SNAPSHOTS-TOP.jpg

« New Documentary Highlights NY Times' Holocaust Coverage | Main | BBC Amends Claim Re 'Rare' Attacks on Settlers »

April 30, 2013

Updated: Headline Shows NY Times Predilection for Downplaying Palestinian Violence

The opening paragraph of today's New York Times story about recent violence in the Middle East explains,

A Palestinian man was killed in an Israeli missile strike in Gaza on Tuesday hours after an Israeli civilian was stabbed to death by a Palestinian in the West Bank. The two attacks, coming against a backdrop of growing tensions, were the first such killings in months and raised the specter of further confrontation.

Imagine you are an experienced and impartial headline writer at one of the most prominent newspapers in the world. What's your headline?

Surely something more impartial than the one the Times is currently going with: "Israeli Airstrike Kills Palestinian in Gaza."


nyt headline bias israeli airstrike kills palestinian in gaza sm.jpg


In our monograph about New York Times bias in coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we point out that, during a 6-month study period, "the newspaper's coverage of violence was marked by a double standard that highlighted Israeli attacks and de-emphasized Palestinian ones." Today's choice of headline language is case in point.

Update: The Times has updated its online headline so that it fairly reflects the content of the story. It now reads, "Gazan Killed After Israeli Is Stabbed to Death in the West Bank."

Posted by GI at April 30, 2013 10:23 AM

Comments

I'm sharing this perfect example of how the truth is bent to serve palestinian propaganda.
I'm sharing this article explaining the the following points:

1)It completely overlooks the fact that the "palestinian" was a terrorist that sold rockets.
2) It suggests that the air-strike that eliminated the terrorist was a retaliation for the father of 5 children stabbed to death this morning.

What else can we do? I'll try to get in touch with the authors on twitter.

Posted by: Florimond at April 30, 2013 11:41 AM

The NYT is very consistent as their reporting on the issue is mostly generated by a single correspondent with a political agenda. Twitter is more useful as a source for both speed and crowd sourced fact checking and editing.

Posted by: PKorman at May 1, 2013 08:02 AM

The NYT is very consistent as their reporting on the issue is mostly generated by a single correspondent with a political agenda. Twitter is more useful as a source for both speed and crowd sourced fact checking and editing.

Posted by: PKorman at May 1, 2013 08:03 AM

It is in the NY Times DNA This newspaper has been Anti Semitic for decades. With or without anti semites who happen to be Jewish or Christian.
The NY Times will not change.
Jewish & pro Isreal run or owned busineses should not support the paper of anti semetic record with advertising.

Posted by: paul furman at May 2, 2013 11:55 AM

Guidelines for posting

This is a moderated blog. We will not post comments that include racism, bigotry, threats, or factually inaccurate material.

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)