News organizations are facing fresh criticism over how they described an alleged attempt by a co-pilot to crash a passenger jet bound for Israel, with critics arguing that some outlets went out of their way to avoid the word «terrorism» in their initial coverage.
The episode began when a plane flying from Dubai to Israel was diverted after what officials described as a violent altercation between the pilot and co-pilot. Israeli officials said the co-pilot was believed to have stabbed the captain and tried to crash the aircraft. The plane sent out a hijacking alert, and Israel scrambled jets to intercept the Boeing 737 Max before standing down.
The New York Times drew widespread mockery for a tweet describing the episode as an «altercation between the pilot and co-pilot.» The newspaper's public relations team defended the wording, saying its headlines and live coverage «contain all the facts we're able to confirm as we confirm them» and that, unlike «activists and partisans,» it does not publish speculation or unverified information.
The BBC posted a similarly restrained headline, describing an «Israel-bound flight diverted after fight between pilots,» though its brief report noted that two Israeli officials said the co-pilot was believed to have stabbed the captain and tried to crash the plane.
By contrast, the American broadcast networks were more direct in their morning coverage. NBC reporter Matt Bradley told viewers there had been «some sort of violent incident on board that flight» and that the plane had sent out a hijacking alert. ABC's Ian Pannell went further, saying the story was «looking increasingly like a terrorist incident.»
The divergence reflects a broader pattern in elite media coverage, where outlets often move slowly to characterize motive even when the circumstances appear to point in an obvious direction. An attempted hijacking of a plane full of Israelis headed for Tel Aviv suggests hostility toward Israel, and Israeli officials clearly treated the episode as a potential new version of the September 11 hijackings.
Some networks, however, framed the search for motive through a political lens. On PBS NewsHour, anchor Geoff Bennett asked former Clinton and Obama official Juliette Kayyem about the difficulty of responsibly discussing motive, noting that Israel's prime minister had cited what he called Islamist radical indoctrination and that President Donald Trump had pointed to Iran, without either providing evidence.
Kayyem agreed that narratives often form quickly after crises «for political reasons,» adding that «there are elections.» She acknowledged that the leading theory — a co-pilot trying to crash a plane of Israelis in Israel — suggests terrorism, but said it remained unclear whether the radicalization was self-directed or state-sponsored. She also raised the possibility of mental-health issues. A CNN expert suggested the episode might amount to «workplace violence.»
NPR's Morning Edition turned to former CNN analyst Philip Mudd, asking whether the political motivations of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might cloud the investigation.
The debate echoes the aftermath of the September 11, 2012, attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. During that election season, a Media Research Center analysis found that the first night of coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC devoted nine minutes and 28 seconds to criticism of Republican nominee Mitt Romney for questioning President Barack Obama's handling of Libya, while only 25 seconds focused on Obama's Middle East policies.
Obama later told CBS reporter Steve Kroft that Romney had «a tendency to shoot first and aim later» and that statements must be «backed up by the facts.» Days later, the administration suggested the Benghazi attack could be blamed on a YouTube video that spurred spontaneous protests, denying any pre-planned assault. Only after the election did CBS air portions of Kroft's interview in which Obama described the episode as an attack on Americans rather than a protest.
The current episode has renewed questions about whether broadcast networks, which have themselves faced accusations of partisan framing during election seasons, are well positioned to suggest that conservatives cannot be trusted to characterize terrorism incidents fairly.