Vote For This Year’s Dishonest Reporter
November 1, 2010 9:59 by BackSpin EditorNow’s the time to vote for the 2010 Dishonest Reporting Awards — our annual recognition of the year’s most skewed and biased coverage of Israel and the Mideast conflict.
Please choose one of the five nominees below, along with a brief explanation why he/she/it deserves to receive our ignoble award. (You may also nominate someone else not on the list). Then send your submission to action@honestreporting.com
The Nominees (in no particular order)
- BBC: For Panorama denying Jewish ties to Jerusalem, and Jeremy Bowen enjoying tensions with the US.
- Reuters photo desk: Poorly cropping Mavi Marmara photos, and suspicious access to the Lebanon border clash.
- Octavia Nasr: CNN editor fired over sympathy tweet for a dead Hezbollah leader.
- The Lancet: Throwing peer review out the window to skewer Israel.
- Time: For an imbalanced cover story claiming Israelis don't want peace.
We’ll announce the results at the end of year. Due to the volume of mail, we can't acknowledge nominations. See last year's "winners" — and don’t forget to vote!
Howard Brown
7:39 pm
Nov 05, 2010
Leslie Stahl, 60 Minutes, City of David report
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Stephanie Weiner
3:49 am
Nov 06, 2010
The Dishonest Reporter 2010 award should go to Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes for her obnoxious program Jerusalem: City of David.
Of all the enemies of the Jews — and there are a host of them — the most egregious are those Jews who throw their co-religionists under the bus. Jew-hating Jews deserve a category all their own.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Yotam Nir
7:37 am
Nov 06, 2010
There are so many strong candidates (unfortunately) that it’s frustrating I can only pick one, but I’ll have to go for Reuters, with Time just a bit behind.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Yotam Nir
7:40 am
Nov 06, 2010
As disgusting as it was to see Octavia Nasr’s comments, it wasn’t really dishonest at all. I’m sure she could potentially be very dishonest, but I don’t think what she’s being nominated for qualifies as “dishonesty”.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Robert Skole
10:10 am
Nov 06, 2010
The BBC is my choice because it’s the house organ of millions of useful idiots worldwide, and particularly “intellectuals” in the USA who believe as gospel truth, and without question, every word of its so-called “reporting”, via NPR and PBS.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
gordon
11:40 am
Nov 06, 2010
Wow, there are so many partisan hacks to choose from. I would say Time Magazine because they put it on their front cover, which used to be a prestigious place.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Mark Stern
12:55 pm
Nov 06, 2010
It’s got to be BBC and the Panorama program denying Jewish ties to Jerusalem
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
mark
4:56 pm
Nov 06, 2010
I’d vote for the BBC, but Reuters has a history of doctoring photos- remember the Lebanon war- and the pictures of people supposedly killed in a bombing raid? But when someone pointed out the smoke was going the wrong way; that the dead had been dead for days, etc- they “fired” the person supposedly responsible. My guess, rehired the next day;
as someone else said, all bad; should have the 10 or even 20 worst; and the newspapers-New York Times a leader amongst them- that make the news pages into editorial pages
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
G. Leibl
7:04 pm
Nov 06, 2010
Unesco gets my vote for stating that Rachel’s tomb is Palestinian and should be under Palestinian control.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Jim Dukes
8:34 pm
Nov 06, 2010
The worst one on your list would have to be Reuters photo desk: Poorly cropping Mavi Marmara photos, and suspicious access to the Lebanon border clash. While the others are terrible, photos tell an immediate story and to delete parts of a photo to avoid revealing the truth is more difficult for the viewer to detect. With reporting via television, radio, or print media, the consumer can exercise some objectivity. With doctored photos, all objectivity is blocked from consieration.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Irene Balaban
5:57 pm
Nov 07, 2010
I can’t pick one over the others. They are all very bad and disgraceful for honesty in journalism
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
michael steiman
7:34 pm
Nov 07, 2010
I nominate BBc for many, many anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and false/misleading articles they have published.
They have thus failed their readers, the traditions of a free and truthful press and their responsibility in a democracy that is also failing.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Michael
12:37 am
Nov 09, 2010
BBC gets my vote for their habitual biased reporting on Israel.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Bill Gasson
5:02 am
Nov 09, 2010
My vote goes to the Lancet. I will now cut and paste from what Vivian Schlesinger said is exactly what I was thinking. The Lancet, because although the others are just as unethical in their presentation of news, they are in the news business, so readers and viewers are more likely to suspect a bias in their work. The Lancet is a medical journal, which enjoys a certain degree of “immunity” against readers’ mistrust. They failed that trust. Let them get blackballed in the political arena, if that is where they want to be seen.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
MasonR
4:04 pm
Nov 09, 2010
Time for its libelous cover story, with a dishonorable mention going to Helen Thomas.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Barbara Levin
7:45 pm
Nov 13, 2010
My vote goes to the BBC without doubt.
Regardless of which programme such as Panorama, or any news report such as by Jeremy Bowen, or any other journalist, whether presented on TV or any other media the BBC regardless of truth, presents a heavily skewed and biased point of view.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Darren A.
10:25 am
Nov 17, 2010
Reuters photo desk. I suspect their “Poorly cropping Mavi Marmara photos” is more than slightly deliberate! I have no doubt that most of their photos (if not all of them) are staged to cast Israel in as negative light as possible, and not just the suspicious access to the Lebanon border clash.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Maureen Garth
3:58 pm
Nov 17, 2010
Getting fed-up with them generally–seem to be not answerable to anyone
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Maureen Garth
4:01 pm
Nov 17, 2010
B.B.C.though there was a recent broadcast re;the flotillas that seemed to be more balanced
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
marvls
6:53 pm
Nov 26, 2010
My vote was going to go to Lancet for the reasons already stated by others; however, some of the other posters reminded me that what really gets my blood boiling is reading Ha’aretz.
It seems that their agenda is to consistently make Israel look bad. If you look at their “readers’ talkbacks” you see that it attracts the worst anti-Zionist and (yes) anti-semitic readers the world over. Even worse, because it is considred a liberal newspaper with high professional journalistic standards, it is usually the origin and source of those frustrating articles & opinion pieces you read in the NY Times & elsewhre.
For those who understand the meaning of “malshinim”, Ha’aretz takes that prize.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0