The mainstream US legacy media's complicit role in Israel's genocide in Gaza has been well documented. Adam Johnson's book How to Sell a Genocide: The Media's Complicity in the Destruction of Gaza (Pluto Press, 2026) goes a step further in specifically analysing the centre-left and liberal news outlets' role in normalising and rationalising genocide to their audience.
The distinction is important. While other legacy media outlets were largely preaching to the converted, and support for Israel's genocide in Gaza was largely guaranteed, the centre-left and liberal media built a narrative that was targeted to convince its readers and viewers of the alleged necessity of the genocide.
The tactics used were similar – unfounded allegations making their way to news headlines, such as the false story of the 40 beheaded babies, which justified the genocide.
Johnson shows that legacy media led Israel's PR campaign , and the centre-left and liberal media built a narrative of dehumanising Palestinians because, purportedly, there was no other way for Israel's security but to resort to genocide.
Hence, for example, the alleged impossibility of agreeing to a ceasefire when Hamas beheads babies – a claim that was swiftly proved false.
Or promoting Israel's terror narrative – right out from the US War on Terror playbook – of equating Hamas with the Islamic State group (IS/ISIS).
Media outlets removed all context before October 7 and used the date as the starting point to justify Israel's genocide in Gaza.
Necessity became the means by which the media employed and consolidated its double standards in reporting.
Johnson's research contains statistical data which is broken down into detailed explanations of the rationale behind the use of language, the elimination of the Palestinians' narratives of their experiences of the genocide, the misrepresentation of Israel's precision bombing, the removal of accountability by failing to mention Israel as the aggressor, and the discrediting of Israel's kill toll by noting that the numbers came from Hamas and therefore, were untrustworthy.
In setting up a dubious background when it comes to Palestinians, and an alleged last resort for Israel, Johnson notes that the US media provided ample cover for the Biden administration's complicity in genocide.
The use of anonymous sources in setting the dissemination of foreign policy enabled the media to conjure illusions of dissatisfaction in Washington, even as Israel received regular military equipment from the US .
What the media failed to report, however, was that the US could have stopped Israel's genocide in Gaza if it wanted to – Israel also admitted that US support was crucial for its actions.
Portraying the US government as allegedly having its hands tied when it comes to Israel, the rest of Israel's propaganda , upon which it heavily depended on the media, was a smooth process.
Johnson's research strongly illustrates how terminology was applied, or not, depending on the reporting angle.
A 'Hamas stronghold', for example, justifies Israel's killing of Palestinians in Gaza on account of spatial proximity in a densely populated area.
Tunnel infrastructure is another justification that the media used to legitimise and normalise Israel's genocide. The discovery of alleged top-secret Hamas documents was another tactic.
All were discredited, yet the use of vague language, such as 'sources' allegedly verifying what the media reported, served to amplify the terminology used to dehumanise Palestinians and, as a result, normalise Israel's genocide in Gaza.
Humanitarian aid was treated similarly.
As the debate on humanitarian pauses took place within the international community, Johnson writes that guests invited to speak on shows, all with links to the US government, "painted the administration as a neutral third party working to broker peace and provide humanitarian aid."
Meanwhile, the structured and realistic analysis of humanitarian aid agencies such as Doctors Without Borders, which pointed out the hypocrisy of feeding people to bomb them later, was marginalised from the media.
As editorials shaped public opinion, the space for critical thinking was co-opted to support the narratives being disseminated.
The refusal to connect the present with the past also applied to pro-Israel guest speakers who would be identified with their current role but completely dissociated from any past positions linking them to weapons companies, for example.
By contrast, on the few occasions that Palestinians were invited, the hosts would centre the entire narrative on gleaning any perceived support for Hamas, which would then enable the media to justify genocide in Gaza through dehumanisation .
Dehumanisation, Johnson notes, was particularly prevalent at The Atlantic, which completely eliminated even the most prominent of Israel's crimes, such as the killing of Hind Rajab , while making space for debating Israeli statements inciting genocide.
With writers arguing that comments by Israeli officials were taken out of context, the context was again shaped by the dehumanisation and elimination of the Palestinian people .
In concluding the book, Johnson writes, "news outlets popular with Democrats were essential to this dual process of dehumanisation and feigned humanitarianism, of elimination and alleged ceasefire negotiations, of weapons shipment and crocodile tears."
Combined with the likelihood that accountability will never be forthcoming, Johnson's conclusion is both sobering and frightening, albeit to be expected.
Without accountability, what Israel unleashed in Gaza will be normalised for the world. In such scenarios, the media has already proved its role and complicity. Ramona Wadi is an independent researcher, freelance journalist, book reviewer and blogger specialising in the struggle for memory in Chile and Palestine, colonial violence and the manipulation of international law Follow her on X: @walzerscent