Following communication from CAMERA, CNN cosmetically tweaked its report on the E1 settlement plan, leaving its core falsehood intact: that new construction would sever the West Bank and render a contiguous Palestinian state "virtually impossible." CAMERA breaks down why boundaries, infrastructure, and the map itself tell a different story.
The BBC has duties to its audience, set down in clear editorial guidelines. The pressing question is why does it continually break them on reporting around Israel, and why do those failures only tend in one direction.
Responsible coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict demands that claims by political actors be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Vox, by allowing inaccurate claims to stand unchallenged, failed its audience.
The Daily Wire’s Pints with Aquinas show host, Matt Fradd, and guest, Dr. Ralph Martin, misrepresent Christian Zionism and present a distorted picture of the State of Israel while omitting a Jewish religious attachment to the land of Israel and casting doubt on the legitimacy of the State of Israel.
The Norwegian Refugee Council's Communications Adviser, Shaina Low, blamed Israel exclusively for all suffering in Gaza since the war began while lamenting the lack of sufficient aid, including dual-use items such as concrete, cement, rebar, and lubricant oil.
Journalism does not merely report on the battlefield, the information environment is itself part of the battlefield. Reporters can therefore inadvertently find themselves recruited into the information strategies of parties to a conflict. The BBC’s duty of impartiality consequently requires a battlefield level responsibility to guard against the circulation of propaganda on its online platforms.
Even by the standards we’re used to in the Scottish media, it’s rare, and particularly reprehensible, for a journalist to defend the 2nd Intifada - the four-year campaign of suicide bombings, and other deadly attacks, targeting Jewish civilians at bus stops, cafes and pizza places.
In an article analyzing the origin and spread of viral misinformation, The New York Times was unable to see how it has participated in the dangerous phenomenon.
