Which major news outlets have been accused of pro - Palestine bias during the 2023–2025 Gaza war.

1. Who critics name as biased — the tilt is usually “pro‑Israel,” not pro‑Palestine

Across the supplied reporting, studies and media critiques repeatedly accuse major U.S. and Western outlets of leaning toward Israel in their coverage of the Gaza war: The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times were singled out in several analyses for disproportionate mention and framing favoring Israel ^{[1] [3]}; quantitative research and watchdog groups reported that BBC coverage used emotive language more for Israeli victims and applied terms like “massacre” far more often to Israeli deaths than Palestinian casualties ^[1]. Media watchdogs, academic papers and NGO studies referenced in the sources describe structural biases in Western legacy media coverage rather than a pattern of pro‑Palestine advocacy ^{[7] [8]}.

2. Cable networks and U.S. newsrooms: criticized for pro‑Israel framing

The supplied academic and investigative pieces identify U.S. cable and network newsrooms as part of the critique: CNN, MSNBC and Fox News are named in analyses showing pro‑Israel bias in their reporting and guest selection, while anonymous data studies and journalistic complaints allege that Israeli sources and frames dominated early coverage ^{[5] [2]}. Meanwhile, reporting of newsroom culture and staff complaints documented by outlets cited here describe Palestinian and Arab journalists feeling sidelined or pressured in some U.S. newsrooms, reinforcing accusations of a pro‑Israeli tilt rather than the reverse ^[9].

3. Independent and critical outlets that ran counter‑narratives

The sources point to a smaller cluster of media — including Haaretz, +972 Magazine and Local Call in Israel, and Al Jazeera internationally — that published reporting critical of Israeli military tactics and that centered Palestinian suffering; these outlets are described in the material as offering a stark contrast to mainstream Western narratives ^[6]. The reporting does not document systematic mainstream accusations that these critical outlets were “pro‑Palestine” in the sense of collusive advocacy; rather, they are cited as rarer examples of journalism that emphasized Palestinian perspectives and investigative findings ^[6].

4. Methodology, hidden agendas and who makes the accusations

Most of the claims catalogued in the supplied reporting come from academic studies, media‑watch projects and watchlists (e.g., Media Bias Meter, university researchers, The Intercept analyses), plus open letters from hundreds of journalists—sources that carry explicit methodologies and political perspectives ^{[10] [1] [7]}. Opposing voices exist: pro‑Israel advocacy groups and some commentators have instead accused media of sanitising Hamas or dehumanising Israelis, showing that charges of bias are reciprocal and politically freighted ^[2]. The supplied material highlights that many accusations stem from analytic choices (which words are counted, which sources are sampled), newsroom power dynamics, and advocacy aims, meaning that “bias” often reflects contested norms rather than neutral measurement ^{[8] [2]}.

5. Bottom line from the available reporting

Based on the documents provided, there is no sustained, sourced record here of major Western outlets being widely accused of pro‑Palestine bias in 2023–2025; instead, multiple reputable analyses and journalistic investigations assert that many legacy Western outlets and U.S. cable networks exhibited patterns critics described as pro‑Israel or anti‑Palestinian ^{[1] [3] [5]}. The reporting also records a counternarrative — a handful of Israeli and regional outlets openly criticized Israeli policy and prioritized Palestinian suffering — but the sources do not show those outlets being broadly accused of pro‑Palestine bias by the same mainstream monitors who level accusations against legacy Western media ^[6].