Manufacturing Consent

The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings: (I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (~) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns.

https://chomsky.info/consent01/

Israel has several lobbying organizations that watch news organizations and lodge complaints with them if coverage isn't favorable. Check out the ex CNN employee who recently said they literally couldn't publish without Isreal's permission.

Israel doesn't actively do anything, they are to be referred to in the passive voice only. Russia is the one who invades, shoots and kills people. Bullets fly into the heads of Palestinians and Israeli borders move, no responsibility here.

Sometimes because the paper is financed/owned by some party that profits off of the colonial & genocidal project, sometimes because the paper gets scoops from 3 letter agencies who make such requests in return for scoops, sometimes it’s racism that the writer might not even aware of, but most often it’s a combination of those.

There's an inherent bias towards treating government statements as fact (whether that's police, government officials or military spokesmen). When the other side is a 'terrorist organisation' or a 'community leader', they're automatically treated as biased and suspicious. It's a pattern you see with Israel, police shootings, etc.

Obviously when the country in question isn't aligned with the West (Russia, China, etc), the qualifiers and doubt comes creeping back in, and journalists will include examples of past lies to underscore the point, which you'll never see in a story about the NYPD or Matthew Miller.

It is a cherry picked headline. Here is another from the AP that gives a different story: "Middle East latest: Israel plans an extended occupation of Syrian buffer zone"

Formal annexation by Russia happened significantly later than occupation of the land. Israel is at the 'occupation of the land' stage.

Using what laws though? I’m not aware of any actual method that can hold them accountable.