The events of the past few days have generated some horrendous headlines. Here are just a few that we spotted.
Our look at some of the media coverage of the Netanyahu speech illustrates how we are at the mercy of one or two journalists and editors or the particular editorial or political line of a media outlet when it comes to coverage of Israel.
Why does the Financial Times cling to the previously accepted wisdom that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the fulcrum at the heart of the Middle East’s troubles and consider Hamas a credible peace partner?
Israel’s three conditions for engaging Hamas are a matter of principle. You don’t negotiate with people who want to kill you. You don’t negotiate with people who don’t recognize...
Did the FT conveniently forget about Jerusalem when it appointed Tel Aviv as Israel’s seat of political power?
Why is the media so obsessed by one former Israeli soldier’s Facebook post at the expense of major Mideast news stories?
A Financial Times op-ed draws on the false apartheid parallel.
The media rushes to promote another report based on unverifiable allegations from Gaza.
Inserting anti-Israel rhetoric into ostensibly neutral academic literature
Even traditionally anti-Israel publications joined in the near-universal condemnation of the UN Conference on Racism.