Selective Sympathy: Gaza Through the Lens of Western Media

As wars continue to rage and tear through the world, various media outlets — considered credible sources by many — have made it indirectly clear through their coverage of significant events that how an incident is reported is, in some cases, influenced by the color of a victim’s skin and the part of the world they come from.

Over the past three years, Western media giants such as CNN and the BBC have been accused of succumbing to the pressures of objectivity and using biased and unfair terminology when reporting on Israeli aggression in Gaza on one hand and the Russian war in Ukraine on the other.

Illusion of Objectivity: Ukraine vs. Gaza

While it is unquestionably true that every human life matters and all civilians must be protected under international law, regardless of racial or ethnic background, the BBC, for example, on multiple occasions used straightforward words like “killed” when reporting on casualties resulting from Russian strikes on Ukraine, while using more neutral terms such as “dead” when reporting on casualties resulting from Israeli strikes on the Gaza Strip.

Earlier in July 2024, Misbar published an article titled “Uncovering Media Bias: How Global News Outlets Portray the Russia-Ukraine War and the Gaza War,” drawing comparisons between the language used in reporting on the Russian war in Ukraine and the Israeli aggression in Gaza.

The article sheds light on The Guardian’s coverage of a Russian strike that targeted a children’s hospital in Kyiv, describing the horrific aftermath of the missile strike and the children’s traumatic reaction to what they witnessed.

The article reads: “The children sat in stunned silence, their fragile bodies still tethered to medical drips outside the Okhmatdyt children’s hospital in central Kyiv.”

In contrast, Misbar highlighted the language The Guardian used to report on the Israeli army’s raid on Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza in an article titled “IDF says it has entered Gaza’s largest hospital – as it happened.”

Notably, the British daily newspaper was shown, yet again, to have used cautious language to describe the tragic events patients and doctors endured during the period when the Israeli army raided the Gazan hospital, while also citing Israeli allegations.

Who Gets To Be the Victim?

Most recently, an article by the BBC published in late March reporting on a Russian strike on Ukraine was titled “Four killed in mass Russian drone attack on Dnipro,” referring to the number of casualties resulting from the attack.

Meanwhile, within the same week, media reports revealed that contact was lost with eight Palestine Red Crescent Society medics and seven other humanitarian workers on duty who were on their way to respond to distress calls in Tal al-Sultan in Rafah following extensive Israeli strikes on the area.

Overlooked Atrocities: Gazan Medics Under Israeli Fire

A week following the incident, an official United Nations account on X announced the discovery of a mass grave containing the bodies of 15 emergency and aid workers who “were killed by Israeli forces while trying to save lives,” the post reads. The post included a detailed report on the whereabouts of the humanitarian workers, in addition to statements from U.N. officials condemning the brutality of the Israeli attack.

U.N. human rights chief Volker Türk said in a statement, "medical personnel and humanitarian and emergency workers must be protected by all parties to the conflict, as required by international humanitarian law." Türk condemned the Israeli attack and called for an independent investigation into what he called “apparently systematic killings” of humanitarian workers across Gaza.

Additionally, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society released a report expressing devastation regarding the killing of 8 of its workers in the attack, calling it “a crime against humanity.”

The report mentioned that the PRCS medics were “heading to the Hashashin area of Rafah to provide first aid to several people injured by Israeli shelling in the area.” They added that while 8 of the EMTs were confirmed to have been killed in the attack, “a 9th medic remains missing.”

“The occupation’s targeting of Red Crescent medics, despite the protected status of their mission and the Red Crescent emblem can only be considered a war crime punishable under international humanitarian law, which the occupation continues to violate before the eyes of the entire world,” the report reads.

Later, Israeli forces claimed that the attack was “terrorists advancing in ambulances” and that they were Hamas and Jihad operatives taking shelter within these vehicles, despite reports from the U.N. and PRCS confirming that all workers aboard were civil workers and had no ties with any political or military backgrounds.

Whose Testimony Is Believed?

Reporting on the killing of these workers, the BBC released an interview with the only survivor of the attack, titled “Survivor challenges Israeli account of attack on Gaza paramedics.”

When the reader skims through the interview, it is clear that the tone used to report on the testimony of the Palestinian worker is cautious and skeptical, while confidently echoing the words of Israeli reports and official statements.

Shaping Global Sympathy Through Media

These examples are just a small reflection of a larger pattern in Western media. While outlets like the BBC claim to uphold objectivity, their coverage often tells a different story. When reporting on conflicts involving white European nations, the tone is generally sympathetic and straightforward.

However, when covering tragedies affecting nonwhite nations, the language becomes noticeably more cautious, skeptical, and reserved. These double standards raise important questions about the role of media in shaping global narratives—and whether true impartiality is being upheld.

Read More

Evidence Refutes Israeli Narrative Justifying the Killing of 15 Palestinian Medics

“Stop Using AI for Genocide”: Microsoft Employees Protest Complicity in Israeli Gaza Massacres