How media framing through linguistics perpetuates biases in coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict
In Gaza, people seem to die violently out of nowhere. Homes crumble on their own, leaving architects left scratching their heads. Food no longer enters the city, as if it were revolting against the hungry. What are readers to make of this strange phenomenon?
Rhetoric—the art of using language effectively and persuasively—is a fickle beast, especially in journalism. It demands precision and care, as a journalist’s choice of words can either inform or, just as easily, mislead readers. Journalists are trained to write clearly, but coverage of the Israel–Gaza conflict has exposed notable missteps.
After Hamas’s surprise attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Israel launched extensive airstrikes on Gaza. The escalation quickly spiralled into a humanitarian crisis. Yet prominent outlets, from The New York Times to the Toronto Star, have published vague headlines, subheads, and sentences that obscure Israel’s acts of violence, making it harder for readers to grasp the stark power imbalance at play.
Linguists point to disparities in the coverage of Israeli and Palestinian people, specifically in journalists’ use of active versus passive voice. “On a sentence level, a big difference is that active voice sentences and passive voice sentences are organized differently,” says Dr. Rob Goodman, a political theorist in the department of politics and public administration at Toronto Metropolitan University. “That can affect how news is perceived.”
Israel’s acts of violence are often described as incidental or defensive. When Israeli missile fire killed a Reuters journalist in southern Lebanon, the outlet published the headline: Reuters journalist killed in Lebanon in missile fire from the direction of Israel. In contrast, Palestinian violence is framed with direct, active language, emphasizing agency and portraying their actions as inherently aggressive.
The distinction allows Western outlets to dehumanize Palestinians and Gazan victims by stripping away their autonomy. Meanwhile, descriptions of Israel often emphasize justification, signalling to Western readers that Israel’s cause is understandable—even defensible.
When Western media employ the passive voice, it purposefully overlooks the essentials of who did what to whom—narrative elements crucial for complete information. “It’s the difference between essentially calling to a fact that occurred and assigning some sort of causal responsibility for that fact,” Goodman explains.
Beyond dehumanizing Palestinian suffering, the passive voice also downplays Israeli crimes, including the blocking of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Many outlets shift focus away from Israel‘s role with headlines like “No food has entered northern Gaza since the start of October,” and “Humanitarian aid to northern Gaza mostly blocked for the last 2 months.” The language makes it seem as though supplies have simply stopped appearing rather than being deliberately obstructed.
Western media’s use of passive voice allows outlets to sidestep the truth, casting doubt on Israeli war crimes. However, readers are often smarter than journalists give them credit for. The United Nations has labelled Israel’s actions as war crimes. Many media consumers have rightfully called attention to misleading headlines when they appear online and in print.
A journalist’s choice of words can reinforce implicit biases in readers. Goodman suggests that news consumers look for patterns in coverage and sources to identify potential biases. He also advises critically evaluating news coverage by seeking diverse perspectives, including those from opinion journalists and social media commentators.
About the author
Matthew is in his final year of the Master of Journalism program. He has written stories for The National Post, THIS Magazine, The Bureau, and White Wall Review, among others. He is interested in writing stories about social justice, art, and culture.
