Alongside winning the Pulitzer Prize for war coverage, The New York Times faced a torrent of criticism for its biased and problematic reporting. The sharp criticisms came not only from Jews and Israelis but, surprisingly, also from pro-Palestinians, who claimed that the newspaper was actually pro-Israel. So what is the truth? Beyond all the claims and accusations, someone needed to quantify the publications to answer the question: What did The New York Times‘ coverage of the war really look like? We took up the challenge.
First of all, the coverage was particularly comprehensive. During the first seven months of this accursed war, from October 7th to May 7th, an unbelievable number of articles were published in the Times, reaching 3,848. For comparison, in all of 2022, Israel was covered in The New York Times in just 361 articles. Less than a tenth in almost double the period.
Since the number of headlines is enormous, and it’s difficult to rank each one according to its placement and size in the print paper, time spent on the homepage, and digital channel promotion, we decided to analyze only the articles that The New York Times itself defined as most important – those included daily in the newsletter called Today’s Headlines. This is a daily collection sent by email to subscribers who request a summary of the main news from the past day, selected by the editorial team.
It can be assumed that those headlines chosen as the main news of the day also received emphasis in terms of size, placement, and promotion. Only about a third of the total headlines published about the war were included in the newsletter, and cumulatively, from October 7th to May 7th, they totaled 1,398. This number is also enormous, standing at four times the coverage of Israel throughout 2022.
The volume of articles peaked in the first month of the war, standing at 325 from October 7th to November 7th. Starting from November, it gradually declined until reaching a low of 131 articles “only” in February. But the coverage began to rise again in March and spiked in April due to protests on US campuses. In the last month measured (April 7th to May 7th), the number of articles reached 255.
The articles were coded according to two criteria: empathy and criticism. Each headline was examined based on whether it expressed empathy towards any person or group, and then whether it also expressed criticism towards any entity or group.
Sometimes, the critical tone was directed toward less relevant entities (like the US, China, Russia, and Germany). Occasionally, empathy was expressed towards less relevant entities (like American Jews, Lebanese, and others). Some articles expressed neither empathy nor criticism and were coded as 0.
Obsessed with Palestinian suffering
It is not surprising that the group receiving the most empathy in the Times‘ articles about the war was the Palestinians. Out of a total of 1,398 articles, 647 expressed empathy only towards Palestinians (46.2% of the articles). 147 articles expressed empathy only towards Israelis (10.5% of the articles), and 50 articles expressed empathy only towards the hostages (2.9% of the articles). Thus, summarizing the entire period, one can say that the Palestinians received 4.4 times more empathy than the Israelis and hostages combined.
However, looking at the data by month, it turns out the gap is actually much larger. In the graph describing the development over the months of the war, it is evident that empathy towards Palestinians was almost double the empathy towards Israelis and hostages already in the first month of the war, between October 7th and November 7th, which is the month when empathy towards Israelis and hostages was at its peak. The number of articles expressing empathy towards Israelis and hostages was 50, while the number of articles expressing empathy towards Palestinians was 90. From there, the gap only grew.
Empathy towards Israelis (including the hostages) was cut by more than 50% already in November and shrank until it almost disappeared starting in January. Empathy towards Palestinians, on the other hand, reached a peak in November (116), slightly declined in December and January, and began to rise again gradually starting in February. In January, empathy towards Palestinians reached a relative low of 63 articles, but they represent 26% more than the number of empathetic articles towards Israelis in October, which was the peak month for empathy towards Israelis.
Starting from January, as mentioned, empathy towards Israelis and the hostages dropped until it almost completely disappeared. It was expressed in 16 articles in January, 10 articles in February, 9 in March, and 7 in April. Among hundreds of articles expressing significant empathy towards Palestinians (63 in January, 72 in February, 76 in March, 100 in April), it is possible to mistakenly conclude that Israelis are not significantly suffering from the war.
It should be noted here that in 69 of the articles published during the seven months, joint empathy was expressed towards both Palestinians and hostages, or towards both Palestinians and Israelis, which will be expanded upon next week.
A week of balance
The distribution of criticism in the headlines is a kind of mirror image to the distribution of empathy. In October, the number of articles expressing a critical tone towards Hamas reached its peak (38), but already in that first month after the massacre, the number of articles expressing criticism of Israel was more than three times higher (124).
The first week of the war, from October 7th to 13th, stands out as the only week with a certain balance in reporting. During this week, 69 articles were published in the newsletter summarizing the main headlines. Fourteen of them criticized Hamas, 12 criticized Israel, and 14 others criticized both. That is, in the week immediately after the horrific and barbaric massacre in Israel, there was equality in the amount of criticism towards Israel and Hamas, which actually conveys equal responsibility for the situation. From there, it only deteriorated.
The critical tone only towards Hamas dropped to 16 articles in November and continued to shrink until it almost completely disappeared, with only two articles in the last month checked (April 7th to May 7th). In that month, there were 99 articles with a critical tone only towards Israel, and another 11 articles that were critically phrased towards both Hamas and Israel (over the entire seven months, a total of 143 articles were published with a critical tone towards both Hamas and Israel).
Even more concerning is the number of articles that carried criticism towards other entities in the region. After all, this is the first time in 50 years that Israel has been embroiled in a multi-front war, and the first time in history that it was attacked from so many fronts.
Iran received a total of 50 headlines that expressed criticism towards it during the war. This is not an insignificant number, but still, it does not truly reflect the fact that this multi-front war is the work of Iran. The Houthis received 10 headlines with a critical tone, and the most puzzling statistic is that Hezbollah received only five critical headlines, and six more that criticized both Hezbollah and Israel. Given the scope of this coverage, one might think that the unprecedented war eroding the north is nothing.
In conclusion, criticism was expressed towards Israel in 641 articles, and in 801 articles where the criticism was also directed towards other entities. In contrast, criticism was expressed towards Hamas in only 81 articles (and in 258 articles when the criticism was directed towards other entities as well, but of these, 131 had shared criticism towards Hamas and Israel).
When criticism towards Israel alone is three times greater than criticism towards Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah combined, it is clear that the joy of “criticism towards Israel” and “empathy towards Palestinians” was the basis of the coverage, while stories with other emphases received only secondary attention. With such proportions, it is no wonder that many in the West get a mistaken picture of the balance of power in the region or the scope and nature of the war.
A racist tone
The overflowing empathy towards Palestinians can still be explained, but the main problem is revealed when crossing empathy with criticism. Who is responsible for the suffering of the Palestinians, the hostages, or the Israelis?
Out of a total of 50 headlines about hostages, only 28 expressed criticism of Hamas. Eleven criticized only Israel, six jointly criticized Israel and Hamas, one criticized the American treatment of hostages, and the rest did not express any criticism. In contrast, out of 647 articles that expressed empathy towards Palestinians, only two were phrased with a critical tone towards Hamas. Thirty-three expressed criticism towards both Israel and Hamas together, and 479 expressed criticism towards Israel. Only two articles out of 647 that expressed empathy towards Palestinians had a critical tone towards the Palestinian Authority (one of them jointly with Israel).
The clear subtext is that Israel bears the responsibility for the suffering of the Palestinians much more than their elected government, whether in Gaza or the Palestinian Authority. This is a very problematic message, which contradicts the declared position of the Times‘ editorial team, which repeatedly states that the Palestinians should have an independent state. How can one demand independence while ignoring the fact that the Palestinians used the disengagement, that is, the independence of Gaza from Israel, to elect Hamas – and that Hamas is responsible for the current state of the Palestinians?
It turns out you can.
Here is a somewhat racist statistic from the analysis of opinion articles, but it is so prominent that it must be mentioned. Seventy-two opinion pieces harshly criticizing Israel were written by a variety of Jews, Muslims, Israelis, Palestinians, and Christians. However, out of all 23 opinion pieces criticizing Hamas, not a single one was written by a Palestinian or a Muslim. Almost all of them were written by Jews or Israelis. A lone, exceptional opinion piece published during the war and criticizing the Palestinian Authority was written by a Palestinian. Why is the platform given to internal Palestinian voices criticizing their leadership so narrow, almost non-existent?
Ultimately, when crossing empathy expressed towards Israelis (including the hostages) with criticism directed at Hamas, it turns out it was reflected in less than 4% of the articles. That’s almost nothing. Especially in comparison to the reverse crossing, of empathy towards Palestinians with criticism towards Israel – it was reflected in more than 34% of the articles. This is perhaps the most important bottom line when discussing proportions.
Priorities
The disproportionate criticism is particularly striking when looking only at the Top news category, that is, the three most important headlines that appear daily at the top of the newsletter, defined by the editorial team as the three most important headlines of the day. The war featured daily with at least one headline in the Top news of the newsletter.
Out of 276 headlines in the Top news over seven months of war, 151 expressed empathy only towards Palestinians (55% of the headlines). Only 16 headlines expressed empathy towards Israelis (5.8%), half of them specifically towards the hostages. One hundred thirty of the 150 headlines expressing empathy towards Palestinians criticized Israel. That is more than 86%. Out of the 16 headlines expressing empathy towards Israelis and hostages – only 6 headlines criticized Hamas, that is, 37.5%.
In conclusion, the editorial line of the newspaper clearly diverts attention from Hamas, which started the war and refused a hostage deal that could have ended it, towards Israel. It is also worth remembering why Hamas committed the massacre, the arson, the beheading, and the rape: to thwart the emerging alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which would establish the moderate and peace-seeking axis against Iran’s terror axis.
This is clearly an American interest, and The New York Times acted against it in practice by minimizing this fact, instead of it being the leading line of the coverage. Just to dispel any doubt: the Israeli government, with its extreme ministers, deserves a lot of criticism for its conduct before October 7th, and also for its conduct throughout the war. But where has the criticism of Hamas gone?
The claim that the Times has a pro-Israel bias is not just a bad joke but a false and manipulative claim. Those who make this claim seem to be a progressive minority trying to increase its power in knowledge institutions, whether in leading universities or in leading media outlets. For them, there is only one correct narrative, and that is that Israel is evil and the Palestinians are saintly, and anyone who deviates slightly from this narrative is immediately labeled “pro-Israel.” Against this background, progressive extremists attacked the newspaper because, in their view, Israel must be absolutely vilified, not just by grossly disproportionate coverage.
The newspaper still defines itself as liberal, but its coverage and emphasis during the war point to a progressive editorial line, with all its associated ills. It clearly reflects the claims raised in December 2023 by two former senior editors, James Bennet and Judith Miller, who said that The New York Times has long since ceased to be liberal but has become anti-liberal, tribal, and intolerant.
Regarding the contradiction between the coverage and the Pulitzer Prize the newspaper received for seven articles covering the war, Miller beautifully explained the incongruity in her article: “While the Times still occasionally produces excellent journalism, its reputation for biased and ideologically driven journalism is unlikely ever to reverse.” Next week: A deep dive into the scope of coverage of topics such as the Iranian attack, the rapes on Black Saturday, humanitarian aid, and more.
This analysis was originally published in Maariv and translated by The Jerusalem Post.
Comments are closed.