NYT Double Standard: Why Russia is 'Illegal' but Israel is 'Taking Control'

On September 30, 2022, The New York Times published a definitive headline: 'Putin to Illegally Annex Russian-Occupied Parts of Ukraine Following Sham Votes.' The language was precise, aligning with international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention. Fast forward to October 2024, and the same paper described Israeli military movement into Lebanese territory with a notably softer touch: 'How Israel Is Taking Control of Southern Lebanon.' The disparity was first documented by historian Assal Rad, who noted that while the legal context of occupying foreign territory remains identical, the editorial choice to omit the word 'illegal' is consistent and strategic.

This linguistic gymnastics is not a matter of stylistic preference; it is a matter of institutional policy. In April 2024, an internal memo leaked from the Times’ newsroom instructed journalists to avoid using terms like 'genocide,' 'ethnic cleansing,' and 'occupied territory' when reporting on Israeli military actions. The memo, overseen by Standards Editor Charlie Kahn, serves as a semantic filter that prevents the paper's 10 million subscribers from viewing Israeli actions through the same legal lens applied to U.S. adversaries. [The Fourth Geneva Convention] is an international treaty that prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own civilian population into the territory it occupies and forbids the acquisition of territory by force.

To understand why the 'paper of record' treats international law as a variable rather than a constant, one must follow the money trail. The New York Times Company is primarily controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through Class B shares, but its largest institutional shareholders are BlackRock and Vanguard, holding approximately 12% and 10% of the company respectively. These same investment firms are the primary shareholders in the world’s largest defense contractors. BlackRock holds a 7.1% stake in Lockheed Martin and an 11.2% stake in RTX (formerly Raytheon). These firms produce the munitions—such as the Hellfire missiles and 2,000-pound bunker busters—used in the very operations the Times describes as 'taking control.'

[Regulatory Capture] is the process by which a regulatory agency or public institution is co-opted to serve the commercial or political interests of the industry it is meant to oversee or report on. The Times operates within a similar ecosystem of capture. The paper’s leadership, including Publisher A.G. Sulzberger, participates in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a think tank where the 'revolving door' between media, government, and the defense industry is a standard feature. By aligning its vocabulary with the State Department’s talking points, the Times ensures its reporting does not jeopardize the $3.8 billion in annual military aid the U.S. provides to Israel, or the $61 billion Ukraine aid package passed in April 2024.

The absence of internal accountability has accelerated this trend. In 2017, the New York Times abolished the role of the Public Editor, a position designed to act as an internal ombudsman responding to reader complaints about bias. Since then, the paper has increasingly relied on the passive voice to describe military strikes on civilians in the Middle East while using active, declarative sentences for strikes in Eastern Europe. According to data from OpenSecrets, pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC have spent over $100 million in the 2024 election cycle to influence U.S. policy; the Times’ editorial stance provides the necessary cultural cover for this spending by framing illegal territorial expansion as a 'nuanced' security necessity.

For the ordinary American citizen, this linguistic double standard has real-world financial consequences. When the media refuses to label violations of international law accurately, it removes the legal and moral friction that might otherwise prevent the allocation of billions in taxpayer funds to foreign conflicts. While domestic infrastructure and healthcare programs face budget cuts, the U.S. continues to fund military expansions that the Times refuses to call 'occupations.'

You can hold the media and your representatives accountable. Use the Gen Us Politician Tracker to see how much funding your local representative has received from the defense contractors and lobbying groups mentioned in this story. Compare the voting records of members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee against their top donors to see the direct correlation between campaign contributions and the 'nuanced' support of territorial expansion.