US study determines: How the New York Times erased Israeli casualties in the war

A study by Prof. Adiel Pinker of Yale University found consistent bias in the New York Times' coverage of the Iron Swords War: 91% of articles did not mention Israeli casualties after October 7, while Palestinian suffering received extensive coverage. It also found that 50% of articles did not refer to Israeli hostages and 41% did not mention the victims of the October 7 attack.

A new study by Prof. Adiel Pinker of Yale University found consistent bias in the New York Times' coverage of the Iron Swords War. According to the study, 91% of the articles examined did not mention Israeli casualties after October 7, while Palestinian suffering received extensive coverage. Another finding reveals that 50% of articles did not refer at all to the Israeli hostages held in the Gaza Strip by Hamas, and 41% did not mention the Israeli casualties from the October 7 terror attack itself. The bias was also reflected in human-interest stories: feature articles highlighting Palestinian and Lebanese suffering appeared on average two out of every three days, while parallel accounts of Israeli suffering not directly related to October 7 appeared in only a few articles. Statistically, Israel's name was mentioned 27,205 times compared to 8,499 mentions of Hamas, a ratio of more than three to one. According to Prof. Pinker, this gap places almost exclusive responsibility for the situation on Israel and dramatically diminishes the role of the terrorist organization. In response, the New York Times editorial board stated that it covered the war with greater accuracy and thoroughness than almost any other American news organization, and reported on the conflict from all angles.