A piece featured in the Washington Post's October 2, 2005 "Outlook" section is a magazine-length gripe filled with factual distortions. And since it also includes, in apparent obliviousness, information contradicting major points, it comes across as illogical and unintelligent. This raises a question: why did Post editors grant the author 1,717 words for "Unoccupied: No Israelis in Gaza. No Jobs, Either"?
CAMERA has criticized The Washington Post repeatedly for its inconsistent, contradictory use of the words terrorist and terrorism, and frequent, inaccurate substitution of militant for terrorist.
Is it possible to look right but be wrong? Yes, and a Washington Post
editorial on Israel’s Gaza Strip withdrawal, "Mr. Sharon’s
Resolve" (August 18) showed how.
In the two weeks following the July 7 bombings in London, Washington Post writers frequently labeled the perpetrators as "terrorists" and the explosions themselves as "terrorist attacks." However, the Post only once described attacks by Palestinian Arabs against Israeli non-combatants during this period as "terrorism" or the perpetrators as "terrorists."
Errors of emphasis, omissions, imbalance, and lack of context make a story by the Post's new Israel correspondent highly misleading, and show that a new correspondent is not enough; the paper needs a new paradigm in its Arab-Israeli coverage.
While Syrian troops reportedly completed their withdrawal from Lebanon on April 26, ending their 29-year occupation, the >Washington Post foreign news coverage avoided the "o" word – occupation – in regard to Syrian forces in Lebanon almost completely.
After Israel approved building a new neighborhood in Ma'aleh Adumim, a few miles east of Jerusalem, many news reports wrongly indicated that such building would prevent Palestinians from controlling "contiguous territory" in the West Bank.
