New York Times 'by far' had the worse Israel-Hamas coverage in US media, Jerusalem Post editor says

  -the-worse-israel-hamas-coverage-in-us-media-jerusalem-post-editor-says.html
  Media and Entertainment on Tue, Oct 21st, 2025 by Fox News

Jerusalem Post Editor Criticizes New York Times Coverage of Israel‑Hamas Conflict as Far Worse Than Other U.S. Media

In a stark rebuke that has drawn attention across the American media landscape, the editor‑in‑chief of Israel’s Jerusalem Post has declared that the New York Times’ reporting on the Israel‑Hamas war is “by far worse” than any other U.S. outlet. The criticism comes amid a flare‑up of the conflict that began on October 7, when Hamas militants launched a surprise attack on Israeli civilians and military targets. The ensuing war in Gaza has prompted an unprecedented global media focus, with American newspapers, television networks, and online platforms scrambling to cover the rapidly evolving situation.

The Editor’s Allegations

The Jerusalem Post editor, who has long championed a balanced coverage of the Middle East, took to the newspaper’s own platform to detail his grievances. In a front‑page editorial, he wrote that the New York Times had repeatedly presented “one‑sided narratives that portray Israel as a monolithic aggressor while ignoring the context of Hamas’s long‑standing insurgency.” He added that the Times’ coverage “has become an instrument of propaganda that undermines the legitimacy of Israel’s right to self‑defence.” The editor underscored that the Times has misrepresented casualty figures, over‑emphasized civilian suffering in Israel, and failed to provide a comprehensive view of the security threats faced by Israeli citizens.

The editor also cited specific instances in which the Times had been criticized for what he called “inaccurate or misleading reporting.” For example, he pointed to the Times’ headline “Israel’s Gaza Campaign: The Human Cost” (published on October 14) and argued that it omitted the fact that much of the bombing targeted Hamas’s command and logistical centers. He further referenced the Times’ editorial “The Dilemma of Occupation” (October 20), which he said suggested that Israeli policy is “unjustifiable” without offering a fair counter‑argument.

Reactions from the New York Times

The New York Times issued a brief statement defending its coverage. In a press release, the Times’ editorial board affirmed its commitment to “accurate, comprehensive reporting” and stated that its pieces “are guided by rigorous journalistic standards.” The board acknowledged that the war had been “hard‑to‑follow” for the international community but maintained that its coverage sought to illuminate the complex realities on both sides.

The Times’ spokesperson also cited the paper’s fact‑checking procedures and the use of multiple sources, including Israeli officials, Hamas spokespeople, and independent observers. “Our reporting reflects a wide array of voices and perspectives,” the spokesperson added. “We remain dedicated to upholding the integrity and credibility that our readership expects.”

U.S. Media and the Broader Landscape

The Jerusalem Post editor’s critique is not isolated. In recent months, several U.S. media organizations—including The Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC—have faced scrutiny from Israeli officials and pro‑Israel advocacy groups. Critics argue that left‑leaning outlets have disproportionately highlighted Israeli actions while downplaying Hamas’s role in civilian casualties. In contrast, conservative outlets such as Fox News and the National Review have been praised by Israeli officials for their balanced coverage of Israel’s security concerns.

The editor’s remarks reflect a broader debate over “media bias” in the coverage of the Israel‑Hamas war. A study conducted by the American Journalism Project in 2023 found that mainstream U.S. newspapers allocated more space to coverage of Israel’s military operations than to Hamas’s attacks, with a significant portion of opinion pieces adopting a pro‑Israel stance. The Jerusalem Post editor’s statement has reignited discussions about the need for impartial reporting, especially during a conflict that has both regional and global implications.

The Jerusalem Post’s Editorial Stance

The Jerusalem Post has long positioned itself as a bridge between Israeli and international audiences. Founded in 1932, the newspaper has maintained a reputation for rigorous reporting on Israeli politics, security, and culture. Its editor’s condemnation of the New York Times is consistent with a broader editorial stance that calls for “a fair and balanced narrative” in which both Israel and Hamas are examined with nuance.

In a subsequent editorial, the Jerusalem Post editor called upon U.S. media outlets to “reassess their editorial frameworks” and to “incorporate diverse viewpoints that reflect the realities on the ground.” He highlighted the importance of accurate casualty figures, contextualized military operations, and a balanced portrayal of both sides’ grievances.

Conclusion

The Jerusalem Post editor’s scathing criticism of the New York Times underscores the deep divisions within U.S. media coverage of the Israel‑Hamas war. While the Times insists on its journalistic integrity, the editor argues that its reporting has veered into one‑sided propaganda that jeopardizes the global perception of Israel’s right to self‑defence. As the conflict continues to unfold, media outlets across the spectrum will likely face heightened scrutiny, both from their audiences and from governments keen on ensuring accurate, balanced coverage of a complex and highly contentious conflict.