MISLABELING ON THE BATTLEFIELD:
Reporting Practices in English-Language Media in the coverage of Combatant and Civilian Casualties in Gaza
Release date: 14.12.2024
Last update: 27.01.2026
Contexts
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.
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, as evidenced by South Africa's case against Israel in the International Court of Justice.
Despite regular reporting on Gaza casualties, many leading English-language publications consistently omit the number of combatant casualties and do not clarify whether reported total casualty figures include combatants or civilians.
Premises
Hamas does not differentiate between combatant and civilian casualties. In May 2024, U.S. and Israeli intelligence estimates indicated that up to 30,000 Hamas combatants were present in Gaza (as of August 2024). The Hamas-run Ministry of Health in Gaza reports approximately 40,000 total casualties in the conflict (as of August 2024).
Israel specifically tracks combatant casualties. The IDF reports over 17,000 fighters killed in the conflict.
We observed that journalists at several leading, high-reach English-language media outlets predominantly rely on figures provided by Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, while disregarding Israeli military data. Though both sources provide incomplete casualty information, journalists in these media rarely present or compare figures from both sides.
This systematic omission of combatant casualty information might have contributed to a misleading narrative suggesting that Israel has killed "35,000 civilians" in Gaza. This narrative has received 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.
Study Design
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 Australian Broadcasting Corporation (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 245 articles (The Guardian). The maximum confidence interval for our estimated rates is ± 4%.
Our team gathered all quotes related to casualty data from articles referencing total casualty figures. 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. Inter-coder reliability reached 0.83, as measured by Krippendorff’s alpha.
Bias Prevention Techniques in Research Methodology
1.
Exhaustive
Sampling
We employed exhaustive sampling through comprehensive article selection, including all relevant content from February through May, based on thorough database analysis of publication websites.
2.
Double
Verification
All quotes underwent double verification by independent researchers after selection
3.
Independent
Coding
Quotes received independent coding from two researchers, with third-party verification
4.
Geographically Diverse Team
Our volunteer team comprises individuals who are geographically diverse and unaffiliated with any single organization
5.
OSINT
Methodologies
We utilized OSINT (Open-Source Intelligence) methodologies
6.
Strict Exclusion Criteria
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
7.
Volunteer-
Driven
This research is entirely volunteer-driven, with no monetary compensation provided to participants.
Key Findings
① Minimal Media Representation of Israeli Sources:
-
Only a negligible percentage of publications cite Israeli data, indicating a significant underrepresentation of Israeli sources.
-
Hamas-provided data appears in the vast majority of publications.
② Limited Critical Analysis of Hamas Data:
Media outlets frequently present casualty figures attributed to Hamas treating these figures as established fact and presenting them without explicit attribution.
Share of articles citing Hamas data without attribution:
-
The Guardian – 43%,
-
The Associated Press – 20%,
-
The New York Times – 20%,
-
AP – 20%,
-
CNN – 17%,
-
ABC – 17%,
-
WP – 17%,
-
CNN – 17%,
-
Reuters – 9%,
-
BBC – 2%
③ Questioning Data Across Sources
-
Only a marginal proportion of sources explicitly acknowledge that casualty figures provided by Hamas are unverifiable or contested.
-
In contrast, a considerable share of publications subject Israeli casualty figures to critical scrutiny, despite Israel’s limited presence as a primary data source.
-
Overall, there is little evidence of an equivalent level of skepticism being applied to casualty figures reported by both parties to the conflict.
Verification Disclaimer Usage Across Sources
Methodology
The data were published on December 14 and updated on December 18, 2024. They are deposited in the Harvard Dataverse repository
Selection of media outlets for the study
This study uses a multiple-case study design based on eight non-conservative media outlets. These outlets do not represent the entire media landscape, but they have large audiences and high levels of trust, as indicated by audience surveys and digital authority metrics used by search and analytics platforms. The five media outlets - CNN, The New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, The Washington Post were selected on the basis of their identification in prior research as prominent examples of asymmetrical media coverage of the conflicts in Jenin and Nahr al-Bared. These outlets belong to the same top tier of media institutions, consistently ranking among the most trusted organizations according to audience trust surveys and occupying the highest authority score category in SEO-based media assessment tools. The findings therefore apply specifically to reporting practices within these outlets and are not intended to be generalized beyond this group.
Theory-Driven Case Selection.
-
The five media outlets - CNN, The New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, The Washington Post were selected on the basis of their identification in prior research as prominent examples of asymmetrical media coverage of the conflicts in Jenin and Nahr al-Bared. They refer to non-conservative media.
Trusted and Popular Media.
-
Media credibility and rating were evaluated using the Reuters Institute Survey and Moz’s Domain Authority index.
Global News
Focus.
-
Selected organizations with explicit global coverage mandates.
Additional
Sources.
-
In addition to the five selected outlets, we included two major global news agencies in the analysis. At the request of volunteers from Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was also added to the sample.
-
Each sample meets conventional thresholds for statistical significance, with a maximum margin of error of 4%.
These criteria led to the selection of eight media outlets: CNN, BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation”.
Analyzed sources (February – May 2024)
(129 articles)
(180 articles)
(188 articles)
(111 articles)
(125 articles)
(195 articles)
(245 articles)
(205 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
Viktor Vakhshtayn
Senior Research Fellow, Tel Aviv University, Former Dean and Professor of Sociology at Russian British University (MSSES, Moscow)
Alex Zernopolsky
Legal Counsellor, Lawyer, Human Rights Activist
Mark Novikov
Media Counsellor, PhD in Constitutional Law, Journalist
Vitalii Novoselov
Legal Counsellor, Lawyer, Human Rights Activist
Elena Zelentsova
Scientific Counsellor, Cultural Science Researcher
Kirill Titaev
Chief Methodologist, Visiting Lecturer at Yale University and Professor at the Faculty of Liberal Arts and Sciences in Montenegro
Phase One Volunteers
Consultation
Alya Kirillova
Data Collection
Elena Rabinovich
Research Support
Vadim Barsuk
Data Collection
Anna Peshnaya
Consultation
Inna Sapozhnikova
Data Collection
Valeriya Malik
Consultation
Anna Smolyarova
Data Collection
Marina Gerya
Data Collection
Anna Spektor
Community Engagement
Olga Zhuravskaya
Data Collection
Bozhena Vistman
Infographic Design
Oxana Stanevich
Consultation
Daniil Baratz
Consultation
Seva Bederson
Phase Two Volunteers
Anna Lange
(Kochkina)
Data Collection
Isabella M. Mestechkina
Data Collection
Konstantin Starobinets
Web Development
Marina Kunin
Data Collection
Susanna Khazhinsky
Data Collection
Yury Plotkin
Data Collection
Elana Bowman
Data Collection
Jane Yurkevich
Data Collection
Lena Berenshtein
Data Collection
Matvey Skulachev
Data Collection
Svetlana Frenkel
Data Collection
Zoya Talitskaya
Data Collection
Elena Rabinovitch
Data Collection
Jenny Bourstein
Data Collection
Leonid Goldenberg
Media Consultant
Oksana Stanevich
Data Collection
Svetlana Skulacheva
Data Collection, Coding Methodology, Data Analysis
Eugene Kolonsky
Automated Data Collection
Jess Huberman
Data Collection
Leva Reitblat
Data Collection
Olga Elkina
PR
Vera Bin
Data Collection
Inna Troik
Data Collection
Julia Fix
Data Collection
Lucie
Data Collection
Semion Leyn
Data Collection
Verena Podolsky
Data Collection
Iris Gitlin
Data Collection
Kirill Demidov
Automated Data Collection
Manya Starostina
Data Collection
Sofia Bulgakova
Data Collection
Yakov Gitlin
Research Consultant