Оригинал был размещен на сайте авторов
Ссылка на статью в The Telegraph
Британские партнеры исследования как обычно зассал и убрали текст и ссылки со своего сайта. Не иначе как получили большое пожертвование от Хамас. Мрази.
MISLABELING ON THE BATTLEFIELD:
How Mass Media Misrepresents Combatant Casualties as Civilian Deaths in Gaza Coverage
Fifty Research, an independent group of researchers (detailed below), has found that leading global English-language media outlets frequently fail to distinguish between civilian and combatant casualties when reporting deaths in Gaza. This contributes to a widespread narrative suggesting that "Israel killed 35,000 civilians in Gaza," which does not accurately reflect the reality of the situation.
As exemplified by Fareed Zakaria (CNN) stating to Naftali Bennett: "It has resulted in 35,000 civilians dying."
While the IDF provides data on eliminated terrorists, this information is systematically overlooked as a credible source. Our pilot research analyzed 1,378 articles from major global media outlets (CNN, BBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Associated Press, Reuters, ABC).
We examined all articles from February through May 2024 that referenced casualties in Gaza.
The results confirmed the following:
Israel is almost never cited as a source of information on fatalities among militants.
Combatant casualties are almost never included in the total reported fatalities in Gaza.
Research Context and Purpose
The Gaza conflict has become a dominant topic in international news. Middle Eastern conflicts traditionally command significant attention and often overshadow other global events [1].
Casualty information in any conflict is crucial, and this war is no exception. Such data shapes public opinion, influences political decisions, and informs legal proceedings [2], as evidenced by South Africa's case against Israel in the International Court of Justice.
Our research has revealed a concerning pattern: despite regular reporting on Gaza casualties, many leading English-language publications consistently omit the number of combatant casualties and fail to include them in overall casualty counts.
Premises
Hamas does not differentiate between combatant and civilian casualties. Intelligence estimates indicate up to 30,000 Hamas combatants in Gaza [3]. The Hamas-run Ministry of Health in Gaza reports approximately 40,000 total casualties in the conflict [4].
Israel specifically tracks combatant casualties. The IDF reports over 17,000 fighters killed in the conflict [5].
We observed that journalists from leading English-language media predominantly rely on figures from Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization [6], while disregarding Israeli military data. Though both sources provide incomplete casualty information, journalists rarely present or compare figures from both sides.
This systematic omission of combatant casualty information has led to a misleading narrative suggesting that Israel has killed "40,000 civilians" in Gaza. This narrative receives widespread media coverage. For instance, prominent television host Fareed Zakaria stated on CNN in April that "35,000 civilians died" during an interview with Bennett, who notably did not challenge this characterization [7].
The Research
Our study examined eight influential English-language media outlets, including two major news agencies: BBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Associated Press, Reuters, and ABC. We analyzed all articles mentioning Gaza casualties from February through May 2024.
We examined the online versions of these articles, focusing on casualty reporting methods and civilian-combatant distinctions. Our dataset comprised 1,378 articles, providing a statistically significant sample. The analysis was conducted both collectively and individually by publication, with sample sizes ranging from 111 articles (ABC) to 246 articles (The Guardian). The maximum confidence interval for our estimated rates is ± 4%.
Our team extracted all casualty-related quotes from the articles. These were categorized using 76 distinct codes, grouped into three categories: "Information about casualties," "Information about sources," and "Other." Each quote underwent independent coding by two researchers, with a third researcher conducting verification.
Bias Prevention Techniques in Research Methodology
We employed exhaustive sampling through comprehensive article selection, including all relevant content from February through May, based on thorough database analysis of publication websites
All quotes underwent double verification by independent researchers after selection
Quotes received independent coding from two researchers, with third-party verification
Our volunteer team comprises individuals who are geographically diverse and unaffiliated with any single organization
We utilized OSINT (Open-Source Intelligence) methodologies
We implemented strict exclusion criteria for ambiguous codes. Of 76 initial codes, 39 were retained for analysis, focusing on statistical frequency of source citations and casualty composition. Codes permitting dual interpretation were excluded to maintain study neutrality
This research is entirely volunteer-driven, with no monetary compensation provided to participants
Key Findings
Minimal Media Representation of Israeli Sources:
Only 5% of publications cite Israeli data, indicating a significant underrepresentation of Israeli sources
Hamas-provided data appears in 98% of all sources
Limited Critical Analysis of Hamas Data:
Media outlets frequently present Hamas figures without scrutiny: 19% of publications treat Hamas data as established fact, presenting figures without attribution.
Disparate Source Verification Standards:
Only 1% of sources acknowledge that Hamas figures are unverifiable or contested
Conversely, nearly 2% of publications question Israel's figures, despite Israel's minimal representation as an information source
There appears to be little effort to present casualty figures from both perspectives of the conflict
These findings suggest a significant imbalance in source representation and scrutiny, potentially impacting public understanding of the conflict.
Methodology
ACCESS TO RESEARCH DATA
View Complete Research Data
ANALYZED SOURCES, FEBRUARY - MAY 2024
CNN (119 articles)
BBC (189 articles)
The New York Times (126 articles)
The Guardian (246 articles)
The Washington Post (184 articles)
ABC (111 articles)
Reuters (199 articles)
The Associated Press (208 articles)
Research Scale:
EXPERT LEADERSHIP TEAM: 8 members
VOLUNTEER RESEARCH TEAM (Coding and Data Collection): 42 members
The Team
We are an independent, volunteer-based group of researchers spanning from Australia to California, operating without organizational or private sponsorship.
Expert Team
Tatiana Glezer, Project Director, MA in Sociology, Community Manager
Maria Otto-Mendel, Project Coordinator, MA in Business and Management, Social Change Organizer, USA
Kirill Titaev, Scientific and Legal Counsellor, PhD in Law from Yale University, Senior Researcher at HSE Institute for Law and Development
Viktor Vakhshtayn, Scientific Counsellor Professor, Tel Aviv University
Alex Zernopolsky, Legal Counsellor, Lawyer, Human Rights Activist
Mark Novikov, Media Counsellor, PhD in Constitutional Law, Journalist
Vitaly Novoselov, Media Counsellor, Political Science, Journalist
Elena Zelentsova, Scientific Counsellor, Cultural Science Researcher
Phase One Volunteers
Olga Zhuravskaya, Community Engagement
Oxana Stanevich, Infographic Design
Alya Kirillova, Consultation
Elena Rabinovich, Data Collection
Bozhena Vistman, Data Collection
Anna Spektor, Data Collection
Anna Peshnaya, Data Collection
Marina Gerya, Data Collection
Valeriya Malik, Data Collection
Inna Sapozhnikova, Consultation
Seva Bederson, Consultation
Anna Smolyarova, Consultation
Daniil Baratz, Consultation
Vadim Barsuk, Research Support
Phase Two Volunteers
Anna Lange (Kochkina), Data Collection
Elena Rabinovitch, Data Collection
Inna Troik, Data Collection
Iris Gitlin, Data Collection
Jenny Bourstein, Data Collection
Jess Huberman, Data Collection
Julia Fix, Data Collection
Leva Reitblat, Data Collection
Manya Starostina, Data Collection
Matvey Skulachev, Data Collection
Oksana Stanevich, Data Analysis
Susanna Khazhinsky, Data Collection
Svetlana Frenkel, Data Collection
Verena Podolsky, Data Collection
Zoya Talitskaya, Data Collection
Vera Bin, Data Collection
Eugene Kolonsky, Automated Data Collection
Jane Yurkevich, Data Collection
Isabella M. Mestechkina, Data Collection
Kirill Demidov, Automated Data Collection
Lena Berenshtein, Data Collection
Lucie, Data Collection
Marina Kunin, Data Collection
Svetlana Skulacheva, Data Collection, Coding Methodology, Data Analysis
Semion Leyn, Data Collection
Sofia Bulgakova, Data Collection
Yury Plotkin, Data Collection
Olga Elkina, PR
Konstantin Starobinets, Web Development
References
[1] Framing International Conflicts: Media Coverage of Fighting in the Middle East. Matt Evans
[2] War, Casualties, and Public Opinion. Scott Sigmund Gartner and Gary M. Segura
[3] Wall Street Journal Analysis
[4] Associated Press Report
[5] Associated Press - Military Statistics
[6] Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union
[7] Fareed Zakaria Interview Clip
Contacts
Email: research@fifty.global
Fifty Research Group © 2024
