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.
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.
When facts are ignored in favour of a fictitious narrative in which ‘brutal’ Israel is cowing the people of Gaza ‘into submission’, truth is sacrificed upon the altar of storytelling.
UK Media Watch prompts a correction at The Independent to a report on a video depicting the IDF shooting a Palestinian man on the Gaza border. The original Indy report failed to include the official IDF statement about the video which was available more than an hour before. The IDF statement significantly changes the story, as it provides Israel’s account of the circumstances – and context – by which the Palestinian man was shot.
Contrary to the Indy’s claims, the Knesset hearings made clear that the ‘6.5 million Arabs’ number cited does in fact include those living in east Jerusalem and Gaza – that is, it includes all the Palestinian Arabs living “between the river and the sea”. Our complaint to Indy editors was upheld, and the new language reflects the correct information.
Why do you hate Israel more than any other nation? Why does Israel anger you more than any other nation does? Why do Israel’s military activities aggravate you and disturb your conscience and provoke you to outbursts of street protesting or Twitter-fury in a way that no other state’s military activities do? These are the questions that hang darkly over today’s so-called progressives. Which eat away at their self-professed moral authority, at their claims to be practitioners of fairness and equality. They are the questions to which no satisfactory answer has ever been given. So they niggle and fester, expertly avoided, or unconvincingly batted away, a black question mark over much of the modern left: why Israel?
In a mere one minute and twenty seconds, the Sky News clip accurately capsulizes the media’s continuous credulity when faced with Palestinian soundbites that echo the narrative of proscribed terror groups – representative of a broader institutional failure to contextualise coverage of events in the region by reminding news consumers of the malevolent aims of the Hamas tyrants who rule Gaza.
The fact that 10 out of the 16 Palestinians killed since Friday have been verified by the IDF as members of terrorist groups, or that the border protests have included the throwing of Molotov cocktails, the planting of EIDs and – in at least two cases – shots fired at Israeli forces hasn’t hampered the desired media narrative: a ‘disproportionate’ Israeli response to ‘peaceful’ Palestinian protesters.
This month, the New Statesman published an article by Sarah Helm entitled “How Donald Trump provoked a Palestinian refugee revolt” which is inaccurate on two levels – it makes false assertions and misleading statements about specific details, and presents a very selective version of the overall story.