Why does the New York Times pretend Israeli civilians are "caught up in the fighting" between Hamas and Israel instead of acknowledging that Hamas targets Israeli civilians? Perhaps because that gets in the way of the newspaper's preferred "both sides" narrative.
A negative narrative that's rapidly gaining currency in the media is about a broadening rift between Israeli and American Jews caused by an Orthodox rabbinate in Israel intolerant of other Jewish denominations. So popular is this theme that it is sometimes imposed upon news events as context, even when the evidence suggests otherwise.
The New York Times story about Israel's High Court ruling to allow graduate student and BDS activist Lara Alqasem into the country serves as yet another vehicle for the newspaper to whitewash the campaign as one that simply promotes "Palestinian rights."
Almost every day brings new evidence that the New York Times has become a propaganda source, where history and current events alike are distorted and ordinary professional norms of objectivity are cast aside. A case in point is the recent "analysis" of the failed Oslo talks.
The role of a shill is to conceal any nefarious intent by the huckster, to protect the sheen of the product.
One can debate the merits and demerits of a law while presenting the facts accurately. Indeed, that is the role of a journalist. Both news stories and opinion columns should be based on accurate facts without overstatement or distortion. Unfortunately, many in the mainstream media have failed in these respects.
Palestinian rulers oppressing and brutalizing their own people seldom make the front page. The reason is simple: The media is often uninterested in reporting on Palestinian affairs unless Israel can be blamed.
Adjectives and labels are used to influence rather than inform; they are the weapons of journalists who prefer advocacy journalism over objective reporting. The frequent use of labels by Times reporters demonstrate how far they've strayed from their stated mission of independent and deep reporting.
On Monday, the Palestinian president blamed the Holocaust and anti-Jewish pogroms throughout history on the Jews themselves. The New York Times initially passed on reporting the story — but two days later came around to publishing a piece.
After the New York Times initially cast the Palestinian demonstrations and clashes as being a protest against Israel's naval blockade, the updated story correctly notes that it also is meant to demand a so-called "right of return."