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.
The press has largely ignored an Oct. 29, 2018 report by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), which highlighted new documentation seized by Israel from Tehran’s “nuclear archive” which “indicates that Iran’s nuclear weaponization efforts did not stop after 2003.” That report upends a long-standing media narrative.
A negative narrative that's rapidly gaining currency in the media is about a broadening rift between Israeli and American Jews caused by an Orthodox rabbinate in Israel intolerant of other Jewish denominations. So popular is this theme that it is sometimes imposed upon news events as context, even when the evidence suggests otherwise.
The newspaper speaks of two Jordanians killed in a "confrontation" with an Israeli embassy guard. Why does it avoid mentioning that one of those Jordanians first stabbed the guard?
The New York Times story about Israel's High Court ruling to allow graduate student and BDS activist Lara Alqasem into the country serves as yet another vehicle for the newspaper to whitewash the campaign as one that simply promotes "Palestinian rights."
By repeating up the language of Turkey's state-run media organization, the New York Times also repeated three errors about a clash along Gaza's border with Israel.
Almost every day brings new evidence that the New York Times has become a propaganda source, where history and current events alike are distorted and ordinary professional norms of objectivity are cast aside. A case in point is the recent "analysis" of the failed Oslo talks.
Over the two-day Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) holiday, the New York Times greeted its Jewish readers with a one-two punch of news stories that strayed from fact-based reporting to attack supporters of the Jewish state and denigrate a widely accepted definition of anti-Semitism.
The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to solely blame the U.S. for a 1953 coup of its democratically elected prime minister. And many Western news outlets continue to sell the mullah's story. But as CAMERA noted in The Washington Times, the truth is more complicated—and the facts have long been available to the media.
The news pages of American media outlets have completely ignored the British firestorm following the revelation of Jeremy Corbyn's 2013 remark, widely regarded as anti-Semitic, that "British Zionists" lack "English irony" and "don't want to study history."
