The Washington Post used four reporters and expensive 3D imagery to conduct an investigation into a recent IDF counterterrorist operation in which both terrorists and civilians were killed. Yet, the Post relied almost exclusively on anti-Israel sources and failed to provide essential context about why the raid was taking place.
In the face of a rising tide of anti-Semitism, CNN deserves praise for presenting its special report Rising Hate: Antisemitism in America, but it’s important to note the report had both positive and negative aspects, including crucial omissions, such as noting that anti-Semitism comes from the left and the right, while failing to actually name any guilty parties on the left.
Media coverage of Israel is, with growing frequency, more comparable to activism than actual journalism. Indeed, as the Shireen Abu Akleh controversy highlights, journalists are failing to ask basic questions while simultaneously giving platforms and awards to activists masquerading as reporters.
Amnesty International, having been given multiple opportunities to respond when directly presented with evidence that it inaccurately presented a key figure in its “apartheid” report against Israel, has gone silent.
Lacking factual and legal support for its claims, Amnesty resorts to repeating emotionally charged, but substantively empty, language and claims that – rather than educate students of the course – work only to demonize Israelis and delegitimize the Jewish State.
CAMERA has begun documenting the range of falsehoods in Amnesty’s report elsewhere. This piece, by contrast, will focus on one of Amnesty’s lies, diving downward from there to untangle part of web of deceit underpinning the Big Lie.
While conflicting sources is a common phenomenon in journalism, it's not often that a journalist directly contradicts his own sources, passing them off as substantiation when they are just the opposite.
Amnesty International’s recent scandalous report accusing Israel of “apartheid,” as well as a similar report from Human Rights Watch a year ago, are unsurprisingly overflowing with falsehoods and bigotry. Many outstanding analysts have already thoroughly debunked each of these reports. What also must be addressed, however, is the surrounding context of this slander. Why are they being released now? What purpose are they supposed to serve?
Amnesty is counting on lazy journalists and politicians to pick up the report and wave it around, picking out a random quote a staffer found that suggests Israel is a racist endeavor. They also know too few journalists these days are willing and able to perform serious journalism and ask the tough questions...
