The New York Times instructed journalists covering Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip to restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to “avoid” using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept.

The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine “except in very rare cases” and to steer clear of the term “refugee camps” to describe areas of Gaza historically settled by internally displaced Palestinians, who fled from other parts of Palestine during previous Israeli–Arab wars. The areas are recognized by the United Nations as refugee camps and house hundreds of thousands of registered refugees.

While the document is presented as an outline for maintaining objective journalistic principles in reporting on the Gaza war, several Times staffers told The Intercept that some of its contents show evidence of the paper’s deference to Israeli narratives.

Almost immediately after the October 7 attacks and the launch of Israel’s scorched-earth war against Gaza, tensions began to boil within the newsroom over the Times coverage. Some staffers said they believed the paper was going out of its way to defer to Israel’s narrative on the events and was not applying even standards in its coverage. Arguments began fomenting on internal Slack and other chat groups.

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    5 months ago

    I can see pushing to avoid the use of genocide and maybe even ethnic cleansing. But occupied territories? What the fuck else could they be considered?

    And for the record, I think Israel’s actions are pretty clearly ethnic cleansing at the very least.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      But occupied territories? What the fuck else could they be considered?

      Well, annexation means giving citizenship, and occupation means avoiding that. By now these people apparently think they hold God by the beard and can avoid the reputational unpleasantness of calling occupation occupation too.

    • MrBusiness@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      “”“”“settlers”“”“” I think is the term they’re using for the territories being taken. Meaning killing and running off current residents.

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        “Settlers” is such a euphemism already. What would work better? Interlopers? Invaders? Thieves?