The New York Times instructed journalists covering Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip to restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to “avoid” using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept.

The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine “except in very rare cases” and to steer clear of the term “refugee camps” to describe areas of Gaza historically settled by internally displaced Palestinians, who fled from other parts of Palestine during previous Israeli–Arab wars. The areas are recognized by the United Nations as refugee camps and house hundreds of thousands of registered refugees.

While the document is presented as an outline for maintaining objective journalistic principles in reporting on the Gaza war, several Times staffers told The Intercept that some of its contents show evidence of the paper’s deference to Israeli narratives.

Almost immediately after the October 7 attacks and the launch of Israel’s scorched-earth war against Gaza, tensions began to boil within the newsroom over the Times coverage. Some staffers said they believed the paper was going out of its way to defer to Israel’s narrative on the events and was not applying even standards in its coverage. Arguments began fomenting on internal Slack and other chat groups.

  • Hegar
    link
    fedilink
    89 months ago

    The NY Times has always been on Team Israel.

    Personally I think it’s more about the NYT being a semi official mouthpiece of the US empire and its elites.

    The NYT reflects the views of US elites most of whom support Israel because it’s a vital client state in a region of incredible security and economic importance to the global structure that empowers those elites.

    • @SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      49 months ago

      Remember how NYT reporter Judith Miller teamed up the the neo-cons in Dick Cheney’s circle to “stovepipe” their phony intelligence about Iraq’s WMD to the mainstream media, which they could then cite as part of their justification for the invasion?

      Remember also how, after Miller was disgraced and forced to resign, the Times had a public reckoning about its role as a mouthpiece for the establishment in selling a war on false pretenses?

      I’d be surprised, because that last bit never happened. They just sort of moved on like it never happened.

    • @ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      29 months ago

      Yeah, maybe I’m being too generous, especially in the internet era where it’s the de facto national newspaper. I’m an elder millennial and even I remember a time when having a computer/internet wasn’t universal and it was hard to find a copy of The NY Times outside of cities because it was still a regional paper for the most part. Even in cities, you had to find a specialty newspaper store (which also usually was primarily a cigarette store). So, it didn’t have the same reach.