspaper Haaretz, frequently employ more direct and severe terminology—such as references to “pogroms” or “Jewish terrorism” in the context of West Bank settler violence—than is typically found in mainstream American or European publications.
Western outlets often utilize neutral terms like “settler” or describe military forces as “failing to protect” civilians, which Rad argues mischaracterizes the structural dynamics of an occupying force. Additionally, disparities in how detained individuals are labeled—such as distinguishing between foreign soldiers allegedly kidnapped and local medical professionals detained without charge—reinforce subconscious biases regarding the innocence or guilt of those affected.
Implications for Journalistic Integrity and the Future of the Press
The broader implications of these reporting patterns extend far beyond the immediate geography of the Middle East. By uncritically repeating official statements from state actors accused of grave violations, authoritative global news institutions risk legitimizing narratives that erode international legal standards. Rad contends that true journalistic impartiality requires an unwavering commitment to the truth, rather than a mechanical balancing act between conflicting claims, especially when the preponderance of humanitarian and factual evidence points to severe systemic abuses.
As debates over media accountability continue to evolve, the discourse generated by critiques like Rad’s underscores the profound responsibility carried by the global press. How institutions choose to frame conflicts, select terminology, and assign accountability ultimately defines not only the historical record of a crisis but also the safety of journalists, aid workers, and civilian populations worldwide.
