The New York Times instructed journalists covering the conflict in Israel and Gaza to be cautious with certain terms and phrases in their reporting, according to an internal memo obtained by The Intercept.
The memo advises against using terms like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and recommends avoiding the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land. It also discourages the use of the word “Palestine” except in rare cases and suggests refraining from using “refugee camps” to describe areas in Gaza settled by displaced Palestinians.
While the guidance aims to maintain journalistic objectivity, some Times staff members feel that it shows a bias towards Israeli narratives.
“It’s the kind of thing that looks professional and logical if you have no knowledge of the historical context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”
According to a Times newsroom source, the memo appears apologetic to Israel when viewed in the context of the conflict’s history.
The document, initially distributed in November, has been updated over the months and sheds light on the editorial decisions and challenges faced by Times international editors during the Gaza war coverage.
Charlie Stadtlander, a Times spokesperson, stated that providing guidance to ensure accuracy and sensitivity in reporting complex events like the Gaza conflict is standard practice for the publication.
Internal rifts over style guidance have been part of broader tensions within the Times newsroom, particularly concerning coverage of the Gaza conflict. Disputes have arisen over investigative stories and allegations of bias in reporting.
WhatsApp Debates
Following the outbreak of conflict in Gaza, internal debates within the Times newsroom intensified, with disagreements over coverage and narrative alignment with Israel. Tensions rose in internal communication channels, prompting the international editor to intervene and urge more productive discussions.
Staff debates included topics like Israeli attacks on Al-Shifa Hospital, civilian casualties in Palestine, allegations of genocidal conduct, and President Biden’s statements on the conflict.
“It’s not unusual for news companies to set style guidelines. But there are unique standards applied to violence perpetrated by Israel.”
Similar debates were reflected in the Gaza-specific style guidance, drawing public scrutiny and criticism for perceived biases.
According to another Times newsroom source, readers have noticed the unique standards applied to reporting on Israeli violence, leading to frustration and concerns about objectivity.
“Words Like ‘Slaughter’”
The Times memo emphasizes caution with inflammatory language and emotional terms like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “carnage” in reporting on the conflict. The goal is to provide clear and accurate information without sensationalizing the events.
Can we explain why we are using those words in one specific situation and not another? Let’s focus on clarity and precision by describing what occurred instead of using labels.
Before the war broke out last year, the areas were home to over 600,000 registered refugees, many of whom are descendants of those who were forcibly expelled from their homes during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. This war marked the establishment of the Jewish state and the mass dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
The Israeli government has always been opposed to the fact that Palestinians maintain refugee status, as it implies that they were displaced from lands they have a right to return to.
“It’s like, ‘Oh let’s not say occupation because it might make it look like we’re justifying a terrorist attack.’”
Since October 7, Israel has carried out multiple bombings on refugee camps in Gaza, including Jabaliya, Al Shati, Al Maghazi, and Nuseirat.
The memo’s guidelines on the use of “occupied territories” suggest avoiding the term and being specific about each area’s status. The United Nations and a significant part of the world view Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territories seized by Israel in the 1967 Arab–Israeli war.
A Times staffer mentioned that avoiding the term “occupied territories” hides the true nature of the conflict, aligning with the U.S. and Israeli narrative that the conflict started on October 7.
“You are basically taking the occupation out of the coverage, which is the actual core of the conflict,” said the newsroom source. “It’s like, ‘Oh let’s not say occupation because it might make it look like we’re justifying a terrorist attack.’”
