Ricki Hollander

UPDATED: “Terrorism” as Defined by the New York Times

On August 19, 2003, the New York Times published a front-page, above-the-fold, story with an accompanying photograph on an inside page about the possibility several Israeli Jews are involved in "terror attacks" against Palestinian civilians.The article raises real questions about the Times' news judgement. Why such prominence for a story about unproven allegations?

Reuters: News Agency or Political Advocacy Group?

Reuters, the influential news agency headquartered in London, whose wire service stories appear in print, broadcast and web media outlets, routinely uses partisan, distorted terminology in its Middle East news reports. It not only bans the word "terrorism" generally but uses language that continually seeks to explain and obscure Palestinian violence. Thus Reuters regularly characterizes Palestinian terror against Israel as "the Palestinian uprising for statehood" or "uprising for Palestinian independence" or "uprising for an independent state."

Nightline’s Moral Equivalence

Journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are often accused of drawing a false moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli military anti-terrorist actions – what they frequently refer to as “the cycle of violence” or “tit-for-tat violence.” ABC Nightline’s Ted Koppel tried to deflect such criticism in advance by introducing an August 21, 2003 segment by Mike Lee about Israeli and Palestinian mothers who lost children.

CNN.com Mangles Facts in Jerusalem Feature

CNN adopts an inappropriate partisan stance, twisting historical facts, excluding issues crucial to understanding the status of Jerusalem.and minimizing the city's sacred status in Judaism.

BBC-WATCH: BBC Blames Israel Again

The two homicide bombings that rocked the Middle East on August 19, 2003 – targeting in Baghdad UN workers who had come to rebuild the country, and in Jerusalem Jewish families with young children returning from prayer at the Western Wall – elicited early sympathetic reaction on BBC. But it didn’t take very long for the network’s Web site to start implying fault on Israel’s part.