If CNN can’t be relied upon to produce an accurate picture of the facts, or to give the proper analysis of those facts, then can CNN be relied upon as a serious journalistic entity at all?
First, the article spills large amounts of ink to link Israel to tragedies, while omitting or glossing over the existence and responsibility of other parties. Second, the article employs a curious double standard as to informing readers of when the network was “unable to verify” details being reported. Third, the background of one of the journalists himself raises questions of a conflict of interest.
The only source for the allegations of sexual violence by Israeli forces that several United Nations "experts" were willing to point to was a public report by an organization called Women's Centre for Legal Aid and Counseling (WCLAC). Given that this is all the public has to go on to scrutinize the allegations, it is worth examining WCLAC’s report.
CNN bewilderingly decided to amplify an antisemite’s horrific allegations against the Jewish state, notwithstanding they lacked any supporting evidence, and without mentioning her extraordinary bias on the subject.
As CAMERA has repeatedly documented, there is a pattern of CNN reports lobbing horrific allegations at Israel based on exceedingly thin evidence and lots of insinuation. It’s a standard, or practice, akin to tabloid journalism – a standard certainly not appropriate for serious journalism or serious accusations like that of war crimes.
To make such an eye-popping claim in the headline based solely on one man’s hearsay is irresponsible journalism. It comes across as either clickbait or an effort to advance a partisan narrative.
Given CNN’s fondness for investigations, one is left to wonder: why isn’t CNN devoting any substantial effort to holding UNRWA to account by asking the hard questions of the agency?
A non-exhaustive list of anti-Israel and antisemitic public rhetoric from many of the faculty members at Brown University's Center for Middle East Studies. The rhetoric shown helps demonstrate the level of bias and hostility toward the Jewish state.
Expert analysis, when used properly, can help audiences contextualize factual reporting. But when used improperly, it can mislead audiences by exaggerating or downplaying certain details to fit into a preconceived narrative. Repeatedly, CNN’s investigations have fallen into the latter category by portraying demonstrably biased “experts” as neutral sources.
