If an antisemitic leader works hand-in-hand with antisemitic Nazis to spread anti-Jewish propaganda and encourage Nazi soldiers, why does the New York Times avoid describing the partnership as antisemitic? Apparently, it's because this particular Nazi ally was a Palestinian leader.
The New York Times corrects after taking sides in the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians over the West Bank.
Media outlets falsely report that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shut Israel's courts, citing him as a prime example of an "authoritarian" national leader engaging in a "coronavirus coup." In fact, Justice Minister Amir Ohana, a Netanyahu ally, curtailed court activity without closing the institutions, a move backed by Supreme Court justice Esther Hayut.
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.
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?
In a pair of articles about the Jordan Valley, the New York Times echoed B'Tselem's false claim that Palestinians are unable to enter 85 percent of the region, and wrongly described the Palestinian village of Fasayil as sitting in Area C of the West Bank.
A New York Times story on UNRWA claims that the UN agency serves "hundreds of thousands" of Palestinians who fled or were expelled in 1948. In fact, no more than some 30,000 from the original refugees are still living.
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.
An article published in the March 2019 edition of Commentary compares the New York Times' promises and performance in 2018, and finds striking patterns of bias.
The newspaper speaks of two Jordanians killed in a "confrontation" with an Israeli embassy guard. Why does it avoid mentioning that one of those Jordanians first stabbed the guard?