Most of the European and Latin American media defend a clear pro-Palestinian narrative. The reasons that explain this are conceptual and practical. From a conceptual point of view, many blame Israel for “occupying” Palestinian territories as if there had been a Palestinian state or as if the conflict were about territory. The materialistic influence on media professionals is considerable. Another conceptual inconvenient is that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is very complex. TV media usually avoid offering context information arguing that they lack the time. Possibly, something like this would demand more knowledge and preparation. The alternative to the required depth is to present “human stories”. Conceptually, there is a tendency to side with the weak (the Palestinians), without questioning who is the aggressor. When the weak ones and the aggressor are one and on the same side, the media prefer to show David fighting against Goliath.
From a practical point of view, most of the military actions occur on the Palestinian side, with less “pro-Israel” images (such as a destroyed bus after a suicidal attack). The TV companies do not have their own cameramen, so they receive images from the news agencies (AP, Reuters), who use images filmed by the Palestinians that live in those cities. It is almost impossible to find free-press culture in totalitarian societies such as Hamas in Gaza. There is a certain degree of lack of professionalism and the impossibility of wandering around the area. In Gaza, the journalists usually do not move from the restricted area assigned to them by Hamas, and when a TV company films material that discredits Palestinians, they have suffered death threats, like what happened to the RAI cameramen who filmed the savage lynching of two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah (2000). Finally, not always have the Israelis been able to communicate professionally.