The Passive Voice Trap: How CNN and NYT Shield Military Action from 'War Crime' Labels

The term 'war crime' appeared 28 times more frequently in reports on Russian infrastructure strikes than in coverage of Israeli strikes on similar targets, according to a 2026 study published in Sage journals. The analysis, which scrutinized 4,500 articles from CNN and The New York Times, provides statistical weight to long-standing allegations of editorial bias in Western media. While the deaths of Ukrainian civilians are attributed to Russian aggression in active voice, the deaths of Gazans are frequently described as happening in isolation—civilians 'died' or 'were killed' without a named perpetrator.

According to an Australian study conducted in early 2026, The New York Times used passive voice in 72% of Gaza casualty reports. In contrast, 89% of reports regarding casualties in Ukraine used active voice, explicitly naming Russia as the responsible party. This linguistic shift is not accidental. Internal CNN memos leaked in February 2026 reveal a top-down directive to avoid 'legalistic terminology' such as 'collective punishment' or 'war crimes' when discussing Gaza, despite these terms being standard in the network’s coverage of Eastern Europe.

[Selective Attribution] is the practice of using active voice for adversaries and passive voice for allies to shift perceived responsibility for casualties.

At CNN, this policy is enforced through a centralized review process. The Jerusalem bureau operates under a 'Second Look' protocol where all regional coverage is routed through a desk that includes former military censors. This specialized vetting process, overseen by CNN CEO and Chairman Mark Thompson, does not exist for the network’s Eastern European reporting. The result is a curated narrative where Russian government claims are caveated as 'unverified,' while IDF press releases are reported as established fact without independent confirmation.

At The New York Times, the editorial influence is equally pervasive. Whistleblowers within the newsroom cited a 2026 board meeting where publisher A.G. Sulzberger and senior editors mandated that 'unintentional' serve as the default descriptor for Israeli strikes that kill children. This directive ignores the systemic nature of the bombardment and replaces investigative rigor with diplomatic alignment. David Sanger, a veteran White House correspondent, often serves as the conduit for this alignment, maintaining a 'revolving door' relationship with the State Department that ensures NYT coverage mirrors current US foreign policy goals.

[Regulatory Capture] is a form of corruption where a government agency or media entity, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups.

Following the money reveals why these editorial choices remain so rigid. Both CNN and The New York Times are heavily influenced by institutional shareholders like BlackRock and Vanguard. These entities hold significant stakes in both media companies and major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing. According to SEC filings, Boeing and Raytheon saw a 14% stock increase following the 2025-2026 military aid packages. Furthermore, CNN’s parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, currently carries over $40 billion in debt, making the network highly sensitive to the political and regulatory environment in Washington D.C.

Lobbying influence further cements this narrative. Data from OpenSecrets and TrackAIPAC show that pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC have spent over $100 million in the most recent election cycle to influence Congressional voting and public perception. This spending filters down into newsroom sensitivity training via the 'Ad Council,' which helps shape how journalists are taught to discuss 'complex' conflicts.

In 90% of analyzed CNN segments, the context of 'illegal occupation'—a status recognized by the United Nations—was entirely omitted. By removing the legal context of the conflict, the media transforms a lopsided military occupation into a balanced 'war' between two equal entities. This missing context allows the narrative of 'self-defense' to flourish, even when the actions taken—such as the destruction of power grids or water treatment plants—are the same actions labeled 'barbaric' when performed by Russia.

For the average person, this double standard is more than a matter of semantics. It erodes the credibility of international law, transforming it from a universal protection for civilians into a tool of selective geopolitics. When the public is conditioned to view the killing of one group as 'defensive' and another as 'criminal,' it manufactures consent for billions in military spending. Your tax dollars are used to fund the very strikes that the media is instructed to describe as 'unintentional,' while the defense contractors profiting from the carnage fund the advertisements between the news segments.

To see how your representative voted on the recent military aid packages, visit the Gen Us Politician Tracker. You can also explore our deep dive into AIPAC’s 2025 spending data or search our database of media executives with ties to defense boards. At Gen Us, we don't just report the news; we report on the people who decide what you're allowed to call it.