A Palestinian reporter’s response to a Sky News anchor made the rounds on social media over the weekend and served as an important reminder: The word choices that journalists make matter.
In her introduction to the segment featuring London-based reporter Yara Eid, the anchor recounted the number of people who have been killed in the war.
“It has been two weeks since Hamas first launched its attack on Israel that saw 1,400 people killed,” she said. “Since then, Palestinian officials say that more than 4,000 people have died in Gaza.”
Following the introduction, Eid spoke for a moment about the friends and family she has lost during the war but then seized on the anchor’s mismatch of the terms “killed” and “died.”
“When you first introduced what’s happening, you said more than 1,400 have been killed in Israel and more than 4,000 in Palestine have died,” Eid said. “I think language is really important to use because, as a journalist, you have the moral responsibility to report on what’s happening. Palestinians don’t just die, they get killed.”
The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi wrote about the “war on words for reporting on Gaza and Israel,” the challenges that journalists face when they choose words and the consequences for when they get it wrong.
“Ever since armed men from Gaza crossed into Israel and killed some 1,400 people, news organizations have wrestled with how to describe who they were and whom they represented,” Farhi wrote.
News organizations used different words for them: militants, terrorists, gunmen, fighters. Same humans. Same actions. Four descriptors with different meanings.
And even though journalists making such word choices are generally hunting for the most accurate and objective term to use, their decision can signal all sorts of things to audiences.
“Words matter, particularly to news organizations that try to preserve accuracy and impartiality at moments of great passion and uncertainty,” Farhi wrote. “A badly chosen word in a media account — particularly during a bloody conflict involving Israelis and Palestinians — can elicit swift denunciations from readers, listeners and viewers.”
During particularly intense moments, like the outbreak of a war, journalists must make quick decisions about the words they’ll use. When the fighting began in Israel, I reached out to John Daniszewski, vice president and editor at large for standards at The Associated Press, to ask how the AP planned to refer to it. They issued guidance for AP staff later that day, which Daniszewski shared.
“The Associated Press has decided to call the present conflict between Israel and the militant Palestinian group Hamas in Gaza a war, given the widespread and ongoing nature of military operations in Israel and Gaza, now in their third day,” Daniszewski said.
As the war unfolds, the words journalists use may change. On Friday, the BBC announced it would stop using the word “militants” to describe Hamas. A statement said they “have been finding this a less accurate description for our audiences as the situation evolves.”
The word “terrorist” has been especially fraught. CNN and Fox News have used the term to describe the armed men from Gaza who killed 1,400 people in Israel. Several governments, including the United States and United Kingdom, officially designate Hamas as a terrorist group.
But plenty of other news organizations have chosen not to use the term. The Associated Press specifically advises against it:
“The terms terrorism and terrorist have become politicized, and often are applied inconsistently. Because they can be used to label such a wide range of actions and events, and because the debate around them is so intense, detailing what happened is more precise and better serves audiences.”
The war between Israel and Hamas is rooted in what may be the world’s most complex conflict. Describing it requires an equally complex set of decisions about the language to use. Journalists owe it to their audiences to keep reporting, assessing their language and adjusting as necessary.
By Ren LaForme, managing editor
Jezebel is for sale
G/O Media is looking to sell its women-focused site Jezebel, Axios reported.
Founded in 2007, Jezebel deviates from G/O Media’s other brands, which tend to have more male readers. This is one of the reasons G/O Media is seeking a new owner for the site, according to Axios. Among the companies that have been in talks to buy Jezebel are BDG, which owns online women’s magazine Bustle, and Factz, which owns HollywoodLife.
G/O Media, which also owns Gizmodo, AV Club, Deadspin, The Root and several other brands, has undergone significant change in the past few years. It acquired Quartz last year and sold Lifehacker in March. This year alone, the company has lost seven editors-in-chief, according to unions representing some of G/O Media’s journalists. One of the departing editors was former Jezebel editor-in-chief Laura Bassett.
“I have reluctantly resigned from Jezebel, because the company that owned us refused to treat my staff with basic human decency,” Bassett posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, after her departure in August.
Prior to Bassett’s resignation, Jezebel struggled with a mass staff exodus in 2021 that included both staff writers and top editors, Gawker reported. The high turnover was due to “executive overreach” at G/O Media, staff told Gawker.
Many women-focused digital outlets that thrived in the early 2010s have struggled to maintain their momentum, Axios pointed out. xoJane closed in 2016, and Bitch Media shuttered last year. Refinery29, which was acquired by Vice Media in 2019, now faces an uncertain future due to Vice’s bankruptcy and subsequent acquisition by Fortress Investment Group.
By Angela Fu, media business reporter
Margaret Brennan presses Mitch McConnell on health
