‘Words like Slaughter:’ A Comparative Study of The New York Times Reporting in Ukraine and Gaza

MEDIA, 19 Aug 2024

Writers Against the War on Gaza | Mondoweiss - TRANSCEND Media Service

An in-depth comparison of The New York Times coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine vs. Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza shows how the Times dutifully launders the news to fit the U.S. government’s agenda.

16 Aug 2024 – “Words like ‘slaughter,’ ‘massacre’ and ‘carnage’ often convey more emotion than information,” wrote New York Times standards desk editor Susan Wessling in a November 2023 memo to the staff of the “paper of record.” It was over a month into the current U.S.-Israeli war on Gaza. Over 10,000 Palestinians had been martyred by the occupation forces. Congress had voted to send tens of billions more in lethal military aid to the Zionist entity. Wessling added, “Think hard before using [words like ‘slaughter’] in our own voice.”

Why were Times employees told to “think hard” about conveying “more emotion than information?” Wessler did not specify. But nothing in this memo was new; it was a series of implicit reminders. Think hard about which narrative you’re constructing. Who your bosses are. Who your president is. Who your bosses and your president say the enemy is.

As anyone who had spent time during the last 18 months in the newsroom well knew, The New York Times has no qualms about emotionally condemning war crimes committed by enemies of the U.S. empire.

CARNAGE WIDENS AS CEASEFIRE TALKS FALTER” was the front-page headline on March 11, 2022, accompanied by six aerial photos showing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. On April 5 after Russian forces withdrew from the Kyiv suburb of Bucha, leaving behind dozens of corpses, the front page read, “HORROR GROWS OVER SLAUGHTER IN UKRAINE.”

Ukraine and Gaza are not perfect historical parallels. But the Russian invasion of Ukraine still provides a useful point of comparison to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Both have occupied the media’s attention for months on end, and both represent struggles deeply embroiled in U.S. empire. (The argument that there is a breach in parallels because Gaza “started it” on October 7 only holds up if one ignores the forced expulsion, apartheid, and occupation imposed on Palestinians by Zionists for the last century.)

Russia is a demonstrable threat to U.S. foreign policy interests, and as such, The Times presents its actions in the harshest terms possible while uplifting Ukrainians resisting Russian invasion as front-line defenders of the Western way of life. (And of course, The US and NATO bear responsibility for proposing a pathway to NATO membership for Ukraine, a move they knew would provoke Russia — while simultaneously delaying that membership to shirk direct responsibility for Ukraine’s defense if and when Russia invaded. Ukrainians were placed in the middle of this bloody geopolitical dispute.)

In contrast, Israel is the United States’ closest ally in the Middle East and has acted as a proxy for its regional interests for decades. The United States has a vested interest in sustaining and defending the Zionist project — a project which necessitates the physical and cultural erasure of Palestinians. And mainstream Western media outlets like The Times dutifully use their pages to launder this interest.

Through a survey of every article The Times wrote during the first six months of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (and quite a few beyond that point), Writers Against the War on Gaza / The New York War Crimes conducted a comparative, qualitative study of The New York Times coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine with its coverage of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

We’ve separated this study into four sections: War Crimes; Resistance; Ukraine Needs Weapons!; and Culture. Each section demonstrates a contrast between coverage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

The Times reporting consistently condemns war crimes committed by Russia while in Gaza, it either obfuscates their nature or legitimizes Israel’s excuses for committing them. In Gaza the accusation that resistance fighters operate amongst civilians grants carte blanche for Israeli war crimes; in Ukraine the tactic is framed as that of a wily and brave resistance struggling against a military with vastly superior firepower. Ukraine’s “outgunned” army always needs more weapons, while the notion of The Times suggesting so for Hamas is absurd. And while the paper has provided in-depth coverage of the art and culture that is at risk of being lost in Ukraine, it has categorically ignored Israel’s violent campaign to erase Palestinian cultural production.

War crimes

By the time Wessling’s memo was distributed to her staff, The Times had already splashed words like “slaughter,” “horror,” “massacre” and “trail of terror” across their pages when covering the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7. An Intercept analysis found that between Oct. 7 and Nov. 24,

“The New York Times had described Israeli deaths as a ‘massacre’ on 53 occasions and those of Palestinians just once. The ratio for the use of ‘slaughter’ was 22 to 1, even as the documented number of Palestinians killed climbed to around 15,000.”

While The Times has equivocated, justified, ignored and soberly depicted Israeli war crimes, our analysis reveals a preference towards condemning Russian crimes with deeply affective language.

This front page story [left] both unequivocally categorizes Russians as “invaders” and vividly condemns “horror,” “death and terror,” “atrocities,” “mass killings, torture and rapes.”

There is no qualification or both-sidesing of the story, and no deflection of blame, as we have come to expect from The Times coverage of Gaza, in which the IDF is both the invading army and the main journalistic source. The stories about Ukraine — an occupying army destroying and looting houses, while shooting, torturing and committing sexual abuse — depict precisely what the IDF has done in Palestine for decades, and at an accelerated pace over the last 10 months. But stories this direct and condemnatory about Israel’s war crimes do not appear in the pages of The New York Times.

Devastating images splayed across its front pages, accompanied by deeply emotional appeals to the humanity of Ukrainians and the inhumanity of Russian forces, are ubiquitous throughout The Times’ coverage of the war in Ukraine. In other news articles, the paper writes authoritatively of “the indiscriminate slaughter that characterizes Moscow’s prosecution of the war.

You can find more examples of The Times reporting on Russian atrocities here.

The Times went so far as to set up an interactive page (Documenting Atrocities in the War in Ukraine) devoted to documenting Russian war crimes (there is one story on a Ukrainian unit executing Russian prisoners). No such page exists for Israel’s war crimes, which include well-documented attacks on schools, hospitals, aid workers, journalists, markets, water facilities, apartment blocks, mosques and refugee camps.

The Times does not hesitate to describe Russia’s “bombing of civilian targets” in clear and direct terms, nor do they attempt to justify or “both sides” Russia’s tactics, as is their first impulse with the IDF.

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – mondoweiss.net

___________________________________________________

Writers Against the War on Gaza (WAWOG) is a coalition of media, cultural, and academic workers who are committed to the horizon of liberation for the Palestinian people. We organize against Zionism and US militarism from within the imperial core.


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Share this article:


DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.

Join the discussion!

We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.

61 − 60 =

Note: we try to save your comment in your browser when there are technical problems. Still, for long comments we recommend that you copy them somewhere else as a backup before you submit them.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.