To qualify as journalism, news reports must include the who, what, when, where, why and how. By that "News Reporting 101" standard, Washington Post's Arab-Israeli coverage stumbled again.
Israel's security requirements are one of the most important 'core issues' to be discussed by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. Many journalists, however, downplay Israel's security needs by wrongly omitting them from lists of core issues.
A page one feature treating Israelis as human beings, an editorial criticizing Egypt and Saudi Arabia, a photo feature highlighting Lebanese civilian casualties that never mentions Hezbollah. Plus Orwellian language on Hamas: The Washington Post at work.
The letter rebuts Palestinian claims of Israeli "collective punishment" against Gaza Strip, falsehood of the Strip as "one of the world's most densely populated places," and other propaganda claims.
Washington Post coverage of a Virginia Muslim leader's resignation from a panel on immigration for pro-jihad declarations was a textbook example of a) gullibility, b) partisanship, or c) some combination of the two.
The Washington Post's coverage of Arab-Israeli news continued to fall short in September. The Post's chronic pattern of prettifying Palestinians while giving Israel short shrift continued. So did the paper's newer pattern of informative, balanced Arab-Israeli editorials, making an informative contrast.
Islam's relationship with the United States — as American as hot dogs, apple pie and shish kabob? That was general view offered in The Washington Post's July 22 Sunday "Outlook" section, which begged one difficult question after another.
Syndicated columnist Bob Novak once again proves himself incompetent to write about Christian Arabs, their status in Palestinian and Israeli societies, and Israeli policy toward them.