New York Times journalists continue to distort and revise history to maintain a phony but consistent narrative about who is to blame in the ongoing conflict.
Why did the New York Times conceal Islamic Jihad's terror designations, then describe the group as simply "nettlesome"?
The New York Times doesn't have a policy to avoid using the word "terrorist." So why did it scrub that word from coverage of Israel's strike on senior Islamic Jihad leader Baha Abu Al Ata?
The New York Times finally acknowledges that BDS opposes Israel's existence, but seems to ask: Is that so bad?
When J Street convinces students to reject Israel's right to exist, David Halbfinger casts the group as truth-tellers who are literally beyond reproach — not a word of skepticism or criticism of the organization can be found in the article.
A story in today’s New York Times refers to Hamas rocket fire into Israel and its imprisonment of two Israelis. But reporter David Halbfinger avoids telling readers that these are both violations of international law.
New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief David Halbfinger authored two interviews in five days that underscore the newspaper’s continuing anti-Israel bias and shoddy attention to accuracy, context and clarity.
Why does the New York Times want its readers to wrongly believe that Palestinian gunmen and bombers struck down while engaged in combat were killed while merely "demonstrating"?
"Resistance." "Stray rockets." "Palestinian impatience." Another day, another example of the New York Times soft-gloving anti-Israel terror groups.
In what is now a well-documented pattern at the NY Times, an article pretending to be an objective news report editorializes to blame Israel for Palestinian terrorism while suggesting that Palestinian culpability is merely an Israeli allegation.