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.
Media reports on implementation of the Wye River Memorandum have incorrectly characterized as a "new demand" Israel's position that the Palestinian Covenant must be revised by a full meeting of the Palestinian National Council.
Douglas Jehl got just about everything wrong in his New York Times story about water problems in Hebron - misrepresenting the nation's role in providing water to the Palestinians, omitting entirely Palestinian water obligations under Oslo and focusing almost exclusively on denunciations of Israel.
Reporting on Hamas threats to take revenge against Israelis and Jews around the world, the New Yok Times continues to whitewash Palestinian Authority incitement - Serge Schmemann writes "So far, Mr. Arafat and his officials have avoided either blaming or exonerating Israel in the slaying, saying the investigation is continuing."
Comply with Oslo or face the consequences. That was the Israeli message to its Palestinian negotiating partner when it issued a detailed account of the Palestinian Authority's stunning failure to adhere to the landmark accords...
Following statements by PA Justice Minister Freih Abu Meddein and by Chairman Yasir Arafat that Palestinians found to have sold land to Jews will face the death penalty, at least 4 Palestinian land dealers said to have been involved in such sales were murdered.
The herd impulse among members of the media, the aversion to deviating from views of other journalists, is especially pernicious in coverage of Israel where the guiding thesis today is a simple one: "Hardline" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has disrupted, if not wrecked, an otherwise promising peace process in the Middle East.
If the New York Times botches its coverage of Israel, tipping reality upside down, making lesser occurrences into major stories and slighting deadly-serious events, what are the repercussions? Do senior editors carefully weigh substantive questions raised by concerned readers – or do they deflect criticism with evasions and insults?
In a period of deep national trauma that included assassination of its prime minister, unprecedented terrorism on the streets of its cities, and wrenching internal debate over issues of national survival, the Israeli public went to the polls in orderly form and voted for a new government.
Statistics bare stark truths. What they reveal about media coverage of atrocities committed against Israelis is a relentless lack of interest–despite, at the same time, intense journalistic focus on other events in Israel.