Anyone who is familiar with american media

There are obvious reasons for this: the fighting is largely located within Gaza itself and most of the deaths have been Palestinian, including a large proportion of civilians.

Dozens of civilian Palestinian deaths is now a major component of this story, and it's getting rightly covered as such. It is possible to argue that this conflict may also be a moment of suddenly greater awareness among Americans about the larger conflict's toll on Palestinians, but it will be hard to say for sure without the benefit of time and retrospect.

To be clear, this point and the previous point do not cancel one another out. This is where I would differ with Jebreal, who argues that unbalanced media is why American popular opinion tends to favor Israel.

American public opinion toward Israel is a complicated phenomenon with many drivers, and it is possible that media coverage plays into it, but it seems far likelier that Jebreal has this backwards: that preexisting "pro-Israel" attitudes among American public opinion are nudging media coverage in the same direction. Again, the causes of those American attitudes are complex, but major factors include the s shift in American foreign policy to draw closer to Israel as a Cold War bulwark in a region with heavy Soviet influence and a s movement to support Israel driven by Evangelical Christians , who remain the most staunchly "pro-Israel" electorate in the US.

While he might not necessarily endorse every word in this post, I would urge you to read Jeffrey Goldberg's thoughts on media coverage of Israel-Palestine. The "media front" is treated as a very real front in the Israel-Palestine conflict, particularly when it comes to the American media. This is not to characterize Jebreal in particular I don't know her work well enough to say whether she could be described as a partisan commentator on the conflict , but to make a point about the larger debate about media coverage of the conflict, which is not just a meta-debate or a media issue but a live extension of the conflict itself.

That's why, as long as there is a conflict, this debate will continue. As I wrote yesterday about Jon Stewart's funny bit on how toxic that conversation is , t here are many reasons for this: decades of enmity, broken agreements, and violence only explain so much of why partisans to the conflict litigate it so aggressively.

Partly, it's the stakes, which go beyond even the risks of death. Both sides see their very nation, and thus their identity, at danger of being wiped out, and they're not wrong. Both sides see themselves as the entrenched, encircled, endangered minority.

There are also notable differences across several demographic groups in what constitutes fake news. For example, a majority — 52 percent — of those who approve of the president indicate that news stories from real organizations that are unfair or sloppy constitute fake news, compared to 38 percent of those who disapprove of the president. Finally, supporters of Trump are more likely than those who disapprove of him to say satire or comedy about current events is fake news 31 percent vs.

All this, however, is largely a matter of terminology. How much do people worry about each of these possible forms of fake news? Fully half 50 percent of people who define fake news as real news organizations making things up believe that it is a major problem for the media today, and 33 percent consider it a minor problem.

Just 11 percent think it is not a problem. A slightly larger group, 57 percent, think fake news organizations making up news is a major problem. And 68 percent of those who think fake news includes news organizations passing along conspiracy theories believe that is a major problem. The point, however, is now clear. Those who wanted to expand the definition of fake news, to give it multiple meanings and less precision, have prevailed. Nearly all journalists a remarkable 97 percent think the issue of fake news and misinformation is a problem for the news industry.

Indeed, 76 percent call it a major problem. What can they do about it? Journalists think more clarity between opinion pieces and news, and how they use sources in reporting, are important for addressing the fake news problem. This would also presumably help the basic problem of confusion over news and opinion. We offered journalists a list of transparency methods that have been advocated by journalism reform advocates and scholars, and asked what they think of each. They liked most of them in large numbers.

The two most popular are: Nearly 8 in 10 journalists say their news organization should make the difference between news stories and opinion content more distinct.

The network's news shows purport to deliver headlines in a non-partisan way, but in fact frame the news of the day in a way that is often beneficial to Trump. In the evening, OAN's opinion hosts, such as Liz Wheeler and Graham Ledger, offer run-of-the-mill conservative commentary that is generally approving of the White House.

Chanel Rion listens as U. But OAN also gives a nod to the darker underbelly of the conservative news industry. Two of its prominent personalities, for instance, are far-right agitators who have a history dabbling in conspiracy theories. One of them is Rion, who has a record on the fringes of right-wing media.

She has drawn incendiary political cartoons including at least one about philanthropic billionaire George Soros which echoed anti-Semitic tropes , promoted the discredited Seth Rich conspiracy theory, and even advanced the baseless notion that the coronavirus was created in a North Carolina lab.

Rion did not reply to requests for comment when asked about her promotion of such conspiracy theories. On her website, Rion's bio page states: "Chanel has been frequently described as one of Hillary Clinton's 'worst nightmares' because she stands as a fierce foe of anything Clinton, of everything Obama, and as a total and unrelenting enemy of academic left-liberalism and political correctness anywhere—she's out to stamp it out and when Chanel skewers the enemy, it can be a powerful thrust—sometimes shocking, always articulate—linguistic and graphic gems that strikes the heart of the insanity of the political left.

The other prominent agitator at OAN is Jack Posobiec, a right-wing conspiracy theorist who is a strong supporter of Trump. Posobiec, who works as a correspondent for OAN, is widely known for having live-streamed an investigation of Comet Ping Pong, the pizzeria at the center of the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory.

When the conspiracy theory was no longer in vogue, Posobiec told The Post that he believed through his video he could "just show it was a regular pizza place. Appeals court revives Seth Rich family's lawsuit against Fox News.

Posobiec and Rion have continued to use their platforms to push disinformation. When Trump was on trial for impeachment, both personalities helped push conspiracy theories about Ukraine into the public conversation.

Rion even traveled to Europe with Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to film a documentary series that pushed the discredited notion that Joe Biden abused his office to help protect his son Hunter from prosecution in Ukraine. The final product amounted essentially to propaganda for the Trump administration. Trump's promotion.

In return for the positive coverage, Trump has served as a persistent advocate for the network -- especially as he faces a skeptical press corps questioning his response to the coronavirus pandemic.

During the daily coronavirus briefings, the channel's correspondents have functioned as something of a lifeline for the President. When facing questions he does not like, the President knows he can call on OAN for a question of his liking. Trump's promotion of OAN has also extended beyond the briefing room.

Analysis: Trump acts like he wants the US press to be more like China's. And in the past, as he has faced unfavorable headlines, Trump has leaned on the network. When he faced accusations of impropriety with regard to Ukraine, which he was ultimately impeached for by the House, but acquitted for in the Senate, Trump extolled disinformation Rion pushed about Biden.

He lauded her "incredible reporting" and urged the "Lamestream Media" to replicate her style. In April, for example, Trump tweeted that watching Fox News "on weekend afternoons is a total waste of time. Trump realDonaldTrump April 11, In the past, Trump has suggested that OAN is an influential force. In October he tweeted that the network's "brilliant reporting" is "appreciated by many people trying so hard to find a new, consistent and powerful VOICE! All references to Democrats and Republicans in this analysis include independents who lean to each party.

When accounting for ideology, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are more likely to have heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture than their more moderate counterparts within each party. Liberal Democrats stand out as most likely to be familiar with the term. The most common responses by far centered around accountability. About one-in-ten or fewer described the phrase in each of these ways. There were some notable partisan and ideological differences in what the term cancel culture represents.

Conservative Republicans who had heard of the term were more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to see cancel culture as a form of censorship. Click here to explore more definitions and explanations of the term cancel culture. But views differ sharply by party. Within each party, there are some modest differences by education level in these views.

People on both sides of the issue had an opportunity to explain why they see calling out others on social media for potentially offensive content as more likely to be either a form of accountability or punishment. We then coded these answers and grouped them into broad areas to frame the key topics of debates. Initial coding schemes for each question were derived from reading though the open-ended responses and identifying common themes.

Using these themes, coders read each response and coded up to three themes for each response. If a response mentioned more than three themes, the first three mentioned were coded.