Banal balance, selective identification and factual omissions: The New York Times coverage of the 2014 War in Gaza

This article employs the lens of media framing to investigate the editorial choices by the New York Times in covering the summer 2014 bombing and invasion of Gaza. Using an extended content analysis of front-page stories published by the New York Times from 8 July when the assault began through 26 August when a semi-stable cease fire was announced, primary explanatory frames, preferred sources and selective evaluations of events are identified. The findings suggest that a ‘both sides’ narrative, selective identification, and legitimation of sources and omissions of significant contextual facts provided readers, with singular diagnoses favouring acceptance and tolerance of Israeli actions with corollary condemnations of Palestinian actions. References from the United Nations and alternative news sources indicate that other evidence and frames would hold Israel guilty of war crimes and encourage increased support for ending the occupation.