June 26 Media Critique: "Attorney: NY Times and Washington Post Legally Complicit in Terror"

Sure it is.

The thrust of this utterly stupid 'Media Critique' from HR is that news organizations, by reporting the views of groups like Hamas, might be ”guilty of providing material support for a terrorist organization”. Both the NYT and the Washington Post published an article by an advisor to the Palestinian PM, Ishmail Haniyeh. This is it.

Publishing the words of a Hamas spokesman is supporting terrorism? Of course HR don’t really believe this. They are perfectly happy for the media to report what Hamas says, as long as it fits in with HRs views. Immoderate statements are fine, in fact HR wants them highlighted. In previous 'media critiques' HR has happily linked to articles quoting Hamas claiming responsibility for attacks on Israelis, and with the ‘Hamas Mickey Mouse’ story, HR couldn’t quote them enough. So, what’s the problem with Ahmed Yousefs’ op-ed? I assume it’s statements like this,

It has consistently offered a 10-year cease-fire with the Israelis to try to create an atmosphere of calm in which we resolve our differences.

Now that just won’t do. HR are committed to their version of Hamas - a blood-thirsty extremist group with only one aim, the killing of Jews. Letting them speak for themselves is an unhelpful complication in the campaign to vilify.

Clearly HR would prefer news organizations to censor themselves, never allowing opinions expressed that some people may find objectionable. If that was the citieria by which news was compiled, there’d be a whole lot less news.

Last year the South African Mail&Guardian newspaper called HonestReporting “enemies of……free expression”.

Ain't that the truth!

June 19 Media Critique: "BBC's All-Out Apology"

Central place in todays 'critique' is Honestreportings obsession with the BBC.

The BBC apologizes for its Israel coverage?

Good thing there is a question mark, because it doesn't. The implication is what matters though. HR, in its' pursuit of "accuracy" in the media is unhappy with the BBC for issuing a correction on a factual error. That makes sense doesn't it?


"BBC REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES BIAS"
Guess what? It doesn't.

The report was about the practical application of the policy of impartiality into the future, rather than about whether or not the BBC is biased. It does include some case studies to highlight the issues and suggest improvements. Though in its' conclusions it does comment on how its' efforts are perceived by viewers,

they regard the BBC as 'generally impartial'

Since we now know that HR is against corrections, we won't be expecting to see an apology for factual errors like this one.

HR just rehash some whining from one of Britains low-end newspapers, The Daily Telegraph. Like HR, they have a bee in their bonnets over the BBC. And a good demonstration of HR's own partiality is on proud display here. The Daily Telegraph article criticising the BBC quotes its' own editor who briefly worked for the BBC . He acknowledges he is "right-of-centre" and finds the BBC doesn't completely reflect his position, it is a "flat earth" viewed from his "round earth". Naturally HR see this as a vindication of the criticism, rather than what it is - a vindication of impartiality. Likewise for HR - from their own very partial position, BBC impartiality looks like bias. It is bias, but its' HRs.

The lights are on but nobody is home.

Here’s a few tips from the report to aid HR in understanding impartiality and in case HR ever stop being strident partisans demanding compliance with their views, and instead strive to be impartial (yeah yeah, I know, when Hell freezes over),

"Impartiality does not require absolute neutrality.: the BBC should broadcast professional, evidence-based judgements by those qualified to make them…the audience clearly values this."

"Factual programming should not normally be built around a 'for' and 'against' proposition. Opinion is more complex and subtle than that."

"Impartiality involves a mixture of accuracy, balance, context, distance, even handedness, fairness, objectivity, open-mindedness, rigour, self-awareness, transparency and truth.But it is also about breadth of view and completeness. Impartiality in programme-making is often achieved by bringing extra perspectives to bear, rather than limiting horizons or censoring opinion. "

June 13 Media Critique: "Palestinian Terrorists: Abusing Freedom of the Press"

Most interestingly this is a ‘Media Critique’ entirely devoid of critiques of media coverage and wholly without allegations of media bias, so surely it’s all a bit pointless?

It is only if you think Honest Reporting has any real interest in fairness and accuracy in media reporting. And as we’ve demonstrated repeatedly, it doesn’t. HR is a pro-Israel advocacy group targeting media with its' Israel-is-never-wrong message. The witch-hunt for bias is just the particular vehicle chosen to achieve this. The basic feature of HR is that any criticism of Israeli actions, no matter how factually accurate, cannot be tolerated. HR give yet another example today. Summarising the press reaction to the issue of Palestinian militants using a fake press vehicle to attack an IDF post, HR are not happy with the Palestinian Journalists Union for also suggesting that the IDF has targeted journalists,

we take issue with the false implications that Israel would ever intentionally target journalists

Reflexive defence of Israel by a group feigning concern over accuracy in the media. Amusing isn’t it?

HR quote the Israeli Foreign Press Association’s condemnation of the incident. Pity they didn’t check the FPA a little more closely before making the “false implication” charge. Here’s the FPA on Israels conduct towards journalists,

“The FPA wishes to express its profound dismay and shock over two recent incidents in which Palestinian Journalists have been injured and detained during the pursuit of their legitimate duties.Both cases, at Hawara Checkpoint and in the village of Bili'in, raise serious concerns about the treatment of journalists by members of the Israeli armed services. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests both journalists were physically assaulted by uniformed Israeli forces during routine news assignments." – 2006

"The FPA protests the outrageous targeting of a vehicle belonging to the Reuters News Agency in Gaza yesterday. The FPA rejects the excuses offered so far by the IDF. The assertion that the vehicle was acting suspiciously near Israeli forces is wholly unacceptable and we demand further details to support this allegation.The IDF also claims the vehicle was not identified as a vehicle belonging to the press. This is simply not true. The Reuters armoured vehicle is clearly marked." – 27/9/06

"The FPA wishes to protest against the obstruction and ill treatment of journalists trying to cover recent IDF activity in Nablus." – 28/2/07

"The FPA condemns the harassment of journalists trying to cover last Friday’s demonstration in the Palestinian village of Bilin. Israeli security forces were observed firing tear gas canisters in the direction of journalists and several cameramen were detained at the scene while they tried to cover the demonstration. Journalists have every right to cover these events without fear of harassment and assault by Israeli security forces." – 23/4/07

"The FPA is very concerned about an incident near the West Bank village of Artas where priovate security guards, hired by the Israeli authorities to protect a bulding project on disputed land, fired automatic weapons in a haphazard and unprofessional manner near a group of journalists covering a peaceful protest staged by a small number of Palestinian, Israeli and foreign activists" – 17/5/07

"The lack of consequences for the shooting of journalists - not to mention more frequent cases of simple harassment - delivers the message that abuses against journalists are somehow acceptable. This is a deplorable and utterly unacceptable situation. Therefore we call on the Israeli authorities to go beyond general promises and set a binding deadline for a serious accounting regarding the cases the FPA has forwarded to their attention." – 26/7/2001

"The Foreign Press Association calls for an immediate investigation into the killing of British video journalist James Miller last night near Rafah. The military has a duty to avoid harming non-combatants. Yet in recent weeks we have seen the killings of two journalists working for foreign outlets. We are still waiting to hear results of the investigation of the April 19 killing in Nablus of APTN's Nazeh Darwazeh, shot in the head, apparently by an Israeli soldier, while wearing bright clothing that clearly identified him as a journalist." – 3/5/2003.

James Miller was shot by an IDF sniper.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) documented the 45 cases of journalists hit by IDF fire in the first 12 months of the Second Intifada.

This is what RSF had to say on the event of the IDF killing of Italian journalist, Raffaele Ciriello,

For months, we have been denouncing the impunity enjoyed by Israeli troops firing on journalists. We have frequently been concerned by the almost complete lack of investigation by the Israeli authorities into such shootings. It was bound to lead to this kind of tragedy. Today, what we always feared has happened: a journalist has been killed, the first since the start of the second Intifada. We are appalled.

And another case where the journalist, luckily, survived,

When Bertrand Aguirre was wounded by a real bullet in Ramallah (West Bank), three different television crews filmed the scene. Their films clearly show an Israeli border guard getting out of his vehicle, calmly taking aim and, with his cigarette between his lips, opening fire on the man, at a distance of 100 meters. The journalist, who had just finished an interview and still had his microphone in his hand, was hit in the chest. Fortunately the bullet-proof jacket he was wearing saved him. - RSF (14/10/2001)

How’s that for “false implications”? Bias in the Palestinian Journalists Union!

Given HR’s deep concern for press freedom, perhaps it’s reflected in the number of 'Media Critiques' addressing this specific issue? If you want to know how many times this has happened, think of a number, any number.............as long as it’s less than one.

June 4 Media Critique: "The Six Day War: Forty Years On"

HonestReporting takes a look at the context behind the events of June 1967.

Just looking at the events themselves really wouldn’t make HonestReportings case particulary well. And its case is nothing new, just the same old apologetics – nothing is Israels fault.

While June 5 marks the day that Israel initiated its military operation, it is important to note that the immediate Arab threats to wipe out Israel began in the preceding months. It is also critical to take the causes of the Six Day War into account before analyzing the resulting status of land taken as a result.

“Initiated its military operation” is alternatively known as an 'invasion' or 'armed aggression', the supreme war crime. Who needs such details when you have “context”!

International Law makes a clear distinction between land "occupied" during a war of aggression and land taken as a result of a defensive war.

Really? HR accidentally fail to mention where “International law” makes this distinction, or to provide a relevant quote. Let me assist HR to locate where in International Law this exists – NO WHERE.

Well, that takes care of the first two sentences. I think we can see where this is going.

Here’s a few other resources for “context”. From MERIP , and IMEU .

And a general overview of the June ’67 war, and since HR mention it, a review of the “Syrian Shelling” that “Initiates War with Israel”, according to HR.

Israel had every legal and moral right to defend herself in 1967 and has legitimate rights within the territory that is under her control today. If you see a media report that misrepresents the events of 1967, use this primer and the following links to respond to media bias:

Using HonestReportings “primer” as a guide, one would be hard pressed to see any media reporting on the June '67 war that isn’t “bias”.

But that is the general idea.

May 29 Media Critique: "Cartoons and Conspiracies"

HonestReportings theory is that if you fire enough shots, you must hit something. Fine in theory, but as HR show today, if the targets are mirages, no number of shots help.

First, HR turn their mighty intellects to a cartoon in a South African newspaper. They seem to think it's not 'balanced'. This is farcical. Cartoons are the epitome of 'point-of-view' in newspapers. Next HR will be complaining that the sports section has too much sport.


"USS LIBERTY CONSPIRACY RESURFACES IN AUSTRALIA"
Well, if anyone should know about conspiracies, it's HR. They remain convinced of a world wide "anti-Israel media bias" conspiracy, despite the underwhelming evidence.

This one shocks me. Imagine, in my own backyard, and via Tim Fischer, the former Deputy Prime Minister, no less. The conspiracy is that Tim Fischer suggests that Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty. As everyone knows (except Tim apparently), it was an accident. Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats repeatedly, for over an hour in broad daylight, accidentally attacked the USS Liberty, killing 34.

HR know this claim is a "canard" because someone wrote a book saying so ('The Liberty Incident' - Ahron Cristol). It was the "definitive study", so they say. I think it's a definitive study in the same way that Joan Peters' 'From Time Immemorial' was the definitive study of population movements in Mandated Palestine. Fischer and his evil conspiracy rejected this "definitive study" by a retired judge in favour of the evidence presented by such people as a former Lieutenant on the USS Liberty, James Ennes who wrote 'Assault on the Liberty', detailing the extensive evidence in support of the contention that the attack was planned and deliberate.

But, just as 'From Time Immemorial' managed to do the opposite of what it intended, so too did 'The Liberty Incident' backfire rather badly, spurring old hands from the USS Liberty to denounce the book as a fraud and to again demand a real inquiry. So strong was the reaction to the book that new witnesses emerged to provide evidence. Stephen Forslund, who was an intelligence analyst working on the day of the attack, related how he read the intercepted transmissions that showed Israel knew the USS Liberty was an American ship, and had deliberately set about attacking it.


"THE SIX-DAY WAR: DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS"
How appropriate. HR launch a 'pre-emptive strike' on likely media coverage of the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War. Purely defensive of course, as HR prepares for the 'imminent' attack by the media with their "anti-Israel agenda".

HR warn,

Some historical analyses will be perfectly legitimate. Others may be simply a rewriting of history in order to promote a politicized anti-Israel agenda. Be on the lookout and make full use of HonestReporting's resources, which will be appearing shortly.

It doesn't take much imagination to know what these resources will consist of. I'm sure Ahron Cristols book will be there. You have to laugh.

It's poor form to self-reference, but here's a brief overview of the Six Day War that won't figure in HRs 'resources'.

May 24 Media Critique: "Sderot: Still Under Fire"

HonestReporting doesn't like the term "home made rockets". Um, OK.

Truly compelling media critique.

What the media is probably trying to do is to provide some "context" (a selectively beloved term of HRs) , to their audiences about Qassams. Namely, that they are not standard military grade weapons which have an altogether different effect, as shown by the Israeli missile attack on a Hamas politicians private home, which killed 8 members of his family. He wasn't home. See the difference? One military grade missile kills almost as many people as thousands of Qassams have over several years. That's the kind of context that HR abhors.

"SLANTED COVERAGE"
This is the tactic that started it all.

When HR isn't just straight out lying or misrepresenting, it likes to impute intent to errors, mistakes or just routine journalistic sloppiness. The incident that lead to HRs creation remains a classic example of the genre. It was in the 2nd intifada, and a photo showing an Israel soldier standing over a bleeding man was incorrectly captioned to suggest that the man was Palestinan, when it was a Jewish man who had been assaulted by Palestinian rioters. It was an error that had occurred in communication between the photographer and an editor in a busy newsroom on a breaking story. HR, naturally, sought to explain it in terms of anti-Israel bias.

Todays example is far more dull, but essentially the same. Australia's ABC has a story with the following headline "Israel Continues Air Raids Despite new Gaza Truce". Clearly misleading (and quickly changed), but the story itself was perfectly accurate and reasonable. Just one of those editorial stuff-ups that affect all news stories from time to time, from the world news, to lost dog stories. But not to HR, where every error is a sign of malign intent and so HR screams "slanted coverage"!

HR try to have a go at regular target, the BBC , for saying,

Israel resumed airstrikes on Gaza on Tuesday after a six-month lull. It followed several rocket attacks on Israel.

But the best they could manage in response was "Several? Several?". Maybe even HR are getting bored with their script.


"COMPARE AND CONTRAST - BLOODSHED IN LEBANON"
HR wants to, but has to avoid a significant contrast in its' effort to suggest that the IDF attack on the Jenin Refugee camp is a comparable situation. That Israel is an illegal occupying army, in contrast to the Lebanese Government being the recognised authority responsible for order and security inside Lebanon. Naturally, HR repeat their favourite lie regarding Jenin,
"This army was pilloried by the international press and falsely accused of perpetrating a 'massacre' ".

Despite that, there has been significant coverage of the civilian casualties caused by the Lebanese armies actions. Inconveniently for HR, some of the best coverage of this type has come from one of the journalists that HR has often sought to smear with its "anti-Israel" tag, Robert Fisk,

The Lebanese soldiers claim they try never to hurt civilians (I can think of another army which says that!), but did so many Palestinians have to be killed or wounded for the crimes of a few ………….Had there been feelings of revenge rather than military discipline when they first opened fire?

Pandering to their prejudices, HR say,

we do wonder if there is the faint whiff of double standards at play here?

Sadly for HR, no.

Just the stench of strident pro-Israel partisans trying to maintain the fiction of "anti-Israel media bias".

May 17 Media Critique:"Buried By the Media: Watch Sderot Under Attack "

HonestReporting complain that the latest Qassam attacks on Sderot have been “buried by the media”.

The media fails to do justice to the suffering of Sderot.

After all it was a major event, with one (1) person seriously injured. There were some other minor events, like the deaths of 40 Palestinians in factional violence and a further 10 killed in an Israeli bombing.

Now, in media-speak, “buried” has a very specific meaning; that a story has not been given the attention it deserves, getting little mention and no follow up and so disappears into obscurity.

So, just how buried was the Sderot story?

Unfortunately, HR had to begin by acknowledging that one of their favourite targets, AP, had a 2 page story on Sderot. Which of course disuaded them not at all from making their allegations.

CNN had this and this for follow up which included some video.

AFP had this , this and this.

Reuters covered the story here and followed it up with this.

Not only that, but look at this. IRIN News, news agency of the evil UN, covered the attacks with this story and then another!

OK, so there was plenty of coverage, but surely that bastion of anti-Israel media bias, the BBC, ignored this vital story? Close enough. The BBC could only manage a 40 sec video of Sderot showing damaged buildings and people being evacuated by ambulance. Typical.

Don’t you just hate this vast world-wide anti-Israel media conspiracy that has “buried” this story?

Thankfully we have courageous groups like HonestReporting to alert us to such awful media bias.

May 13 Media Critique: "New Horror Footage: From Mickey Mouse to Mother's Suicide Mission"

HR are determined to demonstrate why no one should take them seriously.

Most people would have heard of the Hamas ‘Mickey Mouse’ story, given the extensive international coverage it’s received. But HR, faithfully adhering to the old adage of when-you’re-on-a-good-thing-stick-to-it, are demanding to know why,

the media ignore another equally abhorrent video, which is still running on Hamas TV?

And that’s it, that’s the “media critique” – why doesn’t the media spend more time covering the specific story we want to see covered? Has the general issue of incitement on Palestinian TV not been covered? Obviously not to HRs satisfaction.

To top it off, HR then offer some “recommended reading” on the issue of media bias, explaining that,

the media is guilty of highlighting individual and sensationalist stories, such as the Hamas Mickey Mouse, while neglecting the bigger picture….

And this just after they’ve hysterically demanded to know why the media “turns a blind eye” to another “individual and sensationalist story”! HR, the unintentional comedians.

The sight of a stridently partisan group like HonestReporting, flinging around accusations of bias never fails to amuse.

HR gave a master class in objectivity and concern for children in 2002 when Amnesty International released their report on child deaths “Killing the Future: Children in the Line of Fire”.
Others have dealt with the general issues of the huge number of Palestinian children killed by the IDF in this conflict. But what is interesting from the bias perspective is that HonestReporting were at pains to ensure that, in the interests of protecting children, that the IDF version was presented,

The Palestinian terrorists are solely and unequivocally responsible for the injuries caused to Palestinian children.

So there.

Update:

Thanks Russ for this tip.

Seems that MEMRI has been indulging in a little creative translating (otherwise known as fabrication) to make the Hamas 'Mickey Mouse" story a bit more useful for their purposes.

Am I surprised? Not a bit.

Update 2:

Thanks to Facts On The Ground, for this very clear summary of MEMRI's.....err....issues.

May 10 Media Critique: “Nice Story But Where's the Context?"

Or alternatively – 'Nice Try, But Do You Really Think You Can Ever Make Us Happy?' (HonestReportings ability to find bias in anything is neatly explained by experimental studies - see the 'hostile media effect').

While we frequently highlight some of the most egregious media bias and inaccuracies, it is also worth noting those instances where a seemingly benign or even positive article can disguise a greater problem….. so what's the issue with a piece where there appears nothing to get upset about?

That’s right – even when there is nothing to get upset about, HR will always find something to get upset about. It just goes to show the utter futility or trying to please extreme partisans like HonestReporting. The BBC are the target for running a puff-piece (sorry, human interest story), on the fond reminisces of some Iraqi-Jews for their homeland. But the BBC miss the all-important "context".

The problem lies not in what has been written but in what has been left out. While terming the Iraqi Jews' move to Israel as part of a "mass migration", the BBC conveniently forgets that this was not a move made out of choice. In fact, the Iraqi Jews (along with thousands of Jews living in Arab states) were forced to flee for their lives as refugees in anything but positive circumstances.

Well, not quite "fleeing for their lives", as the emigration of Iraqi Jews occurred over several years, and it was a migration that Israel was only too happy to encourage.

Never ones to miss a chance at being factually inaccurate, HR include a map to show the level of migration to Israel from Arab countries. It includes Egypt which shows a figure of 89, 525. But that is roughly the Jewish population of Egypt, not the number of émigrés to Israel. And HR also never miss an opportunity to do themselves, what they accuse others of doing. Just as they accuse the BBC, they leave out some vital ‘context’ about the situation in Egypt – most of the émigrés didn’t go to Israel. Why? Well, it's not the kind of 'context' that HR likes. Many of the Egyptian Jews blamed Israel for their situation. In the 1950s Israel had recruited several Egyptian Jews to bomb targets in Egypt, followed by Israels 1956 invasion of Egypt, all which led to Egypts Jews becoming the targets of campaigns doubting their loyalty to Egypt, leading them to emigrate, the majority going anywhere but Israel.

There is some other missing context, but again not the sort that HR would tell its' sheep-like readers – why do some of the Mizahrim have fond memories of Iraq? Afterall, as HR tell us, they were "forced to flee for their lives". Doesn't make much sense does it? But, onto the context that resolves this apparent conundrum. The European nature of Zionism meant that the Mizharim didn’t get a very warm welcome in Israel. They were seen as second-rate and were treated that way. It was they who were sent to the outlying ‘development towns’ where conditions were harsh and services very basic, often finding themselves living in tents for extended periods. And these were people who were often the middle class in their countries of origin. It was a very rude shock for many of them, compounded by the contemptuous attitudes towards the 'Oriental-Jews'. Contempory Mizhari scholars increasingly write about the racism that has typified the relations between themselves and the Ashkenazi Jews of European origin.

May 2 Media Critique: "Harvard Report Examines Media Coverage of Lebanon War"

Back at the beginning of March 2007, HonestReporting's Backspin blog drew attention to a research paper published by Harvard University, which examined media coverage of the 2006 Lebanon War. The conclusion: Hezbollah succeeded at using the media as a weapon against Israel. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the mainstream media, having allowed themselves to be cynically manipulated by the Hezbollah propaganda machine, failed to report the findings of the Harvard study.

And HonestReporting, having failed to read the actual report, can’t manage to summarise it with any great accuracy. The report (actually a ‘Research Paper’) focuses its media analysis on Arabic media, such as Al-Jezeera, Al-Arabiyya etc, the BBC and the main US outlets. It doesn’t provide much information on its methodology, so it's conclusions are rather difficult to assess. Its basic finding is that Hizballah tried to use the media to its advantage. Ground-breaking stuff. Who needs a ‘Research Paper’ to point out what is obvious and uncontroversial. The real issue is how does the media respond to attempts to manipulate it -whether it is a Government, a military force, or an internet pressure group.

While the initial lack of publicity was disappointing, a number of blogs have recently revisited the study, generating a surge in internet-led interest. This prompted the Jerusalem Post to report:

This is amusing. The Research Paper author, Marvin Kalb, expressed an interesting opinion almost 10 yrs ago on the power of the internet to influence mainstream journalism – he felt it was a negative one.

I suspect that over the next couple of years that impact will grow to the point where it will damage journalism's ability to do its job professionally, to check out information before publication, to be mindful of the necessity to publish and broadcast reliable, substantiated information.

Kalb felt that ‘bloggers’ putting information out, compel a commidified media to run with those stories from a purely competitive perspective, leading to a degradation of journalistic standards. And that’s pretty much the way this latest 'Media Critique' has come to us. The Harvard paper has been kicking around a few blogs and then as HR tell us “This prompted the Jerusalem Post to report:” Kalbs paper. A little ironic isn’t it?

Here’s an excerpt from the paper that HonestReporting (and the Jerusalem Post) should read, and re-read till they get it,

Keller of the Times said that the issue is so irresolvable that he refuses to pander to the prejudices of his critics. “They don’t want you to be balanced in your coverage; they want you to portray the morality of the war as they see it.” Scholars have coined a term for this problem—it’s called “hostile media effect,” meaning partisans tend to believe that the media generally paints them in a negative light

Sound like anybody we know?

Update:
Thanks to Eric for pointing out this critique of the Harvard study. On a related matter, Kalb was a vocal critic of the Mearsheimer and Walt paper on the 'Israel Lobby', as it "clearly does not meet the academic standards of a Kennedy School research paper". If you've read Kalbs effort, it's hard not to laugh at this. I've written to the author pointing out some of the serious academic limitations in his 'Research Paper'. It will be interesting to see if there is a response.

April 23 Media Critique: "Straining a 'Ceasefire' "

Yes, there is much straining going on. HonestReporting is under a terrible strain to continue to find (or invent) “media Anti-Israel bias”.

AP is the target again, for this story on the killing of 9 Palestinians by the IDF over the weekend.

Over the past few years the media has consistently downplayed or ignored Palestinian violence, while apportioning blame on Israeli retaliatory or preventative actions as the cause of "escalating violence" or "breaking of ceasefires". It appears, yet again, necessary to protest this inaccurate and misleading representation of the conflict.

Fortunately, our exemplars of detached objectivity, HR, are here to correct that by highlighting Palestinian violence and reminding all fair-minded people that Israeli acts of violence are only ever “retaliatory or preventative” unlike the nasty Palestinians who just kill Jews for fun. And any alleged evidence to the contrary, is obviously the product of a biased media, even if it’s the testimony of IDF soldiers.

A 22 April Associated Press report says that: "Hamas militants called Sunday for a fresh wave of attacks against Israel after troops killed nine Palestinians in weekend fighting, straining a five-month-old cease-fire."
Thus, Israel is blamed for "straining a ceasefire".

There is no blame, the facts are simply laid out in the order that they occurred. Hamas wasn’t calling for renewed attacks before the killings, so AP are quite right to say this. This is not bias, this is chronology.

According to the AP: "The Gaza truce has largely held, though militants have frequently fired rockets into Israel and have attacked Israeli patrols along the border fence." How serious must Palestinian actions be in the eyes of the AP before a "ceasefire" is broken?

Let’s be serious, while Palestinians themselves talk of the truce/ceasefire, in reality there is none. Palestinian militants have said that there can be no separate truce in Gaza and the West Bank (WB), and so they reserve the right to respond to continued Israeli violence in the WB. Israel, for it’s part, does not want a ceasefire to include the WB anyway, so it has zero intention of encouraging one.

Recent Israeli operations against targets in Gaza are a direct response to the latest Qassam missile attacks. Yet, the AP saves this for the third paragraph of its report: "The fighting also included a Palestinian rocket attack on the southern Israeli town of Sderot that damaged a home."

Such terrible bias. The world-wide media conspiracy against Israel is so effective that this only comes to light in the third paragraph!! So what if 9 Palestinians, including a 17 yr old girl standing at her window, are killed. A Jewish home was damaged, can’t AP see the equivalence? HR can – 9 dead Palestinians, one damaged Jewish home, that’s about right.

Some Palestinians claim that their Gaza attacks have been in response to Israeli operations in the West Bank, where a "ceasefire" is not in effect. Much of the media, while focused on Israeli counter-terror measures, have, however, forgotten the constant Palestinian terror efforts that led to the IDF operations in the first place.

And naturally, HR, in its' tireless commitment to accuracy and fairness ignores the ongoing illegal occupation, land theft, administrative detention, road blocks, checkpoints and movement restrictions against an entire population that goes on 24/7. But all that is OK. The real issue is,

To ask the AP what it defines as a "ceasefire", please send your constructive comments to feedback@ap.org.

They could at least start by calling it a Palestinian ceasefire, or perhaps by noting the strange spectacle of an occupied people suffering 40 yrs of repression calling a ceasefire against their occupiers.

Update:
Amira Hass on the ceasefire fallacy.

April 17 Media Critique: “UK Journalists' Union Votes to Boycott Israel”

Another tiny tantrum from HonestReporting.

The UK’s National Union of Journalists (NUJ) have voted to boycott Israeli goods. Good on them.

HR are aghast at what it calls the “gross antipathy” of the NUJ towards Israel.

If any further proof was needed of the British media's inability to deal with Israel in an objective and fair manner, it arrived on 13 April as the UK's National Union of Journalists (NUJ) voted at its annual meeting for a boycott of Israeli goods as part of a protest against last year's Lebanon war.

HR are confused, as usual. Conveniently confused that is. To start with the ‘British media” does not equate with the NUJ. And journalists are allowed to have opinions. Where does this strange idea come from that journalists are unthinking, unfeeling robots, who aren’t allowed to hold personal opinions?

HR provides some pointless commentary from Tom Gross,

Just to show what disregard British (and indeed most European) journalists have for the truth about Israel "The motion called for the end of Israeli aggression in Gaza." In case they haven't noticed, Israel withdrew from Gaza in the summer of 2005...

Tom must have missed the elementary lessons on international law at journo school. Attacks by a nation on those outside its borders are military ‘aggression’.

NUJ member and journo with the UK Daily Telegraph, Toby Harnden, is highly critical of the move. Though it’s interesting to note this part of his reasoning,

Doing one's best to remain impartial in the most volatile and divided part of the world is incredibly difficult. Every single sentence or utterance by a journalist is scrutinised by both sides…….So what does the NUJ motion do for its members there? It helps smear them all as being biased and anti-Israel.

Exactly the kind of thing HR strives for. The problem with this line of reasoning is the very existence of groups like HR. As I’ve been demonstrating for months, HR will attack any view that is critical of Israeli policy in the OT’s . Hence, if we take Hardens' advice, the only way to avoid being “smeared as…..biased” by HR is to agree with their stridently pro-Israel point-of-view.

To put Harndens advice in some perspective, in his article quoted by HR, he actually links to one of HRs mendacious ‘Media Critiques’ (isn’t that cosy?). Someone advocating that journalists should “remain impartial” at the same time as linking to the often dishonest and stridently partisan HonestReporting, has to be taken with a very large dose of salt.

The nature of the NUJ vote (66-54) and the comments made by some criticizing the motion just highlight one simple little fact, one that HR can’t tolerate - that this is a deeply contested issue, with many varied opinions and positions. HR hates the intellectual diversity that the NUJ position represents. Again, HR can’t distinguish between diversity in opinion and bias.

For HR there is only one acceptable position – the one it holds.

April 12 Media Critique: "Israeli Freedom of Religion Attacked in San Francisco Chronicle"

Times continue to be very lean for those engaged in the search for “media anti-Israel bias”.

HonestReportings latest effort is directed at an Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Yet again, HR conflate media bias with the expression of an opinion that they either don’t like or disagree with. It’s a common affliction of the intolerant.

The writer, Omar Ahmad, bewails what he sees, as threats to Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem and restrictions on access. And it is undoubtedly true that Israel regularly restricts access to the Haram al-Sharif for Muslim worshippers, usually in the name of ‘security’.

The recent controversy over Israeli excavations has heightened concerns, with good reason. Despite HR assertions to the contrary, Israel has been criticized over these works by UNESCO, as well as by Israeli archeologists. The primary problem is that Israel repeatedly violates the terms of its' agreements with UNESCO over the conduct of digs. Israel is meant to co-ordinate such work with the Islamic Waqf – it routinely ‘forgets’ to do so, leading to the kind of problems we saw recently.

Then, true to form, the incompetent bunglers at HR get it wrong. HR is unhappy with this from Ahmad,

In 1967, the Israeli army's chief rabbi, Shlomo Goren, urged Israeli forces commander Uzi Narkis, to use 100 kilograms of explosives to "get rid of" Al-Aqsa "once and for all." Narkis, as quoted by Israeli historian Avi Shlaim in "The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World," (W.W. Norton &Company, 2001) had the wisdom to refuse the rabbi's request.

Says HR,

Ahmad quotes the then Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren as advocating the destruction of Al-Aqsa in 1967. While this quote was actually attributed to Goren before he became Chief Rabbi, this in no way represents the religious or political view of Israel's Chief Rabbinate or indeed any Israeli government, which has always respected the rights of Muslims to their holy sites, as outlined above.

Unfortunately for the dimwits at HR, Ahmad was right, Goren was the “Chief Rabbi”. Goren became the IDF Chief Rabbi in 1948, a position he held until 1968. Maybe HR meant to say that he became Chief Rabbi of Israel in 1973.

How embarrassing, but then, facts have always been HRs weak point.

More so when HR asks its’ legion of gullibles to complain,

Please write to the San Francisco Chronicle - letters@sfchronicle.com - asking why the paper has published an op-ed so riddled with inaccuracies and poor journalism from a writer with such an obvious and false agenda.

Inaccuracies and poor journalism! How outrageous. And Omar Ahmad isn’t a journalist, an accusation that will never be leveled at HonestReporting.

Update:
HR have corrected their error on the matter of Ahmads reference to the IDF Chief Rabbi,

Ahmad quotes the then Israeli army chief rabbi Shlomo Goren as advocating the destruction of Al-Aqsa in 1967. While this view was expressed by Goren at a time before he became Chief Rabbi of Israel,

What point HR are trying to make remains obscure however, except to fabricate an imputation so to refute it.

March 26 Special Report: “Are there two sides to every story?”

HonestReporting has produced one its deadly dull ‘videos’ (just a slide show actually, with horrible muzak), on the excavation work at the Haram al-Sharif.

The answer to their question is no, but not in the way HR mean.

Those of us who haven’t completely surrendered our gift for independent thinking, know that there are many takes on a single issue, rather than just 2 sides. But according to the intolerant partisans at HR, even 2 sides is too much – there is only one, and that is the stridently pro-Israel side!

According to HR, the media are reporting “a story that is not true”.

They pick the usual targets – let’s see how they misrepresent and distort the BBCs coverage to come to this amazing conclusion.

The media reported baseless claims say HR,

BBC – “Muslims say the work threatens holy remains “

HR continues,

The only problem is: It Isn't True.

Did the BBC report this? Yes. Did some muslims say this? Yes. So it is true.

But, as manipulative as ever, HR edit out the rest of that sentence in the BBC report,

a charge Israel denies.

See, there is a controversy, with the Palestinians making one set of claims and Israel denying them, and the media are reporting this, quite faithfully from what I’ve seen.

Now you could protest at this point and say that this is just ‘he says, she says’ reporting from the BBC, which might be a fair point (not that HR makes this point). But the BBC article provides a link on the archelogical issues, or lack of them,

An independent observer, Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, from the French institute the Ecole Biblique in East Jerusalem, said that the work was "completely routine".

"This work is not inside the Haram. It is outside, leading to the Moors' Gate. The earth ramp fell down and has to be replaced," Father Murphy-O'Connor, author of an Oxford University guide 'The Holy Land', told me.

"I do not know why the Palestinians have chosen to make an issue out of this. It is a recognised Jewish area under the arrangements that prevail in the Old City.”

Doesn’t that just reek of anti-Israel media bias? That’s right, it doesn’t. But this does expose HRs own, very pronounced bias. Since they disagree with, or don’t like, Palestinian objections to the excavations, this is a story which isn’t true and therefore the media should not cover it.

Next the BBC is targeted for this head-line in an article,

Some in the media still insist on their own interpretation of the facts: BBC – “Israel must halt Jerusalem dig”

Notice the quotation marks. The order appears to be issued by the BBC – “the only problem is: It Isn’t True”.

This is the actual headline,

Israel 'must halt' Jerusalem dig

This is especially funny, given one of the HR slides announces,

UN Investigation – work is legal

Besides the fact that the UN investigation doesn’t say that the work is legal, the ‘must halt’ comment comes from that same UN investigation. It was actually UNESCO and they said,

The Government of Israel should be asked to stop immediately the archaeological excavations……

So yes, there is more than one aspect to a story like this, such as the political dimension to the dispute – Israel conducts such activities without any consultation (as required by UNESCO) to demonstrate their claim of sovereignty and the Palestinians protest to challenge that claim. Or that Israels illegal annexation of East Jerusalem means that Israel has no recognized authority to be doing the work.

It’s just that this kind of open debate is something that HonestReporting can’t tolerate, hence we have HRs desperate distortions in an attempt to fabricate allegations of media bias.

March 27 Media Critique: "ABC: Giving Airtime to Extremists"

Things must be good for the rabid pro-Israel partisans – they are having a hard time finding “media anti-Israel bias”.

So much so that they have strayed into the dark recesses of my own ABCs (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) radio division, and visited Radio National (for US readers, its Australia’s NPR, but better), selecting the relatively obscure Religion Report as the hapless victim of one its pointless and dishonest ‘Media Critiques’.

Onto the distortions!

The charge of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis is a form of Holocaust revisionism that is barely deserving of a response

That’s as unequivocal a charge as you could ask for. It must be true, mustn’t it?

Here’s what Radio National said,

Which Israeli Prime Minister in his youth was a member of an organisation that offered to collaborate with the Nazis at the height of World War II, because of their shared racial ideology of blood and soil?

Hang on…..where’s “the charge of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis”??

Surprise, surprise, it doesn’t exist. More blatant lies from HonestReporting.

Let’s review the facts for HRs benefit. The former Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir, was a member of Lehi – fact.
Lehi offered their services to the Nazis in the fight against the Allies in WWII – fact.

You could argue about the reasoning for the offer – while Lehi shared some ideological points with the Nazis, they primarily wanted to establish a Jewish state in Palestine and saw Great Britain as the enemy.

So, there was no charge of Nazi collaboration.

Unfortunately, it gets worse.

Next HR attack the guest, Lenni Brenner, on this edition of the Religion Report. Name-calling is a favourite. Brenner is an “extremist”. Why? HR indulge in some classic deceptions to make the point. Firstly,

The neo-Nazi right was delighted with Brenner's book….

They probably also like Readers Digest. Does this make it “extremist'?

And,

Left-wing revisionists such as Brenner do not deny that mass murder took place but seek to blame Zionist Jews for the actions of the Nazis.

Where does this come from?? Just another scurrilous assertion from HR. Brenner makes no suggestion like this in the interview or in his writings . That’s probably why HR sensibly refrain from quoting any of Brenners words to demonstrate their claims – it’s not possible.

HR then talk about “classic Holocuast deniers”, lumping Brenner in as not one of them , but like them, and then have another go at it, throwing the Iranian President in for good measure, just in case anyone hasn’t quite got the point yet,

Abusing the memory of 6 million murdered Jews is a malicious method to attack Israel and has most recently been employed by Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Why has ABC indulged an extremist like Lenni Brenner?

OK, got it, Brenner’s not exactly a Holocaust denier, but……..

I feel like I need a shower after wading through this bit of mud-slinging. HR again display their anti free-expression instincts – how dare the media air views that we disagree with.

HonestReporting - partisan, intolerant, and dishonest.

March 19 MC: "The Palestinian Government: 'All Forms of Resistence' "

This was as surprising as the sun rising in the morning – HonestReportings take on the Palestinian unity government and its' desperate efforts to find “media anti-Israel bias’ in the coverage.

As ever, blatant dishonesty is HRs mainstay in its’ effort to fabricate bias out of media reporting of the conflict. HR is shocked by an appalling “whitewash” of the evil, violent Palestinians,

Some of the international media attempts to whitewash the new Palestinan unity government.

Palestinian PM Haniyeh has stated that the new Palestinian unity government will support "all forms of resistance".

Naturally, despite the use of quotation marks, Haniyah doesn’t say that anywhere I've seen, and they don't provide a link except to his formal statement. Can’t these guys help themselves, or is lying just second nature to them? This is the relevant part of Haniyehs statement,

The government affirms that resistance is a legitimate right of the Palestinian people as granted by the international norms and charters; our Palestinian people have the right to defend themselves in face of any Israeli aggression and believes that halting resistance depends on ending the occupation and achieving freedom, return and independence.

The closest it comes to is this, the unoffical translation of Haniyehs speech,

The government affirms that resistance in all its forms, including popular resistance against the occupation, is a legitimate right of the Palestinian people as granted by the international norms and charters; our Palestinian people have the right to defend themselves in face of any Israeli continuous aggression.

HRs main target is AFP. And, as usual, their criticism of AFP is wrong, regarding the statments of US National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley.

HR only provide part of Hadleys words quoted by AFP,

"This government needs to renounce terror and violence," Hadley told CNN.

But that wasn’t all Hadley had to say. In the very next sentence, which HR failed to provide for their gullible readers, is this,

"It needs to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist," he said, adding that those conditions so far have not been met.

Ignoring this, HR then screech on cynically about the Quartets demands,

Does the AFP regard a call to renounce terror and violence as "hardline"? What would the AFP consider to be moderation? Why are Hadley's comments, which reflect the position of the Quartet, regarded as such while Haniyeh's do not merit any similar judgment?

Because Hadley’s comments only “reflect the position of the Quartet” after some careful selective quoting of them by HR.

The Quartets demands are not for the recognition of “Israels right to exist” as Hadley demanded, so AFPs comment is quite reasonable.

Utterly, deliberately dishonest and utterly typical of HR.

Four words from an Australian journalist sum up HRs rubbish perfectly,

Rank distortion…..scurrilous assertions

LA TIMES CHANGES HEADLINE

Warning! : HR arse-covering exercise.

The real problem with the previous ‘Media Critique’ was that HR falsely presented the LA Times headline as the words of Saree Makdisi. When the LA Times later changed the headline, it just highlighted HRs dishonesty.

Just desserts. Idiots.

March 12 Media Critique: "LA Times and Israels 'Right to Exist' "

Questioning Israel's very "right to exist" is a well-employed tool of Israel's detractors to call into question the Jewish state's legitimacy as part of an effort to undermine her.

Aaargghhh! So close…they almost got it right. I think this would have hit the nail on the head,

Constructing false accusations of questioning Israel's very "right to exist" is a well-employed tool of Israel's apologists to call into question the critics of the Jewish state's actions as part of an effort to undermine them.

And HR just love doing it.

In February, HonestReporting highlighted an op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor that questioned Israel's right to exist.

This is more of HRs self-referential, blatantly dishonest, 'fact'-creation strategy. See here.

Now, the Los Angeles Times follows suit, giving space to Saree Makdisi to ask, "Why does The Times recognize Israel's 'right to exist' "?

Did he ask this? You might think that given the use of quotation marks ("Why does The Times recognize Israel's 'right to exist'?" “) that this is a direct quote from Madski’s article (seems a reasonable assumption doesn't it?). Alas no, Saree Makdisi did not say that, HR are just being blatantly dishonest, as usual. All perfectly normal at HR – they aren’t to be deterred by mere reality. If Makdisi doesn’t say exactly what suits HR, they just make something up and attribute it to him.

In this latest LA Times piece, Makdisi muddies the issue of "recognition" in legalistic jargon while failing to acknowledge that the issue goes deeper than this in practical terms....

Yes, Makdsi is truly evil, employing logic and relevant legal principles to the question of what is meant by ‘recognising Israel’.

Israel and the Palestinians recognized each other by signing the Oslo Accords and final borders could be negotiated as part of an overall settlement.

Confusion reigns! The evil Palestinians won’t recognise Israel, whines HR….but they did 14 years ago. How did that one slip through? I’m looking forward to the next HR announcement –‘Heads Roll at HR for Telling the Truth’.

This is brilliant stuff from ‘Honest’Reporting - the central premise of this entire “Media Critique” is a lie. I guess they are employed for their ideological obedience, not their intelligence or grasp of basic ethics.

March 10 Media Critique: “Time for a Retraction”

It’s hard to know what exactly should be retracted. HR is typically inaccurate,

In October 2006, notoriously anti-Israel journalist Robert Fisk was given the front page of the UK's Independent to spread the libel that Israel had used uranium-based weapons in southern Lebanon during last summer's war.

And Fisk was typically circumspect, asking questions rather than making unsupported assertions like the one that HR makes – “the libel that Israel had used….. ”. HR would do well to take a lesson in objectivity from Robert Fisk. Here are a few examples,

Did Israel use a secret new uranium-based weapon in southern Lebanon…..?

Fisk details the evidence supporting the charge,

But scientific evidence gathered from at least two bomb craters in Khiam and At-Tiri, the scene of fierce fighting between Hizbollah guerrillas and Israeli troops last July and August, suggests that uranium-based munitions may now also be included in Israel's weapons inventory - and were used against targets in Lebanon. According to Dr Chris Busby, the British Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, two soil samples thrown up by Israeli heavy or guided bombs showed "elevated radiation signatures". Both have been forwarded for further examination to the Harwell laboratory in Oxfordshire for mass spectrometry - used by the Ministry of Defence - which has confirmed the concentration of uranium isotopes in the samples.

And gives a chance for those subject to the allegation a chance to respond,

Asked by The Independent if the Israeli army had been using uranium-based munitions in Lebanon this summer, Mark Regev, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, said: "Israel does not use any weaponry which is not authorised by international law or international conventions.

Any chance of HR retracting its false allegation against Robert Fisk? A snowflakes chance in hell.



DUGARD'S "APARTHEID" CHARGE DEBUNKED
This must have really hit a nerve. Why else would HR keep telling it’s readers of every ‘debunking’ of John Dugards opinion on Israeli practices in the OTs.

Just to remind you, Dugard might know something about Apartheid as he is a South African. HR link to an Op-Ed piece that tries to ‘debunk’ Dugard,

In his introduction he states: "I shall not consider the violation of human rights caused by Palestinian suicide bombers. Nor shall I consider the violation of human rights caused by the political conflict between Fatah and Hamas."
That sort of bias taints every page of Dugard's report and destroys the credibility of its conclusions...

Yes, someone’s bias is on display, but it’s the Op-Ed writer, who ignores the final sentence of that paragraph where Dugard explains why this is the case.

Such matters are of deep concern to me, but my mandate precludes me from examining them.

Of course you can imagine that a report on South African Apartheid that failed to detail the criminal acts of the ANC or the conflict between the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party would have had it’s credibility destroyed……..or so apologists for South African Apartheid would probably have argued.

You can read the whole of John Dugards detailed report here.

March 1 Media Critique: "Missing the Big Picture"

HonestReporting have come up with some pretty thin pretexts for its’ Media Critiques, and this one is right up there with the thinnest of them.

We highlighted how many media outlets were prepared to take the libels surrounding Israeli excavations at the Mugrabi Gate at face value……..in the meantime, the media has taken its eye off the ball and has still not corrected its coverage.

“Highlighted”? This must be a synonym for 'alleged', as HRs February 11 report could provide not a single example of what it claimed the media was doing wrong.

This is an emerging favourite HR strategy – self-referencing claims. The original report makes allegations with no evidence to back them and a few weeks later a subsequent report references the old report as the source of an established fact.

The media “has still not corrected its coverage”, because there is nothing to correct.

"REUTERS PHOTO CAPTION GAFFE"
This is the gaffe that isn’t.

Several ultra-Orthodox Jews protest against the excavations at Al-Haram al-Sharif and about the Israeli state in general. This is accurately reported by Reuters. What’s the gaffe?? That this fact was reported, apparently. All HR can complain about is a lack of “context”. The context that HR would seem to prefer would be if they were totally ignored. Reuters took a photo and gave it an accurate caption and the Times of London gave the story 2 paragraphs, which is a “full news brief” according to HR. I wonder what their partial news briefs look like?

"WHAT'S NOT BEING REPORTED"
Yes, what??

The mainstream media has reported claims by the Russian Foreign Minister that Hamas has pledged to end missile attacks and violence against Israel. While Hamas supreme leader Khaled Mashaal attempts to project a "moderate" image in order to persuade the Russians to help lift the international boycott of the Palestinian government, the media has virtually ignored the steady stream of Qassams that continues to fall on Israel, launched from the Gaza Strip. This, in addition to other Palestinian terror that includes the murder of Erez Levanon in the West Bank.

HR has a flexible approach to the truth, which allows them to fabricate the assertions above. The article linked to about the visit to Russia is headlined “Russian official: Hamas may halt attacks”. Not much of a “pledge” is it? The article quotes Khaled Meshal which makes the “maybe” quite clear,

First of all, Israel has to end its occupation of Palestinian territory and put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people.

And the “steady stream” of Qassams amounts to one incident where Islamic Jihad fired 5 Qassams in response to the IDF killing 3 of it’s members in Jenin, with a few other episodes of smaller numbers of Qassams landing inside Israel, with no injuries reported.

Finally the killing of a West Bank settler didn’t get much coverage, but it was reported in The Independent.

By selectively reporting events in Israel, the media contributes to creating a distorted picture of the reality.

HR demonstrates that its extremely selective attention enables it to claim whatever it likes, despite the facts.

It’s still very unclear what parts of the “big picture” are being missed. Maybe that the Israeli Occupation will reach its 40th anniversary this year, or the general humanitarian situation in the OTs, the travel restrictions, or the ongoing human rights abuses.

All very important, and under-reported, parts of the “big picture”, but probably not what HR meant.

Feb 20 Media Critique: "The Economists Politicised City Guide"

HonestReporting is scandalized – the Economist has told the truth. A terrible crime in the eyes of HR.

Specifically, the Economists "Cities Guide" has pointed out a few well known features of life in Israel, namely, the flagrant anti-Arab bigotry, evident from the way security measures target Palestinian-Israelis, to edicts by sections of the Tel Aviv ultra-orthodox community against leasing to Palestinian-Israelis. Hardly ground-breaking issues - that’s been official Israeli policy for ever. But they are stories that have been in the news lately, hence their appearance in the news section ("News this Month") of the "Cities Guide", as even those idiots at HR are forced to admit.

Anyway, HR is upset that such inconvenient facts are brought to public attention and seeks, however ineffectively, to fashion this into its standard whining about ‘bias’. The Economist is “singling out Tel Aviv for negative treatment”, according to HR.

Monthly news on each city includes briefs on generally non-controversial issues of cultural or politically benign events and municipal happenings. That is, until you see February's entry for Tel Aviv.

But the "News this Month" section contains a variety of stories on every city, such as tunneling disasters in Sao Paulo, assassinations in Moscow, government meddling and crime in Hong Kong, protests in Mexico, election results and controversy over public land in Mumbai, and the theft of rocket launchers by a terrorism suspect in Sydney . You know, the kind of stuff that makes the news everywhere.

However, if any of you feel some irrational connection to any of these cities and feel slighted by such factual coverage, I encourage you to write outraged and hysterical letters to the Economist asking it to explain “why it has singled out {insert city name} for negative and politicized reportage in comparison to other featured cities.”

And of course if you go back next month, there’ll be a range of new “News this Month" stories about Tel Aviv, just like there has been in previous months. HR simply chooses this month to attack the Economist, not because it “singles out Tel Aviv”, but because they can use this months stories to whip their gullible readers into a frenzy over the “anti-Israel media bias” that HR fabricates every week.

So it is true that the Economists "Cities Guide" has been ‘politicised’, but its all been by HonestReporting.

Update:

I've had the usual suspect trying to defend HR's pathetic dishonesty by suggesting that the news stories on other cities don't include charges of racism. Of course that isn't true, but the truth isn't something that stops HR or its supporters from making all kinds of convenient allegations.

For example this months "Cities Guide" to LA includes this story,

Behind much street violence in LA lies the thorny issue of racial tension.

And on Paris,

For the past few years Solidarity of the French, a far-right group, has run a soup kitchen offering pork soup to Paris’s homeless. Critics complain that the organisation chose pork as the main ingredient in order to exclude observant Jews and Muslims, whose dietary restrictions preclude eating pig. On its website, the group stated it would only serve full meals to those who first accepted the soup.