Gaza coverage
"9 Dead in Hamas Raid on Pro-Fatah Clan in Gaza", is the headline in the NYT.
"Infighting Escalates in Gaza Strip", shouts the Washington Post.
"Nine killed, 95 hurt in Hamas-Fatah violence in Gaza" is the lead for Reuters.
You have to read further down to find out, as the NYT says, five of the dead were "members of the clan". It doesn't mention how many were civilians versus combatants. Not until the 2nd paragraph does the WPost mention how many children were injured. Reuters doesn't mention that at all.
The reason I point it out is that the headlines would have been "Israel kills/injures X civilians/children!" if the IDF had been involved. Sensationalism is used only when the single Jewish nation can be blamed. Of course, it is the exception in that case, where Arabs regularly kill civilians, but the papers would never admit to the bias in reporting or the fact of endemic Islamic violence.
"Infighting Escalates in Gaza Strip", shouts the Washington Post.
"Nine killed, 95 hurt in Hamas-Fatah violence in Gaza" is the lead for Reuters.
You have to read further down to find out, as the NYT says, five of the dead were "members of the clan". It doesn't mention how many were civilians versus combatants. Not until the 2nd paragraph does the WPost mention how many children were injured. Reuters doesn't mention that at all.
The reason I point it out is that the headlines would have been "Israel kills/injures X civilians/children!" if the IDF had been involved. Sensationalism is used only when the single Jewish nation can be blamed. Of course, it is the exception in that case, where Arabs regularly kill civilians, but the papers would never admit to the bias in reporting or the fact of endemic Islamic violence.