Ms. Rachel cuts ties with NYT over ‘biased’ Gaza coverage and censored words

A leaked memo revealed the NYT’s push to soften words like *genocide*—so Ms. Rachel walked away. Her bold protest puts media ethics in the spotlight.

, and Administrator

2025 November 10 . 7:15 AM

1 min read

In this image in the center there is one news paper, and some text is written in that newspaper.

Ms. Rachel cuts ties with NYT over ‘biased’ Gaza coverage and censored words

Ms. Rachel, an outspoken advocate for the Palestinian people, has recently unsubscribed from The New York Times due to perceived bias in its coverage of Palestinians and Palestine. Her decision follows a leaked internal memo that attempted to control the language used in reporting on Gaza. Ms. Rachel, who has been actively supporting the Palestinian cause for the past 1.5 years, took to social media to express her discontent. She cited a memo that discouraged the use of terms like 'genocide', 'ethnic cleansing', and 'occupied territory'. Instead, it suggested journalists refer to Gaza's refugee camps as 'neighborhoods'. The memo also flagged words such as 'slaughter', 'massacre', and 'carnage', indicating a desire to soften the language used in reporting. Ms. Rachel, who has been carrying the stories of children in Gaza close to her heart, responded firmly, stating, 'Words matter'. Ms. Rachel's activism extends beyond her words. She recently attended the Glamour Awards in New York City wearing a dress embroidered with designs by children in Gaza, drawing attention to their plight. Her stance is clear: she won't work with people who have remained silent about the ongoing situation in Gaza. Ms. Rachel's unsubscription from The New York Times highlights the ongoing debate surrounding media bias and the language used in reporting conflicts. Her actions serve as a reminder of the power of words and the importance of accurate, unbiased reporting.