Good journalism requires courage and adherence to journalistic values without compromise. Too often, many Western news media outlets have lacked the courage to uphold key values, especially in the face of political pressure. This defeats a major purpose of journalism: to be a watchdog. The Society of Professional Journalists’ (SPJ) code of ethics explicitly tells us to “be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.”
Some may argue that in the United States, the news media is bowing to President Donald Trump’s administration. While this may be true, it is not an excuse to abandon journalistic ethics, nor is it new. When the U.S. waged war on Iraq from 2003 to 2011, many U.S. media outlets became little more than propaganda machines. Rather than holding the U.S. accountable for atrocities in Iraq, the media largely fed the people a narrative that made the war sound necessary and righteous.
The failings of Western news media have been made blindingly clear during Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians. People have criticized egregiously poor reporting on social media.
One issue in Western news media is a lack of respect for Palestinians. The SPJ code of ethics tells journalists to “show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage.” Yet, too many news outlets have used dehumanizing language to talk about Palestinians. Not only does this not show compassion for them, but it also creates a pro-Israel bias. Bias has no place in journalism where we have a duty to objectivity. Palestinian children have often been referred to as “minors,” like in the Los Angeles Times, while Israeli children were referred to as “children.” There is no compassion being demonstrated by using a cold legal term for Palestinian children. This is not giving voice to the voiceless.
A 2024 BBC broadcast showed a reporter talking about a Palestinian child who was killed at a border checkpoint in which he referred to the three- or four-year-old as a “young lady.” He also said, “accidentally a stray bullet found its way into the van” where the child was. People on X criticized this language as too passive. It did not hold anyone accountable.
The story’s language was condescending, invalidating and dehumanizing. Not calling a child a child sends the message to viewers, or readers, that the child in question is less than, and therefore not someone to be concerned about. The Center for Media Monitoring later investigated BBC’s reporting and concluded it was “systematically biased against Palestinians in Gaza war coverage.”
The New York Times published a story on July 25, 2025, with the headline “Gazans are dying of starvation.” Firstly, using “Gazans” rather than “Palestinians” perpetuates the idea that Palestine does not exist. This points to a larger style issue in Western media that contributes to erasing a people and their home. Secondly, the phrase “dying of starvation” is passive and does not hold Israel accountable for withholding food.
Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq was an 18-month-old baby included in the story who starved to death. A correction was later issued that read “after publication of the article, The Times learned from his doctor that [al-Mutawaq] also had preexisting health problems.” This addition is irrelevant and offers a scapegoat to be blamed for al-Mutawaq’s death.
Even PBS and NPR have been diplomatic. It is not the news media’s job to be diplomatic or neutral. Neutrality is a stance and not to be confused with objectivity. We must also be fair and obtain all sides of a story. However, that should never deter reporting the truth. In practice, journalistic values should complement one another, not contradict each other.
Recently, there has been a debate over whether journalists should use the word “genocide.” There are sound journalistic reasons for not using it; however, “conflict” is inadequate, and “war” in many contexts is not quite right. We must open a discussion about choosing language that does a situation justice without making us judge, jury and executioner. The part of me that understands the journalistic reasons for not using certain words often argues with the part of me that knows what she is seeing. So, I do not have an answer for this conundrum. But once we return to journalistic responsibilities and values and discuss improvement, we will take one step toward courage.
