The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint from Ms Edel Cox about a news report headlined “Gaza death toll reaches 60,000 as global monitor warns of famine” which was published in The Irish Times in July 2025 and is from a regular contributor from an international news agency.
Ms Cox is a member of two Palestinian solidarity groups. She asserted that the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) and Principle 8 (Prejudice).
The Press Ombudsman notes that the complaint is largely about the use of language and how, according to Ms Cox, this affects the framing of the story. The complainant also argues that figures are underestimated, and that there are “sustained omissions”. Having considered all the elements of the complaint, the Press Ombudsman has set out below key issues raised by the complainant.
On Principle 1, the complainant said the use of the figure of 60,000 was “incredibly misleading and gives a distorted picture of the death toll and harm to the population”. She referred to the “potential death toll from Israel’s genocidal policies as a whole”, and to estimates provided in other reports. She stated that the figure quoted for the number of missing persons was also understated according to other sources.
She said the omission of terms like genocide, apartheid, illegal occupation and war crimes failed to provide an accurate context which was, she said, available within international legal statements. She said it was inaccurate to refer to “fighting” when Israel was using aerial bombardment and shooting starving people.
On Principle 2, she questioned the impartiality of the agency which supplied the article, stating that concerns had been raised by some about the impact of Israeli censorship. She asked if the publication could confirm that there was “no inappropriate influence or undisclosed interests” in reports supplied by the agency in question and others.
On Principle 4, she said the publication referred to “the Hamas -controlled health ministry” and did so to cast doubt on the figures issued by the health ministry in Gaza, to dehumanise it and to cause it to be seen as “terror associated”. This, she said, was malicious misrepresentation.
On Principle 8, she said it caused grave offence to Palestinians to have their health ministry and the death toll undermined by the use of dehumanising and racist language. She said the figure quoted was a “vast misrepresentation” and that the health ministry in Gaza had stated that it could not properly assess the true death toll due to the ongoing bombardment by Israel. She said “the omission of the history of atrocities against Palestinians” was in breach of Principle 8 as it gave a prejudiced, racist and dehumanising account of their experience. She said the use of the term “fighting” was also offensive in the context.
The Irish Times did not accept that it had breached the Code of Practice and said it found it hard to comprehend how an article headlined “Gaza death toll reaches 60,000 as global monitor warns of famine” was deemed by the complainant to be “unfair and prejudiced towards Palestinians”. It said that the complainant had set out how she felt its articles should be written but that it seemed she did not regularly read its actual coverage. It noted by way of example that the term “genocide” had appeared in multiple articles and letters it had published in recent months.
It stated that the term “Hamas controlled health ministry” was accurate and widely used by a number of international media outlets, and that the article clearly took the figures provided by the ministry very seriously. It said the article was a balanced news report and that there was “no question” of any inappropriate influence having been brought to bear on it. It said it was “not sustainable from a journalistic point of view” not to quote from official Israeli statements as suggested by the complainant.
It noted that the Press Ombudsman had dealt with many of the issues raised by the complainant in responding to an earlier and similar complaint from her.
The Irish Times indicated that it had offered Ms Cox the opportunity to submit a letter to the editor of up to 500 words in which she could address some of the issues that concerned her, and that this offer was still available to her.
Decision
On Principle 1, the Press Ombudsman finds that the article expands upon the figure given for the death toll in the headline by breaking it down and noting that the true figure could be “significantly higher”. It also develops upon the reference in the headline to famine. She finds that the article shows evidence of striving for truth and accuracy in a situation where neither are readily available to the media, and that the article does not breach Principle 1 of the Code.
On Principle 2, the Press Ombudsman finds that the publication has made use of a named and regular contributor from a named agency which it trusts and uses regularly, and that while the complainant has raised questions, she has not demonstrated that any inappropriate influence was exerted on the editorial process. There is no breach of Principle 2 of the Code.
On Principle 4, the Press Ombudsman finds that the publication treats the health ministry figures with respect and provides informed analysis of them. There is no evidence of malicious misrepresentation or of failure to check facts. There is no breach of Principle 4 of the Code.
On Principle 8, the Press Ombudsman finds that this is a news report which quotes from and refers to multiple sources of information. The death toll cited emanates from the health ministry in Gaza and while the complainant takes issue with the use of the term “Hamas-controlled” the Press Ombudsman finds that the figure provided by the ministry is treated with respect and with no intimation of racism or prejudice. The Press Ombudsman finds with reference to this and to other instances cited by the complainant that the article does not breach Principle 8 of the Code.
The Press Ombudsman notes that no single news report can be expected to deal with all the complex issues that arise amid the ongoing tragedy of a war, conflict or genocide. It is the responsibility of editors to try to present the unfolding situation from multiple angles in sustained coverage which attempts to capture the latest developments as they arise.
She notes that The Irish Times has provided evidence that this article was published in the context of such wider coverage.
The Press Ombudsman has no doubt that the complainant is motivated by her strong sense of the suffering of the Palestinian people, and she notes the publication’s statement that it respects that Ms Cox’s views are strongly held. The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication’s suggestion that the complainant submit a letter for publication was an appropriate one in the circumstances.