Listen to the article
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has sparked controversy with its latest annual report, which attributes two-thirds of journalist deaths worldwide in 2025 to Israel. According to the report, Israel was responsible for killing 86 journalists and media workers out of a global total of 129 deaths.
Major news outlets, including The Guardian, Reuters, and Ha’aretz, quickly published headlines emphasizing these findings, painting Israel as the primary threat to journalism globally last year. The CPJ’s report breaks down the deaths geographically: 52 in Gaza, 31 in Yemen, and 3 in Iran.
However, a closer examination of the data raises questions about the classification of many individuals counted as “journalists” in the report. According to analysis by media watchdog HonestReporting, approximately 60% of those listed were affiliated with organizations that function primarily as propaganda outlets or have direct ties to terrorist groups.
In Gaza, the analysis suggests that 18 of the 52 journalists killed (about 35%) had connections to Palestinian terrorist organizations. Of these, 11 had worked for media outlets run by or aligned with Hamas or Islamic Jihad, while 7 have been accused of being active combatants.
The IDF has presented evidence identifying some of these individuals as Hamas operatives, including Hossam Shabat, who was allegedly a Hamas sniper, and Anas Al-Sharif, accused of commanding a rocket unit. The CPJ acknowledges these accusations in its report but dismisses the evidence as either “not credible” or “unsubstantiated.”
It’s worth noting that the CPJ’s own assessment indicates only 18 of the 52 Gaza journalists were specifically targeted by Israel. The majority (approximately 65%) were determined to have been killed as a result of broader conflict conditions, rather than being deliberately singled out.
The Yemen figures have drawn particular scrutiny. The 31 journalists and media workers counted in Yemen were employed by the “26 September” and “Yemen” newspapers, which operated from offices in the Houthi public relations department. The Houthis are designated as a terrorist organization by multiple countries, raising questions about whether their media employees should be classified as independent journalists or propaganda workers.
Similarly, two of the three Iranian journalists listed in the report worked for Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, widely regarded as a state propaganda outlet rather than an independent news organization.
IDF Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani criticized the report on social media, noting the absence of any mention of Hamas’s exploitation of journalistic credentials. “I couldn’t find a single word about the largest, and easily provable, hijacking of the institute of press by a terror group,” he wrote.
The controversy highlights the ongoing debate about who qualifies as a journalist in conflict zones, particularly when media organizations operate under the control of designated terrorist groups or authoritarian regimes. Critics argue that including propagandists and combatants in journalist death tolls undermines the protection of legitimate independent journalism.
While the CPJ report has generated significant headlines about Israel’s actions toward the press, the more nuanced reality suggests that many of those counted in the statistics were engaged in activities far removed from independent journalism. This distinction raises important questions about how such statistics are compiled and reported, and how they shape public perception of conflicts.
As the war in Gaza continues alongside regional tensions with the Houthis and Iran, the protection of genuine journalists remains a critical concern, as does the accurate classification of media workers in conflict zones.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
While the loss of any life is tragic, the CPJ report seems to overlook the complex realities of reporting in active war zones. The high proportion of individuals with ties to terrorist groups raises doubts about the objectivity of their findings.
That’s a fair point. Reporting from conflict areas is extremely challenging, and the lines between legitimate journalism and propaganda can become blurred. More transparency around the methodology would help clarify the issues.
While the loss of life is always tragic, the CPJ’s classification of ‘journalists’ appears to be highly problematic based on the information provided. A more thorough and transparent investigation is clearly warranted.
I agree. The data and methodology behind this report need to be scrutinized carefully, as the implications could have significant geopolitical consequences if not grounded in facts. A balanced, impartial analysis is crucial.
This report seems to reinforce a specific narrative rather than presenting a balanced, fact-based assessment. I’m curious to see how other media watchdogs and independent analysts respond to the CPJ’s claims and methodology.
Absolutely. It’s essential that we approach such sensitive topics with rigor and objectivity, rather than allowing partisan agendas to shape the discourse. I look forward to seeing a more comprehensive, nuanced discussion emerge.
This report raises serious concerns about the CPJ’s approach and credibility. Classifying individuals with ties to terrorist organizations as ‘journalists’ seems like a dangerous conflation that undermines the important role of free and independent media.
Well said. The CPJ needs to provide much more transparency and clarity around their data sources and verification processes. Responsible reporting on press freedoms is essential, but cannot come at the expense of accuracy and objectivity.
This report raises some concerning questions about the criteria used to classify ‘journalists’ in conflict zones. It’s important to scrutinize the data and affiliations of those counted, rather than accept the headline figures at face value.
Agreed, we need a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics at play rather than jumping to conclusions. Careful analysis is crucial when dealing with such a sensitive and politicized topic.