The other day, I was reading an article in the Washington Post about Aaron Bushnell, the man who self-immolated outside the Israeli embassy to protest the genocide in Gaza. I was surprised in this article to see the repeated use of the phrase “Israel-Gaza War,” not because I think the Amazon-owned newspaper is above bias in news reporting, but because AP style guidance on the issue — generally the most trusted source for this kind of thing — explicitly says not to use this phrasing. I know this because my entire job revolves around making sure people adhere to the AP style guide, and the phrasing on this issue has been a problem since October.
An edit I send to writers all the time is that we do not use the phrase “Israel-Gaza war” but instead the “Israel-Hamas war” because the people of Gaza are not the ones fighting. I personally wouldn’t really call it a war at all, but if you have to call it a war, the civilians in Gaza are only involved as collateral, not the aggressors.
I have a hard time with people who are still, at this point, unwilling to admit what is happening before our eyes, a horrendous amount of violence, starvation, and dehumanization that experts have to invent new language to describe. I know that it has been increasingly difficult to know which news outlets to trust, which are fair, which value an unobtainable neutrality as a shield against critique. There have been monthslong protests against the New York Times for their coverage of both Israel and Gaza, and because lying by omission exposes their favoritism towards Israel. Data collected by the Intercept shows that even as Palestinian deaths increased rapidly, mentions of Palestinian deaths decreased in major news outlets. There’s more specific language, too, like the fact that visceral words like “slaughter” and “massacre” are more likely to be used to describe the deaths of Israelis than Palestinians.
This week, the Times is under fire because one of its freelance reporters, Anat Schwartz, who wrote a major, widely circulated story about rape allegations during the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, was revealed to have liked social media posts that called for Gaza to be turned into a “slaughterhouse.” The Intercept also published a story casting doubt on the factual accuracy of Schwartz's reporting for the Times, and that she wasn't even a reporter until Oct. 7. Data journalist Mona Chalabi posted a video breaking down this type of bias, at the Times and other outlets, and how it has tangible and deadly consequences.
When Aaron Bushnell died, several outlets — the Times included — wrote headlines that mentioned his self-immolation but failed to even use the word “protest,” let alone describing what he was protesting, or that his last words before he died were “free Palestine.” They omit this information because they think stating it — even in a factual manner, as a quote — is showing a bias. This, of course, is in itself a bias.
What words an outlet or organization chooses not to use is just as important as the ones it does choose to use. Take, for example, Pittsburgh’s Andy Warhol Museum. Currently, the museum is drawing criticism for a display of Warhol’s “Ten Portraits of Jews of the Twentieth Century,” featuring people like Sigmund Freud and Golda Meir. A plaque next to the portraits mentions “the loss of Jewish lives at the start of the Middle East conflict” without any reference to the loss of Palestinian lives (not to mention the phrase “Middle East conflict”).
Recently, at the Independent Spirit Awards, director Kelly Reichardt received a Robert Altman Award. During her acceptance speech — and other parts of the award show — protesters in support of Palestine could be heard shouting. (The awards were held in a literal tent). Reichardt addressed the noise, but only barely, saying, “I think he’d [Altman] have a lot to say” while gesturing toward the noise outside. But she herself didn’t actually say anything in support or detraction.
I don’t want to single Reichardt out because over the entire awards season, very few celebrities have said a single word about the mass humanitarian crisis in Gaza (though I don’t want to alleviate her of responsibility either; it’s not like her films are apolitical!) Celebrities love to support A Cause, especially when it means they can wear a small pin on the red carpet and receive praise for it. Plenty of celebrities wore Ukrainian flag pins in previous awards seasons.
Though I love award shows dearly, I know how silly and absurd they are, but I don’t think it’s silly at all for celebrities to use their rare platform to say something meaningful; I also prefer a specific, pointed comment over a vague statement about "how crazy the world is right now." And I don’t think it’s silly to nitpick at language, whether it’s from a news outlet or a speech or a social media post or a text message or a politician.
The idea that any journalist can be unbiased when reporting or editing about something as extreme as genocide is a farce, and I think any journalist worth their salt knows this. All language reveals something about the person writing it or outlet publishing it, even if the thing it's revealing is that they adhere to AP Style. Even though my job is largely about enforcing grammar and style rules, I very much see language as something fluid and ever-changing. It stretches and grows, just like any other living being.