Syndicated columnist Robert Novak's commentary on Palestinian Christians and the West Bank village of Aboud, published in the Chicago Sun-Times and the Washington Post, was an egregious example of revisionism. It featured false premises relying on repeated errors.
Historians will have to treat the Post's first- and second-day coverage of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Jan. 4 stroke skeptically. Glenn Kessler's analysis repeatedly misrepresents U.S.-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy. The Post's editorial commenting on Sharon's incapacitation is superficial and mistaken. Scott Wilson's news articles misleads on fundamentals of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
National Public Radio's Nov. 2, 2005 report, "Jewish Settlements Expand in West Bank," illustrates a recurrent technique in the network's chronic anti-Israel coverage: stacking the deck.
In recent months the Washington Post has moved from typically
referring to Palestinian terrorist groups as "militants," Unfortunately, the Post
now typically refers to the "military leaders," "military
wings," and "military" or "offensive operations" of
these "armed groups" – Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa
Martyrs Brigades of Fatah.
In an article about a terrorist bombing targeting Israeli civilians in Hadera, the Washington Post chose to illustrate the murders with a photo sympathetic to the terrorist (bomber's mother holding his photo) instead of photographs of the bomb scene and Israeli victims. Three days after CAMERA's Oct. 27 alert, the paper's ombudsman wrote a column stating that running that photo was a bad choice.
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"?
