We immediately filed a complaint with Daily Mail editors, taking issue with their claim that the IDF broke the ceasefire with Hamas when they used force in response to violent border riots. After several days, editors upheld our complaint, and revised the sentence in question to more accurately contextualise the Palestinian riots in relation to the ceasefire.
Whilst it would be wrong to blindly accuse journalists and editors of being personally antisemitic, some within the top echelons of media group – though at times condemning antisemitism in the abstract – seem, much like Corbyn himself, to hold the values and concerns of the mainstream British Jewish community – united in the belief that Labour Party leader represents, as The JC phrased it, “an existential threat to Jewish life in the UK” – in utter contempt.
The British Daily Mail apparently can’t be sure that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip really fired 180 rockets and mortars at Israel in a 24-hour period earlier this week. A Daily Mail article three times referred to these attacks as “alleged,” as if the fact that Hamas fired 180 rockets and mortars at Israel has not yet been confirmed.
UKMW prompts Irish Examiner to correct bizarre suggestion that there are Israeli settlements in Gaza
It took several days of communication between UK Media Watch and editors at the Irish Examiner, but we finally secured a correction to a sentence in a July 23rd op-ed which bizarrely suggested that there were still Israeli settlements in Gaza.
The “both sides blame each other” phrasing used by the Indy Middle East correspondent is one in a long list of tropes and cliches employed by journalists to avoid reaching the morally intuitive conclusion that the violent extremist group that controls Gaza is more interested in stoking conflict than the Jewish democracy they’re trying to destroy.
These headlines illustrate the failure of journalists and their editors to frame articles in a manner which focuses primarily on Hamas and Islamic Jihad violence and evokes sympathy for Israeli terror victims and the southern communities which are constantly on the receiving end of such attacks. The story they wish to tell demands that facts be molded to conform to the desired David vs Goliath narrative, operates from an assumption that Palestinians lack agency and that the only party in the conflict that matters is Israel. The facts may change, but the story remains the same.
Most British outlets which covered the death eight-month-old Layla al-Ghandour have failed to publish allegations that Hamas paid the girl’s family to tell the media that Israeli tear gas caused her death though the real culprit was a pre-existing blood condition.
We surveyed hundreds of tweets, spanning three years, by British journalist Sarah Helm and uncovered what we suspected all along: Helm is a pro-Palestinian activist. Not a journalist.
Donald Macintyre: a case study in how ‘enlightened’ British opinion can appear to empathise with Hamas
Instead of reporting facts, Donald Macintyre openly lets the narrative run over them. He appears to possess admiration and evoke sympathy for a terrorist organisation, whilst accusing the opposing army of slaughter. That he believes what he believes is upsetting – that his writing is considered enlightened, intelligent, and worthy of print is egregious.
Following communication with UK Media Watch, editors at the Daily Mail corrected an article which had falsely claimed that no terror group in Gaza claimed responsibility for the recent barrage of rockets fired at Israel.
We tweeted the Guardian’s head of photography, Fiona Shields, alerting her to the inappropriate photo accompanying an article on increased UK arms sales to Israel. Shields promptly replaced the photo with one more appropriate.
COGAT, the Israeli authority tasked with processing such travel requests, flatly denied the Guardian claim that a young Palestinian suicide victim had been denied a travel permit to study at Hebrew University. In fact, they said he had never applied for permission in the first place.
The result of our work isn’t revolutionary change in their reporting from the region, but significantly improved coverage. In life, as in media monitoring, the perfect is often the enemy of the good.
Indy falsely claims Israeli troops “were ordered to use live fire” on 40,000 demonstrators (Updated)
This is but one extraordinarily misleading sentence within the cacophony of sensational, biased and misleading headlines, photos and articles published in the British media since late March. Yet, it aptly demonstrates how language is often chosen by reporters not with painstaking attention to the veracity of the information being conveyed but in order to serve the broader narrative of Israeli villainy and Palestinian victimhood.
If you defend Israel’s actions in Gaza, your ethical impulses are, according to the Guardian columnist, not those of an ordinary human being. It would be difficult to find a better illustration of why so many Jews believe that media coverage of Israel incites antisemitism than a column suggesting that they, by virtue of their pro-Israeli political views, are morally deranged, even sub-human.
Contrary to the Guardian Jerusalem correspondent’s claim, Hamas has not “softened” its founding charter’s rejection of Israel’s existence, nor has it abandoned its promotion of violence to achieve this end.
There hasn’t been a shortage of inflammatory, misleading and inaccurate media claims during coverage of recent Gaza riots, but the insinuation of Israeli malevolence in this Indy editorial is among the worst we’ve reviewed.
the Channel 4 News presenter wasn’t interested in providing relevant context, nor investigating the real cause of poverty, suicide and child abuse in Gaza – or the wider issue of Hamas’s role in Gaza’s isolation and misery. His sole objective was to produce a segment consistent with the desired media narrative of cruel Israelis inflicting suffering upon innocent Palestinians.
The Guardian once again has demonised Israel, smearing the state as one defined primarily by racism and violence – an ugly caricature which has little resemblance to reality. The notion that Jerusalem should take security advice from the Corbyn-sympathising London intelligentsia is as risible as their suggestion that its citizens should take seriously the moralizing tales of Israeli darkness by the Hollywood left.
Guardian suggests equivalence between President Rivlin’s ‘greater Israel’ and Gaza protest leader’s ‘No Israel’
The Guardian’s comparison between the views of Israeli President Reuven Rivilin and those of chief Gaza protest organiser Ahmad Abu Artema is highly misleading. Unlike Abu Artema, who believes in a one-state scenario which ends Israeli sovereignty, Rivlin champions the idea of an Israeli annexation of the West Bank with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side under Israeli sovereignty and Palestinians being granted full Israeli citizenship. Abu Artema wants to end Israeli sovereignty. Rivlin wants to expand Israeli sovereignty.