In the year since the war in Gaza erupted on October 7, 2023, a fierce debate has raged not only on the ground but also in the world’s newsrooms. On one side, many Israelis and their supporters have voiced outrage over what they see as a "false narrative" in global media. On the other, Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim journalists in the United States say they’ve been systematically sidelined, censored, and even retaliated against for trying to report their communities’ stories. The result, according to a months-long investigation by Prism Reports published September 9, 2025, is a media landscape where the truth about Gaza is often obscured, and the voices of those most affected are drowned out.
Veteran Israeli journalist Elli Wohlgelernter, who boasts five decades in the business, minced no words in a recent interview with CBN News. "It’s a false narrative—period," he declared, arguing that coverage of the war against Hamas is "agenda-driven." Wohlgelernter’s frustration is echoed by many Israelis and their supporters worldwide, who believe media bias has colored the world’s understanding of the conflict.
But inside American newsrooms, a very different story is playing out. Prism Reports, in partnership with Visualizing Palestine, has documented a pattern of pushback against journalists of Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim descent. Nadia, a pseudonymous reporter with eight years of experience at a Northeast local outlet, described feeling "flattened," "dehumanized," and ultimately forced to quit after repeated editorial roadblocks. Her experience is far from unique. Nearly a dozen journalists told Prism they were shut out of covering the unfolding events in Gaza, while white, Jewish, or Israeli journalists led the reporting.
"There’s always been a strong bias toward the pro-Israel side for many different reasons," said William Youmans, a Northwestern University in Qatar associate professor who studies global media. He points to U.S. foreign policy and the influence of pro-Israel organizations as key factors. The result, he argues, is a "strong domestic constituency" shaping what Americans see and read.
The war’s toll has been staggering. Since October 2023, more than 63,000 Palestinians, including over 276 members of the press, have been killed, according to Prism Reports. As the violence escalated, so did calls for fair coverage. In November 2023, hundreds of U.S. journalists signed open letters demanding newsroom accountability—often at personal risk. Many feared retaliation, and a September 2024 report by the National Writers Union, "Red Lines: Retaliation in the Media Industry During the War in Gaza," tracked 44 cases involving over 100 media workers targeted for perceived support of Palestinians or criticism of Israel. Retaliation ranged from firings and assignment restrictions to online harassment and forced resignations.
Nadia’s story, chronicled by Prism, illustrates how editorial double standards can silence Palestinian voices. She recounted how even a pitch about a local Muslim art exhibit—unrelated to Palestine—was rejected because, as editors told her, "there’s before Oct. 7, and there’s after Oct. 7." Her byline alone, they argued, would lead readers to assume a political agenda. When she did manage to publish stories involving Palestinian culture, she faced pressure to remove quotes deemed "offensive" and was ultimately told she could no longer write such pieces. After October 7, her reporting was further restricted, and she was barred from freelancing—an option available to other staffers—until she finally quit. "I was just sitting there with my hands tied," she said.
Other journalists described similar patterns. Salma, a Palestinian journalist in Washington, D.C., lost family in Gaza and was asked by an executive producer, "Can you be objective?" She resigned soon after. Meanwhile, newsroom leaders often appointed white, male reporters with little Middle East expertise to lead Gaza coverage, arguing that Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim journalists were inherently "biased." The irony, critics argue, is that many of the most prominent bylines at major U.S. outlets have direct ties to the Israeli military or pro-Israel lobbying groups.
On July 16, 2025, Writers Against the War on Gaza (WAWOG) published a dossier highlighting 21 current and former staff at The New York Times with such connections. The dossier claimed, "[The Times’] journalists are compromised, whether they have been trained by Israel’s military, live in a stolen home, or collaborate with institutions designed to produce favorable media and exert political pressure." The Times, for its part, rejected these allegations. Communications Director Nicole Taylor described the dossier as "a vile campaign aimed at intimidating journalists and media executives because of fair-minded reporting and news coverage." She emphasized the paper’s commitment to diverse coverage, noting that more than a dozen Palestinian journalists—such as Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist Samar Abu Elouf—have contributed to the Times’ reporting on Gaza.
Yet, critics like journalist Sana Saeed argue that even award-winning stories can be used to "defend themselves when accused of bias" without telling the full story. "These types of ‘good stories’ still diminish the role of the United States and Israel in the genocide itself, in terms of the war crimes [and] the atrocities that have been committed against the Palestinian people," Saeed told Prism.
The issue isn’t limited to the Times. Axios, The Atlantic, and The Wall Street Journal have all featured journalists with military or advocacy ties to Israel leading their coverage. In January 2024, the Journal published a story alleging Hamas ties within UNRWA, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees. The story, reported by a former Israeli soldier, could not be verified months later—yet it contributed to the collapse of UNRWA’s aid role, leading to nearly 2,000 deaths at Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid sites, according to Prism.
Inside newsrooms, debates over language and framing have become battlegrounds. Farah, another pseudonymous reporter, described how editors sought to replace "apartheid" with "mistreatment" and refer to displacement as "eviction." Guides from the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists’ Association (AMEJA) were often ignored. Meanwhile, intense pressure campaigns from pro-Israel groups like CAMERA bombarded editors with complaints, raising "the inconvenience cost" of covering Palestinian perspectives, according to Youmans.
Even in progressive-leaning outlets, the so-called "Palestine exception" prevails. Spencer, who worked at More Perfect Union, said management repeatedly shut down pitches related to Gaza, insisting it was "off beat"—even as they covered labor organizing in Sweden. When the United Auto Workers called for a ceasefire, management approved coverage only if it omitted any mention of Gaza.
For many journalists, the experience has been disillusioning. "As a journalist, you are conditioned to look at these newsrooms as a kind of landing point for your career," Saeed reflected. "But the moral question we need to be asking ourselves as journalists is do we want the landing point of our careers to be in newsrooms that ultimately supported the extermination of 2.2 million people?"
As the Gaza war grinds on, the battle over its narrative rages, with journalists and media outlets on both sides forced to reckon with the consequences of what they choose—or refuse—to report.
