Western media’s coverage of the Gaza genocide has revealed fundamental cracks in the notion of journalistic objectivity. Mainstream outlets have frequently marginalized or discredited Palestinian perspectives, often echoing narratives that align with Israeli state interests. In stark contrast, Palestinian journalists—reporting from within a besieged landscape—have become frontline truth-tellers. Through raw, emotional storytelling, they are not only documenting atrocities but also redefining journalism as a form of resistance and a reclaiming of ethical purpose.

On this page, the editorial team of the Al Jazeera Journalism Review will collect news published by media institutions about the current war on Gaza that involves disinformation, bias, or professional journalistic standards and its code of ethics.

This paper highlights how Omani media, during times of natural disasters, focused on praising government efforts to improve its image, while neglecting the voices of victims and those affected by the cyclones. It also examines the media’s role in warning against and preventing future disasters.

In this article, we compile testimonies from journalists who have criticised their own media institutions as documented in reports, letters, or interviews. Most spoke anonymously out of fear of repercussions—because freedom of expression appears protected only until it reaches the borders of Israel. At that point, constraints emerge, editorial policies shift, and the system of double standards is activated.

In a move that’s sent shockwaves through India’s independent media landscape, tax authorities have revoked The Reporters’ Collective's non—profit status, claiming journalism doesn’t serve a “public purpose.” Critics warn this unprecedented action, echoed in similar crackdowns on other outlets, is part of a broader campaign to throttle investigative journalism and stifle dissent financially.

Once again, Western media framed civilians within the context of "collateral damage" while covering Israeli attacks on Syria. The language of international law was absent, and the tragedy of civilians affected by military strikes was completely obscured, while justifications and cover for the occupation prevailed under the banner of "maintaining national security."