US main stream media is biased towards Israel. True or false? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those “innocents” voted in terrorists that tortured and murdered innocent people first. Terrorists that they’re still supporting today. Why did you leave that part out?

And further train the children to hate and kill Jews

And what do you think the IDF is doing? Every accusation is a confession from Zionists, brainwashed from their "birthright Israel" trips.

Jewish children learn to fear sirens and sneak attacks

DP
Idk the US Jewish kids I know (and those who are now adults) were educated to think that Israel is their right and entitlement, and that the locals there are savages. Is that really any less evil?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s a post on the NYT but what about other media in the US?

True.

I’m not talking about big statements in one direction, but more subtle coverage. This has impact, however.

Examples I’ve noticed.
Very limited photos of Israel’s atrocities.
Frequent personal stories and photos of Israeli and Jewish victims, with very limited ones about Palestinians
Use of passive voice when describing atrocities
Referral to the conflict as a ‘war’ (implies equality) ‘with Hamas’- as if Israel is fighting with Hamas, and not slaughtering innocents

I’ve been listening to public radio the last two days and even they do this -
1. A long personal piece yesterday on an iraqi Jew who was forced to leave Iraq in 1969.
2. Segment from someone arguing that Gaza is not a genocide, and that plenty of food has been delivered.
3. References to the ‘war against Hamas’
4. Passive voice ‘gazans are suffering hunger’. Not ‘Israel is starving Palestinians’

OP, I've also listened to public radio in the past 24 hours, so heard most of the pieces you're referencing.

To start, #1 was about an Iraqi Jew AND an Iraqi Muslim (father of the reporter who did the story), both of whom were forced to leave, but became lifelong friends.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/28/nx-s1-5472175/a-personal-tale-of-an-iraqi-friendship-that-has-defied-religion-and-conflict

The second person (a West Point researcher who admitted that his sources were Israeli, and faced pointed questions from the interviewer) was immediately preceded by an Israeli researcher who says it's genocide.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5478643/war-scholar-discusses-why-he-does-not-think-there-is-a-genocide-in-gaza
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482830/two-prominent-israeli-rights-groups-say-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza

All of which was preceded by a briefer piece that says there's not enough food: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482873/food-that-israel-allows-into-gaza-only-a-fraction-of-whats-needed-aid-groups-say

And this: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5483520/gaza-famine-hunger

So, really? I have no dog in this fight, but find your characterization of those specific stories rather disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a post on the NYT but what about other media in the US?

True.

I’m not talking about big statements in one direction, but more subtle coverage. This has impact, however.

Examples I’ve noticed.
Very limited photos of Israel’s atrocities.
Frequent personal stories and photos of Israeli and Jewish victims, with very limited ones about Palestinians
Use of passive voice when describing atrocities
Referral to the conflict as a ‘war’ (implies equality) ‘with Hamas’- as if Israel is fighting with Hamas, and not slaughtering innocents

I’ve been listening to public radio the last two days and even they do this -
1. A long personal piece yesterday on an iraqi Jew who was forced to leave Iraq in 1969.
2. Segment from someone arguing that Gaza is not a genocide, and that plenty of food has been delivered.
3. References to the ‘war against Hamas’
4. Passive voice ‘gazans are suffering hunger’. Not ‘Israel is starving Palestinians’

OP, I've also listened to public radio in the past 24 hours, so heard most of the pieces you're referencing.

To start, #1 was about an Iraqi Jew AND an Iraqi Muslim (father of the reporter who did the story), both of whom were forced to leave, but became lifelong friends.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/28/nx-s1-5472175/a-personal-tale-of-an-iraqi-friendship-that-has-defied-religion-and-conflict
And
The second person (a West Point researcher who admitted that his sources were Israeli, and faced pointed questions from the interviewer) was immediately preceded by an Israeli researcher who says it's genocide.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5478643/war-scholar-discusses-why-he-does-not-think-there-is-a-genocide-in-gaza
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482830/two-prominent-israeli-rights-groups-say-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza

All of which was preceded by a briefer piece that says there's not enough food: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482873/food-that-israel-allows-into-gaza-only-a-fraction-of-whats-needed-aid-groups-say

And this: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5483520/gaza-famine-hunger

So, really? I have no dog in this fight, but find your characterization of those specific stories rather disingenuous.

Thanks for your feedback. You don’t seem to understand subtleties and overall context, however. I am not saying any one individual piece is wrong, but it’s the totality of the coverage that I take issue with.

I’ll note that my comments still stand.

The first piece was on a friendship of a Muslim and a Jewish man, but the focus of the interview was on the Jewish man and his experiences. There’s nothing wrong with that in isolation, but again, it’s the personalization of one sides experience far more than the other sides that strikes me. I see this again and again.

There was a rather extensive interview with the West Point guy defending Israel’s actions in Gaza and blaming the starvation on the UN even. Again, fine, but it greatly outweighed any discussion of the opposite view point.

Gaza was referred to repeatedly (nut just by the WP guy) as the ‘war in Gaza’ and the ‘war against Hamas’. That’s quite a mischaracterization, don’t you think? A war implies equality in fighting. Palestinians are being starved and slaughtered. Are the children fighting?

And again, the use of passive voice. ‘Gazans are experiencing hunger’ rather than ‘Israel is starving the population’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a post on the NYT but what about other media in the US?

True.

I’m not talking about big statements in one direction, but more subtle coverage. This has impact, however.

Examples I’ve noticed.
Very limited photos of Israel’s atrocities.
Frequent personal stories and photos of Israeli and Jewish victims, with very limited ones about Palestinians
Use of passive voice when describing atrocities
Referral to the conflict as a ‘war’ (implies equality) ‘with Hamas’- as if Israel is fighting with Hamas, and not slaughtering innocents

I’ve been listening to public radio the last two days and even they do this -
1. A long personal piece yesterday on an iraqi Jew who was forced to leave Iraq in 1969.
2. Segment from someone arguing that Gaza is not a genocide, and that plenty of food has been delivered.
3. References to the ‘war against Hamas’
4. Passive voice ‘gazans are suffering hunger’. Not ‘Israel is starving Palestinians’

OP, I've also listened to public radio in the past 24 hours, so heard most of the pieces you're referencing.

To start, #1 was about an Iraqi Jew AND an Iraqi Muslim (father of the reporter who did the story), both of whom were forced to leave, but became lifelong friends.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/28/nx-s1-5472175/a-personal-tale-of-an-iraqi-friendship-that-has-defied-religion-and-conflict
And
The second person (a West Point researcher who admitted that his sources were Israeli, and faced pointed questions from the interviewer) was immediately preceded by an Israeli researcher who says it's genocide.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5478643/war-scholar-discusses-why-he-does-not-think-there-is-a-genocide-in-gaza
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482830/two-prominent-israeli-rights-groups-say-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza

All of which was preceded by a briefer piece that says there's not enough food: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482873/food-that-israel-allows-into-gaza-only-a-fraction-of-whats-needed-aid-groups-say

And this: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5483520/gaza-famine-hunger

So, really? I have no dog in this fight, but find your characterization of those specific stories rather disingenuous.

Thanks for your feedback. You don’t seem to understand subtleties and overall context, however. I am not saying any one individual piece is wrong, but it’s the totality of the coverage that I take issue with.

I’ll note that my comments still stand.

The first piece was on a friendship of a Muslim and a Jewish man, but the focus of the interview was on the Jewish man and his experiences. There’s nothing wrong with that in isolation, but again, it’s the personalization of one sides experience far more than the other sides that strikes me. I see this again and again.

There was a rather extensive interview with the West Point guy defending Israel’s actions in Gaza and blaming the starvation on the UN even. Again, fine, but it greatly outweighed any discussion of the opposite view point.

Gaza was referred to repeatedly (nut just by the WP guy) as the ‘war in Gaza’ and the ‘war against Hamas’. That’s quite a mischaracterization, don’t you think? A war implies equality in fighting. Palestinians are being starved and slaughtered. Are the children fighting?

And again, the use of passive voice. ‘Gazans are experiencing hunger’ rather than ‘Israel is starving the population’

And the implication of the piece on Iraq is that ‘see, Jews were expelled from other areas in the ME by Arabs, so they deserve Israel and most Arabs are vicious and hate Jews, so the Palestinian (Arabs) deserve what’s happening to them.’ You really don’t see that?

[Anonymous]

^ but I’m not saying the coverage is as biased as other outlets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those “innocents” voted in terrorists that tortured and murdered innocent people first. Terrorists that they’re still supporting today. Why did you leave that part out?

First? First?

Oh, F off already.

The world didn’t begin in October 2023. There have been 80+ innocent Palestinians tortured and murdered by Israelis for every single Israeli tortured and murdered by a Palestinian since the 1949s. The Israeli side has zero basis upon which to complain about ANYTHING. They are the war criminals as an established state. They are the sociopathic ghouls attacking their neighbors under the laughable pretense of “preemptive self-defense”, and then crying victim repeatedly.

As I said … F off already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a post on the NYT but what about other media in the US?

True.

I’m not talking about big statements in one direction, but more subtle coverage. This has impact, however.

Examples I’ve noticed.
Very limited photos of Israel’s atrocities.
Frequent personal stories and photos of Israeli and Jewish victims, with very limited ones about Palestinians
Use of passive voice when describing atrocities
Referral to the conflict as a ‘war’ (implies equality) ‘with Hamas’- as if Israel is fighting with Hamas, and not slaughtering innocents

I’ve been listening to public radio the last two days and even they do this -
1. A long personal piece yesterday on an iraqi Jew who was forced to leave Iraq in 1969.
2. Segment from someone arguing that Gaza is not a genocide, and that plenty of food has been delivered.
3. References to the ‘war against Hamas’
4. Passive voice ‘gazans are suffering hunger’. Not ‘Israel is starving Palestinians’

OP, I've also listened to public radio in the past 24 hours, so heard most of the pieces you're referencing.

To start, #1 was about an Iraqi Jew AND an Iraqi Muslim (father of the reporter who did the story), both of whom were forced to leave, but became lifelong friends.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/28/nx-s1-5472175/a-personal-tale-of-an-iraqi-friendship-that-has-defied-religion-and-conflict
And
The second person (a West Point researcher who admitted that his sources were Israeli, and faced pointed questions from the interviewer) was immediately preceded by an Israeli researcher who says it's genocide.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5478643/war-scholar-discusses-why-he-does-not-think-there-is-a-genocide-in-gaza
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482830/two-prominent-israeli-rights-groups-say-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza

All of which was preceded by a briefer piece that says there's not enough food: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482873/food-that-israel-allows-into-gaza-only-a-fraction-of-whats-needed-aid-groups-say

And this: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5483520/gaza-famine-hunger

So, really? I have no dog in this fight, but find your characterization of those specific stories rather disingenuous.

Thanks for your feedback. You don’t seem to understand subtleties and overall context, however. I am not saying any one individual piece is wrong, but it’s the totality of the coverage that I take issue with.

I’ll note that my comments still stand.

The first piece was on a friendship of a Muslim and a Jewish man, but the focus of the interview was on the Jewish man and his experiences. There’s nothing wrong with that in isolation, but again, it’s the personalization of one sides experience far more than the other sides that strikes me. I see this again and again.

There was a rather extensive interview with the West Point guy defending Israel’s actions in Gaza and blaming the starvation on the UN even. Again, fine, but it greatly outweighed any discussion of the opposite view point.

Gaza was referred to repeatedly (nut just by the WP guy) as the ‘war in Gaza’ and the ‘war against Hamas’. That’s quite a mischaracterization, don’t you think? A war implies equality in fighting. Palestinians are being starved and slaughtered. Are the children fighting?

And again, the use of passive voice. ‘Gazans are experiencing hunger’ rather than ‘Israel is starving the population’

+1
Meanwhile, in contrast, October 7 is typically referred to in the active voice with specific language such as ‘Hamas’s brutal terrorist attack’ or ‘Hamas’s massacre’ while aggression in the opposite direction (many multiples of aggression) is referred to in sanitized terms such as ‘the starvation situation’

[Anonymous]

False. They are biased towards the Palestinians. The Palestinians "say." The Israelis "claim." No one suggests Hamas is to blame for this mess, or that Hamas should surrender. The assumption is that Israel should just stop.

What war, ever, has ended when the winning side gave up? The losing side gives up. That's how wars end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a post on the NYT but what about other media in the US?

True.

I’m not talking about big statements in one direction, but more subtle coverage. This has impact, however.

Examples I’ve noticed.
Very limited photos of Israel’s atrocities.
Frequent personal stories and photos of Israeli and Jewish victims, with very limited ones about Palestinians
Use of passive voice when describing atrocities
Referral to the conflict as a ‘war’ (implies equality) ‘with Hamas’- as if Israel is fighting with Hamas, and not slaughtering innocents

I’ve been listening to public radio the last two days and even they do this -
1. A long personal piece yesterday on an iraqi Jew who was forced to leave Iraq in 1969.
2. Segment from someone arguing that Gaza is not a genocide, and that plenty of food has been delivered.
3. References to the ‘war against Hamas’
4. Passive voice ‘gazans are suffering hunger’. Not ‘Israel is starving Palestinians’

OP, I've also listened to public radio in the past 24 hours, so heard most of the pieces you're referencing.

To start, #1 was about an Iraqi Jew AND an Iraqi Muslim (father of the reporter who did the story), both of whom were forced to leave, but became lifelong friends.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/28/nx-s1-5472175/a-personal-tale-of-an-iraqi-friendship-that-has-defied-religion-and-conflict
And
The second person (a West Point researcher who admitted that his sources were Israeli, and faced pointed questions from the interviewer) was immediately preceded by an Israeli researcher who says it's genocide.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5478643/war-scholar-discusses-why-he-does-not-think-there-is-a-genocide-in-gaza
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482830/two-prominent-israeli-rights-groups-say-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza

All of which was preceded by a briefer piece that says there's not enough food: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482873/food-that-israel-allows-into-gaza-only-a-fraction-of-whats-needed-aid-groups-say

And this: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5483520/gaza-famine-hunger

So, really? I have no dog in this fight, but find your characterization of those specific stories rather disingenuous.

Thanks for your feedback. You don’t seem to understand subtleties and overall context, however. I am not saying any one individual piece is wrong, but it’s the totality of the coverage that I take issue with.

I’ll note that my comments still stand.

The first piece was on a friendship of a Muslim and a Jewish man, but the focus of the interview was on the Jewish man and his experiences. There’s nothing wrong with that in isolation, but again, it’s the personalization of one sides experience far more than the other sides that strikes me. I see this again and again.

There was a rather extensive interview with the West Point guy defending Israel’s actions in Gaza and blaming the starvation on the UN even. Again, fine, but it greatly outweighed any discussion of the opposite view point.

Gaza was referred to repeatedly (nut just by the WP guy) as the ‘war in Gaza’ and the ‘war against Hamas’. That’s quite a mischaracterization, don’t you think? A war implies equality in fighting. Palestinians are being starved and slaughtered. Are the children fighting?

And again, the use of passive voice. ‘Gazans are experiencing hunger’ rather than ‘Israel is starving the population’

+1
Meanwhile, in contrast, October 7 is typically referred to in the active voice with specific language such as ‘Hamas’s brutal terrorist attack’ or ‘Hamas’s massacre’ while aggression in the opposite direction (many multiples of aggression) is referred to in sanitized terms such as ‘the starvation situation’

What are your news sources? I rarely if ever hear Oct 7 referred to. This is not "The Gaza War." It is the Hamas War. Say it like it is. Hamas started this and they could end it if they wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those “innocents” voted in terrorists that tortured and murdered innocent people first. Terrorists that they’re still supporting today. Why did you leave that part out?

And further train the children to hate and kill Jews

And what do you think the IDF is doing? Every accusation is a confession from Zionists, brainwashed from their "birthright Israel" trips.

Jewish children learn to fear sirens and sneak attacks

DP
Idk the US Jewish kids I know (and those who are now adults) were educated to think that Israel is their right and entitlement, and that the locals there are savages. Is that really any less evil?

Israel is their own. That's the entire point of Israel. Do they think the "locals" are savages? Not that I've ever heard. Nice try, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a post on the NYT but what about other media in the US?

True.

I’m not talking about big statements in one direction, but more subtle coverage. This has impact, however.

Examples I’ve noticed.
Very limited photos of Israel’s atrocities.
Frequent personal stories and photos of Israeli and Jewish victims, with very limited ones about Palestinians
Use of passive voice when describing atrocities
Referral to the conflict as a ‘war’ (implies equality) ‘with Hamas’- as if Israel is fighting with Hamas, and not slaughtering innocents

I’ve been listening to public radio the last two days and even they do this -
1. A long personal piece yesterday on an iraqi Jew who was forced to leave Iraq in 1969.
2. Segment from someone arguing that Gaza is not a genocide, and that plenty of food has been delivered.
3. References to the ‘war against Hamas’
4. Passive voice ‘gazans are suffering hunger’. Not ‘Israel is starving Palestinians’

OP, I've also listened to public radio in the past 24 hours, so heard most of the pieces you're referencing.

To start, #1 was about an Iraqi Jew AND an Iraqi Muslim (father of the reporter who did the story), both of whom were forced to leave, but became lifelong friends.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/28/nx-s1-5472175/a-personal-tale-of-an-iraqi-friendship-that-has-defied-religion-and-conflict
And
The second person (a West Point researcher who admitted that his sources were Israeli, and faced pointed questions from the interviewer) was immediately preceded by an Israeli researcher who says it's genocide.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5478643/war-scholar-discusses-why-he-does-not-think-there-is-a-genocide-in-gaza
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482830/two-prominent-israeli-rights-groups-say-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza

All of which was preceded by a briefer piece that says there's not enough food: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482873/food-that-israel-allows-into-gaza-only-a-fraction-of-whats-needed-aid-groups-say

And this: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5483520/gaza-famine-hunger

So, really? I have no dog in this fight, but find your characterization of those specific stories rather disingenuous.

Thanks for your feedback. You don’t seem to understand subtleties and overall context, however. I am not saying any one individual piece is wrong, but it’s the totality of the coverage that I take issue with.

I’ll note that my comments still stand.

The first piece was on a friendship of a Muslim and a Jewish man, but the focus of the interview was on the Jewish man and his experiences. There’s nothing wrong with that in isolation, but again, it’s the personalization of one sides experience far more than the other sides that strikes me. I see this again and again.

There was a rather extensive interview with the West Point guy defending Israel’s actions in Gaza and blaming the starvation on the UN even. Again, fine, but it greatly outweighed any discussion of the opposite view point.

Gaza was referred to repeatedly (nut just by the WP guy) as the ‘war in Gaza’ and the ‘war against Hamas’. That’s quite a mischaracterization, don’t you think? A war implies equality in fighting. Palestinians are being starved and slaughtered. Are the children fighting?

And again, the use of passive voice. ‘Gazans are experiencing hunger’ rather than ‘Israel is starving the population’

+1
Meanwhile, in contrast, October 7 is typically referred to in the active voice with specific language such as ‘Hamas’s brutal terrorist attack’ or ‘Hamas’s massacre’ while aggression in the opposite direction (many multiples of aggression) is referred to in sanitized terms such as ‘the starvation situation’

What are your news sources? I rarely if ever hear Oct 7 referred to. This is not "The Gaza War." It is the Hamas War. Say it like it is. Hamas started this and they could end it if they wanted to.

Well October 7 was 2 years ago, but yes, there’s often a reference in US MSM that this is when ‘the war started’.

It’s not the Hamas War fwiw. Don’t be ridiculous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those “innocents” voted in terrorists that tortured and murdered innocent people first. Terrorists that they’re still supporting today. Why did you leave that part out?

And further train the children to hate and kill Jews

And what do you think the IDF is doing? Every accusation is a confession from Zionists, brainwashed from their "birthright Israel" trips.

Jewish children learn to fear sirens and sneak attacks

DP
Idk the US Jewish kids I know (and those who are now adults) were educated to think that Israel is their right and entitlement, and that the locals there are savages. Is that really any less evil?

Israel is their own. That's the entire point of Israel. Do they think the "locals" are savages? Not that I've ever heard. Nice try, though.

So a Jewish Ashkanzi kid born in Lakewood NJ is entitled to land and a home in the West Bank of a country across the world, all subsidized by the US. Got it. Makes perfect sense. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those “innocents” voted in terrorists that tortured and murdered innocent people first. Terrorists that they’re still supporting today. Why did you leave that part out?

And further train the children to hate and kill Jews

And what do you think the IDF is doing? Every accusation is a confession from Zionists, brainwashed from their "birthright Israel" trips.

Jewish children learn to fear sirens and sneak attacks

DP
Idk the US Jewish kids I know (and those who are now adults) were educated to think that Israel is their right and entitlement, and that the locals there are savages. Is that really any less evil?

Israel is their own. That's the entire point of Israel. Do they think the "locals" are savages? Not that I've ever heard. Nice try, though.

How about ‘animals’?

[Anonymous]

There was one NY Times article about the starvation in Gaza that talked about it as it were a non-man made disaster. As if Trump couldn’t call Netanyahu and end it all in a minute by threatening to revoke US military aid $

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a post on the NYT but what about other media in the US?

True.

I’m not talking about big statements in one direction, but more subtle coverage. This has impact, however.

Examples I’ve noticed.
Very limited photos of Israel’s atrocities.
Frequent personal stories and photos of Israeli and Jewish victims, with very limited ones about Palestinians
Use of passive voice when describing atrocities
Referral to the conflict as a ‘war’ (implies equality) ‘with Hamas’- as if Israel is fighting with Hamas, and not slaughtering innocents

I’ve been listening to public radio the last two days and even they do this -
1. A long personal piece yesterday on an iraqi Jew who was forced to leave Iraq in 1969.
2. Segment from someone arguing that Gaza is not a genocide, and that plenty of food has been delivered.
3. References to the ‘war against Hamas’
4. Passive voice ‘gazans are suffering hunger’. Not ‘Israel is starving Palestinians’

OP, I've also listened to public radio in the past 24 hours, so heard most of the pieces you're referencing.

To start, #1 was about an Iraqi Jew AND an Iraqi Muslim (father of the reporter who did the story), both of whom were forced to leave, but became lifelong friends.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/28/nx-s1-5472175/a-personal-tale-of-an-iraqi-friendship-that-has-defied-religion-and-conflict
And
The second person (a West Point researcher who admitted that his sources were Israeli, and faced pointed questions from the interviewer) was immediately preceded by an Israeli researcher who says it's genocide.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5478643/war-scholar-discusses-why-he-does-not-think-there-is-a-genocide-in-gaza
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482830/two-prominent-israeli-rights-groups-say-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza

All of which was preceded by a briefer piece that says there's not enough food: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482873/food-that-israel-allows-into-gaza-only-a-fraction-of-whats-needed-aid-groups-say

And this: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5483520/gaza-famine-hunger

So, really? I have no dog in this fight, but find your characterization of those specific stories rather disingenuous.

Thanks for your feedback. You don’t seem to understand subtleties and overall context, however. I am not saying any one individual piece is wrong, but it’s the totality of the coverage that I take issue with.

I’ll note that my comments still stand.

The first piece was on a friendship of a Muslim and a Jewish man, but the focus of the interview was on the Jewish man and his experiences. There’s nothing wrong with that in isolation, but again, it’s the personalization of one sides experience far more than the other sides that strikes me. I see this again and again.

There was a rather extensive interview with the West Point guy defending Israel’s actions in Gaza and blaming the starvation on the UN even. Again, fine, but it greatly outweighed any discussion of the opposite view point.

Gaza was referred to repeatedly (nut just by the WP guy) as the ‘war in Gaza’ and the ‘war against Hamas’. That’s quite a mischaracterization, don’t you think? A war implies equality in fighting. Palestinians are being starved and slaughtered. Are the children fighting?

And again, the use of passive voice. ‘Gazans are experiencing hunger’ rather than ‘Israel is starving the population’

Lol, if you're concerned about subtleties, perhaps you'd consider that you felt the Iraqi Jew "was the focus" of the interview because the other subject of the story did not speak English. There were more direct quotes, and only background clips of the other man speaking Arabic.

And I'd note that the West Point interview apparently clocked in at 6 minutes according to the link, while the stories about genocide add up to more. Yet you see it as outweighing discussion?

Again, I have no side here, except the one against people not recognizing their own biases. Your points are only standing because you're saying they do.