UK news coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict in the month after the 7 October attacks showed an “overwhelming” bias in favour of Israel, according to a detailed analysis published today by the Centre for Media Monitoring, an offshoot of the Muslim Council for Britain.

Pro-Israeli sources were quoted more often and challenged less frequently than Palestinian sources, the report says, while news reports were frequently framed in ways that overlooked or marginalised Palestinian perspectives. 

Israeli deaths also tended to be described in emotive language while Palestinian casualties were often presented dispassionately, it says, so that while Israelis were frequently presented as victims of massacres and atrocities, Palestinians simply “died”.  

The report’s authors analysed more than 176,000 broadcast news items across 13 channels received in the UK (including some repeats) between 7 October and 7 November last year, and 25,000 news articles appearing on 28 online media websites in the same period. 

“What we’ve uncovered,” they write, “is that the majority of news outlets have chosen to present news from an Israeli perspective, with major failures of basic fact-checking and verification.”

Citing recent research that found US news media unduly favouring Israeli narratives, they state: “Our analysis shows the same broad finding... There is an overwhelming bias against Palestinians and their cause.”

Key Findings

● Israeli opinion and commentary were sought nearly twice as often as Palestinian viewpoints in online and three times more often in broadcast news. 

● Over the whole month of the period studied, in which many more Palestinian civilians were killed than Israeli civilians, terms such as “atrocity” and “slaughter” were 70% more likely to be applied to Israeli deaths. 

●  The rights of Israel were mentioned in broadcast reports five times more often than the rights of Palestinians.

● More than three-quarters of online articles described the conflict as the “Israel-Hamas war” – a form of words favoured by the Israeli Government and which identifies all residents of Gaza with the governing party there.

● In more than three-quarters of online news articles making reference to Israel, Hamas or Gaza there was no mention of the words “Palestinian” or “Palestine”, indicating a tendency to deny Palestinian identity.

● Whereas Palestinian news sources were frequently treated by reporters and news presenters with scepticism, Israeli sources such as the IDF, which has a proven track record of inaccuracy, were often taken at face value. 

● Unverified, sensational news stories such as the (never substantiated) allegations that babies were beheaded and burned in ovens by Hamas attackers were given widespread coverage, often without any reference to sourcing.

● Israel’s claim that Hamas was responsible for the bombing of the Al Hathi hospital in Gaza on 17 October was widely accepted by news media, though when Channel 4 News analysed the recordings presented as evidence for this it quickly found it had been manipulated.

● Even after claims were disproved, commentators, presenters and journalists sometimes repeated them on air, or allowed them to be repeated, without challenge. 

The report cites examples of good journalistic practice and points out that some journalists stepped forward to criticise coverage of the conflict by their own and other media.

“The evidence that we have gathered shows unequivocally that the overall tone of coverage in the Western media has been pro-Israel," it states. "This is also a conclusion drawn by journalists and staff at some media corporations who have accused their own outlets of among other things ‘journalistic malpractice’." 

The study notes difficulties faced by international journalists who are allowed access to Gaza by Israel only "under strict limitations including being forbidden to speak to Palestinians”, though it criticises media that failed to draw attention to the distortion of coverage caused by these restrictions. 

A theme of the report is what it calls the “dehumanisation” of Palestinians in Gaza, which included “the minimisation of their suffering, effectively rendering them invisible despite the huge numbers of those killed”.

Where emotive language was used by journalists it was chiefly in reference to the suffering of Israelis, while Palestinian suffering tended to be reduced to a death count that was itself often treated with suspicion and not explicitly linked to Israeli action.

An aspect of this dehumanisation, the report indicates, was the readiness of many journalists and media outlets to accept a representation of the population of Gaza as synonymous with Hamas. It notes that Hamas has not been elected in Gaza since 2006, when it won 44% of the vote, and that in a poll weeks before 7 October two-thirds of Gazans said they did not trust Hamas. 

Journalists, it says, rarely put such points to speakers who asserted that Gazans were collectively responsible for the 7 October attacks. Nor were those points made when marches in London in support of a ceasefire were described in some media as ‘pro-Hamas’ demonstrations.

Another theme is what is called the denial of context. The report cites numerous examples of presenters interrupting speakers who sought to refer to events before 7 October and often insisted instead that they denounce the Hamas actions. It describes this as an Israeli perspective.

“Our view is that whilst news outlets can (and perhaps should) focus on a specific incident at the time it occurs, when it is part of a broader news story that continues over many weeks and months it is unreasonable to simply take the Israeli perspective and not provide the relevant context," the report states.

"Whilst no context justifies terrorism, acknowledging the historical context within the overall news coverage is important to ensure that audiences have a fuller understanding of what perhaps led to the attacks on 7 October.”

Elsewhere the report states that “media outlets must not be advocates of one cause, yet accuracy and correct framing leaves no room to ignore the context of 75 years of Palestinian suffering".

"Nor should it allow for the fact that this is fundamentally a conflict of two unequals, namely an occupier (Israel) and an occupied (Palestine) recognised in international law and by a majority of countries and people as well as the historical record,” it adds.

The report is critical of news outlets including the Express, TalkTV and GB News, which it says used the opportunity to give platforms to commentators expressing Islamophobic views. 

The Express, for instance, published a comment article attributing the 7 October attacks to “historic Islamist bloodlust” and “an ever-present cancer” having a “medieval ambition” which is “the genocide of the Jewish people”.

On TalkTV, the report states, Sun columnist Trevor Kavanagh was left unchallenged when he said: “By the very definition of being a Muslim voter, you are going to be anti-Jewish.” 

Tens of thousands of shares on post quoting one of UK’s most consistent MPs on Israel’s Gaza genocide

A tweet quoting Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe’s pithy analysis of Gaza has gone viral after it was shared by UK-based, pro-Gaza investigative journalist Sulaiman Ahmed.

Webbe tweeted on 7 Feb:

Israel does not want peace. They want Gaza.

They want to slaughter Palestinians, drive them into the Sinai Egyptian desert and eradicate Palestine.

Yet, our political leaders still refuse to call for an immediate ceasefire.

— Claudia Webbe MP (@ClaudiaWebbe) February 7, 2024

Ahmed’s post a couple of weeks later quoting her first sentence was shared thirty-six thousand times and ‘liked’ eighty-two thousand times:

Claudia Webbe is one of the UK’s most consistently solid and outspoken MPs in solidarity with Palestinians and against Israel’s war crimes – at a time when most MPs are either silent or actively endorsing the war criminals – and is routinely foully abused by racists and supporters of genocide for it. She sits as an independent MP and shames the leadership of both main political parties, both of whom are eagerly complicit in Israel’s genocide, refuse to condemn the Israeli regime’s contempt for humanity international law and have avidly propagated discredited Israeli atrocity propaganda used to justify Israel’s slaughter.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

Caty Borum‘s The Revolution Will Be Hilarious: Comedy for Social Change and Civic Power considers how comedy intersects with activism and drives social change. Borum’s accessible text draws from case studies and personal experience to demonstrate how comedy can successfully challenge norms, amplify marginalised voices and foster dialogue on issues from racism to climate change, writes Christine Sweeney.

The Revolution Will Be Hilarious: Comedy for Social Change and Civic Power. Caty Borum. NYU Press. 2023.

Can you teach comedy? Can a sense of humour, charisma, delivery, stage presence and timing be learned? Comedy programmes popping up in universities across the world would say, “Yes, yes it can”. If the question is, “can you teach comedy as a tool for social change and civic power?”, Caty Borum has an entire book which aims to provide an answer.

The Revolution Will Be Hilarious: Comedy for Social Change and Civic Power by Caty Borum explores the intersection of comedy and social activism, delving into the question of whether comedy can be taught and used as a tool for social change. Borum discusses the role of creativity, cultural power, and participatory media in driving social change and how postmillennial social-justice organisations collaborate with comedians. Serving as a follow-up to Borum’s work co-written with Lauren Feldman in 2020, A Comedian and an Activist Walk into a Bar: The Serious Role of Comedy in Social Justice, this new book is a how-to manual with case studies on integrating comedy into social justice efforts.

[The] book is a how-to manual with case studies on integrating comedy into social justice efforts.

Borum reflects on her own comedy career, drawing from experiences working with sitcom legend Norman Lear on get-out-the-vote campaigns in the late ’90s and early 2000s like  Declare Yourself. While these campaigns engaged young people and demonstrated the power of comedic efforts, Borum notes that the impact on electoral outcomes was limited. Though 2004 saw the largest turnout (nearly 50 per cent) of voters aged between 18 and 24, that demographic still accounted for just 17 per cent of the total voter population, and Bush beat his democratic rival John Kerry to secure a second term.

Although mobilising the public through comedy for direct political action may be too great an ask, Borum emphasises comedy’s narrative power in shaping public understanding and influencing cultural attitudes. The book explores the evolution of comedy in the participatory media age, especially its increased visibility during the pandemic and its role in challenging societal norms. The rise of independently produced content on social media has challenged the authority of networks and studios, boosting the democratisation and creative agency of comedy “content”. Though Borum acknowledges the benefits of social media for amplifying marginalised creators, she falls short of critically examining its impact on mental health, the spread of misinformation and biased algorithms. Despite this, she underscores comedy’s potential as a cultural intervention empowered by the participatory networked media age.

Positive deviance, according to Borum, is the quiet power of comedy that journalism lacks.

The book discusses the comedic response to political events, particularly the rise of Donald Trump, positioning comedy as a force for social change by offering fresh ways of undermining the status quo. According to Borum, comedians say what journalists cannot, thinking of Michelle Wolf, who at the 2018 White House Correspondents dinner pointed out the mutually beneficial cycle of journalists covering then-President Trump’s near-constant news feed. Positive deviance, according to Borum, is the quiet power of comedy that journalism lacks.

Comedy also serves as a creative space for marginalised voices, providing an alternative narrative and critique that traditional journalism may lack. Borum highlights the importance of optimism in comedy. Comedy provides a space for an alternate reality, for example the TV series Schitt’s Creek portrays a world where the LGBTQ community is fully accepted. In this sense, optimism can be a survival tactic. As Borum suggests,

[C]omedy as a force for social justice breaks down social barriers and opens space to discuss taboo topics; persuades because it is entertaining and makes us feel activating emotions of hope and optimism; serves as a mechanism for traditionally marginalized people to assert and celebrate cultural citizenship through media representation; acts as both social critique and civic imagination to envision a better world; and builds resilience to help power continued struggle against oppression.

Borum provides an in-depth, well-researched review of cultural entertainment activists, tracking the power of the entertainment industry to affect how people feel. “Pioneering cultural entertainment activists pushed for ‘mainstreaming’ oppressed people – including and normalizing their lives and lived experiences in entertainment.”

The book is something of a documented workshop, drawing from the experiences and insights of leaders across social justice activism and comedy to emphasise the power of media.

The book is something of a documented workshop, drawing from the experiences and insights of leaders across social justice activism and comedy to emphasise the power of media. Its instructive aspect lies in Borum’s description of running comedy workshops and writers’ rooms, offering a practical guide for both comedians and social activists. These collaborative spaces aim to translate key messages into comedy routines through storytelling, making complex issues more accessible. The author uses climate change and the opioid epidemic as examples, demonstrating how comedy can humanise and mobilise audiences to address pressing challenges.

Borum examines a case study of youth political activist group Hip Hop Caucus which aims to communicate a basic awareness of climate change to Black, Indigenous, and other People of Colour, who are the most affected by, and yet contribute the least to, climate change in the US (and globally). Even if this comedy work may not reach the oil companies responsible for the brunt of climate change, it serves to educate and mobilise audiences. In this sense, the messaging of the book goes, culture is important because it is the mechanism by which we relate to each other. Although it’s hard to demonstrate the material impact of comedy and the entertainment industry overall on political dynamics, communicating the mechanisms translating individual experiences in collective narrative storytelling to foster understanding and support is convincing.

Culture is important because it is the mechanism by which we relate to each other.

The Revolution Will Be Hilarious emphasises the power of comedy as a force for social justice and provides practical insights into its integration with activism. She effectively shows how collaboration between the two has the power to start meaningful conversations around racism, climate change, economic disenfranchisement, addiction and more. Borum’s work serves as a valuable guide for media and communication theorists, entertainment industry professionals, social activists, and comedians, showcasing the potential of collaboration between comedy and activism in sparking meaningful conversations on various societal issues.

This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Image Credit: Paul Craft on Shutterstock.

Hard-right figures like those in Reform UK are covered by the UK media far more than the Greens because outlets like the “shock factor” of amplifying deliberately provocative voices, the Greens’ co-leaders have told Byline Times. 

As the media mania grows over the potential defection of disgraced ex-Conservative Lee Anderson to Reform UK, Green Party of England & Wales co-leader Carla Denyer said: “The media landscape in the UK doesn't just reflect the news, it shapes it by who [they] invites to TV. 

“Unfortunately, there is a long tradition in this country of inviting hard right or even far right politicians on, because they provide a shock factor.” 

“Negative news sells” whereas Greens offer “sensible practical solutions that voters actually want to see,” she told Byline Times.

The Green Party and Reform UK were pretty much neck and neck in the polls until as recently as November 2023, according to Politico’s Poll of Polls. Back then, both parties hovered at around 6% support. Greens have remained steady around 6% since, while Reform UK have climbed to 10%, amid frenetic talk of Conservative defections to the party and possible by-election upsets.

Richard Tice’s Reform UK – the ex-Brexit Party previously led by Nigel Farage – appears to receive significantly more media attention than the Greens despite their relatively close polling figures. 

There have been around 43,000 media mentions of the Green Party (in England, Wales, or UK-wide) over the past year, according to Google News analytics. But there have been nearly 88,000 media mentions for Reform UK in that time. While it is not a comprehensive metric, it offers an indication of the different levels of attention. 

Speaking to this outlet, fellow Green Party of England & Wales co-leader Adrian Ramsay also expressed his anger over UK media coverage.

“Look at the Green Party's real, sustained strength – there are hundreds of councillors we have elected across the country. Our level of strength is higher than UKIP’s was at its peak, and way ahead of where the Reform Party is…

“The media needs to review where it's putting its attention because the Greens are growing in support,” the Waveney Valley parliamentary candidate added. 

Denyer told Byline Times Greens will become “harder and harder to ignore” the more people they get elected. 

The Association of Green Councillors says there are now over 750 principal authority councillors on councils across England and Wales, along with over 400 councillors on town and parish councils. 

By contrast, there are just eight Reform UK councillors. All of them are men. 

Ceasefire support

Ramsay also said the party has begun picking up support in areas where there's “high Muslim populations” and where “people are campaigning hard for an end to this brutal war” in Gaza. 

The party has just launched a Muslim Greens Group. A recent Survation poll showed Green support was growing among Muslims.

Ramsay said: “in areas of the country where there's strong sentiment against this war, people realise that the Greens are the ones who are willing to speak out and say that we want to see a ceasefire on both sides.” 

He claimed that despite Sir Keir Starmer’s party’s recent shift to backing an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, “it's hard to tell exactly where Labour's standing.”

Denyer added that the party is now trying to elect more Muslim councillors to be representative of its voter base.

“It doesn't happen overnight. It's about diversifying your membership and then from that, diversifying your candidates and your elected representatives. 

“We are partway through selecting our parliamentary candidates all across England and Wales. The last I heard, which was about two weeks ago, we'd selected about three quarters of them…Preliminary diversity data based on the ones we've selected are really good for us” – in other words, the Greens expect their candidates to broadly reflect the diversity of the population.  

Denyer is standing in Bristol Central and hopes to become the party’s second MP, after Caroline Lucas in Brighton Pavilion (Sian Berry AM is standing for the Greens there as Lucas steps down). Recent polls suggest the two seats are the most winnable for the party. Ramsay is also hopeful about his chances in Waveney Valley.

Alternative to Labour

Asked how the party would fund it recent announcement that to double Labour’s now abandoned commitment to spend £28bn a year on green investment, Denyer said: “I can't get into details but the climate investments [won’t] rely totally on borrowing, because we're not afraid to reform the tax system, to give us more progressive wealth taxes and equalise capital gains with income tax. 

“Between them, they would raise tens of billions of pounds, which means that you can transition [to net zero] and invest in public services.” 

She expressed her hope for a Conservative defeat in the next election, adding: “I hope that if they get kicked in the ballot box, it will cause the Conservatives to take a look at themselves in the direction they've been heading in the last few years.” 

Denyer also revealed that the Green Party’s vetting procedures were under review after the party withdrew support from its own candidate in Rochdale. (There is now no official Labour or Green candidate in this week’s by-election, following suspensions). 

Guy Otten appears to be suspended for “regrettable” social media comments from “a few years ago” apparently criticising Palestinians and Islam. 

She said it was “obviously far from an ideal situation” but that the party has “used this as an opportunity to review our processes to try and make sure that this situation doesn't happen again.”

Greens are planning to run a full slate of candidates in this year’s General Election, in England and Wales. Despite the party’s relative lack of limelight, Denyer added her hope is that the party can secure 3-4 MPs this year to influence a potential Labour Government. 

“You've seen the outsized influence that Caroline Lucas has had, really punching above her weight as the one [Green] MP in the House of Commons...Imagine the impact we could have if we quadrupled that and had four Green MPs?” 

Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com