A group of anti-Israel activists who confronted Conan O'Brien as he toured the West Bank spewed lies and demanded an end to Israel's existence. So why did promise to help get their message out?
A Vox podcast relayed several errors about the Arab-Israeli conflict. The outlet refused to correct the false claim that Palestinians "can't go into" hospitals in Israeli settlements.
Journalist Gregg Carlstrom devotes nearly 5,000 words to explaining why Palestinians don't have a state. Not one of those words informs readers that Palestinian leaders have rejected a state on multiple occasions.
In its coverage of Israeli plans to revoke the press card of al Jazeera reporter Elias Karram, the news agency removed twice the word "resistance" from the journalist's damning comments.
The Opinion editor refuses to correct claims that Eilat was an Egyptian port, Abbas accepts a Jewish state, Israel built no Arab cities, and Palestinian factions don't call for a one-state solution, and defends the claims with alternative facts of his own.
Did Sacramento Bee reporter Anita Chabria cover, or cover up, an anti-Semitic sermon at a California mosque?
In order to better make its pro-BDS case, an Op-Ed in the Boston Globe insists that measures to discourage anti-Israel boycotts "betray" the legacy of civil rights icon Rosa Parks. But Parks was an outspoken and very public opponent of anti-Israel boycotts
If Israel only wanted to, it could make Hamas disappear, its military wing evaporate, and its followers give up their claim to Jerusalem. That is what seems to pass for "smart" at Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies.
Although All Things Considered told its listeners they would hear from both Israelis and Palestinians, the selection of guests were curated to ensure a narrow range of views, largely critical of Israel, would be heard.
The New York Times devotes 2000-words to an opinion piece that appears to justify Palestinian violence and terrorism as an effective means to chase Israel out of the West Bank. In the process, the article twists the facts and makes incoherent, internally contradictory arguments.