In the A1 articles from this time period, there is consistent bias in favor of Israeli sources over Palestinian sources. This is seen both quantitatively through an analysis of the frequency certain phrases appear and qualitatively through the way language is used.

3.1 Uneven fact verification 

Our group found a repetitive reliance on Israeli civilian, military, and political sources as fact. Yet when evidence was cited by Gazan Civil Society or Hamas-governed ministries, we found that in at least 20 articles it is reported as un-verified and followed by a disclaimer stating that “these facts could not be independently verified.” 

Although a caveat was sometimes provided following Israeli sources, we found that it was done so with less than half the frequency. Thus creating a double standard that leads the reader to associate Israeli accounts with legitimacy and Palestinian accounts with incredibility. The number of articles that referenced the unverified accounts given by Palestinians were at least 20, while the number of articles that referenced the unverifiable accounts given by Israelis were seven in total.

We saw this most prominently in an article that questioned evidence provided by Hamas about an Israeli airstrike on Al-Ahli hospital (10/22). This type of reporting firmly places an emphasis on Palestinians needing to provide evidence for every attack done on them without acknowledging the disproportionate impact of Israeli airstrikes on civilian infrastructure. Such questioning also raises a double standard that is not evenly displayed – when reporting on Israeli official claims, there is no request for similar circumstantial evidence. This same article restates Israeli military claims as fact without questioning their validity. While Israeli claims have since been debunked and the Israeli military has been implicated in this and other attacks on hospitals, the damage from such uneven reporting is irreparable.

3.2 Minimization of Palestinian death and suffering relative to that of Israeli suffering and death

Despite the fact that the Palestinian civilian death toll grows exponentially higher than the Israeli death toll, our analysis found that there were at least 17 instances where only Israeli deaths are reported in an article, compared to at least five instances where only Palestinian deaths are reported on. 

In at least 62 instances where both Palestinian and Israeli deaths were mentioned, there were 39 instances where Israeli deaths were listed before Palestinian deaths. This trend is particularly problematic in articles that specifically center around Israel’s continued bombardment of Gaza, where given the headline and subject matter, Palestinian deaths should be centered (10/25,10/31,11/3). 

Of these 39 instances, there are also at least 26 examples where there were multiple paragraphs between the mention of Israeli and Palestinian deaths. In fact, in the 11/3 article entitled “As Gaza War Enters New Phase, Israel Faces Pressure Over Civilian Deaths”, there are an astounding 15 paragraphs separating the full Israeli death toll from the full Palestinian one. 

We found only 12 instances where both Palestinian and Israeli deaths are mentioned in the same paragraph. 

We also found on multiple instances how the impact of Israeli strikes and ground warfare on Palestinians living in Gaza is mentioned at the very end of an article – in reporting that is specific to Israel’s military bombardment of the Gaza strip. In some cases, even when it’s mentioned, it is minimal or completely excluded (10/8, 10/28,11/21). 

Finally, language choice in reporting often demonstrates a strong bias in fueling sympathy for one side over another. For example, the subheader of the November 10th article is “Israel’s response to the Hamas attacks has fueled sympathy around the world for the Palestinian cause even as Israel continues to bury its dead.” By using “even as” to juxtapose Palestinian and Israeli deaths, this comment at the very top of the article sets the tone of Israel as the main victims, undermining sympathy for Palestinians.

3.3 Questioning the Credibility on Death Toll

Doubt is repeatedly sown into numbers provided by the Gaza Health Ministry on Palestinian death toll due to Israeli air strikes. However, numbers from the Israeli government are often taken as fact even when the information is incomplete or unverified. 

This discrepancy can even appear in the same article. For example, in a 10/25 article, a picture caption reads, “The Hamas-run Gazan health ministry says Israeli strikes have killed more than 6,500 people. That number could not be independently verified.” Paragraph seven of the same article reads, “The strikes appear to have successfully curbed the groups’ rocket-firing abilities. The Israeli military has not released exact numbers, but there were fewer than 20 air raid sirens across Israel on Wednesday, compared with hundreds during the first days of the war.” 

The need for a disclaimer to be offered after the complete numbers released by the Gaza Health Ministry are listed, while the language of “appear to have successfully curbed” conveys acceptance of fact in reference to the incomplete numbers provided by the Israeli military displays a double standard. Especially when considering that many organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, as well as the U.S. government, have conducted audits on the casualty and death toll numbers provided by Gaza Health Ministry during current and past conflicts and the consensus is that the numbers are reliable.

In a 10/26 article, an effort is made to unpack the reactions to the numbers coming out of Gaza. However, in this article the position of doubt is privileged in the first half of the article through reporting on President Biden’s position, “But it came after Mr. Biden said that he had “no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed.” There is also a nebulous reference to “others” casting doubt, “Others have cast doubt on the soaring death toll cited in part because the Health Ministry is, ultimately, overseen by Hamas.”

However, reference to specific groups who consider the numbers of the Gazan Health Authority to be legitimate does not come until the 11th paragraph, “The United Nations, aid groups, international rights groups and news outlets including The New York Times have relied on the Health Ministry’s numbers in the current conflict, as well as in previous hostilities. Ministry statistics have been considered credible enough that the U.S. State Department cited them for previous conflicts in a report released this year.”… “Human Rights Watch, a leading international rights group that has conducted its own investigations of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza in the past, has found death tolls that are consistent with the ministry’s.”

The burying of this information, especially in an article specifically about the release of the numbers by Gaza Authorities, undermines the legitimacy of the numbers.

The attribution of the numbers provided is also inconsistent and biased. When numbers are cited by Israel’s Military, they are always attributed to the Israeli Military, not the Likud Military, referencing the current, right-wing political party governing Israel in coalition with other ultra-right wing parties. However, when numbers are provided by Gaza’s Health Ministry, they are often attributed to the Hamas Health Ministry, referencing the current political party governing Gaza, even though there are members of Gazan Civil Society who work within the Health Ministry and whose employment predates Hamas’s governance of Gaza.