What is the role of journalism when Palestinian reporters are treated as criminals and left to die?
Last October, I spoke with journalist Hossam Shabat. He described families in northern Gaza gathering what little they had left as Israel began carrying out its so-called “generals’ plan.” Six months later, Shabat was dead—killed by Israel, accused of being a Hamas operative.
Israel doesn’t hide these killings. Instead, it often smears its victims beforehand—labeling journalists as “terrorists,” accusations that are rarely backed by evidence. These labels serve a clear purpose: to strip reporters of their civilian status and make their deaths seem justified. But journalists are not legitimate targets. Killing them is a war crime.
The latest attack shocked the world: five Al Jazeera journalists were assassinated in a press tent in Gaza City, including Anas al-Sharif, whose face had become familiar to anyone closely following Gaza. Both the UN and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) had warned that al-Sharif’s life was in danger. Weeks later, he was dead.
Meanwhile, a growing consensus recognizes Gaza as the site of a genocide unfolding in real time. Yet in Germany—a country that prides itself on learning from its own genocidal past—some of its most influential media outlets have helped justify Israel’s actions. Some German journalists have even defended the killing of their Palestinian colleagues.
The clearest example is Axel Springer, Europe’s largest publisher and owner of Bild, Germany’s biggest newspaper. Hours after al-Sharif’s killing was made public, Bild ran his photo under the headline: “Terrorist disguised as journalist killed in Gaza” (later changed to “Journalist killed was allegedly a terrorist”). Let that sink in.
About a week earlier, Bild had published another article: “This Gaza photographer stages Hamas propaganda.” It targeted Palestinian photographer Anas Zayed Fteiha, accusing him of faking images of starving Palestinians as part of a Hamas campaign—despite clear evidence that the people in the photos were genuinely starving and waiting for food. The article even put Fteiha’s title as “journalist” in quotation marks, implying he wasn’t a real reporter and that the starvation images were fabricated.
The Bild story—along with a similar piece in the liberal Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ)—was quickly amplified on X by Israel’s foreign ministry, which cited them as proof that Hamas manipulates global opinion. Fteiha was branded an “Israel- and Jew-hater” working for Hamas. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation piled on, joined by right-wing influencers.
In this case, German media became a direct pipeline for Israeli propaganda, repackaged as “evidence” and spread internationally. Fteiha responded: “I don’t create suffering. I document it.” Calling his work “Hamas propaganda,” he added, “is a crime against journalism itself.”
Just days before the Bild and SZ articles, Germany’s largest journalists’ association, the DJV, issued a statement warning of “manipulation” in press photography. It cast doubt on images of emaciated children in Gaza, claiming their condition “apparently is not attributable to the famine in Gaza.” The DJV provided no evidence—because none exists.
Facing online backlash, the association cited a July article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, where the author speculated whether images of starving infants were really due to famine—or preexisting conditions like cystic fibrosis. The piece accused media of negligence or manipulation for publishing such photos without further context. What it left out was the fact that… [text cuts off]Here’s a rewritten version of the text in fluent, natural English while preserving the original meaning:
—
Age and preexisting conditions cannot be cleanly separated, and no preexisting condition alone could explain such severe emaciation.
Bias in German media is nothing new. At Axel Springer, support for Israel’s existence ranks second in the company’s guiding principles, known as its “essentials.” Last September, Bild derailed ceasefire negotiations by publishing an “exclusive” report—leaked excerpts from a Hamas strategy document provided by Benjamin Netanyahu’s aides. Bild claimed Hamas was “not aiming for a quick end to the war,” which conveniently absolved Netanyahu of responsibility for the failed talks. (When asked about the story, a Bild spokesperson told +972 Magazine that they do not comment on sources.)
As it turned out, Bild had misrepresented the Hamas document. The timing couldn’t have been better for Netanyahu—the story broke as mass protests threatened his position. Shortly after, he cited the report in a cabinet meeting to paint demonstrators as Hamas pawns. The article remains online, uncorrected.
The problem goes far beyond Bild and Axel Springer. Mainstream German media has consistently failed to provide balanced, fact-based coverage of Israel and Palestine—a trend that became glaring after October 7. False claims, like Hamas beheading 40 babies, along with other deliberate misinformation, remain uncorrected.
Outlets across Germany’s political spectrum routinely ignore historical context, describe Palestinian deaths in passive, depoliticized terms, and blindly trust Israeli military “verification”—while ignoring Israel’s well-documented record of misinformation. In January, the supposedly left-leaning Die Tageszeitung ran an article titled, “Can journalists be terrorists?” It quoted the Israeli military four times—without a single input from a journalist in Gaza.
Such narratives undermine Palestinian journalists and, at worst, give Israel ready-made justifications for targeting them.
Germany’s “never again” pledge should carry weight given its genocidal history. Yet it rings hollow when major outlets spread propaganda to justify mass killings in Gaza. This isn’t journalism in service of truth—it’s journalism in service of violence. Breaking this cycle requires confronting the editorial biases and political loyalties that have weaponized German media.
The killing of journalists in Gaza makes one thing painfully clear: Israel doesn’t want a record left behind. When this genocide is written into history, the media’s role will fill entire chapters—and Germany’s will be uncomfortably large. No one can claim they didn’t see it coming.
Hanno Hauenstein is a Berlin-based journalist and author. He previously worked as a senior editor at Berliner Zeitung, specializing in contemporary art and politics.
Do you have thoughts on this article? To submit a letter (up to 300 words) for possible publication, email us.
—
This version simplifies complex phrasing, improves readability, and maintains the original intent without adding commentary.
FAQS
Here’s a list of FAQs about **How German Media Outlets Contributed to the Conditions Enabling Israel’s Killing of Journalists in Gaza** based on Hanno Hauenstein’s work:
### **Beginner-Level Questions**
1. **What is the main argument of Hanno Hauenstein’s analysis?**
Hauenstein argues that German media’s biased coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict helped create a climate where Israel’s attacks on journalists in Gaza were downplayed or justified.
2. **How did German media contribute to the conditions for journalist killings?**
By uncritically repeating Israeli government narratives, minimizing Palestinian perspectives, and failing to hold Israel accountable for targeting journalists.
3. **Why is this issue important?**
A free press is vital for democracy, and if media bias enables violence against journalists, it undermines global press freedom and human rights.
4. **Which German media outlets are criticized in this analysis?**
Major outlets like *Der Spiegel*, *Die Zeit*, *FAZ*, and *ARD* are often cited for their imbalanced reporting.
5. **What is meant by “structural bias” in media coverage?**
It refers to systemic tendencies in reporting that favor one side (in this case, Israel) while marginalizing the other (Palestinians), often through framing, word choice, and selective coverage.
### **Intermediate-Level Questions**
6. **How does German media’s historical context influence its coverage of Israel?**
Due to Germany’s Nazi past, many outlets avoid strong criticism of Israel, fearing accusations of antisemitism, even when reporting on human rights violations.
7. **What are some examples of biased language used in German media?**
Terms like “clashes” (instead of “one-sided violence”) or “terrorist” (without context) often frame Palestinians negatively while shielding Israel from scrutiny.
8. **Did German media ignore evidence of Israel targeting journalists?**
Critics say they underreported incidents like the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh and downplayed investigations by groups like **CPJ** (Committee to Protect Journalists).
9. **How does this compare to media coverage in other countries?**
Some international media (e.g., *The Guardian*, *Al Jazeera*) are more critical of Israel, while U.S. and
