Category: journalism

The NYT still slants its news against Israel

January 26, 2025 • 9:30 am

While perusing the Bad Gray Lady this morning, I saw two headlines that, in light of what I knew about events in Gaza and Lebanon, looked dubious. Sure enough, the headlines and the news below them gave a distorted view of the situation. Here’s the first one (click to read, or find article archived here):

Note first the order of events: Israel blacks Gazans from north while accusing Hamas of a cease-fire breach.  The order of events should have been reversed, with the headline saying “Israel accuses Hamas of Cease-Fire Breach, blocks Gazans from North.” That may seem a trivial difference , but I’ve seen too many headlines with Israel identified first as the perp, with the stated reasons for their actions given second.

But the lack of explanation for what’s happening is much more important. The real situation is that Israel and Hamas agreed to a cease-fire in which all civilian hostages were to be released first, and, yesterday at noon Israeli time, Hamas was also to provide Israel with a complete list of the hostages they had or knew about, specifying whether they were living or dead.  Hamas did neither; they are still not releasing one civilian woman (she was held by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but Hamas is a partner organization and could easily have arranged for the woman’s release). The four women released yesterday were in the IDF. The NYT notes this further down:

The office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said that it would not allow Gazans to head north “until the release of the civilian Arbel Yehud has been arranged,” leaving the timing of the troop withdrawal and the residents’ return unclear.

And here’s another violation described by the Jerusalem Post:

Hamas has not yet provided Israel with the list revealing the status of the hostages held in Gaza captivity, which it was obligated to provide by Saturday under the ceasefire agreement.

According to a Walla report citing Israeli officials, the list was expected to include details on how many of the hostages remaining in Hamas captivity are still alive and how many are deceased.

An Israeli official reportedly said that failure to provide the list by the end of the day would be another violation of the agreement by Hamas.

Hamas could not explain either of these violations of the agreement. It’s clear that they are toying with Israel and playing psychological games that of course are deeply injurious to the hostages’ friends and families. This is why Israel did not withdraw from northern Gaza or allow residents to return home. (Note that Israel still has not fired on bullet.) The “blocking” is Israel’s nonviolent response to the actions of Hamas, the party that first violated the cease-fire.

I don’t think this bodes well for a continuing peace in the region, which, at any rate, I don’t think will be permanent so long as Hamas runs Gaza.

Here is the second headline about doings further north. Click to read, or find it archived here:

And an excerpt (bolding is mine)

At least 15 people were killed and more than 80 injured by Israeli forces on Sunday in southern Lebanon, Lebanese officials said, as the 60-day deadline for both Hezbollah and Israel to withdraw from the south expired and thousands of Lebanese displaced by the war poured onto roads leading south back to their homes.

The agreement, which was signed in November and halted the deadliest war in decades between the two sides, stipulated that both Hezbollah and Israel withdraw, while the Lebanese Army and U.N. peacekeepers would be deployed in force to secure the area. Negotiators had hoped the cease-fire deal would become permanent, returning a measure of calm to a turbulent region.

But as the deadline passed on Sunday, a very different scenario was taking shape.

Israeli forces remained in parts of southern Lebanon in violation of the cease-fire agreement, stoking fears of a sustained Israeli occupation and renewed hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. Israeli officials warned Lebanese not to return to their homes in many towns and villages in the south.

“In the near future, we will continue to inform you about the places to which you can return,” Avichai Adraee, the Arabic spokesman of the Israeli military, posted on social media on Sunday morning. “Until further notice, all previously published instructions remain in effect.”

Lebanon’s Health Ministry said that those killed and injured on Sunday morning had been trying to enter their villages along the border when they were attacked by Israeli forces. Residents of some southern towns had called for their neighbors to gather early Sunday morning and head to their homes in a convoy, despite the warnings from Israel. The Lebanese military said it was accompanying civilians returning to several border towns to try to ensure their safety. The military said in a statement that a Lebanese soldier was among those killed by Israeli fire.

What is not explained: What Israel and Lebanon agreed to was that Israel would occupy the region between their northern border with Lebanon and the Litani River, and then would withdraw back into Israel after the Lebanese Army (note: there is one, and it’s not Hezbollah), in concert with the UN army forces of UNIFIL, would destroy all of Hezbollah’s weapons and facilities between the border with Israel and the Litani River. Until then, villages in that area would be evacuated (Israeli villages south of the border with Lebanon have also been evacuated, displacing 80,000 people).

Of course UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army have done little or nothing, and Hezbollah, despite the agreement, will not withdraw north of the Litani River; armed Hezbollah fighters remain in the forbidden region while UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army does bupkes.  The Israelis fired on a group of people marching back to their homes in violation of the agreement, accompanied by armed people; this was perceived as a threat [see below].

At any rate the bolded text above implies that Israel was violating the cease-fire agreement while Lebanon adhered to it. That is a falsehood. Lebanon first violated the cease-fire agreement big-time, and in response Israel did not withdraw.

From the Times of Israel:

The Lebanese health ministry said 15 people had been killed, including a Lebanese soldier, and some 83 had been wounded by IDF fire in southern Lebanon since the morning.

The crowds appeared to be largely made up of Hezbollah supporters. Hezbollah’s al-Manar television, broadcasting from several locations in the south, showed footage of residents moving toward villages in defiance of Israeli orders, some holding the terror group’s flag and images of Hezbollah fighters killed in the war, as well as slain Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah.

An Israeli military official told reporters that hundreds of Lebanese, among them Hezbollah operatives, tried to reach villages in southern Lebanon while carrying out “provocations.”

The official said the military had prepared for civilians attempting to reach the border villages at the end of the 60-day truce, despite its warnings.

The IDF said it opened fire on suspects who approached troops still deployed in southern Lebanon and who posed an “imminent threat.” Troops also detained several suspects, according to the military.

Here, from Wikimedia, is a map showing the Litani River and the area south of it before one gets to the Israeli border (dark grey line). That is the region that was subject to the truce agreement.

******

In both cases above, Gaza and then Lebanon violated a cease-fire agreement with Israel, and Israel did not violate that agreement–until the terrorists (and the UN and Lebanon) violated the agreement.  Yet somehow the NYT makes Israel look responsible here rather than terrorists violating a cease-fire agreement. Such is mainstream journalism. In Gaza, for instance, if Hamas would just let the Israelis go as agreed, the cease-fire would be obeyed by Israel, which already has released the hundreds of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails per the agreement.

The NYT deep-sixes columnist Pamela Paul

January 22, 2025 • 9:45 am

I am pretty sure I predicted this, though I’m not going to trawl back through my posts to see for sure. Pamela Paul is a heterodox op-ed writer at the New York Times, tackling topics that you wouldn’t expect to see of a regular columnist save established “house conservatives” like Ross Douthat. But Paul wasn’t a designated “conservative writer.” She was a liber and was, for nine years, the editor of the NYT Book Review. I presume she was recruited to the op-ed section for both her writing ability and her depth of analysis. And she chose to take on controversial topics—apparently with a slant not to the paper’s liking.

And I bet they got someone whose work they didn’t expect.  Here are some of her columns, shown just as screenshots. And these are just within the last year!

Of course she got pushback, though what came from inside the paper we don’t know (I bet it was of the nature that Bari Weiss got). Below we see a piece from The Hub arguing that Paul had no right to write about “scholasticide” or to point out that Gaza’s universities were assaulted by the IDF because they sat atop Hamas tunnels, had plenty of weapons inside, and because students were even taught to manufacture weapons. How dare she point that out? Look at the patronizing title by this misguided defender of terrorism who decries Israel’s “US-sponsored genocide.” “Do better,” my tuchas!

The columns above show her defending Israel, going after religion, criticizing the iconic Ta-Nehisi Coates, and, above all, criticizing gender-affirming care, writing about “desisters,” and—the ultimate blasphemy—defending J. K. Rowling! Heresy!

Is it any surprise that an elite white writer, with no protection of minority status, was given the pink slip? Although the NYT gives an unconvincing denial below, I don’t believe it for a minute. Paul wrote with passion, panache, and, above all, sensibility (read the Rowling column).  And the NYT can’t have its “progressive” leftism criticized, not by a white liberal writer.  So they parted ways.  I predicted they’d deep-six her, but hoped against hope they wouldn’t. They did.

Read about it in the New York Magazine column below (archived here).

 

 

The piece (my bolding):

The New York Times Opinion section is negotiating the exit of columnist Pamela Paul, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. Her impending departure is part of a handful of job cuts being made at the section. Last month, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who had been a part of Opinion since 2000, announced to much fanfare that he was leaving. Paul was made an Opinion columnist in 2022 after nearly a decade running the Book Review.

Her ouster is sure to raise eyebrows both within and outside the Times. The Opinion section has been the site of the paper’s fiercest culture war battles in recent years, most famously leading to the firing of editor James Bennet in 2020 over an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton calling for the deployment of troops during the George Floyd protests. Since then, under Opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury, management at the Times has labored mightily to show that it is open to a diversity of thought, an effort that appeared to be spearheaded by Paul, who has taken on challenging, contentious topics such as gender-affirming youth care.

Paul is admired by some of her colleagues for her willingness to buck liberal-left conventional wisdom. She has written a defense of J.K. Rowling and scrutinized the MeToo movement for overreach, while a recent column criticized the American Historical Society’s vote to condemn the ongoing “scholasticide” in Gaza. But others have said she does little more than produce rage bait, with what one Times staffer referred to as “intellectually lazy” positions. “It is a rarity inside the Times for someone to manage to make enemies on every desk they touch; Pamela is indeed a rarity,” one newsroom employee said. “She should have spent time making allies if she was going to be as divisive a figure as she was internally. But she didn’t put the time in there, or at least did not have the interest.”

I’m told, however, that Opinion’s decision to part ways with her is not because of her ideological positions. Kingsbury said, “We don’t discuss personnel matters, but any insinuation I make staffing or editorial decisions based solely on political viewpoints is false.”

Look at that weaselly explanation: she was not let go “based solely on political viewpoints.”  Well, what about IN PART for political viewpoints?

Of course the NYT won’t clarify this further, but the  “based solely on political viewpoints” part tells the tale. I loved Paul’s columns (she was supposed to be at our USC Ideology in Science conference, but somehow didn’t show up), and grew to like her as a person through her writing. Now she’s gone.  What anodyne “progressive” writer will they replace her with. Some dispenser of religious bromides like Tish Harrison Warren, whose departure was something to celebrate?

h/t: Jez

Check the bias of your media sources

October 16, 2024 • 11:30 am

From some place I can’t recall I learned about a site called Ad Fontes Media, which has a figure called an  Interactive Media Bias Chart that looks like this (click to enlarge):

On the X axis various sources are ranked for political bias, with “left” sources on the left (of course) and right-wing sources to the right. On the Y axis is a measure of credibility, with low scores on the bottom and high scores on the top.  You’ll want to know how the rankings are done, and you can see that on this page. (You can also get digital downloads, which are free for educational, personal, and nonprofit use.)

You’ll want to enlarge the chart at the original site and see how your media sources rank. You can also search for a given media source (including television and other digital media).

The source with the most balanced coverage and also the most reliable appears to be USAFacts, to which you must subscribe (I ahven’t heard of it or seen it).  The CBS Evening News and the Wall Street Journal are also given as credible centrist sources.

The politically extreme sources tend to be less credible, and that’s understandable, of course, for they slant the news.  Among left-leaning and less credible sources are the PBS News Hour (surprise), but, even worse: Jezebel, and Jen Psaki on NBC. Then the left-wing sources go even more downhill to sites like Wonkette and the Tony Michaels Podcast.

Not credible right-wing sources include The Post Millenial and Fox and Friends, and, even more extreme and less credible (and not surprising) are Louder with Crowder and, of course, Alex Jones.

Scores are based on panels of three people rating individual articles, and I can’t seem to find an overall score for places like the New York Times, but here’s their chart, showing a left skew and moderate credibility (each dot is an article)

The Wall Street Journal shows, as indicated above, more centrist and credible news:

Reuters is left-centrist and pretty reliable:

The Washington Post, like the NYT, is also skewed left and not terribly credible:

I haven’t examined the methodology or overall scores for each source, but I’ll let readers do that for themselves. Anyway, it’s fun to play around with and see where your own news sources fall.

Companies charge money to change your Wikipedia page

October 11, 2024 • 12:00 pm

This article, from Pirate Wires, shows something that many of us already knew: there’s a thriving industry out there to either create or buff up your Wikipedia page, despite it being against the rules.  (I note immediately that I neither created nor had anyone buff up my page.)

There are two types of editing: “white hat editing” in which paid interests are disclosed and direct edits aren’t made, and which may be okay (I don’t agree), and “black hat editing,” in which edits are made without conflicts of interest being disclosed, which is definitely against Wikipedia’s rules. New article are even created to boost businesses or organizations. Both of the latter two are against Wikipedia’s rules, but are hard to police.

I’ll give just a few examples to show you what kind of stuff is subject to paid editing:

. . . . . Today, Wikipedia’s list of black-hat editors includes over 200 companies, many of which operate dozens of front companies and subsidiary brands. One of the biggest and highest-profile is Abtach, a Pakistani firm founded in 2015 linked to an IT company called Intermarket Group. On Wikipedia, Abtach has been tied to at least 130 different Wikipedia editing front companies that operate under domains like Wikicreatorsinc.com, Wikicreation.services, Wikipedia Pro, Wikipedia Legends, and USAwikispecialists.com. Alongside its Wikipedia activities, Abtach’s owners run a parallel business selling low-cost trademark applications under names like Trademark Terminal, Trademark Eminent, Trademark Excel and more than a dozen others. In 2022, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) found that firms tied to Abtach had defrauded customers, in some cases by billing them for multiple filings when only one single-class trademark was filed. USPTO invalidated 5,500 trademarks as a result of the investigation and Google banned the companies from advertising. The previous year, the Federal Investigation Agency, Pakistan’s equivalent to the FBI, investigated the company for criminal fraud.

While Abtach may have pushed the boundaries farther than most, there are hundreds of Abtach-like companies out there — many based in Pakistan, India and Ukraine, but some of the longest standing and most impactful in the UK, Switzerland, France, Spain and the US — each with a profusion of front sites and domains ready to slurp up overflowing demand. Most of what these black hat firms offer is a kind of blunt-force approach to reputation management. For $1,200 to $1,500, they promise to create a Wikipedia article about you or your company. The process will take around a week (or so you’ll be told) with half the payment made up front and the other half upon completion. Payments are usually made in the form of bank wires, which are much more difficult to reverse than credit card charges. Frequently, the newly created article will be taken down by Wikipedia community editors patrolling for articles that don’t meet the site’s notability threshold. In some of these cases, black-hat companies will demand further payment to get the article back up, forcing clients to double the $1,500 investment, then triple it, etc.

And oy, the NYT does it!

While the mainstream media has covered the issue of Wikipedia editing, they have not been immune to its temptations. In 2020, during the lead-up to A.G. Sulzberger — the scion to the Sulzberger dynasty that controls the New York Times — assuming the chairman position at the newspaper, the Times hired one of the first and most highly regarded white-hat Wikipedia firms, Beutler Ink. Readying A.G. for the new post at the height of the #MeToo movement, the firm requested community editors beef up of the section on the incoming chairman’s journalistic experience, including a heroic account of Sulzberger’s time as an intern at the Providence Journal, where he “revealed” a local country club was not open to women. A range of other similar additions were requested — and made — including Sulzberger’s stint at The Oregonian newspaper, “writing more than 300 pieces about local government and public life, including a series of investigative exposés on misconduct by Multnomah County Sheriff Bernie Giusto” — language provided almost verbatim by Beutler Ink.

This seems unethical for a newspaper, and especially unethical for what is supposed to be a leading and reputable newspaper.  A few more clients, which will surprise you.

The list of Beutler Ink’s clients alone reveals the staggering scale of this activity. A small sample includes media executive and Democratic mega donor Jeffrey Katzenberg, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, Reddit co-founder Steve Huffman, Simon and Schuster CEO Jonathan Karl and Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks. Corporate clients include Reddit, MetLife, Accenture, Intel, IBM, Hubspot, Hilton, Vox Media, Dick’s Sporting Goods, United Airlines, Amdocs, Gallup, Allergan, Breyers, Vimeo and Waymo.

The PR tactics and marketing KPIs involved are just as diverse. While the New York Times turned to Wikipedia to burnish its brand, NBC News hired a white-hat firm to do damage control during a period of major upheaval. The scandal began when Today show host and media super-star Matt Lauer was abruptly fired in 2017 following serious allegations of sexual misconduct. In October 2019, an excerpt from a book by Ronan Farrow reported shocking details on the allegations, and claims top NBC executives, including NBC News chairman Andrew Lack and president Noah Oppenheim, quashed Farrow’s reporting on the scandal when he was at the network.

The revelations sent NBC into a tailspin. . .

Does this mean you can’t trust Wikipedia? No, though Greg Mayer has been promising me a post on “What’s the matter with Wikipedia?” for about a decade now.  But surely nobody is going to pay to have articles about specific species of animals, chemical compounds, some biographies altered. But as for politics, history, or currently controversial subjects (including people), caveat emptor!

CBS disses its reporter who grilled Ta-Nehisi Coats about his new-anti Israel essay

October 8, 2024 • 9:00 am

UPDATE: Here is a Free Press video discussing their scoop:

CBS journalist Tony Dokoupil interviewed well-known writer and activist Ta-Nehisi Coates, who just came out with a new collection of long essays, the longest of which excoriates Israel. I discussed Hughes’s review a few days ago and wrote this:

Ta-Nehisi Coates, who has the status of a god among activists, has a new book, which is a collection of three essays.  But it’s making news because the longest essay—100 pages—is about the perfidies of Israel (he doesn’t mention terrorism or October 7). While the NYT gave the book a positive review, singling out the anti-Israel stuff for special praise, Coleman Hughes takes the book apart in the Free Press in a review called “The Fantasy World of Ta-Nehisi Coates” (archived here).  Remember, Hughes, like Coats, is black, but he’s a heterodox black along the lines of John McWhorter (though more passionate than McWhorter, I think).

It’s a new book, so I haven’t gotten it but have ordered it via interlibrary loan. The essay at hand (even according to the NYT) is resolutely anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. As Hughes wrote, the book “doesn’t even mention the word Hamas—or Fatah, or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Hezbollah, or Iran—once. In his telling, the threats don’t exist, only the barriers that Israel erects to contain them.”

So Dokoupil interviewed Coates for CBS News, and apparently asked some hard questions about the Israel essay.  You can see them in the video below. And CBS didn’t like that, so it n not only conducterd an internal review, but had a special editorial meeting devoted to obliquely defaming Dokoupil’s journalism.  It’s already in Wikipedia under Dokoupil’s entry:

On September 30, 2024, Dokoupil discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with author Ta-Nehisi Coates during the latter’s appearance on CBS Mornings to promote the book The Message. Dokoupil implied that the book “reads like the work of an extremist” and questioned Coates about his view on Israel‘s right to exist.  Following an internal review, a CBS News executive said in October 2024 that Dokoupil had failed to maintain the network’s editorial standards in the interview.

Here’s the interview, embedded in a discussion with three journalists:

Judge for yourself. Given the content of what Coates reportedly wrote, I don’t think Dokoupil’s questions are out of line; they are simply hard journalistic questions, of the kind that were supposed to be asked during the Presidential debates but largely weren’t. But the dung hit the fan after this interview.

And here’s the Free Press article about the kerfuffle: click headline to read or find it archived here.

The background according to the article:

Last week, CBS journalist Tony Dokoupil conducted an interview with the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates whose new book, The Message, includes a one-sided polemic against Israel. Coates himself describes his book as an effort to debunk the complexities journalists invoke to obscure Israel’s occupation. He complained in an interview with New York magazine that the argument that the conflict was “complicated” was “horseshit,” that was how defenders of slavery and segregation described these plagues a century ago. “It’s complicated,” he said, “when you want to take something from somebody.”

So Dokoupil asked him about it.

“Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it?”

“Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it?”

“Why not detail anything of the first and second intifada. . . the cafe bombings, the bus bombings, the little kids blown to bits?”

In other words, Tony Dokoupil did his job.

That’s when his troubles began.

One might think that respectfully challenging a source that presents misinformation or a picture so limited that it obscures the truth is what journalism’s all about. That’s exactly what CBS does in the aftermath of school shootings or when covering bans on critical race theory in local school districts.

The article includes the recording of a “confidential” CBS editorial meeting in which the bosses apologized for Dokiupil’s interview (go to the site to hear the “confidential” meeting):

During its editorial meeting on Monday at 9 a.m.—the morning of October 7—the network’s top brass all but apologized for the interview to staff, saying that it did not meet the company’s “editorial standards.” After being introduced by Wendy McMahon, the head of CBS News, Adrienne Roark, who is in charge of news gathering at the network, began her remarks by saying covering a story like October 7 “requires empathy, respect, and a commitment to truth.”

. . . Crawford went on: “Tony prevented a one-sided account from being broadcast on our network that was completely devoid of history or facts. As someone who does a lot of interviews, I’m not sure now how to proceed in challenging viewpoints that are obviously one-sided and devoid of fact and history.”

You can hear Roark hypocritically asserting the claim that CBS asks “tough questions” and “holds people accountable” and reports news without bias.  Other bosses say that the meeting is not about Doloupil’s interview of Coates, but it’s clear that it really is. Why else would they mention this in a meeting? It’s grating to hear Roark and her colleagues reaffirm the unbiased and hard-nosed nature of CBS news at the same time that they dissed the interview.

But Doloupil had his defenders:

Not everyone was buying it. CBS reporter Jan Crawford, who has been the CBS chief legal correspondent since 2009, rushed to Dokoupil’s defense.

“It sounds like we are calling out one of our anchors in a somewhat public setting on this call for failing to meet editorial standards for, I’m not even sure what,” she said. “I thought our commitment was to truth. And when someone comes on our air with a one-sided account of a very complex situation, as Coates himself acknowledges that he has, it’s my understanding that as journalists we are obligated to challenge that worldview so that our viewers can have that access to the truth or a fuller account, a more balanced account. And, to me, that is what Tony did.”

Crawford went on: “Tony prevented a one-sided account from being broadcast on our network that was completely devoid of history or facts. As someone who does a lot of interviews, I’m not sure now how to proceed in challenging viewpoints that are obviously one-sided and devoid of fact and history.”

You can hear Crawford’s remarks on a recording in the article.

All in all, I think Dokoupil’s questions were absolutely fair, hewed to journalistic standards, and drew out Coates’s views, which bespeak a deeply misguided view of both Palestine and Israel.  The Free Press argues that giving a special defense for Coates means that CBS has a double standard for journalism:

The other thing worth noticing is CBS’s double standard. Here was Gayle King on May 26, 2020, after the news broke that George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. “I am speechless. I am really, really speechless about what we’re seeing on television this morning. It feels to me like open season… and that sometimes it’s not a safe place to be in this country for black men,” she said, holding back tears.

In the case of King—on the subjects of wokeism, racism, Black Lives Matter, and gun rights—her “lived experience” is an asset to the newsroom. As it should be. But for Dokoupil, his experience as the father of Jewish children who live in Israel, has no place in an interview with an author sharing his cartoonish indictment of the world’s only Jewish state.

The sad truth is that Coates is not speaking truth to power. He is echoing the new consensus of the powerful. One can find more sophisticated versions of The Message in the course catalogs of Ivy League universities, the editorial pages of leading newspapers, and in the reports of well-funded NGOs.

I agree. Here we have the MSM showing that it’s been ideologically colonized by “progressives”—to the point that asking hard questions of a famous author who dmonizes Israel is deemed worthy of reproof. And I say this not just because the topic was Israel, for it would be equally reprehensible for the MSM to throw softballs at anybody who writes a polemic on a debatable topic that nevertheless goes along with “progrssive” ideology.

Well, listen for yourself and see if Dokoupil was unfair in his questions.

 

BBC again accused of biased reporting—with a personal introduction

October 6, 2024 • 12:15 pm

I’ve been struggling to understand the new articles in Nature on the fly brain, and it’s not easy! I will write about the issue, but not until I have something clear and interesting to impart to readers.

When I look at my draft posts, I see that many of them are about Israel, which prompted me to call Malgorzata and whine, “Everything I’m writing is about Israel; people are going to think I’m obsessed.” Malgorzata responded that. as with her, I likely have two reasons. First, I’m a Jew and am naturally concerned with an existential crisis threatening the Jewish state. Second, she said, both she and I have been worried about the new rise in anti-Semitism that goes by the name of “anti-Zionism”.

Before 1880, anti-Semitism was called “Jew hatred,” but that was deemed too crass, so “anti-Semitism”, coined by Wilhelm Marr, arose as a softer, more scientific euphemism. Now with the rise of Jew and Israel hatred, and the reluctance of liberals to say they are “antisemitic”, we have yet another euphemism: “anti-Zionism”.  But at bottom they’re all the same thing, softened variants of “Jew hatred.”  And that hatred, expressed as approbation for eliminating the existence of Israel, threatens not only the Jewish state, but the West as a whole, for the sentiments are more than “Jew hatred”: they’re “West hatred.”

Or so Malgorzata said, and sent me a video, saying that I would get a better explanation by watching the section of this video between 9:15 to 22:30. I’ve pasted it in so it starts at 9:15. The speaker is Dr. Einat Wilf, “former Knesset member and expert on Israel’s foreign policy,” and she’s quite eloquent.  Wikipedia notes that “Wilf describes herself as a Zionist, a feminist and an atheist.”

 

At any rate, that’s her take, and I guess I have no choice about the topics I cover, since they just issue from the determined molecular movements going on inside my head. So here’s my post.

The BBC, accused repeatedly of biased reporting, has formed a division called “BBC Verify”, dedicated to fact checking and preventing misinformation.  The announcement of its inception says this:

We’ve brought together forensic journalists and expert talent from across the BBC, including our analysis editor Ros Atkins and disinformation correspondent Marianna Spring and their teams. In all, BBC Verify comprises about 60 journalists who will form a highly specialised operation with a range of forensic investigative skills and open source intelligence (Osint) capabilities at their fingertips.

They’ll be fact-checking, verifying video, countering disinformation, analysing data and – crucially – explaining complex stories in the pursuit of truth.

This is a different way of doing our journalism. We’ve built a physical space in the London newsroom, with a studio that BBC Verify correspondents and experts will report from, transparently sharing their evidence-gathering with our audiences. They will contribute to News Online, radio and TV, including the News Channel and our live and breaking streaming operation, both in the UK and internationally.

But investigative journalist David Collier, who has investigated “Verify,” cannot verify that it’s fulfilled its mission. In fact, on this post on his website (click to read), he calls for this BBC unit to be shut down.

One example: Verify purported to verify that the Iranian missiles raining down on Israel last week were aimed solely at military targets. (Regardless of what they were aimed at, of course, it was an attack unprovoked by any Israeli attack on Iran.)  But some elementary fact-checking showed that Verify dissimulated:

On Tuesday evening, 1 October 2024, Iran fired approximately 180 ballistic missiles at Israel. Many were intercepted, but several sites were hit. On Wednesday evening BBC Verify published a 1 minute 20 second video – titled ‘where Iran’s missiles struck in Israel’.

The BBC Verify team tells us they have been looking at ‘where Iran’s missiles have landed’ and the video is to counter ‘a lot of false imagery’ being circulated online. They say they managed to verify strikes in the vicinity of three key locations – all of them military sites:

Here’s the figure from “Verify”, showing the verified Iranian missile strikes:

More from Collier:

This creates an immediate problem. Why only these three? For example, a verified strike by Ramat Gan shopping mall has not been included. The BBC had reported on this – and so were well aware of it – but for some reason, BBC Verify left the shopping mall strike out of their analysis.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that BBC Verify were deliberately pushing a pro-Iranian propaganda line that the missiles were fired only at military targets.

But it gets a lot, lot worse.

Having told us that the three targets verified were ‘in the vicinity’ of military targets, we are then shown the evidence. The first we see are several apparent strikes on Nevatim airbase, but it is when the journalist turns her attention to the attack on the Tel Nof base that things become surreal.

We find the base was not hit at all. This is the script:

Location two is the Tel Nof airbase. In this video you can see a crater where a missile has landed. It is not the airbase itself, but a school a few miles away”:

And Collier makes a clever analogy:

What? So the Iranian’s didn’t hit Tel Nof airbase with this missile – they hit a school. So why isn’t the school listed in the original map. How on earth can BBC Verify know that the intended target of this missile was an airbase? They can’t.

The school that was hit is the Shalhavot Chabad school in Gadera. About 5 miles from the place BBC verify tells us was the target.

. . . . To put this into context. Below on the map are two marks, Gaza City Centre and Jabalia camp. The distance between them is approximately the same distance as between the school and the airbase. Can you imagine Israel hitting a school in Jabalia camp and BBC Verify virtually forgiving them by suggesting it was a close call on a Hamas military target 5 miles away.

There is no excuse for this – and it appears to be a deliberate attempt to whitewash an Iranian ballistic missile strike on a school. Why on earth didn’t the BBC put the school as one of the verified strikes on the map at the start? We all know why. For the same reason they didn’t mention the strike on the shopping mall. It doesn’t fit the propaganda story they are seeking to tell.

Yes, this is of course biased reporting, made worse that it was made by the “Verify” team.  This is just one more incident in the Beeb’s history of biased anti-Israel reporting. I’ve written before about the Asserson Report that accused the Beeb of violating its own journalistic guidelines 1500 times during the Gaza War, and you can see my collection of pieces on the BBC’s bias here. The Beeb is the British equivalent of the NYT, and it’s doing exactly what the NYT does—passing off biased reporting as if it were unbiased.

Collier discusses the author of this “verified” piece, Verify correspondent Nawal Al-Maghafi, showing that she has a history of reporting for anti-Israeli publications like Middle East Eye, Al-Jazeera, and even for PRESS TV, the state media outlet of Iran!  This is hardly the person for Verify to choose as author of a piece that tries to exonerate Iran of trying to kill civilians!  He concludes that BBC Verify should be shut down (indeed, the Beeb needs a top-to-bottom housecleaning). Check out the numbered links.

The BBC has spent decades demonising Israel – but since Oct 7, the situation has become blatant and inexcusable (a few examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Two damning reports have recently been published on BBC Bias (Asserson, Cohen)

The BBC has gone completely off the rails. It isn’t just that it is incapable of putting together proper impartial coverage of Israel’s conflict with its neighbours – it is that it doesn’t think it is doing anything wrong. The inability to even begin to identify the problem it has – means it cannot be salvaged in its current form. No public funds should ever be used to finance something so deeply and irredeemably flawed.

Well, so much for that. Nobody claimed that the liberal MSM media, whether in the US or UK, was objective when it came to the Gaza war.

After reading that, I immediately came upon Tom Gross’s newsletter, which said this:

No surprise here. Just a publicly-funded BBC journalist leaving today after 4.5 years to go and officially work as an anti-Zionist influencer.

Check out the Palestine Media Centre yourself; I’m not sure it’s a mouthpiece for anti-Zionism, but there are suggestions of that in its mission, for how many Palestinians dare speak against their rulers?

The Britain Palestine Media Centre connects media professionals with Palestinians – from academics and artists, to human rights activists and ordinary people with extraordinary stories.

An independent non-profit, the Centre is an invaluable resource for journalists, editors, and producers seeking expert opinion, information, and contacts in a timely and reliable manner.

How we can help:

  • Looking for Palestinian experts to talk to for an article or report? We can connect you with the right person for your topic.

  • We can provide quick turnaround Palestinian guests for TV, radio or online broadcasting, to respond to breaking news.

  • Need information or data for a Palestine-related story? Let us know what you’re researching, and we’ll be happy to help.

********

Finally, something that I read today in the Times of Israel: a report on a woman who used to be “a vocal supporter of the Islamic Republic” but now heads a pro-Israel group that accuses the BBC of war coverage biased towards Hamas (this, of course, is not a new accusation).

When Catherine Perez-Shakdam took the helm of Britain’s biggest grassroots pro-Israel campaign group this summer, she inherited a bulging inbox .

Aside from the continuing domestic fallout from the conflict between Israel and Hamas, the UK’s new Labour government has made a string of decisions that have dismayed and infuriated large elements of the country’s Jewish community and supporters of Israel.

Since taking the helm in July, Labour has restored funding for the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency, UNRWA; pulled out of a legal case opposing the International Criminal Court application for arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant; and partially suspended arms exports to Israel.

The last paragraph surprised me, though I knew about the suspension of arms exports. But I thought Labour had purged itself of its anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism.  In this case, we have the reverse of the case of Karishma Patel (above), for Perez-Shakdam was once a talking head for Iran and is now excoriating the Beeb for its anti-Israel bias. The article continues:

Born to Jewish parents in Paris whose own parents had fled Nazi persecution, Perez-Shakdam lived as a Muslim while studying in the UK after marrying a Muslim man from Yemen. She later spent years as a journalist and commentator in the Middle East and began appearing on Iranian state media. Increasingly trusted and valued by the regime, Perez-Shakdam was granted an audience with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei; interviewed the late Ebrahim Raisi during his initial, unsuccessful 2017 bid for the presidency (he would succeed in 2021 and serve as president until his death this year); and was invited to a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran attended by Hamas terror chief Khaled Mashaal.

That was then; this is now. Influenced by her “Zionist” daughter, Perez-Shakdam did a 180°:

Perez-Shakdam’s journey was capped by her appointment last month as director of We Believe In Israel. She replaces Luke Akehurst, who was elected as a Labour MP in the July general election. The campaign group seeks to counter the well-organized pro-Palestinian lobby by mobilizing grassroots support for the Jewish state.

For years, I was motivated by a kind of self-hate. But you realize that you can’t deny who you are

The group’s latest campaign has the BBC firmly in its crosshairs.

The new report into the BBC led by British-Israeli lawyer Trevor Asserson says the public service broadcaster’s coverage associated Israel with war crimes, genocide, and international law violations far more often than it did Hamas. It claims that the BBC downplayed Hamas terrorism, and finds that the BBC’s Arabic service was among the most biased global media outlets in covering the Israel-Hamas conflict.

. . . . Perez-Shakdam says her organization’s campaigning is not driven by hostility to the BBC, which is prevalent in the opposition Conservative party and its media allies, as well as on the far left. “It’s not a witch hunt. This is not an effort to bring down the BBC,” she says. “It’s just to elevate the level of journalism and to make sure that ethic [of impartiality] is at the forefront of it all.”

“The BBC has a lot of answering to do and I don’t think that it’s willing to do that; it [has] already doubled down,” she says. She believes the government may have to take action. “Taxpayers’ money is being used, through the vehicle of the TV license. The government needs to do something about it. This is not a case of free speech. It’s a case of holding the BBC accountable for a service that it is not providing in violation of its own [guidelines].”

You can read the Asserson Report here. But if you’ve followed the Beeb’s coverage of the war you hardly need to  Just think of all those British Jews who have to pay for a television license to listen to the distortions of the BBC.

The BBC once again won’t use the word “terrorists” for Hamas

September 27, 2024 • 11:45 am

This article just appeared in Spiked (click headline below to read), but you can see a similar piece in the Times of Israel. The upshot is that the BBC, which has long bridled at using the word “terrorists” for Hamas, is now bridling again when the Beeb itself shows a documentary about the Nova Music Festival. I haven’t seen the film yet (it’s has the great title “We Will Dance Again”), but the trailer is below.  And, of course, the Nova festival is where the butchery of October 7 began. Yes, the butchery was largely by Hamas, and Hamas are, for anyone with two neurons to rub together, TERRORISTS. But not to the Beeb, so the word “terrorist” has been expunged from the film.

It’s not clear whether that bowdlerization was at the request of the BBC, or whether the filmmakers were just cowed by the BBC’s long-standing refusal to apply the “t-word” to Hamas, but either way it’s a blot on the BBC, though the network at least partly redeems itself by showing the film. But really, a film on terrorism that won’t use the “t-word”???

I’ll give excerpts from the Spiked piece below.


An excerpt:

The BBC has reached a new low. It has tumbled further down the well of moral relativism. This week, it will broadcast a new documentary about Hamas’s massacre at the Nova music festival on 7 October last year. But according to the doc’s director, the version the Beeb is showing ‘won’t describe Hamas as terrorists’. If this is true, if the BBC can’t even park its weird aversion to calling Hamas terrorists when it is airing a film about Hamas’s butchery of the young at a festival in the desert, then that shames Britain.

We Will Dance Again tells the story of what the pogromists of Hamas did when they happened upon the Nova festival in the Negev desert during their invasion of Israel on 7 October 2023. Combining harrowing testimony from survivors with graphic footage of Hamas’s barbarism, it paints a grim picture of arguably the worst event of the pogrom: 364 people were slaughtered at Nova. Yet according to the director, Yariv Mozer, one thing will be missing from the version us Brits will see: the T-word.

In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter on ‘what they kept’ and ‘what they cut’ from their disturbing film, Mozer says ‘the version [the BBC will] air won’t describe Hamas as terrorists’. Hinting at his irritation at this alleged omission, Mozer says ‘it was a price I was willing to pay so that the British public will be able to see these atrocities’. Then Brits can decide for themselves, he says, ‘if this is a terrorist organisation or not’. Some of us have already decided, of course. The BBC might be reluctant to call the mass murderers of Jews ‘terrorists’, but others are more than happy to do so.

It is not clear from the interview with Mozer if the BBC explicitly instructed him to take out the word terrorist, or if Mozer and his team pre-empted the Beeb’s odd concern about that word and decided to take it out themselves for an easier life. The Jerusalem Post assumes it’s the former: the BBC ‘told director’ to ‘not describe Hamas as “terrorists”’, it says. Yet even if it’s the latter, even if there are tellers of Israelis’ stories out there who get the vibe that you shouldn’t call Hamas ‘terrorists’ if you want to appear on the BBC, then that’s still epically embarrassing for Britain.

If this was self-censorship, it’s understandable. After all, for the past year, ever since Hamas visited its racist terror on Israel, the BBC has been pathologically resistant to calling Hamas ‘terrorists’. Even though that’s what they are. There was a storm in the aftermath of the pogrom over the BBC’s linguistic cowardice. Just four days after the pogrom, Beeb big gun John Simpson offered a thin explanation for the corporation’s dodging of the T-word. ‘We don’t take sides’, he said. ‘We don’t use loaded words like “evil” or “cowardly”. We don’t talk about “terrorists”.’

And yet O’Neill points out how the BBC has no hesitancy about applying the term “terrorist” to “far-right terrorists”! It’s only when the terrorists kill Jews that the Beeb pulls back. (“Terrorism” is commonly used to refer to illegal and deliberate killing or intimidation of civilians in pursuit of political aims, so of course Hamas is a terrorist organization and the Nova festival is an example of terrorism.)

The Time of Israel is a little bit more forthcoming, as its article is called “BBC airs Nova massacre film after insisting references to Hamas as terrorists removed”, and also says this:

“We Will Dance Again,” a full-length documentary film about the Hamas massacre of over 360 people at the Supernova music festival during the terror group’s October 7, 2023 assault on southern Israel last year, aired on Britain’s BBC2 on Thursday evening, though only after filmmakers agreed not to refer to Hamas as terrorists.

The word “insisting”, as well as the notion that there was an “agreement”, both imply that the BBC demanded that the word not be used. Well, it doesn’t matter: what matters is the BBC’s craven historical reluctance to use the word “terrorist” to refer to Hamas. Of that O’Neill says this:

One year after 364 young Jews were murdered by anti-Semitic terrorists – yes, terrorists – Britain’s public broadcaster won’t call their killers by their proper name. You couldn’t ask for better proof of how Israelophobia rots the brain and warps the soul.

Does anyone doubt that the BBC has an anti-Semitic slant?

Well, the ToI says a bit about the movie:

Mozer, Zirinsky and others have stressed that the film is apolitical. An opening title of the film notes, “The human cost of the Hamas massacre in Israel and the war that followed in Gaza has been catastrophic for both Israelis and Palestinians,” adding: “This film cannot tell everyone’s story.”

Nevertheless, similar efforts to tell the story of the attack on the Nova festival have been protested against, including a New York exhibit of personal artifacts from the festival that drew expressions of open support for Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as chants endorsing the attack.

Here is the trailer (there’s also a 32-minute video that includes interviews with the director and producers).