More Palestinian terror attacks mean more screwy headlines. Context and accuracy took a hit. Without question, today’s worst headline was served up by the Irish Times. For readers who initially wrote us about this screwy Associated Press header (cached version), the wire service subsequently updated the headline. Most papers around the world updated their AP wire…
According to a Guardian headline, Israelis are allowed to defend themselves against Palestinian attackers only once they have been injured.
Benjamin Netanyahu announces the building of security fences to keep out “beasts” that threaten Israel. The Guardian’s Peter Beaumont misrepresents who the “beasts” really are.
Stephen Pritchard, the reader’s editor at The Guardian, recently announced that the paper will start restricting reader comments posted in the Comment is Free section in articles on three “sensitive” topics: race, immigration, and religion. Why those sacred cows? Certain subjects – race, immigration and Islam in particular – attract an unacceptable level of toxic commentary, believes…
A Guardian opinion piece implies that Israeli Jews are spreading racist hatred having failed to learn the lessons of Nazism and Mein Kampf.
Just how far will The Guardian go in order to promote its anti-Israel agenda by making changes to the Associated Press’s original content?
Some media present both Palestinian terror attacks and Israeli responses as morally equivalent.
Shayna Abramson was at the scene in Jerusalem of Guardian journalist Kate Shuttleworth’s error-strewn story and reveals how the reality was twisted.
The Guardian carelessly confuses one of the victims of a Palestinian terror attack with the terrorist who carried out the attack.
Despite UNRWA’s record of perpetuating the Palestinian refugee problem, The Guardian considers it one of the “best bits of the UN.”