Settlements

July 16, 2009

Washington Post Corrects Error About Gilo

A correction in the July 16 edition of the Washington Post addressed the designation of Gilo as a "Jewish settlement." It was the second of two corrections that the Washington Post made in that article in response to CAMERA's request.
November 3, 2005

UPDATED: Providence Journal Redresses Op-Ed Errors

The following letter appeared in the Providence Journal in response to a fallacious op-ed by error-prone Palestinian activist Mazin Qumsiyeh. Qumsiyeh misstated both the number of Palestinians killed by settlers and the number of immigrants in Israel. On Nov. 1, over two months after the error was published, the newspaper finally cleared the record with a correction.
November 3, 2005

CAMERA Prompts Boston Globe Correction on Gaza Settlers

CAMERA staff prompted the following Boston Globe correction today regarding an article earlier this week which reported as fact what turned out to be a false allegation by a Palestinian official against Israeli settlers in Gaza.
August 11, 2004

WASHINGTON POST-WATCH: Stand Corrected

So when is a correction not a correction? Often, when it's a Washington Post attempt to remedy a mistake in the paper's Arab-Israeli coverage.
August 6, 2004

‘Crossfire’ Fallout at AJR

In the June/July issue of American Journalism Review, Barbara Matusow covered the contentious topic of criticism of Middle East news coverage. In avoiding any substantive assessment of the content of the criticism, Matusow's overarching message was that journalists are a blameless, beleaguered group, assailed by propagandists and baseless accusations. Her implication was proven baseless when CAMERA prompted the following correction on Matusow's own report.
July 19, 2004

CAMERA Prompts CSM Correction: Efrat Not an Outpost

In a July 9 "Reporters on  the Job" segment, the Christian Science Monitor erroneously described the West Bank town of Efrat as a "settler outpost." In response to CAMERA's July 14 email about the error, the paper's International Editor thanked CAMERA for "bringing it to [his] attention," and today the paper printed the following correction: