The Bias of Verification: How the Media Trusts Terrorists But Questions the IDF
Hamas terrorists. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
Trusting someone is tricky — because it isn’t automatically clear if they are telling the truth or not. To assess reliability, one usually takes into account their history, relationships, and values.
But when it comes to coverage of the Israel-Hamas war, media outlets ignore this tried-and-tested method. They take as gospel everything they hear from the terrorists, whose Jihad is built on lies, while questioning the validity of what the army of a democratic state says.
Admittedly, it’s hard to verify facts when the only sources of information are the warring sides. But media often add the caveat phrase that they “could not independently verify” a claim only regarding the statements of the IDF. Those of the Gaza Ministry of Health or the Gaza Civil Defense — all Hamas fronts — are quoted without such a judgmental disclaimer.
Here are some recent examples from The New York Times, Newsweek and The Washington Post:
Double standards: @nytimes says Israeli “claims could not be independently verified” but has no problem treating the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry and Gaza Civil Defense as credible sources.
Why trust the statements of a terror organization over the army of a democratic state? pic.twitter.com/8jQvq1gC3P
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) January 6, 2025
Why does @Newsweek add a disclaimer to Israeli estimates of Hamas terrorists killed, yet have no issue with trusting disputed Palestinian casualty figures courtesy of the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?
Why trust a terrorist org over the army of a democratic state? pic.twitter.com/6xfxlTf3qJ
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) January 5, 2025
While @nytimes refers to each side’s claims, it’s only Israel whose footage NY Times “was not able to independently verify” and who made a statement “without providing evidence to support the claim.”
Why not the same level of incredulity when it comes to Hamas’ statements? pic.twitter.com/clZaXYuhF8
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) December 31, 2024
Once again, the @washingtonpost cannot “independently verify” Israeli claims but misleads its readers by taking for granted repeatedly discredited false data from Hamas’s “Health Ministry” https://t.co/akzDdxhdOr pic.twitter.com/UoQfpuPSWj
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) July 17, 2024
The fact that a disclaimer is added only to IDF statements, even when they appear literally near those of the Hamas sources, is alarming because it shows bias that is either too deep to be conscious (by the reporters, writers, and editors), or too agenda-driven.
The result is a moral inversion: subtly suggesting that Israel is lying, while the Gaza authorities (i.e. Hamas) are telling the truth.
News coverage should be balanced and fair — media outlets should add a disclaimer to both claims or none at all. But above all, they should not give the same moral weight to both sides of this conflict.
There is no justification to prefer Jihadi liars over the military of a democratic state.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post The Bias of Verification: How the Media Trusts Terrorists But Questions the IDF first appeared on Algemeiner.com.