New York Times Instructs Journalists to Restrict Language on Israel-Palestine Conflict

The New York Times has instructed its journalists to restrict the use of terms like "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" when reporting on Israel's attacks in Gaza, according to a report by The Intercept. The newspaper has also directed its staff to avoid using the phrase "occupied territory" when describing Palestinian land and to limit the usage of the word "Palestine."

An internal memo obtained by The Intercept, written by the Times' standards editor and international editor, aimed to provide guidance on maintaining objective journalistic principles in covering the Gaza conflict. The guide suggests that words like "massacre" represent emotions rather than information. "The memo tells reporters to avoid using terms like 'Palestine,' 'occupied territories,' and 'refugee camps,' instead referring to them as 'Gaza,' 'the West Bank,' and 'neighborhoods or areas,'" the report states.

The Times' guidelines have been a source of internal debate and criticism within the newsroom over the paper's Gaza coverage. Some Times staffers felt the memo showed the paper's deference to Israeli narratives and a lack of historical context regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The report notes that The New York Times has been more willing to use the term "terrorist act" for attacks by the Palestinian resistance group Hamas, but has avoided using the word "terror" for Israel's strikes that have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children. The Intercept's article criticizes this language control as being one-sided, highlighting that the Times has used "massacre" 53 times to refer to Israelis killed by Palestinians, but only once for Palestinians killed by Israel, despite thousands of Palestinian deaths.

Why this matters: The New York Times' language restrictions in covering the Israel-Palestine conflict have significant implications for shaping public perception and understanding of the situation. As a prominent and influential media outlet, the Times' editorial decisions can impact how the conflict is framed and interpreted by its readers, potentially reinforcing certain narratives while downplaying others.

The Times' guidance on coverage of the Gaza crisis has been criticized for placing the most accurate characterizations of Israeli actions off-limits. The Intercept's report argues that the newspaper's language control reflects a biased and agenda-driven coverage that fails to convey the humanity of the Palestinian victims and the severity of the Israeli attacks in Gaza. As the conflict continues, the debate over media representation and the use of language in reporting on Israel and Palestine remains a contentious issue.

Key Takeaways

• NYT instructed journalists to limit use of "genocide," "ethnic cleansing" for Israel's Gaza attacks.
• NYT directed staff to avoid "occupied territory" and limit "Palestine" when reporting on the conflict.
• NYT guidelines criticized for deferring to Israeli narratives and lacking historical context.
• NYT used "massacre" 53 times for Israelis, but only once for Palestinians despite thousands killed.
• NYT's language restrictions shape public perception and understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict.