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.
In a pair of articles about the Jordan Valley, the New York Times echoed B'Tselem's false claim that Palestinians are unable to enter 85 percent of the region, and wrongly described the Palestinian village of Fasayil as sitting in Area C of the West Bank.
The promotion of Julie Salamon’s new book – and subsequent media attention – about the 1985 Palestinian terrorist killing of Jewish American Leon Klinghoffer aboard a cruise ship – have served to mislead the public.
CAMERA prompts improved after AP incorrectly reported that Facebook suspended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's account for a post saying "Arabs want to annihilate us." A New York Times Op-Ed by Raja Shehadeh also errs.
After a senior New York Times editor had mocked and engaged in antisemitism prior to his tenure at the Times, the paper said it is "reviewing next steps." CAMERA explores what those next steps might be, based on how the paper has handled similar controversies, and how it has handled Jewish concerns.
More than policy itself, it is the reaction and discussion of Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to bar two anti-Israel Congresswomen that has the potential to weaken traditionally strong American support for Israel.
A New York Times story on UNRWA claims that the UN agency serves "hundreds of thousands" of Palestinians who fled or were expelled in 1948. In fact, no more than some 30,000 from the original refugees are still living.
When political leaders talk of conversion therapy, killing Jews, or hanging gays, the New York Times seems to care less about the oppressed minorities and more about the nationality of the politicians.