WASHINGTON (TNND) — A new academic study alleges The New York Times’ early coverage of the war in Gaza showed bias against Israel by emphasizing Palestinian suffering and Israeli military actions while minimizing Hamas’ role and Israeli casualties.

The study, published in the journal ‘Studies in Conflict & Terrorism’, reviewed 1,559 New York Times articles and concluded the paper’s reporting framed the conflict in a way that focused heavily on Palestinian suffering and Israeli military actions, while diminishing Hamas’ role and the toll on Israelis. (TNND)

The study, published in the journal ‘Studies in Conflict & Terrorism’, reviewed 1,559 New York Times articles and concluded the paper’s reporting framed the conflict in a way that focused heavily on Palestinian suffering and Israeli military actions, while diminishing Hamas’ role and the toll on Israelis.

Edieal Pinker of the Yale School of Management, who authored the study, told The National News Desk Tuesday that one effect of that approach is that it can make the violence appear one-sided.

If you don’t report that Hamas fighters are being killed it makes it seem like it’s a one-sided violence happening,” Pinker said.

In the study, Pinker wrote, “The Times narrative, I identify, provides a framing in which the problem is defined as the destruction in Gaza coming from the Israeli war on Hamas.” Pinker said the coverage he reviewed reduced attention to Hamas’ responsibility and the impact of the war on Israel. “It took a way of view of the role of Hamas in the continuation of the war and the agency that Hamas has. And it downplayed the cost that Israelis and Israeli society were incurring from the conduct of the war,” he said.

The study focused on coverage of the war between Israel and Hamas that broke out on Oct. 7, 2023. Pinker wrote that the coverage “describes Hamas’ October 7th attack followed by Israeli military violence and mounting Palestinian casualties, while largely omitting Israeli casualties post October 7th.”

The study also said, “personal accounts of Palestinian suffering appear two out of every three days, while comparable accounts of Israeli suffering rarely appear.” Pinker argued the framing placed responsibility primarily on Israel.

We have a problem, you have a solution to the problem, the framing defines those and this coverage defined it in a way that put all the burden on the Israeli side,” he said.

The study also argued the Times’ coverage portrayed Israel as the “sole aggressor” and Palestinians as “passive victims.”

The New York Times rejected the study’s characterization of its reporting. In a statement provided to the New York Post, the Times said, “The advocates behind multiple studies on media bias cherry-pick data that supports their beliefs while ignoring any evidence to the contrary.” The Times also said it covered the war properly in its full body of work that includes more than 23,000 articles, photos and videos.

The study’s publication comes just over a month after Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier demanded access to years of internal records and documents from The New York Times, citing concerns that its editorial standards and coverage of the Israel-Hamas war might affect shareholder value.

“Since The New York Times got rid of its independent public editor, it has several times now admitted, only after outside pressure, that published articles did not meet its standards,” Uthmeier said in a social media video in August.

After Uthmeier’s letter, The New York Times pushed back, saying that while the request was framed under corporate law, it was a clear attempt to chill First Amendment-protected journalism.