What does a terror attack against Israel teach us? According to the New York Times, it's that Israel is being disruptive. In its recent coverage of two deadly attacks against Israelis, the newspaper demonstrated an especially flagrant abandonment of journalistic standards, spinning coverage so as to deflect culpability for the violence away from the perpetrators.
In a Chicago Tribune Op-Ed, John Mearsheimer falsely claims that a Hebrew University poll found 21 percent of settlers favor "the use of arms" to resist settlement evacuation. The professor apparently relied on a flawed report by Ha'aretz's Akiva Eldar, and never read the poll itself.
The Financial Times ignores the history of eastern Jerusalem, denying Jewish historical, legal and religious connection to the city, while validating Palestinian claims.
Yesterday, Israel approved the building of 900 homes in its capital, a move opposed by the United States, and incorrectly reported by some media outlets which described Gilo as in the West Bank.
"[F]acts are hard," writes New York Times columnist Roger Cohen in the International Herald Tribune today. Facts are hard for Cohen, who errs on settlements and the security barrier.
The BBC ruled that Jeremy Bowen failed to be accurate or impartial. Its investigation also revealed that he is willing to resort to dishonesty to justify his partisan reporting.
Edmund Sanders' Los Angeles Times article on Maale Adumim includes falsehoods about the nearby Palestinian village of Azariya. His claims about water, employment and building are contradicted by official Palestinian census statistics.
With an error-filled column by Tony Judt, an outspoken opponent of the Jewish State, the New York Times chose to feature an ideologue instead of a jurist to write about the legality of Israeli settlements.
Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson's June 17th column smears not only Israel but also its Jewish supporters. It uses an unreliable poll from a fringe source to argue that American Jews favor U.S. pressure on Israel.