In the modern information age, the way a story is told can be as influential as the facts themselves. This is especially true when it comes to international affairs, where few issues ignite as much controversy—or as much journalistic bias—as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
For decades, the mainstream media has portrayed Israel in ways that often lack context, historical grounding, and moral clarity. The result is not merely poor journalism but a form of cultural and political warfare waged through selective storytelling.
This article explores the major American and global news agencies that exhibit an anti-Israel bias. It analyzes the ownership and worldview of these organizations, uncovers the ideological lenses—particularly those shaped by Progressivism and Neo-Marxism—through which they interpret Israel’s actions, and presents concrete examples of biased reporting.
The goal is to equip the reader to identify media manipulation when they see it and understand why certain narratives dominate the airwaves and front pages.
Defining Anti-Israel Bias
Anti-Israel bias in journalism can take many forms, including:
- Causal inversion: Reporting Israeli retaliation without mentioning prior terrorist attacks.
- Moral equivalence: Equating a democratic government with terrorist organizations like Hamas.
- Selective outrage: Highlighting Israeli military actions while ignoring years of rocket attacks on civilians.
- Loaded language: Using emotionally charged words to describe Israeli actions while using neutral or sympathetic language for Palestinian groups.
Bias is not always found in outright lies. More often, it’s in what is not said—omitted facts, decontextualized images, and selective terminology. Journalistic decisions about whom to quote, what images to show, and how to frame events all shape perception. And perception, in the case of Israel, often determines public sympathy.
The Progressive and Neo-Marxist Worldview
Why do so many mainstream media outlets—particularly those leaning Progressive—seem predisposed against Israel?
The answer lies partly in ideology. Progressivism, especially in its modern American form, views the world through the lens of oppressed vs. oppressor. This dualism is even more pronounced in Neo-Marxist theory, which substitutes the old economic classes (bourgeoisie vs. proletariat) with cultural ones: white vs. non-white, West vs. Global South, colonizer vs. colonized.
Israel, a democratic, Westernized, militarily strong, and majority-Jewish state, is frequently cast as the “oppressor,” despite being surrounded by regimes that regularly call for its destruction. The Palestinians—often represented without acknowledging their own leaders’ corruption or involvement in terrorism—are painted as the perpetual victims. In this framework, facts take a back seat to ideology.
Journalists steeped in this worldview will naturally tell a story that fits their ideological assumptions: Israel bad, Palestinians oppressed. Nuance, complexity, and historical truth become casualties.
The following is an analysis of news outlets in regards to their reporting on the nation of Israel. Particularly, the focus is upon “Progressive” news outlets with a decidedly anti-Israel bias, followed by a brief overview of neutral or pro-Israel news outlets.
It is my opinion that a news outlet’s attitude towards Israel is a great litmus test regarding its overall value to the conservative. Anti-Israel bias indicates a leftist, so-calledProgressive mentality that is not helpful to our nation.
PBS (Public Broadcasting Service)
Ownership and Worldview
PBS is a publicly funded broadcaster that receives government subsidies but also relies heavily on donations from individual viewers, corporations, and private foundations—including many with a liberal or progressive bent. While technically non-profit and non-commercial, PBS has long been associated with left-of-center causes and narratives.
Typical Claims and Outlook
PBS has historically adopted the “two-sides” model of reporting on Israel and Palestine, but with a heavy slant toward the Palestinian perspective. The network often focuses on:
- Palestinian suffering in Gaza and the West Bank
- Israeli military checkpoints and security barriers
- Alleged violations of international law by Israel
- The “occupation” narrative, implying Israel is a colonizing power
Specific Incidents of Bias
- In 2021, during the 11-day war between Israel and Hamas, PBS aired repeated segments emphasizing civilian deaths in Gaza, many based on figures from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry. Little attention was given to the use of human shields, rocket fire into Israeli civilian areas, or the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) efforts to minimize collateral damage.
- In Frontline documentaries, the editorial line often frames Israel as a powerful aggressor, while downplaying or omitting the genocidal rhetoric and terrorist actions of Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Neo-Marxist Influence
PBS leans heavily into narratives of social justice, inequality, and “colonialism”—terms that are often misapplied to the Israeli context. By framing the conflict in terms of settler colonialism and indigenous resistance, PBS aligns its storytelling with contemporary leftist academic frameworks, even when those frameworks distort historical realities.
NPR (National Public Radio)
Ownership and Worldview
Like PBS, NPR is a publicly funded entity supplemented by corporate sponsorships and foundation grants. It brands itself as serious, thoughtful, and balanced—but its editorial choices betray a clear progressive bias, particularly on social, cultural, and international issues.
Typical Claims and Outlook
NPR’s coverage of Israel frequently includes:
- Emphasis on Palestinian displacement or economic hardship
- Underreporting or soft-pedaling Palestinian terrorism
- Describing Israel in terms of “apartheid,” “occupation,” and “human rights abuses”
Specific Incidents of Bias
- In 2022, NPR’s reporting on the death of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh repeatedly implied Israeli responsibility and questioned the IDF’s integrity, even before forensic evidence was gathered. Later updates and nuance were minimal, despite a lack of conclusive evidence of Israeli intent or guilt.
- NPR often gives airtime to organizations like B’Tselem or Human Rights Watch, which are deeply critical of Israel and sometimes promote controversial or unsubstantiated claims.
Neo-Marxist Influence
NPR’s tendency to side with perceived “oppressed minorities” extends into foreign policy. Israel is often recast as an imperialist outpost of the West. The Palestinian cause, meanwhile, is linked to other favored progressive movements, such as Black Lives Matter or decolonization rhetoric. NPR has aired sympathetic segments on academics who call for boycotts of Israeli universities—despite the academic freedom and diversity those institutions often represent.
The Associated Press (AP)
Ownership and Worldview
The Associated Press is a cooperative owned by its member newspapers and broadcasters. It claims to be objective and nonpartisan, and its stories are syndicated worldwide. But AP’s reach is so broad that even subtle forms of bias are multiplied exponentially.
Although AP is not overtly ideological in ownership, its staff and editorial culture have increasingly aligned with Progressive sensibilities, especially on international conflict, race, gender, and post-colonial issues.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Heavy reliance on figures and framing from Palestinian sources, including Hamas-controlled entities.
- Emphasis on Palestinian casualties without acknowledging the terrorist tactics that provoke Israeli military action.
- Using emotionally charged photos of wounded children or destroyed buildings in Gaza with little context.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- 2021 Gaza Conflict: One of the most egregious examples was AP’s office in Gaza sharing a building with Hamas operatives. Though AP denied knowing this, Israel provided intelligence to justify the building’s destruction. Rather than questioning why a U.S.-based media outlet was unknowingly co-located with a terrorist group, many in the press accused Israel of targeting journalism.
- Headline Framing: AP often titles stories with Israel as the subject (“Israel bombs Gaza”) rather than Hamas as the cause (“Hamas fires rockets into Israel”), subtly inverting causality.
Neo-Marxist Influence
Through its Progressive editorial tilt, AP follows the oppressor-vs-oppressed framework in its reporting. The power differential between the Israeli state and stateless Palestinians becomes the central narrative, and the moral agency of Hamas is downplayed or ignored. This reflects Neo-Marxist ideas that attribute moral virtue to the “marginalized” regardless of behavior.
Reuters
Ownership and Worldview
Reuters is a London-based news agency owned by Thomson Reuters, a publicly traded company with global influence. While the company claims objectivity, its international staff and editorial boards often reflect the European liberal consensus, which leans sharply against Israel.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Reuters often presents Israel as an aggressor and highlights Palestinian civilian casualties.
- It tends to portray Israeli military actions as provocations rather than responses.
- Reliance on UN sources or groups like Human Rights Watch—organizations frequently hostile to Israel.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- In 2021, during another flare-up between Israel and Hamas, Reuters ran multiple headlines such as “Israel bombs Gaza after rocket fire,” while failing to mention in the lede that hundreds of rockets had been fired first from Hamas positions into Israeli neighborhoods.
- Photos of grieving Palestinians or children amid rubble were published prominently, often without noting Hamas’s practice of storing weapons in civilian buildings.
Neo-Marxist Influence
Reuters often frames global stories through the lens of international law, global justice, and transnational institutions. These institutions—such as the United Nations Human Rights Council—routinely single out Israel for condemnation. The reliance on these frameworks reflects a post-national, Neo-Marxist outlook that often sees nation-states, especially Western-aligned ones like Israel, as unjust or illegitimate.
ABC News
Ownership and Worldview
ABC News is owned by The Walt Disney Company, a global entertainment and media empire with deeply progressive leanings. Disney’s corporate values—diversity, equity, inclusion—trickle down to its news division, which often reflects the cultural and political priorities of the Left.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Focus on “settler violence” and “occupied territories.”
- Frequent framing of Gaza as a humanitarian crisis, rather than a consequence of Hamas governance and policies.
- Platforming of activists who portray Israel as an apartheid state.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- ABC’s reporting during the May 2021 conflict repeatedly used casualty counts from Hamas sources without clear attribution. The broader context of Hamas rocket fire and human shield tactics was mostly absent.
- On programs like Good Morning America, segments focused on Palestinian suffering with minimal explanation of what triggered Israeli military responses.
Neo-Marxist Influence
ABC’s editorial lens treats the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an issue of systemic oppression, with Israel cast as a militarized “colonial” power. In doing so, it aligns with a narrative pushed by Progressive academics and activists that sees the Jewish state as analogous to apartheid South Africa or even Jim Crow-era America.
NBC News
Ownership and Worldview
NBC News is a subsidiary of NBCUniversal, which is owned by Comcast Corporation. Like many American media conglomerates, Comcast supports a wide range of progressive social initiatives. This ideological bent is visible in NBC’s coverage, especially on international and race-related issues.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- NBC tends to highlight the “disproportionate” response of Israel to Hamas attacks.
- Consistently platforming pro-Palestinian voices while marginalizing Israeli viewpoints.
- Uncritical use of anti-Israel talking points like “ethnic cleansing,” “settler colonialism,” and “apartheid.”
Specific Incidents of Bias
- During the 2021 Jerusalem clashes, NBC’s coverage emphasized Israeli police actions at Al-Aqsa Mosque without explaining that those actions followed weeks of violent rioting and organized incitement.
- Andrea Mitchell, NBC’s long-serving foreign affairs correspondent, has frequently framed Israel as intransigent and the primary obstacle to peace—without seriously critiquing the internal politics or terrorist activity of Hamas or Fatah.
Neo-Marxist Influence
NBC’s worldview often reduces complex geopolitical conflicts into racial or social justice narratives. Their reporting subtly incorporates terms like “resistance” and “occupation,” echoing the anti-colonial rhetoric of the New Left. In doing so, they project America’s racial debates onto a Middle Eastern context where the analogy simply does not hold.
CBS News
Ownership and Worldview
CBS is owned by Paramount Global (formerly ViacomCBS), a media conglomerate that owns several progressive and left-leaning entertainment and news properties. CBS News, like its corporate peers, has trended increasingly Progressive in its editorial culture.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Focus on Israeli “aggression” and Palestinian “victimhood.”
- Regular framing of Gaza as a “besieged” or “occupied” territory, even though Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005.
- Minimal reporting on Hamas corruption, war crimes, or anti-Semitic incitement.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- In multiple segments, CBS has characterized Israeli airstrikes as part of a “cycle of violence” without clearly identifying Hamas rocket attacks as the initiating event.
- In coverage of the Abraham Accords, CBS minimized the historic nature of the agreements, framing them more as political stunts for Netanyahu and Trump rather than serious steps toward Middle East peace.
Neo-Marxist Influence
CBS coverage reflects a Progressive cultural lens, influenced by social justice narratives that see Israel’s military power as inherently unjust. By using the language of inequality and displacement, CBS subtly aligns itself with Neo-Marxist critiques of national sovereignty and Western power.
MSNBC
Ownership and Worldview
MSNBC is owned by NBCUniversal (Comcast), the same parent company as NBC News, but its programming and audience are explicitly Progressive. While NBC tries to maintain a façade of journalistic neutrality, MSNBC embraces advocacy journalism and political commentary—particularly from the far-Left.
MSNBC frequently aligns itself with social justice movements, intersectional identity politics, and anti-colonial narratives. Its primetime hosts are not traditional reporters but ideologues, activists, and commentators.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Regular invocation of terms like “apartheid,” “occupation,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “settler colonialism” to describe Israeli policies.
- Uncritical platforms for anti-Zionist guests and groups like BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions).
- Equating Palestinian terrorist actions with Israeli self-defense, under the framework of “mutual escalation.”
Specific Incidents of Bias
- Ayman Mohyeldin, formerly an NBC Middle East correspondent and now a host on MSNBC, has repeatedly accused Israel of targeting civilians and described Israeli military actions as war crimes—often without offering evidence or acknowledging the context of terrorist provocation.
- Mehdi Hasan, another host, has used his platform to compare Israeli policies to apartheid and implied moral equivalence between the IDF and Hamas.
- In 2021, during the Gaza conflict, MSNBC’s coverage focused heavily on Palestinian suffering and Israeli “aggression,” while barely mentioning that Hamas had launched over 4,000 rockets into Israeli cities.
Neo-Marxist Influence
MSNBC’s editorial line is deeply shaped by Neo-Marxist thought. Its hosts regularly adopt the language of oppression and decolonization, portraying Palestinians as the “indigenous people” and Israelis as foreign occupiers—even though Jews are indigenous to the region and maintain a continuous historical presence. The intersectional logic of MSNBC ties the Palestinian cause to black liberation movements, LGBTQ+ advocacy, and anti-capitalist ideology, creating a solidarity framework that demands hostility to Israel as a moral obligation.
CNN
Ownership and Worldview
CNN is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery. Once respected for relatively objective reporting, CNN has in recent years embraced a more Progressive tone, especially on social issues, race, and foreign policy. Though less overtly ideological than MSNBC, CNN’s editorial decisions, guest selection, and framing reflect a consistent tilt against Israel.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Framing Israel as a regional bully with overwhelming military power and Palestinians as defenseless victims.
- Giving voice to activists who delegitimize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
- Selectively editing or omitting details that portray Hamas or the Palestinian Authority in a negative light.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- Fareed Zakaria, CNN host and columnist, has repeatedly accused Israel of practicing apartheid and undermining peace. He frames the Israeli government as the principal obstacle to peace, often ignoring Palestinian intransigence, incitement, and rejection of two-state solutions.
- In 2015, Diana Magnay, then a CNN correspondent, was reassigned after referring to Israeli civilians as “scum” in a deleted tweet—an example of internal newsroom culture leaking into public expression.
- During the 2021 Gaza war, CNN aired continuous images of Gazan devastation without consistently noting that many casualties were caused by misfired Hamas rockets, or that Israeli airstrikes targeted military infrastructure embedded in civilian areas.
Neo-Marxist Influence
CNN reporters and analysts often describe the Middle East conflict through the lens of post-colonial theory, portraying Israel as an extension of European imperialism. There is a marked sympathy for transnational organizations (e.g., the United Nations) and global “consensus” narratives that view nationalism—especially Jewish nationalism—as inherently suspect. CNN’s globalist perspective feeds into a Neo-Marxist suspicion of national sovereignty, borders, and Western-aligned states, making Israel a natural target for scrutiny and vilification.
Discovery Now!
Ownership and Worldview
Discovery Now! is part of Warner Bros. Discovery, the same conglomerate that owns CNN. While it is primarily associated with educational and documentary content, Discovery’s programming in recent years has incorporated more overtly Progressive social commentary. Though not a traditional news outlet, its growing production of social issue documentaries positions it as a shaper of public opinion.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Frames the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a human rights issue primarily defined by occupation and displacement.
- Relies on UN-aligned NGOs and “fact-finding” organizations that are often hostile to Israel.
- Promotes narratives of historical grievance and injustice without balancing with Jewish historical context.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- In several specials aired across Discovery networks and streaming content, including coverage of “global human rights struggles,” Israel is often the lone democracy cast in a negative light alongside authoritarian regimes.
- Documentary collaborations have included contributors with links to pro-BDS activism and Palestinian solidarity movements.
Neo-Marxist Influence
The content promotes a view of history dominated by the strong oppressing the weak. Israelis are cast in the role of colonizers, their modern technological society juxtaposed against Palestinian impoverishment. These narratives mirror post-colonial Neo-Marxist frameworks that invert moral responsibility based on perceived power.
The New York Times
Ownership and Worldview
The New York Times is owned by the Sulzberger family and publicly traded under The New York Times Company. It has a long history of Progressive editorial slant and has grown increasingly activist, especially on issues of race, gender, climate, and identity politics.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Regularly publishes op-eds accusing Israel of apartheid or settler colonialism.
- Features highly critical reporting on Israeli politics and defense actions.
- Covers Palestinian affairs with a sympathetic tone, often glossing over terrorism or internal corruption.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- In May 2021, The Times published a front-page collage of Palestinian children allegedly killed by Israeli strikes—later revealed to include inaccuracies and children killed by Hamas rockets.
- Articles on Gaza casualties often rely heavily on Hamas-run health ministries without disclosing their political control.
- The Times ran opinion pieces by Hamas-linked or anti-Israel figures like Mohammed El-Kurd, providing unfiltered platforms for radical anti-Zionist rhetoric.
Neo-Marxist Influence
The Times increasingly frames global conflicts through race and power. Israel, as a Western-aligned nation with military power, is portrayed as the dominant force in a post-colonial power dynamic. The editorial culture privileges grievance-based narratives and identity politics, casting Israel as morally suspect because of its strength and success.
Bloomberg
Ownership and Worldview
Bloomberg L.P. is a private company founded and majority-owned by Michael Bloomberg, a centrist Democrat and former mayor of New York City. While Bloomberg’s market-oriented reporting tends to lean pragmatic, its political coverage—particularly on foreign affairs—reflects a globalist worldview.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Israel is often covered in economic terms, but the coverage increasingly includes social framing aligned with international pressure campaigns.
- Reporting on Israeli defense and foreign policy tends to reflect the views of transnational institutions like the EU or UN.
- Palestinian economic hardship is framed as a result of Israeli policy, with less attention to Hamas misrule or corruption.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- Bloomberg ran multiple critical pieces on the Abraham Accords that questioned their authenticity and downplayed their impact.
- In coverage of Gaza conflicts, Bloomberg repeated casualty statistics from Hamas-linked sources and criticized Israeli blockade policies without exploring the strategic reasons for them.
Neo-Marxist Influence
While Bloomberg is less overtly ideological, its foreign affairs coverage relies heavily on the international consensus worldview, which often tilts against Israel. It reflects a technocratic version of Neo-Marxism—emphasizing international institutions, global norms, and moral equivalence between Western democracies and authoritarian regimes.
CNBC
Ownership and Worldview
CNBC is also part of the NBCUniversal family. While its core focus is business and finance, it frequently reports on geopolitical developments affecting markets. As with its parent network, CNBC’s coverage often reflects the broader progressive corporate culture of its owners.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Frames Israeli security operations as destabilizing market forces or political risks.
- Highlights humanitarian costs of conflict without consistently reporting terrorist provocations.
- Occasionally platforms ESG and DEI voices that cast Israel in a negative light in investment contexts.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- In 2021, CNBC ran segments implying that Israeli military actions were destabilizing regional economies without mentioning that the conflict was triggered by Hamas rocket attacks.
- Coverage of tech and energy sectors in Israel sometimes includes subtle critiques regarding “settlements” or “occupation,” even in contexts unrelated to politics.
Neo-Marxist Influence
In its more subtle applications, CNBC’s bias reflects the ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) trend in corporate reporting. Israel is increasingly critiqued through the lens of “social risk,” which draws from the same ideological roots as Neo-Marxist grievance narratives.
Politico
Ownership and Worldview
Politico is owned by Axel Springer SE, a major German publishing group. While Axel Springer has stated commitments to pro-Israel principles in its corporate charter, Politico’s U.S. editorial staff often diverges from this, reflecting a mainstream left-leaning, insider-DC perspective that favors Progressivism in domestic and foreign affairs.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Israel is often portrayed as a destabilizing actor in the Middle East.
- Headlines and policy analyses frequently echo Democratic talking points about Israeli “right-wing” extremism and “intransigence.”
- Palestinian perspectives are elevated under the guise of balance, even when linked to groups with terrorist ties.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- In 2021 and 2022, Politico frequently framed Israeli leaders—especially Benjamin Netanyahu—as authoritarian or obstructionist, even while downplaying or ignoring political violence among Palestinians or within the Palestinian Authority.
- Politico’s Playbook newsletter and foreign affairs columns have regularly adopted UN and EU language criticizing Israel for “violations of international norms” without similar scrutiny of Iran, Hamas, or Hezbollah.
Neo-Marxist Influence
Politico’s coverage follows a global liberal framework. It often interprets Israel’s insistence on sovereignty, nationalism, and security as barriers to “equity” and transnational governance—core tenets of the Neo-Marxist worldview. The publication treats globalism and consensus politics as neutral goods, casting Israeli independence as a problem.
Time Magazine
Ownership and Worldview
Time is owned by Marc Benioff (founder of Salesforce) and his wife Lynne Benioff. The magazine, once a centrist cultural mainstay, has shifted hard left in recent years, embracing Progressive editorial lines, particularly on race, climate, gender, and foreign policy.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Characterizes Israel as an apartheid state or a colonial outpost.
- Regularly publishes sympathetic profiles of Palestinian activists and BDS supporters.
- Rarely presents Israeli national security concerns in good faith.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- In 2021, Time published multiple articles comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa and portraying the IDF as engaging in ethnic cleansing.
- The magazine’s long-form feature on the Sheikh Jarrah controversy in East Jerusalem presented the dispute as a case of ethnic removal, ignoring the legal and historical complexities and court records involved.
Neo-Marxist Influence
Time functions as a mouthpiece for the global activist Left. Its editorial stance frequently incorporates intersectionality, racialized class struggle, and colonial guilt frameworks. In this view, Israel is the stand-in for Western imperialism, and Palestinian activists are lionized as part of the global struggle against oppression.
The Washington Post
Ownership and Worldview
Owned by Jeff Bezos via Nash Holdings, The Washington Post combines old-guard establishment liberalism with a newer activist editorial line. While the Post retains some veteran national security correspondents, its op-ed pages and reporting style increasingly reflect hard-Left cultural priorities.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Uses emotionally loaded language to describe Israeli military operations.
- Promotes the narrative that Israel’s right-wing political movements are inherently racist or fascist.
- Frequently undermines the legitimacy of Zionism while giving sympathetic platforms to anti-Zionist academics and activists.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- The Post’s coverage of the 2021 conflict included editorials accusing Israel of targeting civilians, with minimal reference to Hamas rocket launches.
- Regular opinion columns by anti-Zionist voices like Hanan Ashrawi and Rashid Khalidi further solidify a one-sided view.
- It has also run misleading maps implying a steady “loss of Palestinian land,” a classic propaganda device widely debunked by historians.
Neo-Marxist Influence
The Washington Post increasingly frames Israeli nationalism as a form of “ethnonationalism” or “religious supremacy.” Zionism is reduced to settler colonialism, and Palestinian identity is romanticized as a liberation struggle. These are direct products of Neo-Marxist theory applied to international affairs, distorting historical truth in favor of ideological narratives.
USA Today
Ownership and Worldview
USA Today is owned by Gannett, a major media chain that operates numerous local and national publications. Its target is a broad, middle-American audience, but its editorial tone—especially on international issues—leans center-left and often echoes the Progressive consensus found in larger outlets.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Coverage of Israel tends to focus on “controversial policies” like settlement expansion and border security.
- Language often mirrors that of leftist NGOs and foreign-policy think tanks.
- Seldom explores the ideological or theological motivations of Islamist groups targeting Israel.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- In its 2021 conflict coverage, USA Today prominently featured photos and casualty statistics from Gaza while failing to provide balanced coverage of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.
- In several opinion pieces, the paper ran arguments advocating for recognition of Palestinian statehood without acknowledging the rejectionist stance of Palestinian leadership toward two-state proposals.
Neo-Marxist Influence
Though more subtle than some of its peers, USA Today’s content shows signs of soft Neo-Marxism—relying on narrative frameworks that assign guilt to the powerful and moral purity to the weak. Israel is cast as a regional power exploiting marginalized people, and Palestinian suffering is portrayed in abstract humanitarian terms devoid of political accountability.
The Hill
Ownership and Worldview
The Hill is owned by Nexstar Media Group, a large television broadcasting company that also owns NewsNation. While it aims for bipartisan credibility and appeals to a political insider readership in Washington, D.C., The Hill’s reporting and op-ed content often lean toward the cultural left, particularly on international and social justice issues.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Coverage of Israel frequently emphasizes “disproportionate force,” “right-wing leadership,” and “settlement expansion.”
- Op-eds often frame Israel as politically extreme or morally compromised.
- Language sometimes equates democratic Israeli leaders with authoritarian regimes.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- The Hill has published guest columns accusing Israel of practicing apartheid and committing war crimes, often without counterbalance or rebuttal.
- During the 2021 and 2023 Gaza conflicts, The Hill repeated Gaza Health Ministry figures without caveats and often led headlines with Israeli military actions rather than their Hamas provocations.
Neo-Marxist Influence
Though subtler than MSNBC or The New York Times, The Hill’s editorial stance frequently adopts the vocabulary of “equity,” “marginalization,” and “resistance.” Its preference for globalist perspectives and soft critiques of anti-Western actors echoes a Neo-Marxist suspicion of sovereign power—especially when exercised by U.S. allies like Israel.
NewsNation
Ownership and Worldview
NewsNation is also owned by Nexstar Media Group and was originally launched as a centrist alternative to mainstream cable news. While its brand emphasizes neutrality and low-partisanship, many of its on-air staff and guest contributors have backgrounds in left-leaning outlets.
Typical Claims and Outlook
- Israel is portrayed as a “contested” or “controversial” democracy, with emphasis on alleged right-wing excesses.
- Palestinian perspectives are often presented sympathetically, particularly on humanitarian issues.
- Less ideological than MSNBC, but still subtly mimics mainstream Progressive framing.
Specific Incidents of Bias
- In covering the 2023 Jenin raid, NewsNation highlighted damage and injuries in the refugee camp without reporting that the IDF was targeting armed terrorists preparing attacks on Israeli civilians.
- NewsNation occasionally adopts wire-service stories from AP and Reuters without editorial filtering, reproducing their anti-Israel framing by default.
Neo-Marxist Influence
NewsNation avoids overt ideological posturing, but its default reliance on corporate wire services (AP, Reuters) and NGO talking points gives its coverage an indirect Neo-Marxist tint. The narrative that power equals guilt—and resistance equals virtue—is often assumed rather than argued.
News Sources that Are Pro-Israel or Conscientiously Neutral
In a media ecosystem where Israel is frequently misrepresented or vilified, some outlets stand apart. While most mainstream platforms lean Progressive and adopt anti-Israel framings shaped by Neo-Marxist ideologies, there exists a smaller but critical set of news organizations that either support Israel openly or pursue a principled commitment to factual balance.
These outlets do not always agree with every Israeli policy, nor do they refrain from legitimate criticism. What sets them apart is that they refuse to obscure moral clarity, acknowledge the complexity of the region, and treat Israel as a legitimate democratic state with the right to exist and defend itself.
We divide these into two categories:
Group 1: Pro-Israel News Outlets
These agencies and organizations clearly align with Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, defend its security interests, and reject the delegitimization campaigns advanced by BDS, Hamas, or far-Left NGOs.
Key Examples Include:
- The Wall Street Journal (News Corp)
- The Epoch Times (Epoch Media Group)
- The Jerusalem Post (Israel-based)
- Israel Hayom (Israel-based; owned by the Adelson family)
- Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) (Religious Zionist orientation)
- The Daily Wire, The Blaze, and Newsmax (U.S. conservative outlets)
Shared Characteristics:
- Support for Israel’s right to self-defense
- Recognition of the historical legitimacy of Zionism
- Moral clarity about terrorism versus democratic governance
- Sympathetic coverage of antisemitism and Jewish history
- Criticism of biased institutions like the UN Human Rights Council
These outlets typically frame Israel not as a colonial aggressor but as a democratic state navigating a volatile region. They expose the corruption and radicalization within Palestinian political entities like Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and often highlight Israel’s contributions to science, technology, and humanitarian aid.
Their tone is often one of moral seriousness, resisting the postmodern flattening of good and evil that plagues mainstream reporting.
Group 2: Conscientiously Neutral Outlets
This category includes organizations that, while not overtly pro-Israel, demonstrate an active commitment to balanced reporting, fact-checking, and giving voice to both sides of the conflict without succumbing to the false equivalencies or ideological distortions common in Progressive media.
Key Examples Include:
- Reuters (newswire division) – While often criticized for subtle bias, it sometimes presents factual information with clarity, especially in raw reportage.
- Bloomberg – Focuses more on economics and geopolitics than ideology, and generally refrains from inflammatory framing.
- The Associated Press (select bureau work) – Despite high-profile failures, some AP field reporting is rigorous and detailed when stripped of editorial spin.
- Fox News (straight news division) – Often overlooked, Fox’s daytime news programming (not commentary) tends to be fairer to Israel than most mainstream competitors.
- The Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN News) – Offers factual reporting with a Christian Zionist perspective, typically supportive but measured.
- JNS (Jewish News Syndicate) – Committed to reporting Jewish and Israeli affairs with accuracy, often avoiding the sensationalism of partisan media.
Shared Characteristics:
- Consistent separation of opinion and reporting
- Inclusion of Israeli perspectives on military and political events
- Use of proper causal sequencing (i.e., Hamas attacks → Israeli response)
- Effort to distinguish civilians from combatants
- Use of credible sources beyond the Gaza Health Ministry or partisan NGOs
These outlets are not free from all flaws. Some occasionally echo establishment framing or rely too heavily on international institutions. However, they show an editorial intent to inform, not manipulate, and generally uphold journalistic integrity in their Middle East coverage.
The Value of Moral Clarity
In an age of relativism and narrative warfare, the presence of pro-Israel and conscientiously neutral news outlets is indispensable. They offer something that is increasingly rare: moral clarity grounded in historical truth and intellectual honesty.
Rather than filtering every story through the oppressor-vs-oppressed template, these agencies recognize that freedom, democracy, and national identity are worth defending—especially when they are under assault from ideologies that seek to destroy them.
For readers who want to be well-informed without being propagandized, these news sources represent vital refuges from a deeply compromised information landscape.
The Bigger Picture: How Neo-Marxism Informs Anti-Israel Bias
The consistent theme across all these outlets—whether wire service, public broadcaster, or corporate media—boils down to worldview. While their styles and audiences may differ, these news agencies increasingly adopt Neo-Marxist frameworks that cast Israel in the role of global villain.
Key Features of this Ideological Lens Include:
- Oppressor vs. Oppressed: Israel is strong, successful, and aligned with the West—so it must be the oppressor. Palestinians, by contrast, are stateless and poor—so they are automatically victims, even when represented by terror groups.
- Decolonization Rhetoric: The Jewish return to their ancestral homeland is reframed as a colonial invasion. Settlements are treated as acts of conquest, not historical reclamation.
- Identity Politics: Jewish identity, especially when combined with power and nationalism, is viewed with suspicion. Meanwhile, Palestinian identity is embraced as emblematic of global marginalization.
- Transnational Authority: International NGOs, UN bodies, and human rights groups are treated as moral arbiters—despite many of them having institutional biases against Israel.
This ideological prism distorts reality. It recasts self-defense as aggression, religious freedom as apartheid, and a thriving democracy as a pariah. Facts are less important than narrative cohesion.
Conclusion: Media Shaping Minds and Morals
The media is not merely a reflection of public opinion; it shapes it. Through repetition, imagery, selective outrage, and ideological framing, American and global news agencies have cultivated a deeply distorted view of Israel. They have undermined public understanding of one of the world’s most complex and morally asymmetrical conflicts.
To be clear: Israel is not above critique. But honest critique begins with facts, not ideological assumptions. It must distinguish between imperfect democracy and terrorism, between security measures and ethnic cleansing, between a sovereign nation and a nihilistic death cult.
Unfortunately, as this article has shown, many of the most prominent news agencies—including PBS, NPR, AP, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN—fail this test. Whether subtly or overtly, they traffic in anti-Israel narratives that embolden extremism, obscure moral clarity, and mislead the public.
Until readers recognize these patterns and ask tougher questions, biased reporting will continue. And so will the harm it causes—not just to Israel’s reputation, but to the truth itself.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Realize that I sometimes use phrases like “trans man”, “trans woman”, “transgender” , “transition” or similar language for ease of communication. Obviously, as a conservative Christian, I don’t believe anyone has ever become the opposite sex. Unfortunately, we are forced to adopt the language of the left to discuss some topics without engaging in lengthy qualifying statements that make conversations awkward.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.