The New York Times, one of the most influential newspapers in the world, not only influences its readers but also has significant impact on the news judgment and editorial perspective of other media. The caliber of accuracy, balance and thoroughness in this publication are therefore of particular importance.
The New York Times continues to eschew objectivity and employ a double standard in its coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Our six-month study of the newspaper's coverage details how the newspaper treats Israel with a harsher standard, omits context, and shows a clear preference for the Palestinian narrative.
If an antisemitic leader works hand-in-hand with antisemitic Nazis to spread anti-Jewish propaganda and encourage Nazi soldiers, why does the New York Times avoid describing the partnership as antisemitic? Apparently, it's because this particular Nazi ally was a Palestinian leader.
The NYT has done away with inconvenient editorial standards, substituting comic book tales for news stories that allow readers the opportunity to deliberate, weigh different perspectives and draw their own conclusions
The New York Times again shoehorns events to fit a desired narrative. IHRA's widely-embraced Working Definition of Antisemitism, adopted by more than two dozen countries, and embraced by Obama's State Department, becomes nothing more than a "disputed definition" "unilaterally adopted" by a controversial Trump administration official.
The New York Times won't correct an error it has corrected twice before, and won't defend its incorrect claim. But it is simply false to claim, as does David Halbfinger and Michael Crowley, that there had been until recently a “longstanding American policy treating the settlements as illegal.”
The Times' assertion that Haifa's Arab citizens "were forced to leave or escaped" in 1948 is belied by the paper's own coverage from that time. Even the Gray Lady's own archives pose no obstacle to the paper's manipulation in the name of ideology.