As the world grapples with the horrors of the Israel-Hamas war, many people trying to stay up to date with the situation are finding the media’s coverage lacking for myriad reasons, but exactly what accurate reporting on the conflict looks like is difficult to define. The Onion asked Americans what balanced coverage of Gaza means to them.
“It means accurately reporting the number of subhuman animals that were killed.”
“Not sure. I stopped paying attention to that months ago.”
“Well, I can tell you it doesn’t mean reporting on civilian casualties, that’s for sure.”
“Please, not this right now. We’re trying to have a nice dinner.”
“When you report that 30,000 Palestinians have died, you need to also acknowledge how many are still alive.”
“When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that’s balanced coverage of Gaza.”
“It means reporting the same number of Israeli deaths as Palestinian civilian deaths, no matter what the truth is.”
“Contextualizing the conflict in a way that dehumanizes everyone involved.”
“It’s important to get your news from the Instagram stories of both celebrities who are pro-Israel and celebrities who are pro-Palestine.”
“The best way for the media to avoid bias is by not covering war at all.”
“Fully wiping myself of empathy before saying the words ‘well, actually.’”
“Thank you for pointing this out. I haven’t seen a single story from the perspective of a Palestinian hyrax.”
“Each side gets to pitch their ideas for a ceasefire on Shark Tank.”
“Only listening to what the Jewish lady from ‘Big Bang Theory’ says.”
“Being super excited about human casualties, no matter which side commits them.”
“For every IDF fighter an outlet interviews, they should also interview someone that soldier murdered.”
“It means blaming one side for everything.”
“Netanyahu’s LiveJournal.”
“Disclosing any and all potential conflicts of interest that may arise from being a person with empathy.”
“I didn’t know the Gaza thing was still happening.”
“Send the journalists to Gaza to hide, starve, and die as the locals do.”