By: Andrew Carlson

In what can only be described as an unusual—if not unintentional—moment of introspection, four of the most influential Western news agencies issued a joint statement this week, not to report on the atrocities of war, not to hold terrorist groups accountable, and certainly not to correct months of selective outrage and omission, but to express deep concern that their own Gaza-based journalists are facing the threat of starvation.

The Associated Press, Agence France-Presse (AFP), Reuters, and the BBC jointly declared: “We are desperately concerned for our journalists in Gaza, who are increasingly unable to feed themselves and their families.” The statement goes on to describe these local correspondents as “the world’s eyes and ears on the ground in Gaza,” noting that they are now enduring “the same dire circumstances as those they are covering.”

The irony is difficult to ignore—so much so that it practically demands its own headline.

For months, these agencies have churned out story after story lamenting the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, rarely pausing to examine the core cause of the conflict—Hamas—and instead portraying Israel as the perennial aggressor. One might say they have perfected the art of selective coverage, with every civilian hardship squarely placed at the feet of the Israeli government, while the role of Hamas in fomenting, perpetuating, and exploiting that suffering is routinely glossed over or omitted entirely.

Yet now, with their own personnel facing hunger, these news organizations have opted to speak up—not to reexamine their narrative, but to double down on a familiar script: blame Israel.

“We once again urge the Israeli authorities to allow journalists in and out of Gaza,” the joint statement pleads. “It is essential that adequate food supplies reach the people there.”

The Times of Israel has consistently reported that Israel allows humanitarian aid, including food, fuel, and medical supplies, into Gaza through crossings such as Kerem Shalom. The Israeli government asserts that it has facilitated tens of thousands of aid trucks since the onset of hostilities, often under fire. The problem, as officials repeatedly note, lies not in the entry of aid but in its distribution—complicated by Hamas’s habit of commandeering resources for its fighters and its extensive network of terror tunnels.

Indeed, The Times of Israel has reported on how Hamas hoards food, fuel, and medical supplies while civilians suffer, and how it cynically embeds itself within densely populated areas to maximize civilian casualties for propaganda value. Yet these critical facts rarely make it into headlines from the AP, Reuters, AFP, or the BBC.

It is also worth noting the remarkable confidence with which these newsrooms assert their reporters are “independent.” Independent of whom, one might ask? In a territory controlled by an internationally designated terrorist organization that jails, censors, and intimidates journalists, true independence is a precarious—and often dangerous—concept. The Times of Israel and other outlets have documented numerous cases where journalists in Gaza have faced coercion or threats when reporting stories that do not align with Hamas’s messaging.

But perhaps most telling is the absolute absence of any mention of Hamas in the latest joint media statement. Not a single sentence holds the group accountable for the suffering of the population it claims to represent. Not a word about how Hamas could end the war immediately by disarming, releasing hostages, and ceasing rocket fire on Israeli civilians. No acknowledgment that this war began with Hamas’s October 7 massacre—a point that the same news agencies often seem to treat as a footnote rather than the seminal event it is.

The Times of Israel report has also highlighted Israel’s criticism of the United Nations and aid organizations that operate in Gaza for their failure to ensure fair and efficient aid distribution. Officials argue that once aid passes through Israeli checkpoints, its fate lies largely in the hands of intermediaries—some of whom are either intimidated by or outright affiliated with Hamas.

And yet, to read the joint statement from these media giants, one would be forgiven for believing that Israel is singlehandedly starving journalists, and by extension, the people of Gaza. The statement’s logic is familiar and deeply flawed: when Hamas causes suffering, Israel is to blame; when the suffering is felt by their own employees, Israel is still to blame.

What this moment exposes, perhaps more than anything, is the institutional hypocrisy of international media coverage in Gaza. When local journalists were reporting under duress, toeing the line drawn by Hamas, few in the West batted an eye. When those journalists are no longer just tools of coverage but victims of the very conflict they’ve helped oversimplify, suddenly the media takes notice—not to amend its ways, but to issue another demand directed solely at Jerusalem.

There is also an unmistakable moral asymmetry at play. These organizations frequently decry “collective punishment” when Israel imposes security restrictions or conducts military operations in response to Hamas attacks. Yet they remain conspicuously silent about the collective manipulation of Gaza’s civilian population by Hamas, whose leadership has been known to feast and hoard while their people starve—a fact Israeli spokespeople like Lt. Col. Avichay Adraee have pointed out, often to deaf ears in Western newsrooms.

The Times of Israel has painstakingly documented Israeli efforts to allow humanitarian corridors and safe zones, as well as its calls for the international community to pressure Hamas into a ceasefire. Yet for many Western outlets, any Israeli effort is either insufficient, too slow, or—more conveniently—unmentioned.

It is not unkind to expect that news organizations reporting on the most volatile and morally complex conflict zones in the world hold themselves to the highest standard of nuance and balance. What is unkind—indeed, what borders on the unethical—is their continued refusal to do so.

If the media outlets in question want to protect their reporters in Gaza—and there is no doubt that the safety of all journalists in conflict zones must be a priority—then they might start by acknowledging the full scope of what endangers them. That includes not just war and famine, but the chokehold of a regime that has long used both as weapons of war.

Until then, their appeals will ring hollow. Their outrage will seem selective. And their credibility, already in question among growing segments of the public, will remain on similarly precarious footing.