The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) now faces fresh scrutiny after an audit revealed that at least 120 of the 209 individuals it classifies as "journalists" killed in Gaza were linked to Hamas or other militant groups. The findings, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon and analysed by the media‑watchdog HonestReporting, suggest that more than half of the names on CPJ's widely cited casualty database have documented terror affiliations.
CPJ, a New York‑based nonprofit founded in 1981, maintains a global register of journalists killed, imprisoned or otherwise attacked. Its data are routinely cited by newsrooms across the United States and Canada, by academic researchers and by policy makers who track press freedom trends. The organization receives funding from a mix of foundations, individual donors and media companies, and it positions itself as an impartial defender of journalists worldwide.
The audit focused on the list CPJ compiled for the Israel‑Gaza war that began in October 2023. The database currently names 209 individuals as "journalists" who died in the conflict. HonestReporting's review identified 56 people who were active combatants at the time of death and an additional 64 who had prior or ongoing ties to militant organisations. In total, 120 names fall into one of those categories.
"Our audit of CPJ's slain Gazan journalist database shows that at least 57 percent of supposed media workers have some ties to terrorist organizations," HonestReporting told the Free Beacon in a statement. "Ten percent of individuals on the database have had martyr posters issued by terrorist organizations, and almost every other week another one is issued." The audit relied on open‑source material such as official martyr notices published by Hamas, the Al‑Qassam Brigades, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Mujahideen Brigades and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as well as statements from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Among the confirmed cases are 25 individuals identified through "official martyr notices" released by the groups that claimed them as fighters. These notices typically feature photographs of the deceased wearing militant insignia and brandishing weapons. The audit also cites 18 names that the IDF publicly designated as terrorists or jihadist operatives. One example is Al Jazeera cameraman Ahmed Al‑Louh, whom the IDF said was a platoon commander in Palestinian Islamic Jihad's Central Camps Brigade when he was killed in a strike on December 15 2024. CPJ, however, described him as a journalist and condemned the IDF's labeling of him as a militant.
Another contested case is Hamza Murtaja, listed by CPJ as a co‑owner and camera operator for the privately owned Record Media production company. The IDF confirmed that Murtaja was an operative in Hamas's military wing and was killed while staying at a Hamas command and control centre embedded in a school compound in Gaza City. CPJ's profile, however, continued to present him as a media professional.
The audit also uncovered 13 individuals whose alleged terrorist links were derived from family statements, open‑source information and other documents. While not all of these cases have been verified by Israeli authorities, the evidence suggests that CPJ may have added them to its list without fully vetting their backgrounds. One such figure is Ahmed Al‑Qara, described by CPJ as a freelance photojournalist for Al‑Aqsa University, a Gaza institution that Israel has identified as an important Hamas operational hub. Telegram channels affiliated with the Al‑Qassam Brigades referred to Al‑Qara as a "mujahid," and eulogies posted online labeled him a combatant.
In addition to the individuals with confirmed or probable militant ties, the audit found 61 names who worked for media outlets directly affiliated with terrorist groups, such as the Hamas‑linked Al‑Aqsa TV and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad‑affiliated Al Quds Today. CPJ's own definition of a journalist allows "organizations affiliated with militant groups" to qualify as legitimate news outlets, provided they are not engaged in combat or inciting violence in a manner likely to have imminent effect. This definition has been a point of contention within the organization.
The controversy has intensified internal strife at CPJ. Its board, which includes senior editors from major American newspapers, has been divided over the issue. Lydia Polgreen, a vice‑chair who represents the New York Times, has repeatedly expressed strong criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza. Last year she wrote that Israel assassinated a "Pulitzer Prize‑winning journalist," a claim that Israel refuted with photographic evidence linking the deceased to Hamas leadership. Polgreen's stance has drawn criticism from pro‑Israel advocates who argue that it reflects a broader bias within the organization.
Board dynamics were further exposed in the summer when biotech heiress Nika Soon‑Shiong, publisher of Drop Site News, announced she had been removed from the board after a Free Beacon report highlighted her anti‑Israel activism. A week later the board voted 17‑1 to affirm that "organizations affiliated with militant groups" meet the criteria of a legitimate journalistic outlet. The lone dissenting vote came from the Fox News representative on the board.
CPJ announced in late June that it would conduct a "dynamic approach" review of its Gaza casualty database, promising to delete names if evidence showed the individuals were not journalists, were not active in a journalistic capacity at the time of death, or were engaged in combat. The organization set a self‑imposed deadline for July, but a spokesperson told the Free Beacon that the review remains ongoing and that findings have not yet been made public.
For U.S. and Canadian media outlets, the audit raises practical concerns. Many newsrooms rely on CPJ's data to verify the status of journalists killed in conflict zones, and the organization's figures often inform press‑freedom reporting by think tanks, congressional committees and NGOs such as Reporters Without Borders. If a significant portion of CPJ's list includes combatants, the risk of mischaracterizing military casualties as targeted attacks on the press increases, potentially shaping public opinion and policy debates in Washington and Ottawa.
In the United States, the Committee's credibility is relevant to ongoing congressional oversight of foreign aid to Israel and to debates over the definition of "journalist" in the context of the Foreign‑Aid Transparency Act. Canadian legislators, who periodically review the country's contributions to international press‑freedom initiatives, may also reconsider how they assess the reliability of third‑party data sources. Both countries have seen recent legislative proposals aimed at strengthening protections for journalists, and an audit that calls CPJ's methodology into question could influence the framing of those proposals.
CPJ has declined to comment further, stating that it cannot respond while the review is underway. The organization's spokesperson said the audit of its findings will be published once the review is finalized. HonestReporting, meanwhile, urged news outlets to issue corrections and retractions where CPJ's data have been used to allege that the Israeli military deliberately targeted journalists.
The next steps for CPJ are likely to involve a public release of its revised list, an explanation of the criteria used to determine journalistic status, and possibly a restructuring of its board to address perceived biases. Stakeholders in the United States and Canada will be watching closely, as the outcome could affect how press‑freedom metrics are compiled and how future conflicts are reported.