An op-ed in the Independent (The views of the Arab citizens of Israel must be heard in the country’s latest election, Jan. 6th) included the following claim: “As the [Sept. 2019] election […]
Ultimately, what Bell is doing is gas-lighting British Jews, dismissing their profound fears about the hatred directed to their community, and lending credibility to those bigots who view the entire row as a conspiracy to bring down their beloved leader.
The truncated quote significantly alters the true meaning and significance of the prime minister’s words, and thus fails to adhere to the Editors’ Code, which demands that newspapers avoid publishing inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.
We of course are not optimistic that the Guardian will head our advice and begin viewing Palestinian choices as an important factor in analysing the conflict, in part because the ideology they’re institutionally wedded to demands a narrative in which Palestinians exist solely as passive victims of Israel, the only party that matters.
The Channel 4 News presenter’s unsubstantiated allegations against both Sa’ar and Gantz represent yet another example of the British media promoting the “Israel is moving dangerously right” narrative regardless of the facts.
In 2011, we interviewed Jonathan Spyer about his book The Transforming Fire: the Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict. Our first question focused on his contrast between the real Israel and what he termed the […]
Helm concludes by expressing exasperation at the most “disturbing” part of all of this – how the “outside world has always been to buy into [Israeli] version of events”, showing that Helm inhabits a truly fantastical world – an alternative reality someplace far, far away where Israeli ‘hasbara’ has an iron grip on the world, and is therefore subjected to little if any real criticism by the media and international bodies.
The Telegraph’s promotion of the Lebanese PR event in defence of Hezbollah is another example of the media’s frequent failure to subject the accusations of Israel’s enemies to the same degree of journalistic skepticism and critical scrutiny that Israeli claims are almost always subjected to.
This is a cross-post from BBC Watch. The October 3rd edition of the BBC World Service radio programme ‘Newshour‘ included an item concerning that day’s meeting of the Palestinian cabinet in the […]
Though reasonable people can of course disagree with Netanyahu’s response to Charlottesville, to characterise the prime minister of the Jewish state as an “appeaser” of anti-Semites who needs lessons in courage from a Guardian journalist is a breathtaking display of hubris.
The Economist made a pretty serious charge against Israel’s prime minister and offered literally zero proof to back it up.
The Guardian’s failure to convey to readers the antisemitic nature of the anti-Netanyahu placard in Sydney is not in itself antisemitic. However we do believe it’s indicative of their continuing obfuscation of endemic antisemitism within the pro-Palestinian movement and, more broadly, representative of how media outlets can normalise antisemitism without setting out to do so.
Beyond the bias within this specific Guardian analysis, the truth is that UK media coverage of negotiations similarly suffers from the failure to take Israeli concerns seriously – rational fears born of the failure of past territorial withdrawals to bring peace, and a refusal to ignore the reactionary Palestinian political culture which – most Israeli believe – lays at the root of the conflict.
When the Guardian talks about Benjamin Netanyahu`s election victory, there is no semblance of balance. Netanyahu is described as having “crossed red lines,” “dealt a grievous blow to any prospect of peace process,” and is accused of having “trampled” upon democratic principles
At times we take our collective memory of Guardian coverage of Israel for granted, so we’ve decided to provide a list of some egregious examples of bias and over the years – information helpful in contextualizing our ongoing analysis of the ‘liberal’ British newspaper.
The goal of journalism is to report the facts and inform the reader. When the Independent chose to mislead with a photo of Netanyahu, they were not engaging in journalism, but were involved in polemic and slander.
Once again, we see the lengths British media outlets will go to avoid admitting error.
As Israellycool and Yair Rosenberg reported, an internet myth was reported as news by the tabloids Page Six and Daily Mail on Sept. 26th regarding the reception received by Israel’s prime minister. Both publications claimed that Netanyahu was booed as he and his wife took their seats for a performance of “Hamilton” on Saturday night at Richard Rodgers Theatre in NYC.
Once again, the Indy has exaggerated the impact of BDS and significantly skewed the facts to reinforce the increasingly absurd narrative that Jerusalem is facing ‘increasing international isolation’.
Here’s the latest installment in our ongoing series of posts documenting BDS fails. Political BDS Fails Benjamin Netanyahu accepts invitation to be first Israeli PM to visit Australia Benjamin Netanyahu has accepted […]