Multiple levels of hearsay now suffices for reporting, according to NPR. In lowering its standards, it repeated false statistics that it did not bother to fact-check.
The New York Times (re)introduced its audience to, and promoted the work of, Gazan blood-libel-photojournalist Saher Alghorra. Alghorra was unable to photograph a single Hamas fighter, but last year, photographed an emaciated baby who The Times later had to acknowledge was not healthy before the war, as the caption initially stated.
The Guardian shouldn’t be seen as a respectable media outlet or simply one that is “far left,” CAMERA's Adam Levick writes in JNS. Rather, it's an propaganda organ that fuels antisemitism in the United Kingdom.
CNN cited the Reporters Without Borders index to illustrate a decline in Israeli press freedom. But why is Israel ranked lower than Qatar and even Western Sahara on the Reporters Without Borders Index?
While nothing much shocks us anymore about the Guardian's institutional hostility to Israel and Jews, it's important to stress that, until now, we've never previously encountered an inversion of the 1929 Hebron Massacre that frames Jewish victims as the culprits at any other British outlet.
Have you read about: Michigan's history of political antisemitic harassment and intimidation; more proof that the Gaza famine never was; and Ireland's flying blind hatred of Jews?
NBC, CNN, and AP all committed the same blunder this week: sourcing their reports using testimony from both a Hamas-linked organization, and an infamous spokesman in Gaza who Israel alleges is an active member of Hamas' military wing. The kicker? They didn't inform the reader of his terror connections.
Mancini also failed to scrutinize any of El-Sayed’s arguments. The old rule in journalism, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out,” is no longer operational.
CAMERA noted that The New York Times met its standards with regard to source attribution for claimed Israeli casualties, but not for Lebanese casualties. The New York Times amended its coverage as a result.
The New York Times keeps trying to figure out why the U.S. went to war with Iran. Having proposed multiple answers, it now offers another one -- producing confusion instead of clarity.
