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.
"Emotional stories" of Palestinian children "crossing the checkpoint on the bus ride in from East Jerusalem to West Jerusalem" are just that: emotional stories. The non-existence of the checkpoint in question begs the question: Did the children really tell the stories, or was that an embellishment on the part of the adult author, Ruth Ebenstein?
Nearly two weeks after Kaveh Afrasiabi, a former Op-Ed contributor at The New York Times, was charged for being an illegal Iranian agent, the paper has failed to weigh in on the affair. Nor has it updated his incomplete biographical information, which identifies him only as a political scientist and former member of Iran's negotiating team.
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.
CAMERA prompts correction of a New York Times article which overstated the number of violent incidents allegedly carried out by Israeli citizens targeting Palestinians.
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.”
