While coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Economist magazine has been severely skewed in the past, recently the magazine published a highly informative and balanced article on the so-called “double standard” being applied to Iraq and Israel, as well as other hot button issues.
THUMBS UP to The Economist Magazine, for its Oct. 10, 2002 article entitled "Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double Standards," which explains the difference between binding and nonbinding U.N. resolutions, and points out that Iraq is in noncompliance with binding U.N. resolutions, while Israel is not.
Prolific (and colorful) as the Economist editor Stephen Hugh-Jones was in denouncing his critics (after a CAMERA article was written about him in Fall 1995), he nevertheless thoroughly evaded CAMERA's key complaints as presented in the Media Report and subsequent correspondence. CAMERA analyses had concluded that Israeli security concerns are systematically and consistently minimized, that unabashedly partisan language reflects a pervasive pro-Arab bias, and that stories essential to providing an accurate picture are omitted.
Like most events involving Israel and the Middle East, the story of the peace process is complicated and many-sided, yet, as so often is the case, there seems an irresistible temptation by some in the news media to simplify the issues, omit key stories and pitch coverage toward a preferred political view...