EAST AND WEST

A recent media analysis by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), authored by Drew Favakeh and published on March 30, 2026, argues that The New York Times has provided structurally imbalanced coverage of the ongoing war involving Iran, Israel, and the United States.

According to Favakeh, the imbalance stems primarily from the newspaper’s lack of on-the-ground reporting in Iran, contrasted with extensive in-person coverage from Israel.

FAIR: NYT Coverage “Up-Close” in Israel, “Distant” in Iran

Favakeh writes that the Times has maintained a large reporting presence inside Israel, where journalists have been able to document events in real time. He cites multiple correspondents based in the country and describes their reporting as focused on Israeli civilian experiences, including missile alerts, sheltering, and public reactions to the conflict.

By contrast, Favakeh notes that the Times has no reporters based in Iran, a fact acknowledged by the newspaper’s own editors in internal Q&A articles published in March.

He summarizes the disparity as follows: Israeli coverage is “up-close and personal,” while Iran is covered from a distance.

NYT Editors: “We Can’t Be There”

In one of the Q&A pieces cited by FAIR, Adrienne Carter, a senior international editor at the Times, explains that Iran is “very restrictive in terms of access for journalists.”

Carter states that the newspaper has only received “two or three visas” in recent years and none during the current phase of the war. She adds that communications inside Iran are heavily limited, making reporting slower and more difficult.

In a separate response quoted by FAIR, Marc Lacey similarly emphasizes that Times reporters “do not have free access” in Iran and would otherwise report directly from affected areas if possible.

FAIR: Lack of Access Led to Delayed Reporting

Favakeh argues that this absence of reporters has concrete consequences. He points to the example of a strike on a school in Minab that reportedly killed more than 170 civilians.

According to FAIR, it took the Times five days to report that the United States was “most likely” responsible for the attack. Favakeh presents this delay as evidence that remote reporting weakens both speed and clarity in attributing responsibility.

CNN Reporter Granted Access

FAIR contrasts the Times’ position with that of Frederik Pleitgen of CNN.

Citing an interview published by The Guardian, Favakeh notes that Pleitgen successfully obtained a visa and reported from inside Iran shortly after the conflict began.

Although Pleitgen acknowledged some restrictions—such as informing authorities before traveling—he stated that “by and large, we could do everything that we wanted to do.”

FAIR uses this example to argue that access to Iran, while difficult, is not impossible, and that major outlets could pursue it more actively.

FAIR: Israeli Media Restrictions Underreported

A central argument in Favakeh’s report is that Western media, including the Times, highlight Iranian press restrictions while giving less attention to Israeli censorship.

He cites data from the Committee to Protect Journalists indicating that Israel has killed significantly more journalists than Iran in recent years, particularly in Gaza.

Favakeh also references reporting from +972 Magazine, which documents Israel’s military censorship system. According to that reporting, journalists are required to submit security-related content for review before publication, and thousands of articles have been fully or partially censored.

During the current war, additional restrictions were imposed, including bans on reporting precise missile impact locations.

Selective Framing in Media

FAIR further criticizes how media outlets frame restrictions differently depending on the country.

Favakeh points to coverage by Bloomberg, which described Iran’s media environment under the label “Repressive Regime,” while referring to Israeli restrictions more neutrally as “War Guidelines.”

According to FAIR, such language contributes to a double standard in how press freedom issues are presented.

Favakeh suggests that if the Times cannot deploy its own reporters to Iran, it could rely more on local journalists.

He notes that other outlets—including El País and Drop Site News—have used networks such as Egab to publish reports from inside Iran.

These accounts, according to FAIR, provide more immediate and detailed descriptions of the impact of US and Israeli strikes on Iranian civilians.

The FAIR report concludes that the New York Times’ current approach results in a significant informational imbalance. By relying on remote reporting for Iran while maintaining direct access in Israel, the newspaper produces coverage that differs not only in depth but also in immediacy and human detail.

Favakeh argues that this disparity ultimately limits readers’ understanding of the war—particularly its impact on Iranian civilians—and calls for greater efforts to obtain on-the-ground reporting or collaborate with local journalists.