Vote for This Year’s Dishonest Reporter
November 22, 2011 14:09 by Pesach Benson
Now’s the time to vote for the 2011 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 three nominees below, along with a brief explanation why it deserves to receive our ignoble award. (You may also nominate someone else not on the list).
There are three ways to vote:
- Post a comment below
- Post a comment on HonestReporting’s Facebook page
- Send an email to action@honestreporting.com
The Nominees (in no particular order)
LA Times: For a staff-editorial which blamed settlements for the Itamar massacre, in which a three-month old baby, two small children and their parents were brutally murdered.
Reuters: For redefining terror after a fatal Jerusalem bombing.
The Guardian: For it’s very active role in the PaliLeaks affair, Deborah Orr‘s anti-Semitic take on the Gilad Shalit prisoner swap, a staff-editorial misrepresenting the UN’s Goldstone report, and a laundry list of other reasons.
We’ll announce the ignoble “winner” in a few weeks.
For a trip down memory lane, see who HonestReporting readers gave the 2010 award to.
Shlomtsion
3:34 pm
Nov 22, 2011
The Guardian – if only for its consistency!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
26 
0
sammy eppel
8:06 pm
Nov 23, 2011
The Guardian is tops, one of its permanent writers, Mark Weisbrot is a political operative for the only oficial antisemitic regime in the western world. Chavez’s venezuelan gov
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
7 
0
Eliyahu
4:04 pm
Nov 22, 2011
I would say the Reuters terrorism comment, because they purport to be a well-respected source of impartial journalism, hence the refusal in applying the value-judgement term “terror”. But the comment in fact reveals very clearly antipathy to the Israeli perspective, not impartiality.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
11 
1
jonathan hoffman
4:35 pm
Nov 22, 2011
The Guardian
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
14 
0
Beate Zahn
5:37 pm
Nov 22, 2011
The Guardian for trying really hard to beat the competition for this award.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
16 
0
dallas doc
6:28 pm
Nov 22, 2011
can we have a 3 way tie. so hard to choose among such ‘worthy’ candidates.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
0
Dan
7:11 pm
Nov 22, 2011
Obviously the two losers will be disappointed, but in terms if pure hatred and just plain vicious hatred, The Guardian is the clear winner. I’ll be sending them their white hooded sheet and burning cross under separate cover.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
18 
0
Irene Kellerman
7:55 pm
Nov 22, 2011
Reuters terrorism comment, because they purport to be a well-respected source of impartial journalism, hence the refusal in applying the value-judgement term “terror”.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
5 
0
Jake
12:46 am
Nov 23, 2011
The Guardian.
Can I have a second vote?
The Guardian
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
19 
0
Emily
2:01 am
Nov 23, 2011
I think some sort of dishonourable mention for shoddy journalism must go to Shahira Amin for her interview with Gilad Shalit after his release. Her awful questions and her subsequent defence of the interview – “I thought he had agreed to be interviewed” (yeh, you’ve got 9 masked Hamas men behind you – like you would say no!) was simply appalling. The news stations chose to run with the incorrect translation of what Gilad was saying (omitting that he said Palestinians prisoners should be released if they give up fighting Israel) makes it even worse…
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
17 
0
Eva Landy
6:26 am
Nov 23, 2011
My vote goes to the Guardian – in particular Deborah Orr’s hateful putrid piece on the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange and her distortion of the truth. She should crawl into a hole and stay there along with the other anti-semitic morons at the Guardian.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
16 
0
Allan
6:02 pm
Nov 23, 2011
Most all the Left Wind media has to take responsibilty for their biased reporting. Why Israel is the target for so much distorted reporting is odd as there are so many more worthy stories to report.
It would be nice for them to recognize Israel’s precarious position in the region and consider who
consistantly threatens their existence..
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
1
Israel Smith
6:18 pm
Nov 23, 2011
LA Times.
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
Jossef
7:23 pm
Nov 23, 2011
Deborah Orr from the Guardian
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
0
Grisha
7:25 pm
Nov 23, 2011
All the candidates deserve it, and there are more that were not mentioned here – some of them not very visible due to their local markets. However, the clear front-runner is Guardian. It is reliably consistent not only in their publications, but also in their ability to spin the truth when they are caught red-handed: even in their “apologies” for their own lies they always manage to blame Israel.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
7 
0
pat
7:29 pm
Nov 23, 2011
No contest – the Guardian wins by a ‘farmer’s mile’!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
6 
0
Karen Gordon
7:37 pm
Nov 23, 2011
I have to agree that the Guardian tops this shameful trio.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
6 
0
abilgail
8:15 pm
Nov 23, 2011
LA Times.
Agree or Disagree:
2 
0
Dario
8:24 pm
Nov 23, 2011
The Guardian.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
5 
0
Mark
9:49 pm
Nov 23, 2011
The Guardian, by a mudslide, for the sheer volume and viciousness of its coverage of Jews and Israel. HR might consider creating a special “Lifetime Achievement” award for The Guardian and retire that rag from future contention – just to give other contenders their shot at ‘glory.’
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
Alex
11:33 pm
Nov 23, 2011
as the New York Times prides itself as the largest and fair publication, all its anti-sraeli articles are thus magnified..
I think that the NYT must be included in the competitiion for it’s consistently anti-Israeli bias.
The main reason why I’d never buy this disgraceful paper.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0