In the past month, journalists from media powerhouses like the BBC, The Washington Post, Reuters, and the LA Times have raised their voices against the 바카라dehumanising rhetoric바카라 used in media against Palestinians and the bias in reporting of the ongoing Israel-Palestine war. One characteristic that has defined the approach of many western media outlets covering the war has been a complete lack of context. Most do not mention the sustained Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, Israel바카라s violation of multiple international laws, and the everyday violence and subjugation of Palestinian people that have been ongoing for the past 70 years. This points to a larger question of bias in media representations and its inextricable connection with the politics of language.
Linguistic bias is an often-ignored way in which such biases become evident. It refers to the asymmetrical use of words or phrases to describe one community in a way that reveals conscious or unconscious prejudice. For instance, across multiple media outlets, words like 바카라atrocity바카라, 바카라brutal murder바카라 or 바카라massacre바카라 are reserved for referring to Israeli deaths바카라an observation that a study of BBC articles affirmed back in 2011. Israeli victims are described as 바카라brutally killed by Hamas바카라 whereas Palestinian victims 바카라die바카라 as 바카라collateral damage바카라 in 바카라zones of conflict바카라. Headlines refer to buildings 바카라collapsing바카라 in Gaza without any mention of the Israeli airstrikes that have destroyed them. Such euphemisms misrepresent the state of the war and hide the extent of damage that Israel has caused in Gaza.
The New York Times recently changed the title of an article thrice to whitewash Israeli involvement, going from calling the attack on a hospital an 바카라Israeli attack바카라 to describing it as an 바카라explosion바카라 at a hospital in Gaza. Holly Jackson published a study in 2021 highlighting how NYT reporting during the first and second intifadas (1987-1993 and 2000-2005) showed a clear anti-Palestinian bias through criteria such as the use of active or passive voice and that of violent language. Her ongoing work shows that NYT바카라s mention of Israeli deaths increased as more Palestinians died in the first 10 days since October 7. The work also reveals that words like 바카라slaughter바카라, used 53 times in this time period, are always in reference to Israeli deaths and never to Palestinian deaths. Her data also suggests that it takes 17 Palestinian deaths as opposed to three Israeli deaths for it to be mentioned in the Wall Street Journal. In cases where Palestinians are described as 바카라바카라killed바카라바카라, Israel is rarely identified as the perpetrator of the violence or even mentioned in conjunction in a way that could create an association.
This phenomenon is not isolated to the West and a continuity of this discourse can be observed in Indian media as well. For instance, India Today바카라s report on November 20 describes Hamas as a militant group which went on a 바카라rampage into Israel바카라 and killed 1200 people. They go on to say that 바카라authorities in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip said that 12,300 have died so far.바카라 Here, only Hamas has gone on a rampage and taken hostages. By describing the Gaza Strip as ruled by Hamas, it insinuates doubt on the credibility of the data. Further, while the 1200 are 바카라바카라people바카라바카라, the 12,300 are not referred to as people but as numbers who have 바카라died바카라, not 바카라killed바카라 by targeted missiles. It is also notable that while many Indian media houses have flown journalists into Israel, they have often refused to extend the same courtesy done in the name of good journalism to spaces of conflict within the country such as Manipur.
The lopsided emphasis on Israel is also visible in the reportage of hostage releases. Western media has tended to name Israeli hostages, talk to their families, and share personal stories while Palestinian prisoners remain completely invisible. In the release of the first group of hostages, the 17 Israeli hostages received disproportionate attention and made the headlines while many reports did not even mention the Palestinian prisoners. When mentioned, they were often unnamed and the fact that they include 22 women and 17 minors, 15 boys and two girls, finds no relevance. There is also an absence of any reference to Israel바카라s draconian prison industry which holds more than 10,000 Palestinians, with 500-700 Palestinian children as young as 12 arrested per year on charges such as stone-throwing.
All of these linguistic and representational biases reinforce antagonistic attitudes towards Palestinians and demean their value of life. In his book, Less than Human, David Livingstone Smith argues that dehumanisation leads people to see a particular community as sub-human, which makes them unworthy of life and dignity. This thinking opens doors for genocide and mass murder.
Rhetoric such as 바카라human animals바카라, 바카라children of darkness바카라 and 바카라monsters in Gaza바카라 used to describe Palestinians by members of the Israeli government are all instances of dehumanisation. This is also the logic behind Prime Minister Netanyahu reference to 바카라바카라Amalek바카라바카라바카라an enemy of Biblical Israel바카라to justify genocide. When leaders use such language, it is no surprise that followers on social media call Palestinians 바카라cockroaches바카라 or 바카라vermin바카라. Israel바카라s American allies have also called the Hamas attack Israel바카라s 9/11 with Joe Biden going so far as to say that it is like 바카라fifteen 9/11s바카라. Such rhetoric thrives in association with orientalist attitudes, which according to Edward Said refers to ideas about western supremacy and stereotypical perceptions of the Middle East that are manifest through 바카라representations, rhetoric, and images바카라. It consistently paints the oppressor as a victim who has no choice but to retaliate while completely ignoring the decades of violence perpetrated by the oppressor that has led to this moment.
The vilification of a group of people normalises a sense that they don바카라t deserve human rights and serves to justify the infliction of horrific violence on them. This is nothing new. In fact, oppressors have consciously manipulated language to legitimise genocides throughout history. It is well-known that the British colonial enterprise saw Indians as uncivilised barbarians who were the 바카라white man바카라s burden바카라. Native Americans were described as 바카라merciless savages바카라 and 바카라soulless animals바카라 who had to be killed for the coloniser to possess the 바카라promised land바카라 of America. From the 1994 Rwandan genocide to the South African apartheid systems, the politics of language has powerfully shaped conversations about who deserves to live, have access to resources, and to human rights. Nazis referred to Jews as 바카라rats바카라 and 바카라parasites바카라, legitimising their mass murders. American propaganda during WWII called the Japanese 바카라yellow vermin바카라 and described them as 바카라beasts바카라 who only understood the language of violence as they dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Dehumanising language has accompanied massacres, slavery, and all histories of oppression, and it continues in the ongoing genocide of Palestinians. Through consistent use of such rhetoric in the media, people become the metaphors and names used to describe them바카라vermin who must be exterminated so they don바카라t cause a plague or sub-humans whose deaths need not be counted. Words shape perceptions, and perceptions assign value to life and dignity. The ongoing war and the politics of language surrounding it prove this yet again. History serves as a dire warning of where the use of such language, if left unchecked, will lead.
(Views expressed are personal)
Shobha Elizabeth John is a senior research fellow at the indian institute of science education and research
(This appeared in the print as 'Lopsided Language')
