What to know about the journalists killed covering Israel's war in Gaza
The big picture: Israel's military strikes and blocking of aid from Gaza have killed over 60,000 Palestinians, with press advocates and experts calling it the deadliest conflict for journalists in recent history.
Driving the news: Israel's military targeted and killed 28-year-old Al Jazeera correspondent Anas Al-Sharif on Sunday along with four others at the outlet, the network reported.
The Israeli military said it killed al-Sharif, a prominent reporter who extensively covered the war, after accusing him of leading a Hamas cell, an allegation that al-Sharif, press advocates, and the U.N. had rejected.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said in July that it was "gravely worried" for al-Sharif's safety following the Israel's allegations, characterizing them as a "smear campaign," which Al-Sharif "believes is a precursor to his assassination."
Here's what to know:
Who were the six journalists killed this week
Al Jazeera said that the Israeli military killed correspondents al-Sharif and Mohammed Qraiqea, cameramen Ibrahim Zaher and Moamen Aliwa, and Mohammed Noufal.
The network called the strike a "desperate attempt to silence the voices exposing the impending seizure and occupation of Gaza" and a "targeted assassination."
A sixth journalist, local freelance reporter Mohammad al-Khaldi, was also killed in the strike, multiple outlets reported.
Context: Al Jazeera is among the few outlets with a large team of reporters inside Gaza, who are able to chronicle fatalities from Israeli strikes and its blockage, the Associate Press noted.
Israel has largely restricted international journalists from reporting in Gaza.
Israel "ruthlessly smears, threatens, obstructs, targets and kills the few local journalists remaining as the only eyes of the outside world on the ongoing genocide," Irene Khan, the U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of expression, said in July.
What they're saying: Multiple press advocacy organizations, including CPJ and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, condemned Israel for the strike.
CPJ and the U.N. have noted that the IDF makes unsubstantiated terrorism allegations against Palestinian journalists that they later kill.
"CPJ classifies such cases as murder," the organization said.
The U.N. said on X that "we condemn the killing by Israeli military of 6 Palestinian journalists by targeting their tent, in grave breach of international humanitarian law," adding that "Israel must respect & protect all civilians, including journalists."
Who was Anas al-Sharif
Al-Sharif worked for Al Jazeera for about two years, multiple outlets reported.
He is survived by his wife, Bayan, their four-year-old daughter, and one-year-old son. His father was killed in an Israeli airstrike shortly after al-Sharif began working for Al Jazeera, the network said.
A post on al-Sharif's official Instagram account show a picture with the journalist and his children. According to the caption, it was the first time meeting his son after 15 months of war.
Mohamed Moawad, managing editor at Al Jazeera, told BBC that al-Sharif was the "only voice left in Gaza City."
Flashback: Al-Sharif cried on air while reporting on the starvation crisis in July, drawing international attention, after which the Israeli military's accusations ramped up.
In one an IDF spokesperson posted footage of al-Sharif crying and accused him of "propaganda" and being part of a "false Hamas campaign on starvation."
Irene Khan said that al-Sharif was killed with "no evidence, ever, put forward that he was anything but a journalist," per Al Jazeera.
Minutes before the strike, al-Sharif posted to X, "If this madness does not end, Gaza will be reduced to ruins, its people's voices silenced, their faces erased — and history will remember you as silent witnesses to a genocide you chose not to stop."
The number of journalists killed
By the numbers: The exact death toll of journalists since October 7 is unclear, but analysts estimate between about 190 and 270 Palestinian fatalities.
The CPJ says at least 192 Palestinian journalists and media workers have been killed during the war.
Gaza's government media office estimates 238 journalists.
Shireen.ps, a monitoring website organized by Palestinian journalists, estimates that over 270 media professionals have been killed (counting three Lebanese and two Israeli fatalities).
Brown University's Watson Institute in April said"the war in Gaza has, since October 7, 2023, killed more journalists than the U.S. Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War (including the conflicts in Cambodia and Laos), the wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s and 2000s, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan, combined."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
S.F. school district to teachers: Your political opinions don't belong in the classroom
Days before the start of classes, San Francisco school leaders reminded teachers that they can't express political opinions during the school day, including in what they say, wear or what they put on their walls. District officials encouraged principals to reinforce those restrictions as educators and staff participated in back-to-school training this week. The guidance follows a divisive battle last school year over accusations of political activism among educators in city schools, particularly in ethnic studies courses. Controversial activities included teachers encouraging students to write letters to Mumia Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther sentenced to death in 1981 for murdering a Philadelphia police officer, or asking them to participate in anti-Israel protests. In other cases, teachers hung pro-Palestinian posters in classrooms, or described Israel as colonizers committing genocide. While the laws and policies are not new, they have been often ignored or absent from staff training sessions. District officials, last year, gave principals the materials to train staff on bias and personal opinions, but it was unclear how many used them. This year, one veteran teacher said it was the first such training in their career. 'Many teachers have been dangerously misled about their professional freedoms and responsibilities,' the educator said. 'K-12 teachers don't have the same academic freedoms as university instructors. Our students are minor children.' The district's teachers union, which has taken a pro-Palestinian stance and has advocated for teachers who wish to speak out about the war in Gaza, did not immediately return requests for comment about the training. In February, officials from the union wrote in a pro-Palestinian resolution that 'educators who utilized their democratic rights to speak out against the war were repressed or harassed by school authorities.' In recent years, Bay Area schools have seen an uptick in politically motivated instruction and the opinions of staff and educators publicly displayed. That has included student walkouts, bolstered by teachers and their unions, as well as posters and staff clothing reflecting beliefs, including candidates, government policies and the war in Gaza. Accusations of antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of harassment in schools have grown specifically since the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel in and the retaliatory bombing of Gaza, with hundreds of official complaints filed at the district, state and federal level. District officials said the most recent training was proactive and not punitive and aimed to help staff navigate complex and sensitive topics in a way that aligns with state law and school board policies. 'If parents or students see something they are concerned about they should contact their principal,' said district spokesperson Laura Dudnick. 'When concerns arise, we follow a clear process for reviewing them that is consistent with labor agreements and Board policy.' State education law requires an education free of harassment and bias and equal access to learning regardless of race, religion, national origin or other protected status. But that has been broadly interpreted across public schools in San Francisco and the Bay Area and, at times, rarely enforced. In the spring, San Francisco Superintendent Maria Su vowed to address the issue following community concerns raised specifically about ethnic studies courses and, more broadly, antisemitic content and harassment amid pro-Palestinian activism. 'Teaching should be about teaching students how to think,' not what to think,' she said in June. Su decided to suspend the district's homegrown ethnic studies curriculum, which critics said was divisive, antisemitic and promoted progressive activism. The board in July purchased an off-the-shelf replacement to be used for the year-long required ethnic studies course for ninth graders. In addition, Su is expected to issue an administrative order regarding the use of supplemental materials used by teachers to ensure they adhere to state and district guidelines. The training materials given to principals also notes that employees cannot solicit students or families to further their ideological persuasions or use district resources, including district email, to communicate or advocate for their political opinions. 'Students should be challenged in their coursework and schools should provide a safe and rigorous experience where they can express their thinking and listen to others,' said school board President Phil Kim. 'Our whole job here as educators is to create the conditions for all of that to take place. 'This is what I come back to: What is our responsibility as educators?' he said. 'It's not about us. It's about the kids.'
Atlantic
4 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Awkward Adolescence of a Media Revolution
There's a quiet revolution in how millions of Americans decide what's real. Trust is slipping away from traditional institutions—media, government, and higher education—and shifting to individual voices online, among them social-media creators. The Reuters Institute reports that this year, for the first time, more Americans will get their news from social and video platforms—including Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and X—than from traditional outlets. According to Pew Research, one in five adults now regularly turns to influencers for news. For anyone who cares about credible information, this is a potentially terrifying prospect. Social media rewards virality, not veracity. Spend five minutes scrolling TikTok or Instagram and you might encounter influencers 'educating' you about a global elite running the world from 'hidden continents' behind an 'ice wall' in Antarctica, or extolling the virtues of zeolite, 'a volcanic binder for mold' that will 'vacuum clean all kinds of toxins' to lift brain fog, prevent cancer, and remove microplastics from testicles. (Link to purchase in bio.) It's an environment perfectly engineered to scale both misinformation and slick grifts. And yet the popular notion that social media is just a dumpster fire of viral lies misses something vital: Millions of people still care about truth. They are seeking facts on social media from credible voices they can trust. They just aren't always sure where to find it or from whom. I know because I interact with these people every day. I was among the first independent journalists to bring news reporting to Instagram; today my outlet, News Not Noise, spans Instagram, YouTube, a podcast, Substack, and other platforms. In my years of directly engaging with an on-platform audience, the question I receive more than any other remains simply, 'Is this true?' I'm here to tell you the truth isn't dead. Thousands of people like me operate online as what I call 'evidence-based creators.' We're journalists and specialists who use expertise, original reporting, and reliable sources to refute misinformation, add context to breaking news, and answer the endless questions flooding our DMs. The topics we cover range from redistricting to medical misinformation, beauty fads to whether that viral health-food trend might actually kill you. The work is an uphill battle. My cohort is not John Oliver–level media personalities with PR teams, production crews, and a research staff to fact-check the punch lines. We are independent voices operating without safety nets. I like to think of us as the digital equivalent of artisanal chefs working in a factory for mass-produced junk food. The very things that make us valuable—our obsession with facts, our commitment to nuance, our hours spent answering audience questions in the apps—put us at a profound disadvantage in the attention economy. What does it take to produce a slick video claiming that beef tallow is nature's Viagra? Fifteen minutes with an iPhone and zero regard for reality. While we're still sourcing assertions and trying to make complex ideas both accurate and engaging, the bullshit factory has already pumped out six more viral falsehoods. Our secret weapon isn't production value or algorithm hacking; it's trust. When I debunk a viral lie, I'm not a faceless institution. I'm the person who's been with my audience while they brush their teeth every morning, the person who's been in their ears during commutes, the person whose face they've studied through hundreds of 90-second windows into complex issues. This isn't an audience of passive consumers. They're hungry for more—more reporting on more topics, more conversations with experts, more explanations that break things down but don't treat an audience like idiots. 'Can the Supreme Court disbar an attorney?' 'Will the military disobey unconstitutional orders?' 'Do I need another measles vaccine as an adult?' All of this leaves evidence-based creators in a strange limbo. We're clearly valued; Substack, for instance, is proving that audiences are willing to stop scrolling and financially support 'verifiers' they trust. But we're still largely disconnected from the resources and collaborative frameworks that could multiply our impact. We're working so hard at the work itself that we have little opportunity to build the scaffolding required to create a durable new model in digital publishing—one that includes tools such as high-powered marketing and growth engines to reach new audiences, editorial oversight to help with difficult judgment calls, and shared research that would prevent each of us from having to build expertise from scratch with every breaking story. I see this obstacle as an opportunity. History shows us that industries facing technological disruption tend not to simply collapse—they transform. Look at what happened to the music industry when Spotify and its streaming cohort crashed the party. In the old days, musicians lived and died by album sales and radio play, with major labels acting as gatekeepers. Then streaming blew the doors off. The revolution was messy. Many artists found themselves with more listeners than ever but paychecks that wouldn't cover a month's worth of ramen. What helped the music industry find its footing wasn't nostalgia for CDs or vinyl. It was new infrastructure: playlist curation that helped listeners find their next obsession, analytics tools that told artists who was actually listening, distribution services that got music onto platforms, and business models that went beyond streaming royalties to include direct-to-fan revenue and merchandising. Artists still face challenges, but now labels are investing heavily in data to understand trends, offering artists different types of deals, and using their marketing muscle to help artists cut through the digital noise. The industry evolved by creating tools that complemented streaming algorithms instead of fighting them—helping artists understand their audiences, not just pray for a decent playlist placement. In our current information ecosystem, we're stuck in the awkward adolescence of a media revolution. The need for innovation couldn't be more urgent. Local newspapers are dying like mall food courts— 2,500-plus have shut down since 2005. Traditional media outlets are under assault by the Trump administration. And AI is flooding us with convincing fake content, making human truth tellers all the more necessary. Conversations about the press and the tech revolution often get stuck on the problems with or the inadequacy of any solution. It's time that changed. So I'll take the leap and propose some imperfect innovations. First, audiences could benefit from an independent, off-platform certification system to help them discern which independent voices adhere to journalistic standards. Not to be all 'Papers, please' about it, but audiences need signals about who's committed to accuracy versus who's just chasing likes. One solution: a nonprofit voluntary opt-in LEED-type certification that awards something like a blue check mark—but vetted far more rigorously—to creators who use agreed-upon trusted sources, check their facts, and reveal when their content is sponsored. I'm aware that any credentialing system risks backlash from those suspicious of 'gatekeeping.' But people shouldn't be disparaged for 'doing their own research' if they aren't offered the tools to tell reality from fiction. Second, evidence-based creators need support. Imagine a fractional-ownership model where like-valued creators buy into a shared professional framework. With an economy of scale, we could collectively share in things such as legal protection and sophisticated audience-development tools designed specifically for evidence-based content. We could sign sponsors who understand the unique value of trusted voices. We could offer bundled subscriptions to help audiences find more of us at once. This could create sustainable revenue streams without compromising integrity. Finally, legacy media, please stop viewing creators as a threat. We don't have to be competitors—we can be the connective tissue between trusted journalism and the platforms where people now consume most of their information. Traditional media outlets can stay relevant in the new digital reality by partnering with us. But first, it'd help if they'd allow for the possibility that what's happening isn't just the death of an old system—it's the messy, complicated birth of a new one. And like a newborn, it needs more than good intentions in order to thrive.
NBC News
4 hours ago
- NBC News
Israeli gunfire kills at least 25 in Gaza as Netanyahu says he will allow Palestinians to leave
TEL AVIV, Israel — Israeli gunfire killed at least 25 people seeking aid in Gaza on Wednesday, health officials and witnesses said, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu again called for what he refers to as the voluntary migration of Palestinians from the war-ravaged territory. Netanyahu wants to realize U.S. President Donald Trump's vision of relocating much of Gaza's population of over 2 million people through what he refers to as 'voluntary migration' — and what critics have warned could be ethnic cleansing. 'Give them the opportunity to leave! First, from combat zones, and also from the strip if they want,' Netanyahu said in an interview aired Tuesday with Israeli TV station i24 to discuss the planned offensive in areas that include Gaza City, where hundreds of thousands of displaced people shelter. 'We are not pushing them out but allowing them to leave.' Witnesses and staff at Nasser and Awda hospitals, which received the bodies, said people were shot on their way to aid distribution sites or while awaiting convoys entering Gaza. Efforts to revive ceasefire talks Efforts to revive ceasefire talks have resumed after apparently breaking down last month. Hamas and Egyptian officials met Wednesday in Cairo, according to Hamas official Taher al-Nounou. Israel has no plans to send its negotiating team to talks in Cairo, Netanyahu's office said. Israel's plans to widen its military offensive against Hamas to parts of Gaza it does not yet control have sparked condemnation at home and abroad, and could be intended to raise pressure on Hamas to reach a ceasefire. The militants still hold 50 hostages taken in the Oct. 7, 2023 attack that sparked the war. Israel believes around 20 are still alive. Families fear a new offensive endangers them. he wanted all hostages back, alive and dead.
