Journalists mislead not only by what they say but by what they omit. This includes how they describe sources—whether witnesses or “experts”—cited in their reporting. A clear example appears in CNN’s October 29 article, “Gaza’s new normal is a truce without peace,” by Oren Liebermann.
The misleading language extends beyond CNN’s problematic practice of describing information from the terrorist organization Hamas as coming from “the Palestinian Ministry of Health.” This practice denies readers information necessary to judge source credibility—a basic journalistic standard. It also reveals a double standard: CNN rarely, if ever, cited the Islamic State’s “ministry of health” for casualty figures, despite both Hamas and ISIS establishing terror states in the Middle East. The sole ISIS “health ministry” reference found states: “ISIS’ former minister for health Kefah Basheer Hussein,” clearly indicating his terror affiliation.
Failing to explain the Palestinian Ministry of Health’s affiliation with Hamas constitutes poor journalism. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics states: “Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.” AP News similarly instructs journalists to provide “as much information as needed to identify the source and explain why the person is credible.”
A similar failure—and double standard—appears in how Liebermann describes two expert sources: Yoav Limor and Muhammad Shehada.
CNN introduces Limor as a “military and defense analyst for the right-wing Israel Hayom newspaper.”
Shehada, however, is introduced simply as “a Gaza expert with the European Council on Foreign Relations.” The article provides no further background on Shehada or the ECFR.
Why describe Israel Hayom as “right-wing” while omitting that Shehada and the ECFR harbor their own clear biases?
Shehada has a history of extreme anti-Israel positions and false claims. During the 12-Day War between Israel and Iran, he wrote that if Iran fell, Israel would be able to “kill anyone that dares challenge their apartheid,” and that “[t]he only thing that matters is the ‘feelings’ of Israeli supremacists who will keep claiming that they feel ‘unsafe’ as long as they don’t fully dominate the entire region.” Writing for Zeteo—an outlet founded by the “left-wing” anti-Israel commentator Mehdi Hasan—Shehada claimed Israel “weaponize[ed] the tragic deaths of the Bibas children,” referring to child hostages Hamas executed and mutilated. He suggested falsely that they “may already have been killed in an Israeli strike.” Shehada also serves as Chief of Programmes and Communications for the anti-Israel activist organization Euro-Med Monitor, whose staff have been linked to Hamas and which has accused Israel of numerous crimes, including blood libels.
The ECFR also shows clear bias. Founded by the Open Society Foundation—which remains a top donor—it has accused Israel of “apartheid.” Demonstrating a double standard, ECFR promotes boycotts of Israeli settlements while accepting donations from entities operating in occupied territories like Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus.
Liebermann’s labeling of Limor and Israel Hayom as “right-wing” while remaining silent on Shehada and ECFR’s biases defies reasonable journalistic standards. Notably, Limor has recently been critical of Israel’s current government—the very government whose “right-wing” nature CNN repeatedly emphasizes.
CNN’s audience deserves transparency about the motivations and credibility of those the network presents as “experts.” The network’s inconsistent standards do a disservice to media consumers and continue to undermine journalistic integrity.