Al Jazeera, the Qatari state-backed broadcaster that has long styled itself as a global voice for the oppressed, is instructing its journalists not to describe al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, and similar outfits as terrorist, Islamist, or extremist organizations, instead mandating neutral terms such as fighters and armed groups.
.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, a copy of Al Jazeeras internal style guidemarked 2023-2024 Edition and recently updated to reflect current eventslays out in meticulous detail how the networks reporters are to sanitize language surrounding radical Islamist movements and hostile regimes.
The document, which the outlet says it obtained and which Al Jazeera declined to comment on, even instructs staff to ignore President Donald Trumps renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, directing them to continue using the older geographic designation. The guides treatment of jihadist organizations and anti-Western actors offers a revealing window into how the Doha-based channel, funded by a monarchy that shelters Hamas leadership, packages radical Islam and geopolitical flashpoints for a global audience.
"There is nothing stylish or factual about this unholy text, which has a higher spin rate than any Major League power pitcher," said one media insider who has seen the document. "It simply confirms what many right-thinking people have always known: Al Jazeera exists only to parrot narratives that have been carefully crafted by the Hamas propaganda machine." The insiders assessment underscores what many conservatives have argued for yearsthat Al Jazeeras editorial posture is less about objective journalism and more about advancing a particular ideological line that consistently undermines Western security interests and Israels legitimacy.
The style guide is explicit that reporters must avoid certain descriptors unless they are clearly attributed to someone else. We do not use these terms unless attributed, the document states, referring to labels such as terrorist and extremist that are commonly used in Western media to describe groups like ISIS and al Qaeda. Instead, Al Jazeera staff are instructed to rely on bland formulations that obscure the moral and strategic stakes, a choice that predictably benefits those who wage war on civilians while claiming religious justification.
ISIS, which the guide insists on calling ISIL, is described in antiseptic language that strips away the horror of its atrocities. The networks official description reads: Armed group operating in parts of Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. Its leader was Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. We will continue to call it ISIL even if it has branches outside the Levant region. This framing reduces a genocidal death cult that beheaded Western hostages, enslaved Yazidi women, and attempted to establish a global caliphate to just another armed group, as though it were a local militia or a conventional insurgent force.
The guides rules are not theoretical; they are already embedded in Al Jazeeras coverage. In a January 30, 2026, report headlined "ISIL claims responsibility for Niger airport attack," the outlet wrote: "The ISIL (ISIS) armed group has claimed responsibility for an attack on an air force base at Nigers main airport." Likewise, in a February 15, 2026, piece titled "US says over 5,700 suspected ISIL detainees relocated from Syria to Iraq," the network reported: "Backed by US-led forces, Iraq proclaimed a victory over ISIL in the country in 2017, and the SDF ultimately defeated the armed group in Syria two years later." In both cases, the term armed group is deployed as a euphemism that avoids acknowledging the terrorist nature of ISILs campaign.
The same linguistic contortions appear in Al Jazeeras treatment of historical atrocities, particularly those that implicate Muslim-majority powers or regimes aligned with the networks editorial sympathies. On the Armenian massacres carried out by the Ottoman Empire during World War I, the guide is unequivocal: Do not say genocide to describe the mass killings that happened at the end of the first World War. Armenians say the killings amount to genocide. While Modern day Turkiye vehemently disputes the killings committed in the last days of the Ottoman Empire constituted a genocide. We say mass killings. But its ok to write genocide when quoting someone. This directive effectively places Al Jazeera on the side of Ankaras long-running campaign to deny or downplay the Armenian genocide, a stance that aligns with Turkeys Islamist-leaning leadership and its broader regional posture.
The policy is reflected in coverage of Turkish-Armenian relations and U.S. recognition of the genocide. In a January 14, 2022, article titled "Turkey, Armenia talk normalising ties after decades of animosity," Al Jazeera wrote: "The neighbours are at odds over various issues, primarily the 1915 mass killings of 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire." And when President Joe Biden formally recognized the Armenian genocide, the network framed it this way in an April 24, 2021, piece, "Reactions to Bidens recognition of Armenian genocide,": "Joe Biden has become the first United States president to recognise as an act of 'genocide' the mass killing of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I." The scare quotes around genocide and the preference for mass killings mirror the guides instructions and signal deference to Turkish sensitivities rather than historical clarity.
By contrast, the style guide is far more willing to deploy the term genocide when it fits a narrative favored by the networks ideological allies. We will use the term genocide to describe the killing of more than 8,000 Muslim boys and men by Bosnian Serb forces in July 1995, the document states, referring to the Srebrenica massacre. It continues: In addition to the genocide, more than 20,000 civilians were expelled from the region in a process known as ethnic cleansing. In April 2004, The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague, ruled that the crimes committed in Srebrenica constituted a genocide. In 2007, the International Criminal Court upheld that ruling saying, there was specific intent to destroy in part the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
This language appears verbatim in Al Jazeeras retrospective coverage. A July 11, 2025, article titled "Reliving History: How the Srebrenica genocide unfolded 30 years ago today," declared: "Today, on the 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide, were taking you back to July 11, 1995, for a realtime account of how this tragic day unfolded." The selective willingness to use genocide in some contexts but not others reveals a political calculus: atrocities against Muslims are labeled unequivocally, while crimes committed by Muslim-majority powers or against Christian minorities are hedged or minimized.
The guide also addresses religious terminology, particularly concepts that Western audiences often associate with Islamist violence. On jihad, the document is categorical: Do not use the Arabic term. Strictly speaking, jihad means an inner spiritual struggle, not a holy war. It is not by tradition a negative term. It also means the struggle to defend Islam against things challenging it. Again, an Arabic term that we do not use. This instruction effectively erases the way jihadist groups themselves use the term to justify violent campaigns, privileging a theological ideal over the brutal reality of how the word functions in contemporary conflicts.
Al Jazeeras editors insist they will continue to describe groups and individuals, by talking about their previous actions and current aims to give viewers the context they require, rather than use a simplistic label. Yet the examples provided show that this supposed nuance often serves to obscure rather than illuminate. When it comes to Boko Haram, the Nigerian Islamist faction notorious for kidnapping schoolgirls and bombing churches, the guide offers this sanitized description: An armed group fighting against western influence in the predominantly Muslim north of Nigeria. It wants to introduce Islamic law in the areas in which it has influence.
That framing is faithfully reproduced in the networks reporting. A February 16, 2026, story titled "US deploys 100 soldiers to Nigeria as attacks by armed groups surge," stated: "The United States has sent 100 military personnel to northern Nigeria to train and advise local forces, as deadly threats rise from armed groups such as Boko Haram and ISIL (ISIS)-linked factions." Again, the phrase armed groups replaces any reference to terrorism or Islamist extremism, flattening the moral landscape and making it harder for viewers to distinguish between legitimate security forces and those who deliberately target civilians.
The Muslim Brotherhood, long designated as a terrorist organization by several U.S. allies and viewed with deep suspicion by many in the West, receives similarly gentle treatment. The guide instructs: Do not characterise as an Islamic/Islamist group. The Freedom and Justice Party is the organisations political arm. In line with that directive, a January 13, 2026, article titled "US labels Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan as terrorists," described the group this way: "Established in 1928 by Egyptian Muslim scholar Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood has offshoots and branches across the Middle East, including political parties and social organisations. The group and its affiliates say they are committed to peaceful political participation." The emphasis on the Brotherhoods self-description and the refusal to call it Islamist reflect a broader reluctance to confront the ideological roots of political Islam.
The style guide also polices terms like extremist and fundamentalist, but in a way that appears to reserve the harshest labels for Christians and Western-aligned actors. One entry warns: Do not use - It is a judgmental term because implicit in it is that whatever methods used or advocated are disproportionate or excessive. Could simply describe the group or person as violent. Another states: Do not use, the word has been hijacked, but this is acceptable for Christian sects which believe that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true. Many tele-evangelists are fundamentalist Christians.
This asymmetry is evident in a December 15, 2025, article titled "Questions linger about gun reform, anti-Semitism after Bondi Beach shooting," which noted: "Sundays shooting at Bondi Beach follows several other mass shootings in recent years, including a 2022 attack in Wieambilla, Queensland, linked to Christian fundamentalist ideology that left six people dead." While Islamist groups are shielded from ideological labels, Christian conservatives are readily tagged as fundamentalist, reinforcing a narrative that casts Western religious traditionalists as dangerous while downplaying the doctrinal motivations of jihadist violence.
On Israel, the style guide reads less like a neutral manual and more like a political manifesto. It is the state of Israel, not the Jewish state, the document instructs. However, we can refer to the Jewish state when the subject is the religious composition of Israel. Do not use Jewish state as a synonym for Israel. Do not use Jerusalem as a synonym for the government of Israel, as one might use Washington to imply the U.S. government. With regard to whether we use pro-Israel or pro-Israeli governmentcare needs to be taken to use the longer but more accurate phrase: pro-Israeli government. Israeli peace activists will tell you they are pro-Israel, but anti-Israeli government. When Israeli politicians address the public, make an effort to find out who they are addressing and report it as is.
The guide further mandates that The term occupied should be used wherever its necessary, embedding a legal and political judgment into routine reporting. This is reflected in a December 17, 2025, article titled "Israel to advance plans for 9,000 units in occupied East Jerusalem," which reported: "Israeli authorities are expected to advance plans to build 9,000 new housing units in an illegal settlement on the site of the abandoned Qalandiya airport in occupied East Jerusalem, in another attempt to cut off Palestinian lands from each other and block any possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state ever emerging." The languageillegal settlement, occupied East Jerusalem, and the assertion that Israel is blocking a Palestinian statetracks precisely with the guides prescriptions and with the talking points of anti-Israel activists.
Yet when the subject turns to West Jerusalem, the guide abruptly reverses course. Do not say occupied. And never refer to it as the capital of Israel, it commands, denying the reality recognized by the United States and many other nations that Jerusalem is Israels capital. A December 20, 2025, piece titled "Netanyahu finally announces October 7 inquiry: Why are Israelis furious?" followed that line, stating: "The ministerial team tasked with determining the scope of the inquiry is to meet in West Jerusalem on Monday, coincidentally the same day that Netanyahu is scheduled to give testimony in his long-running corruption trial in Tel Aviv." The refusal to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israels capital is not a neutral choice; it is a political statement that aligns with the most hardline anti-Israel positions.
The guide even dictates how to describe Jewish visits to the Al Aqsa Mosque compound, a flashpoint in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is the word we use when Israeli settlers, politicians, religious figures or nationalist groups go into Al Aqsa Mosque compound. Dont call it a visit, the document says, though the specific term is not reproduced in the excerpt. In a February 19, 2026, article titled "UN says Israel is stoking ethnic cleansing fears in Gaza, West Bank," Al Jazeera reported: "In Jerusalem, Ramadan has brought further restrictions at Al-Aqsa Mosque. The mosques imam, Sheikh Akrama Sabri, said Israeli authorities are imposing a reality by force by limiting worshippers while allowing extremist Jewish incursions into the compound." The word incursions carries a militaristic connotation, suggesting aggression rather than religious visitation, and dovetails with the guides insistence on loaded terminology when describing Israeli actions.
On Israeli communities beyond the 1967 lines, the instructions are sweeping. Should be called illegal on first reference. Settlements are residential areas built by Israelis in the occupied territories. They are illegal under international law: this is the UN Security Councils position - although Israel rejects this. All settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law. There are no legal settlements.
This rigid framing appears in a January 22, 2026, article titled "Israeli minister approves gun licences for 18 illegal West Bank settlements," which stated: "Israels National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has approved the issuance of gun licences to Israelis in 18 additional illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, as the right-wing government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushes to expand illegal outposts that undermine prospects for a two-state solution." The repeated use of illegal and the characterization of Israels elected government as right-wing reinforce a narrative of Israeli intransigence and illegitimacy.
Even the name of Israels military is subject to ideological editing. Do not call it Israeli Defence Forces or IDF. Also avoid security forces, the guide orders, stripping away the defensive connotation that most Western outlets accept as standard. In a February 18, 2026, article titled "Israeli army sniper in Chile accused of Gaza war crimes could face justice," Al Jazeera wrote: "A Chilean court is considering a criminal complaint against a former Israeli army sniper who served in Gaza during Israels more than two-year-long genocide on the coastal enclave and the Palestinian people." The use of the term genocide to describe Israeli military operationsdespite the absence of any comparable legal consensus to that surrounding Srebrenicareveals how the network weaponizes language against the Jewish state while shielding Islamist actors from similarly harsh labels.
The guide also lays out a confrontational stance toward Israeli military censorship. We take a robust approach to censorship of our reporting by the Israeli military. Each case should be considered individually, but our first instinct should be to report the facts. The deaths in combat of Israeli soldiers are of high news value. If we are confident of the facts we should report them, even if the Israeli Army has asked us to wait for its permission. The Israeli Army says it routinely asks us to delay reporting deaths so it can first inform victims relatives. This is not a good enough reason for us to withhold news from our audience provided we do not name the victim. This policy may provoke a reaction from the Israeli side. If it does, we will reassess it.
While aggressive reporting can be defensible, the dismissive tone toward notifying families before public disclosure stands in stark contrast to the networks sensitivity toward the narratives of Hamas and other Palestinian factions.
On Gaza, the guide insists on describing the territory as occupied, despite Israels 2005 withdrawal of troops and settlers. The Gaza Strip is occupied by Israel. It can be included when referring to the occupied territories. Israel completed its unilateral withdrawal of all its troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, in the so-called Gaza disengagement. However, it retains control of Gazas airspace, seafront and all vehicle access, including deliveries of food and other goods. But Israel, officially, does not control the Rafah crossing, the pedestrian-only link between Gaza and Egypt.
After Israel left in 2005, the crossing was controlled by the Palestinian Authority and the Egyptians, with the presence of EU monitors. Egypt closed Rafah during the Hamas-Fatah fighting in June 2007. Under Mubarak, the Egyptians kept the crossing closed because opening it could be interpreted as recognition of Hamas sovereignty, at the expense of the Palestinian Authority. Since the Egyptian revolution, the countrys authorities declared the Rafah crossing open, though in practice there are still tight restrictions imposed by Cairo and Hamas. Under international law, Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, despite it not having a permanent military presence there. To be accurate, talk about what happened in 2005 as an end to Israel's permanent military presence in Gaza, rather than the end of the occupation.
This framing appears in a January 29, 2020, article titled "Anger in Palestine over Trump plan, but protests see low turnout," which stated: "Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas vowed popular mobilisations against the deal, as groups including the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Hamas, which has governed the occupied Gaza Strip since 2007, called for mass protests." By insisting on the term occupied Gaza Strip, Al Jazeera reinforces a legal and moral narrative that absolves Hamas of responsibility for its governance failures and rocket attacks, while placing the onus entirely on Israel.
The style guides reach extends beyond the Middle East, shaping how Al Jazeera covers flashpoints involving Americas adversaries. On Taiwan, the document is blunt: Is not a country. Refer to it by name initially and as an Island thereafter. That directive aligns neatly with Beijings position and is reflected in a December 29, 2025, article titled "China launches drills around Taiwan in stern warning to external forces," which reported: "The drills came amid anger in Beijing over an $11.1bn weapons sale to Taiwan by the United States, as well as a statement by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who suggested that the Japanese military could get involved if China were to attack the self-governed island. Beijing considers Taiwan as part of its territory and has pledged to take control of the island by force if necessary." By denying Taiwans status as a country and emphasizing Chinas claims, the network again sides with an authoritarian regime against a democratic partner of the West.
The guide even addresses how to describe Irans state media, drawing a telling distinction that shields Al Jazeera from similar scrutiny. Referring to Irans broadcaster, it states: Is state funded by Irans government, but we shouldnt refer to it as state TV. Many would argue (and some have) that Al Jazeera is state funded, but were not state TV. The insistence that Al Jazeera is somehow different, despite being financed by the Qatari government and closely aligned with its foreign policy, underscores the networks desire to project independence while operating as a soft-power instrument for an Islamist-leaning monarchy.
The style guide closes with a few technical notesTwo words appears twice, likely referring to specific termsand a list of tags under which the document was published: "Published under: Al Jazeera , China , Gaza Strip , ISIS , Islamism , Israel , Jihad , Qatar , Taiwan , Terrorism."
Taken together, the directives form a coherent pattern: minimize or neutralize language that would cast Islamist movements, authoritarian regimes, or anti-Western actors in a negative light, while amplifying legal and moral accusations against Israel, Western allies, and conservative religious groups. For readers who still view Al Jazeera as a straightforward news outlet, the guide offers a sobering reminder that the networks editorial choices are not merely stylisticthey are ideological, and they consistently cut against the interests and values of the free world.
Login