For four months, the New York Times didn't tell readers Iran was preventing its correspondent, Thomas Erdbrink, from reporting. Why? And what does it mean?
The Daily, a New York Times podcast hosted by Michael Barbaro, shows how naturally the anti-Israel narrative comes to Times reporters, who exclude Israeli voices, suggest Palestinians didn’t attack Israeli civilians during the intifada, conceal the Palestinian rejection of peace offers, blame Netanyahu for building the security barrier, misstate the American position on the legality of Israel's occupation, and much, much more.
A New York Times story about Iran is also a story about a newspaper that's lost any measure of self-restraint when it comes to the small, Jewish country that dominates its attention.
In covering the UN Human Rights Council's Gaza report, the New York Times misleads readers about Palestinian demands for a “right of return,” ignores widespread international criticism of the UNHRC’s anti-Israel bias, and conceals accounts of gunfire and explosives used by rioters.
An article published in the March 2019 edition of Commentary compares the New York Times' promises and performance in 2018, and finds striking patterns of bias.
In reporting on the opening of Route 4370 in the West Bank, some in the media got a little to excited about anti-Israel talking points, using them as if they are appropriate journalistic synonyms.
Jonathan Weisman, the deputy Washington editor of the New York Times, stumbles on the facts as he describes — or is it prescribes? — a rift between American and Israeli Jews. The New York Times is aware of the piece's factual errors, but they remain uncorrected.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei might have a soft white beard, but the New York Times shouldn't to confuse him with Santa Claus. In his desire to dominate neighboring countries, the Iranian leader has contributed to the destabilizing of Lebanon and other Arab states.
The New York Times had described the Palestinian killing of unsuspecting Israelis waiting at a bus stop before he fled in a getaway car as a "bold" attack. The newspaper should do better. (And it eventually did.)
Marc Lamont Hill called for violent resistance. He called for a Palestine to exist instead of, and not alongside, Israel. He called for policies that would upend Israel’s demographic balance and disempower the Jews. Why are so many of his defenders gaslighting Hill's critics instead of defending the actual ideas promoted by the former CNN contributor?