{"id":33032,"date":"2024-04-19T12:58:06","date_gmt":"2024-04-19T19:58:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=33032"},"modified":"2024-04-19T12:58:07","modified_gmt":"2024-04-19T19:58:07","slug":"leaked-nyt-gaza-memo-tells-journalists-to-avoid-words-genocide-ethnic-cleansing-and-occupied-territory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2024\/04\/19\/leaked-nyt-gaza-memo-tells-journalists-to-avoid-words-genocide-ethnic-cleansing-and-occupied-territory\/","title":{"rendered":"LEAKED NYT GAZA MEMO TELLS JOURNALISTS TO AVOID WORDS \u201cGENOCIDE,\u201d \u201cETHNIC CLEANSING,\u201d AND \u201cOCCUPIED TERRITORY\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"NEW<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>SUPPORT US<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pro-Palestine protesters flood the lobby of the New York Times offices and block the security entrances during a demonstration against the newspaper\u2019s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza on March 14, 2024, in New York City.\u00a0Photo: Michael Nigro\/Sipa via AP Images<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amid the internal battle over the New York Times\u2019s coverage of Israel\u2019s war, top editors handed down a set of directives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"\/<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Jeremy Scahill<\/a>, Ryan Grim<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

April 15 2024, 2:29 p.m. (TheIntercept.com)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE NEW YORK TIMES<\/strong> instructed journalists covering Israel\u2019s war on the Gaza Strip to restrict the use of the terms \u201cgenocide\u201d and \u201cethnic cleansing\u201d and to \u201cavoid\u201d using the phrase \u201coccupied territory\u201d when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine \u201cexcept in very rare cases\u201d and to steer clear of the term \u201crefugee camps\u201d to describe areas of Gaza historically settled by displaced Palestinians expelled from other parts of Palestine during previous Israeli\u2013Arab wars. The areas are recognized by the United Nations as refugee camps and house hundreds of thousands of registered refugees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The memo \u2014 written by Times standards editor Susan Wessling, international editor Philip Pan, and their deputies \u2014 \u201coffers guidance about some terms and other issues we have grappled with since the start of the conflict in October.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s deference to Israeli narratives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIt\u2019s the kind of thing that looks professional and logical if you have no knowledge of the historical context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s the kind of thing that looks professional and logical if you have no knowledge of the historical context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,\u201d said a Times newsroom source, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal, of the Gaza memo. \u201cBut if you do know, it will be clear how apologetic it is to Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First distributed to Times journalists in November, the guidance \u2014 which collected and expanded on past style directives about the Israeli\u2013Palestinian conflict \u2014 has been regularly updated over the ensuing months. It presents an internal window into the thinking of Times international editors as they have faced upheaval within the newsroom surrounding the paper\u2019s Gaza war coverage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MOST READ<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

U.S., Not Israel, Shot Down Most Iran Drones and Missiles<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ken Klippenstein, Daniel Boguslaw<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Leaked NYT Gaza Memo Tells Journalists to Avoid Words \u201cGenocide,\u201d \u201cEthnic Cleansing,\u201d and \u201cOccupied Territory\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Leaked Cables Show White House Opposes Palestinian Statehood<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ken Klippenstein, Daniel Boguslaw<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIssuing guidance like this to ensure accuracy, consistency and nuance in how we cover the news is standard practice,\u201d said Charlie Stadtlander, a Times spokesperson. \u201cAcross all our reporting, including complex events like this, we take care to ensure our language choices are sensitive, current and clear to our audiences.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Issues over style guidance have been among a bevy of internal rifts at the Times over its Gaza coverage. In January, The Intercept reported<\/a> on disputes in the Times newsroom over issues with an investigative story<\/a> on systematic sexual violence on October 7. The leak gave rise to a highly unusual internal probe<\/a>. The company faced harsh criticism for allegedly targeting Times workers of Middle East and North African descent, which Times brass denied. On Monday, executive editor Joe Kahn told staff that the leak investigation had been concluded<\/a> unsuccessfully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WhatsApp Debates<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Almost immediately after the October 7 attacks and the launch of Israel\u2019s 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\u2019s narrative on the events and was not applying even standards in its coverage. Arguments began fomenting on internal Slack and other chat groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The debates between reporters on the Jerusalem bureau-led WhatsApp group, which at one point included 90 reporters and editors, became so intense that Pan, the international editor, interceded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe need to do a better job communicating with each other as we report the news, so our discussions are more productive and our disagreements less distracting,\u201d Pan wrote in a November 28 WhatsApp message viewed by The Intercept and first reported by the Wall Street Journal. \u201cAt its best, this channel has been a quick, transparent and productive space to collaborate on a complex, fast-moving story. At its worst, it\u2019s a tense forum where the questions and comments can feel accusatory and personal.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pan bluntly stated: \u201cDo not use this channel for raising concerns about coverage.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the topics of debate in the Jerusalem bureau WhatsApp group and exchanges on Slack, reviewed by The Intercept and verified with multiple newsroom sources, were Israeli attacks<\/a> on Al-Shifa Hospital<\/a>, statistics on Palestinian civilian deaths, the allegations of genocidal conduct by Israel, and President Joe Biden\u2019s pattern of promoting unverified allegations from the Israeli government as fact. (Pan did not respond to a request for comment.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not unusual for news companies to set style guidelines. But there are unique standards applied to violence perpetrated by Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Many of the same debates were addressed in the Times\u2019s Gaza-specific style guidance and have been the subject of intense public scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not unusual for news companies to set style guidelines,\u201d said another Times newsroom source, who also asked for anonymity. \u201cBut there are unique standards applied to violence perpetrated by Israel. Readers have noticed and I understand their frustration.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWords Like \u2018Slaughter\u2019\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Times memo outlines guidance on a range of phrases and terms. \u201cThe nature of the conflict has led to inflammatory language and incendiary accusations on all sides. We should be very cautious about using such language, even in quotations. Our goal is to provide clear, accurate information, and heated language can often obscure rather than clarify the fact,\u201d the memo says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWords like \u2018slaughter,\u2019 \u2018massacre\u2019 and \u2018carnage\u2019 often convey more emotion than information. Think hard before using them in our own voice,\u201d according to the memo. \u201cCan we articulate why we are applying those words to one particular situation and not another? As always, we should focus on clarity and precision \u2014 describe what happened rather than using a label.\u201dRead Our Complete CoverageIsrael\u2019s War on Gaza<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the memo\u2019s framing as an effort to not employ incendiary language to describe killings \u201con all sides,\u201d in the Times reporting on the Gaza war, such language has been used repeatedly to describe attacks against Israelis by Palestinians and almost never in the case of Israel\u2019s large-scale killing of Palestinians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In January, The Intercept published<\/a> an analysis<\/a> of New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times coverage of the war from October 7 through November 24 \u2014 a period mostly before the new Times guidance was issued. The Intercept analysis showed that the major newspapers reserved terms like \u201cslaughter,\u201d \u201cmassacre,\u201d and \u201chorrific\u201d almost exclusively for Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians, rather than for Palestinian civilians killed in Israeli attacks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Related<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Coverage of Gaza War in the New York Times and Other Major Newspapers Heavily Favored Israel, Analysis Shows<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The analysis found that, as of November 24, the New York Times had described Israeli deaths as a \u201cmassacre\u201d on 53 occasions and those of Palestinians just once. The ratio for the use of \u201cslaughter\u201d was 22 to 1, even as the documented number of Palestinians killed climbed to around 15,000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The latest Palestinian death toll estimate stands at more than 33,000, including at least 15,000 children \u2014 likely undercounts due to Gaza\u2019s collapsed health infrastructure and missing persons, many of whom are believed to have died in the rubble left by Israel\u2019s attacks over the past six months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Touchy Debates<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Times memo touches on some of the most highly charged \u2014 and disputed \u2014 language around the Israeli\u2013Palestinian conflict. The guidance spells out, for instance, usage of the word \u201cterrorist,\u201d which The Intercept previously reported<\/a> was at the center of a spirited newsroom debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt is accurate to use \u2018terrorism\u2019 and \u2018terrorist\u2019 in describing the attacks of Oct. 7, which included the deliberate targeting of civilians in killings and kidnappings,\u201d according to the leaked Times memo. \u201cWe should not shy away from that description of the events or the attackers, particularly when we provide context and explanation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The guidance also instructs journalists to \u201cAvoid \u2018fighters\u2019 when referring to the Oct. 7 attack; the term suggests a conventional war rather than a deliberate attack on civilians. And be cautious in using \u2018militants,\u2019 which is interpreted in different ways and may be confusing to readers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the memo, the editors tell Times journalists: \u201cWe do not need to assign a single label or to refer to the Oct. 7 assault as a \u2018terrorist attack\u2019 in every reference; the word is best used when specifically describing attacks on civilians. We should exercise restraint and can vary the language with other accurate terms and descriptions: an attack, an assault, an incursion, the deadliest attack on Israel in decades, etc. Similarly, in addition to \u2018terrorists,\u2019 we can vary the terms used to describe the Hamas members who carried out the assault: attackers, assailants, gunmen.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Related<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Story Behind the New York Times October 7 Expos\u00e9<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Times does not characterize Israel\u2019s repeated attacks on Palestinian civilians as \u201cterrorism,\u201d even when civilians have been targeted. This is also true of Israel\u2019s assaults on protected civilian sites<\/a>, including hospitals<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a section with the headline \u201c\u2018Genocide\u2019 and Other Incendiary Language,\u201d the guidance says, \u201c\u2018Genocide\u2019 has a specific definition in international law. In our own voice, we should generally use it only in the context of those legal parameters. We should also set a high bar for allowing others to use it as an accusation, whether in quotations or not, unless they are making a substantive argument based on the legal definition.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding \u201cethnic cleansing,\u201d the document calls it \u201canother historically charged term,\u201d instructing reporters: \u201cIf someone is making such an accusation, we should press for specifics or supply proper context.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bucking International Norms<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the cases of describing \u201coccupied territory\u201d and the status of refugees in Gaza, the Times style guidelines run counter to norms established by the United Nations and international humanitarian law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the term \u201cPalestine\u201d \u2014 a widely used name for both the territory and the U.N.-recognized state \u2014 the Times memo contains blunt instructions: \u201cDo not use in datelines, routine text or headlines, except in very rare cases such as when the United Nations General Assembly elevated Palestine to a nonmember observer state, or references to historic Palestine.\u201d The Times guidance resembles that of the Associated Press Stylebook<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The memo directs journalists not to use the phrase \u201crefugee camps\u201d to describe long-standing refugee settlements in Gaza. \u201cWhile termed refugee camps, the refugee centers in Gaza are developed and densely populated neighborhoods dating to the 1948 war. Refer to them as neighborhoods, or areas, and if further context is necessary, explain how they have historically been called refugee camps.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The United Nations recognizes eight refugee camps<\/a> in the Gaza Strip. As of last year, before the war started, the areas were home to more than 600,000 registered refugees. Many are descendants of those who fled to Gaza after being forcibly expelled<\/a> from their homes in the 1948 Arab\u2013Israeli War, which marked the founding of the Jewish state and mass dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Israeli government has long been hostile to the historical fact that Palestinians maintain refugee status, because it signifies that they were displaced from lands they have a right to return to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIt\u2019s like, \u2018Oh let\u2019s not say occupation because it might make it look like we\u2019re justifying a terrorist attack.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Since October 7, Israel has repeatedly bombed refugee camps in Gaza, including Jabaliya, Al Shati, Al Maghazi, and Nuseirat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The memo\u2019s instructions on the use of \u201coccupied territories\u201d says, \u201cWhen possible, avoid the term and be specific (e.g. Gaza, the West Bank, etc.) as each has a slightly different status.\u201d The United Nations, along with much of the world, considers Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem to be occupied<\/a> Palestinian territories, seized<\/a> by Israel in the 1967 Arab\u2013Israeli war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The admonition against the use of the term \u201coccupied territories,\u201d said a Times staffer, obscures the reality of the conflict, feeding into the U.S. and Israeli insistence that the conflict began on October 7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou are basically taking the occupation out of the coverage, which is the actual core of the conflict,\u201d said the newsroom source. \u201cIt\u2019s like, \u2018Oh let\u2019s not say occupation because it might make it look like we\u2019re justifying a terrorist attack.\u2019\u201dShare<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONTACT THE AUTHOR:<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Jeremy Scahill<\/a>jeremy.scahill@theintercept.com<\/a>@jeremyscahill<\/a>on X<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ryan Grim<\/a>ryan.grim@theintercept.com<\/a>@ryangrim<\/a>on X<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SUPPORT US Pro-Palestine protesters flood the lobby of the New York Times offices and block the security entrances during a demonstration against the newspaper\u2019s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza on March 14, 2024, in New York City.\u00a0Photo: Michael Nigro\/Sipa via AP Images Amid the internal battle over the New… Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33032"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33032"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33032\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33033,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33032\/revisions\/33033"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}