Western decline and media bias: The uneven narratives of Gaza and Ukraine
Jul 19, 2024
The stark contrast in media coverage of the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine reveals a troubling pattern of bias that shapes public perception and policy in profound ways.
As bombs fall on Gaza and tanks roll through Ukraine, Western audiences are presented with starkly different narratives that betray deep-seated prejudices and political agendas. This asymmetry in reporting not only distorts public understanding but also makes the path to peace more treacherous. Moreover, it serves as a microcosm of broader issues plaguing Western media and institutions, issues that may be accelerating the decline of Western global influence and moral authority.
In Gaza, Palestinian suffering is often sanitised or contextualised to diminish its horror. When an Israeli airstrike hit a UN school sheltering civilians in July 2024, killing dozens, many Western outlets led with the Israeli military’s claims of militant activity in the area rather than centring the civilian deaths. Meanwhile, Ukrainian civilian casualties are presented as unambiguous tragedies, with individual stories examined and highlighted to evoke empathy. This asymmetry extends to the language used to describe combatants and their actions. Hamas fighters are invariably “terrorists,” while Ukrainian forces are “defenders” or “freedom fighters.” Israel “responds” or “retaliates,” while Russia “invades” or “attacks.”
These subtle linguistic choices paint a black-and-white picture that fails to capture the reality on the ground.
The human toll in both conflicts is staggering, yet the West’s reaction has been wildly inconsistent. Ukrainian apartment buildings are destroyed Western leaders were quick to decry war crimes. But similar accusations against Israel for its actions in Gaza are absent, muted or included so as to be dismissed entirely. As one Palestinian journalist put it, “Our dead don’t seem to count the same way.”
The increased awareness of the West’s selective outrage undermines the West’s moral credibility but also fuels resentment and scepticism toward Western institutions and values across the Global South.
Historical context is another casualty of this uneven coverage. While the origins of the Ukraine conflict are explored to some extent, the long history of occupation and dispossession in Palestine is glossed over. This selective amnesia serves to portray current events in isolation, divorced from the decades of injustice that preceded them. By failing to provide adequate context, Western media inadvertently reinforces existing power imbalances and perpetuates cycles of violence.
This bias in media coverage is not merely a journalistic failing; it reflects and reinforces deeper structural issues within Western societies. The tendency to view conflicts through a lens of “us vs. them” or “civilisation vs. barbarism” is a vestige of colonial mindsets that continue to shape Western foreign policy. It speaks to a broader inability to recognise the humanity and legitimate grievances of those deemed “other,” particularly in the Muslim world.
Moreover, the inconsistency in coverage reveals the extent to which Western media has become entangled with state interests and corporate agendas. The framing of conflicts often aligns suspiciously well with the foreign policy objectives of Western governments. This erosion of journalistic independence is a troubling sign for the health of Western democracies, as a free and critical press is essential for holding power to account.
The consequences of this biased coverage extend far beyond public opinion polls. By consistently portraying one side as victims and the other as aggressors, media narratives entrench animosity and make peaceful resolution more difficult. This, in turn, emboldens hardliners on both sides and closes off avenues for dialogue and compromise.
Furthermore, the stark difference in how these conflicts are portrayed undermines the West’s ability to act as an honest broker or moral authority.
How can Western nations claim to champion human rights and international law when their application of these principles is so blatantly inconsistent? This hypocrisy is not lost on the rest of the world, contributing to a growing scepticism toward Western-led institutions and norms.
The bias in coverage also reflects a broader failure of Western societies to grapple with their own complicity in global injustices. By focusing on the actions of individual actors like Hamas or Russia, the media often obscures the role that Western policies and arms sales play in fuelling conflicts around the world. This lack of self-reflection prevents Western nations from addressing the root causes of global instability and undermines their credibility as forces for peace.
In the face of these challenges, social media has emerged as a powerful counterforce to mainstream narrative control. Firsthand accounts from Gaza are reaching global audiences despite traditional media’s blind spots. Young people especially are turning to these alternative sources, seeking perspectives absent from established outlets. As one media analyst noted, “The monopoly on information is breaking down, and with it, the ability to shape public opinion from the top down.”
This shift is already having real-world impacts. Recent polling in the UK found that 56% of the population now favours halting arms exports to Israel, a dramatic swing in public sentiment. In the US, support for sending weapons to Israel has plummeted from 47% to 32% in just a few months. These changes reflect a growing awareness of the human cost of the conflict and a rejection of simplistic “good vs. evil” narratives.
Yet political leaders in the West remain stubbornly out of step with this evolving public mood. The disconnect between government policy and popular sentiment is growing wider by the day, raising questions about democratic accountability in foreign policy decisions. This gap between the people and their representatives is symptomatic of a broader crisis of legitimacy facing Western political systems.
The failure to provide balanced, contextual coverage of global conflicts is not merely a matter of journalistic malpractice; it is a canary in the coal mine for Western civilisation. It speaks to a deeper inability to engage with the complexities of a multipolar world, to recognise the validity of non-Western perspectives, and to honestly reckon with the legacies of colonialism and imperialism.
As the world grapples with existential challenges like climate change and the threat of nuclear war, the West’s moral authority and ability to build global coalitions are more crucial than ever. Yet the biased coverage of conflicts like those in Gaza and Ukraine erodes this authority, pushing more nations to seek alternative alliances and reject Western leadership.
To reverse this decline, Western media and institutions must embrace a more nuanced, empathetic, and self-critical approach to global affairs. This means actively seeking out diverse perspectives, providing thorough historical context, and being willing to challenge the narratives of those in power – even when it’s uncomfortable or unpopular.
Ultimately, the stark differences in how Western media portrays the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine reveal deep-seated biases that have real-world consequences. This uneven coverage not only distorts public understanding but also makes the path to peace more treacherous. As long as certain lives are valued more than others and complex histories are flattened into simplistic narratives, lasting solutions will remain elusive. Only by confronting these biases and striving for more balanced, nuanced reporting can we hope to foster the empathy and understanding necessary for true conflict resolution and global cooperation. The future of Western influence and moral leadership may well depend on its ability to rise to this challenge.
Kari McKern, who lives in Sydney, is a retired career public servant and librarian and IT specialist. She has maintained a life time interest in Asian affairs and had visited Asia often, and writes here in a private capacity.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
