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.
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.
When J Street convinces students to reject Israel's right to exist, David Halbfinger casts the group as truth-tellers who are literally beyond reproach — not a word of skepticism or criticism of the organization can be found in the article.
In its latest Book Review Section (June 21, 2019), the New York Times promotes a novel that analogizes Palestinian refugees during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war to Jewish victims of the Nazis in what amounts to "Holocaust Inversion" – an antisemitic, anti-Zionist gimmick that depicts Israelis as the new Nazis and Palestinians as the new Jews.
A story in today’s New York Times refers to Hamas rocket fire into Israel and its imprisonment of two Israelis. But reporter David Halbfinger avoids telling readers that these are both violations of international law.
In line with the way the New York Times generally reports on Israel, the newspaper's interview of Democratic presidential candidates reveals a baked in assumption of Israeli guilt.
New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief David Halbfinger authored two interviews in five days that underscore the newspaper’s continuing anti-Israel bias and shoddy attention to accuracy, context and clarity.
For four months, the New York Times didn't tell readers Iran was preventing its correspondent, Thomas Erdbrink, from reporting. Why? And what does it mean?
