Content Warning: This article discusses sexual assault and graphic violence.
Listen to this article:
In a televised speech at Columbia University on April 25th, U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson criticized the student protests that have unfolded on university campuses across the U.S. and Canada in recent weeks. Although protesters have been demanding their institutions to end their financial involvement in the ongoing genocide in Gaza, Johnson accused protesters of “attempting to excuse or to ignore the barbaric attack of Hamas in Israel on October 7th, 2023, where Israeli women and children were savagely raped and murdered, and infants were cooked in ovens.” In the days following October 7th, U.S. President Joe Biden repeatedly expressed similar claims that he had seen “confirmed pictures of terrorists beheading children.”
The evidence for these claims? A verbal testimony from one Israeli volunteer first responder named Asher Moskowitz, whose claims of seeing 40 beheaded babies went viral on social media. Independent journalists from numerous outlets have been unable to confirm or verify Moskowoitz’s claim. Although the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) said that the verbal testimony of their soldiers is enough evidence, they have neither confirmed nor investigated this claim further. In fact, according to Israeli outlet Haaretz’s catalogue of all of the deaths on October 7th, just one 1-year-old baby and a pregnant Bedouin woman were reported to have been killed.
Far from a fringe conspiracy theory, this claim, and others like it, has been so convincing in popular media and discourse that Biden repeats them. This spreading of misinformation, while problematic, is at least understandable for political experts like Johnson, given the Western geopolitical interests involved in the current conflict. As the source of these claims, mainstream media’s continuing to run these stories without reconsideration is arguably a greater issue, especially as it undermines an ongoing conflict, protest, and social movement.
Clarifying Key Narratives of the Israeli War on Gaza So Far
As mentioned earlier, there has been no evidence that babies were beheaded, thrown into ovens, or otherwise “butchered,” despite Biden himself claiming to have seen the evidence of said videos. Categorically debunked by different sources, repetition of these claims that do not provide new sources or evidence are clear attempts at misinformation.
Immediately following the October 7th attacks, outlets like the BBC, CNN, and CBC have reported three main stories of horrific violence that are now proven to be disreputable at best and outright false at worst. Alongside claims of babies burned, stories of a Hamas rocket bombing Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City and widespread rape of Israeli civilians widely circulated in the early days of this issue, framing much of the discourse that has followed.
On October 17th, a rocket was reported to have hit Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City, killing over 400 people. There was significant back-and-forth from several well-known sources like the BBC and Reuters regarding who was responsible for this attack, despite video and first-account evidence of an airstrike being the cause. Citing an Israeli military spokesperson, Daniel Hagari, and an IDF “intercepted conversation between … Hamas militants,” the BBC alleged that it was a rocket from within Gaza fired by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) that caused the blast.
Al Jazeera investigations cast doubt on this claim based on analysis of footage suggesting that an Israeli interception of this missile caused it to crash. Evidence that Israeli officials called to “warn” hospital attendants to evacuate three days before October 17th — a day that also saw an Israeli rocket hit the hospital — has also called into question the overall legitimacy of this claim.
After some initial back and forth, most mainstream media outlets quickly landed on the Israeli-led conclusion that this explosion was caused by a misfired rocket from within Gaza, continuing to report this very conclusion today. There has yet to be an independent investigation into how the blast happened, so the level of certainty with which popular media have reported these conclusions is misleading, given that Al Jazeera and other media outlets have made different conclusions.
Furthermore, the “experts” and analysts cited by BBC’s Verify article on this issue are members of Western government and military-funded think tanks, with one author a member of the biased Israeli International Institute for Counter-Terrorism. The swift decision to portray the blast as a misfire is especially unconvincing in light of a recent analysis performed by Forensic Architecture, whose report suggests that the rocket that struck the hospital used technology consistent with Israeli interceptor missiles. Additionally, based on its flight path, Forensic Architecture’s analysis demonstrates that the missile had to have been fired from a location outside of Gaza near publicly-identifiable Israeli Iron Dome infrastructure.
Investigating Claims of Sexual Violence
Several sources like the Washington Post, BBC, New York Times, and The Associated Press have claimed that in its October 7th operation, Hamas members enacted sexual violence against women and children. Significant verbal testimony received from Israeli eyewitnesses by the United Nations Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Pramila Patten, supports evidence in the ongoing investigation suggesting that the occurrence of isolated instances of sexual violence was likely true.
However, what several outlets have alleged thus far is much different. The New York Times released an article in December of 2023, entitled Screams Without Words, claiming that Hamas ordered and organized widespread sexual violence in its October 7th attack on Israel. In other words, the authors argued that Hamas used rape as a weapon of war. Although some critics were initially skeptical of what the investigation claimed, these initial questions have since developed into a journalistic scandal. In particular, the Intercept has published several high-profile exposés regarding these allegations that first appeared in The New York Times.
One of the key criticisms of the piece was its hiring of Israeli filmmaker Anat Schwartz, who had no prior journalistic experience, for such a sensitive story. The Intercept’s articles highlight the bending and violating of editorial standards that went into the New York Times’ piece, consciously constructing a narrative from the top down rather than reporting on the issue from the bottom up. Several testimonies from the families of the victims were false, unverified, and exaggerated to fit a frame that the families themselves did not consent to nor agree to. Haaretz even criticized this clear case of authorial bias.
As mentioned in the Intercept’s report, the involvement of Anat Schwartz remains an easy scapegoat for the wrongdoings contained within this piece. However, criticism should be levelled more against the editorial staff responsible for this piece. Despite the institutional checks and balances that should exist in an organization as large as the New York Times to prevent this, the media organization has not only not apologized but doubled down on its choice to keep this story published. In response, a group of 50 journalism professors have sent an open letter to the Times requesting a “thorough and full independent review of the reporting, editing and publishing processes for this story and release [of] a report of the findings.”
The investigation of sexual violence against women by Hamas on and since October 7th remains ongoing, especially with hostages still in custody. But without concrete evidence, suggesting that Hamas actively advocated for sexual violence as a war tool is both dishonest and harmful to those who have suffered from sexual violence.
When Do Media Mistakes Become Propaganda?
Although not all of them have been outright false, media organizations have been dishonest with each of these stories by giving readers the impression of definitive evidence in otherwise ongoing cases. Choosing to single out these events also risks overshadowing the bigger picture. Over 15,000 Palestinian children have been killed in Israel’s bombardments, only 12 out of 36 hospitals in Gaza are still in low-capacity operation due to the ongoing Israeli assault, and the IDF continues to wield sexual violence against the thousands of Palestinian prisoners it holds hostage without trial.
Regardless of whether these mistakes on an individual level are accidental or the result of intentional violation of journalistic standards, the consequences are mainly the same: these misrepresentations ultimately amount to “atrocity propaganda,” more or less painting actions committed by Hamas as “inhuman” or “savage” in contrast to the “just” and “moral” violence committed by Israel. Amidst the wider decontextualization of the history of Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation and one-sided media coverage provided to the Israeli perspective of the issue, these framings also have the effect of discrediting the student solidarity camps. With protesters being labelled as “supporters” or “deniers” of these crimes, violent police action against them appears justified in the public eye. On multiple levels, these narratives signal a harmful disconnect from the reality of popular support against Israel’s current actions and the West’s role in both passively and actively allowing them to happen.
Is The Damage Already Done? The Importance of Media Retractions
How does journalism as an institution make up for some of these consequences moving forward? Common answers may include more strict fact-checking practices, ensuring writers are aware of commonly used narratives and Palestinian perspectives are represented more centrally. These, however, are things that should be happening already. The first step before recommitting to these ideals should be to admit wrongdoing, apologize, and offer retractions to stories containing misinformation.
Outlets should no doubt defend their reporters from public pressure, but there should be limitations to this. The New York Times continues to defend its Screams Without Words piece, even as Israeli outlets, like Haaretz, publicly criticize them and organizations, like Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, quietly discredit their initial claims.
It is important to note that publicly withdrawing a story is the same thing as quietly removing or stealth-editing articles. Overall, outright recalls of articles and public statements that reporting was wrong are rare. While withdrawing articles and statements with false information may decline readers’ trust in a news outlet, studies show that it can provide a more informed readership. Prioritizing accuracy can eventually outweigh this short-term loss in overall trust, leading to a greater understanding of current events.
Of course, as an industry, there are key motivations to standing by stories even if they are proven to be false. With clicks and views as news currency, sensational headlines and questionable reporting are the reality of current media platforms. Consumers and media professionals alike need to work towards building a relationship based on a level-headed focus on facts and context rather than exaggerated and harmful narratives.
Covering Palestine Moving Forward
Mainstream media coverage of Palestine and Israel over the last eight months has been poor, echoing many of the same problems that have surrounded reporting of this issue for the past several decades. Moving forward, mainstream media must first publicly and openly acknowledge the consequences of its portrayal of this conflict thus far. Only then can they then take this flashpoint as an opportunity to adopt fairer and more accurate coverage of international conflicts and foreign policy issues.
Edited by Majeed Malhas
