Eye on Palestine & the New York Times

                           By: Chelsie Almonte

In recent months, the long-standing issue of the genocide of Palestinians has become more visually accessible through Instagram. The platform’s owner, Meta, claims that their initiative for Instagram is to provide a “safe and inclusive” site where individuals can be “inspired, express themselves, feel closer to anyone they care about, and turn a passion into a living.” However, as events have unfolded, Instagram has become a place where people can be educated, informed, and interact with current events such as the genocide of Palestinians. Significantly, one can observe how Instagram pages advocate for justice and even how major media outlets like the New York Times cover the issue. It is clear that war is no longer limited to the nations or states involved in the conflict — we all have a role to play. 

As someone interested in media and cultural studies, I compared and contrasted how the New York Times Instagram page covered the Israel–Palestine War in relation to Eye on Palestine, an Instagram page whose sole initiative is to spread awareness of Palestine. That said, The New York Times has been brought to criticism by other media outlets as it became apparent the phrasing of events and coverage was biased in favor of Israel in comparison to Palestinians. Many have found that within the early months of the issue, the New York Times was passive in indicting deaths of Palestinians as murdered or killed while stating that Israelis were “massacred.” Beyond media outlets, protests were issued within New York Times headquarters as their passiveness continued within articles. While the New York Times page seems to center discourse on the issue as something far beyond reach, Eye on Palestine uses its page to inform while further encouraging viewers that their voice matters against the genocide. That said, I focused on recent coverage of the destruction of the Al-Shifa Hospital by Israeli forces and in what ways these two different pages reported on this event. Noteworthy, I could only find two posts covering the 2-

week siege on the Al-Shifa Hospital on the New York Times page. The post titled "Israeli Army Withdraws From Major Gaza Hospital, Leaving Behind A Wasteland" is the first of the two posts. Though its titling is far better than what has been seen before, this post doesn't cover half of the devastation. Within the following few slides of this post, the photos focus on the Israelis who brought reporters to the major hospital despite the horror that the Palestinians were undergoing surrounding the destruction. In viewing these photos, the New York Times depicts this current event as a "war" experienced by only one sector of people instead of getting the whole picture. It creates distance for us civilians to avoid taking part in resisting the genocide of Palestinians. 

In comparison, Eye on Palestine has countless posts and videos concerning the destruction of the Al-Shifa Hospital. Beyond focusing on the destruction of the building, they have posts that center on Palestinians who have been affected. Immediately, one can spot the difference between the New York Times, which only shows half of the story. In contrast, Eye of Palestine posts photos of Palestinians searching the rubble and surrounded by the buildings of the hospital that can no longer be in use. They additionally include videos and pictures of the surrounding area of the hospital, which included people's homes that were destroyed as well. As contemporary art that we have seen concerning the occupation of Iraq, Eye of Palestine humanizes the war. It provides insight into the innocent lives that have been physically and psychologically damaged by a one-sided war. As a result, it impacts civilians such as us to take part in resisting the aid of Israeli forces. That includes taking part in boycotts of companies such as Starbucks, condemning New York Legislation pouring taxes to aid the Israeli Army, taking part in protests, and much more. 

Along with the photo seen above, Eye on Palestine included videos that show the hospital's surroundings, which were affected. The video consists of Arabic and English, allowing it to reach a far larger population. However, it goes without saying that the New York Times did not take the initiative to include their titles or captions in another language. This barres off those who can engage with the post and can, as a result, be informed of tragedies taking place.  People's homes were destroyed, and yet the New York Times's page did not show any coverage beyond the hospital. As stated, Eye on Palestine humanizes the war and showcases that real lives are being affected, furthering various viewers to see that this war is not beyond their reach. At the same time, the New York Times defines this war as an issue we can only be informed of but cannot take part in changing; however, that is far from the truth.  

To conclude, as someone who has the privilege to speak out on this issue, I take every chance I can get. As I have argued, war is no longer farfetched as it can be seen through devices at our fingertips. The difference between before and now is how someone will interact and be a voice for those under scrutiny or become a bystander to the horrors others face. 

Sources: 

https://theintercept.com/2024/01/09/newspapers-israel-palestine-bias-new-york-times/ 

https://apnews.com/article/new-york-times-protest-gaza-ceasefire-c1482efbb3f767a0898a3d20f9647bc2 

https://www.instagram.com/p/C5RDrvgLDzu/?img_index=1

https://www.instagram.com/p/C5NIzDCq6dt/?img_index=6

https://www.instagram.com/p/C5OIGH4qv9s/

https://about.meta.com/technologies/instagram/