Can a news article contradict itself ? The Washington Post's coverage of Mitt Romney's doubts about Palestinian interest in peace with Israel did. The report's interjections clashed with both Palestinian actions and its quotes from the candidate. 
A Baltimore Sun commentary properly criticized support among some in the Presbyterian Church USA for divestment from companies doing business in Israel. But a CAMERA letter spotlighted the writer's mistaken equivalence of Palestinian and Israeli grievances. 
A Washington Times columnist, Arnaud de Borchgrave, tied a possible Israeli attack on Iran's presumed nuclear weapons program to the U.S. presidential election, and cited an Israeli source as downplaying the Iranian threat. CAMERA's letter to the editor supplied the missing, and contradictory, context. 
President Barack Obama and Elie Wiesel visited the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in connection with Holocaust Remembrance Day. While there, Wiesel challenged the president over Syrian repression and Iranian threats against Israel. Washington Post coverage omitted the biggest news. 
The Washington Post reported an Ha'aretz interview with the Israeli military's chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Benjamin Gantz, as front page news. But as The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg pointed out, something important was missing in the re-transmission: Nuance that did not minimize the danger of Iranian nuclear weapons. 
Virtually all the many news media tributes for Mike Wallace, veteran correspondent of CBS News' "60 Minutes," omitted a singular peculiarity: When it came to adversaries of Jews and Israel, this hard-hitting journalist went soft. 
What's the difference -- in news media coverage -- between Kashmir and the West Bank? It seems to be that, for the press, the former is "disputed" territory but the latter is "occupied." Yet sovereignty over the West Bank most definitely is unresolved and disputed. 
Fareed Zakaria, the over-exposed pundit of CNN, TIME and The Washington Post, advises Israel and the United States that a nuclear-armed Iran can be tolerated and deterred. His argument, however, rests on bad history, false comparisons and unconvincing empathy.