Sidebar
Media Criticism
fair.org
>Penn’s op-ed made a flimsy case that concern for Palestinian life is “antisemitic.” But in hailing Shapiro as a moderate, Penn revealed it was his politics, not his identity, that gave the left pause. Shapiro is “unpopular with many progressives over energy policy, school choice and other issues,” Penn noted. This is a good thing, in Penn’s view; picking Shapiro as a running mate “would send a signal that Ms. Harris is not captive to the left and that she puts experience ahead of ideology.”
fair.org
>The agenda-setting Sunday morning shows, which historically skew towards government officials (**FAIR.org**, [8/12/20](https://fair.org/?p=9015872), [10/21/23](https://fair.org/?p=9036217)), showed no interest in giving airtime to student or activist voices. For the first weeks following the first encampment set up at Columbia University, when the student protests began to command national media attention, FAIR analyzed every episode of **ABC**’s **This Week**, **CBS**’s **Face the Nation**, **NBC**’s **Meet the Press**, **CNN**’s **State of the Union** and **Fox News Sunday**. > >Out of 36 one-on-one and roundtable guests across all networks, 29 (81%) were current or former government officials or politicians, and five (14%) were journalists. One academic and one think tank representative were also featured. Of the 29 government sources, only six spoke about having personal experience with the protests, or about universities in states they represent. > > > >No students or activists, and only one academic, were invited to speak on any of the Sunday shows. The one academic, Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, didn’t speak about his own experience with the encampments, but about his research on student safety. > >Some guests utilized inflammatory language when discussing the protesters, who were never afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. On **This Week**, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton (**ABC**, [5/5/24](https://web.archive.org/web/20240716024728/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-5-5-24-sen-tom-cotton/story?id=109931734)), referred to the encampments as “Little Gazas,” and said the students “deserved our contempt” and “mockery.” “I mean, they’re out there in their N95 masks in the open air, with their gluten allergies, demanding that Uber Eats get delivered to them,” he said. Later on, Cotton referred to a [keffiyeh](https://web.archive.org/web/20240601123135/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/14/palestinian-keffiyeh-symbol-of-my-identity-should-not-be-afraid-to-wear-it-public)—a symbol of Palestinian identity and solidarity—that protesters had put on a statue of George Washington as a “terrorist headdress.” > >Three guests were asked about the idea of bringing in the National Guard to quell protests, only one declared it to be a bad idea. The other two gave similarly equivocal answers: Sen. J.D. Vance (**Fox News Sunday**, [4/28/24](https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20240428_180000_FOX_News_Sunday)) said, “I don’t know if you need to call in the National Guard,” while Republican congressional candidate Tiffany Smiley (**Fox News Sunday**, [4/28/24](https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20240428_180000_FOX_News_Sunday)) responded, “I don’t know if the National Guard is necessary.” But both agreed that some kind of police response was needed to these student protests. > >In most other instances, the host would ask a politician for their thoughts on the encampments, to which the guest would respond with platitudes about nonviolence. For instance, **CNN**’s Jake Tapper ([5/5/24](https://archive.is/5CQKJ)) asked Biden adviser Mitch Landrieu whether groups like [Jewish Voice for Peace](https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/about) are “causing unrest for the American people.” Landrieu responded, “Everybody has a right to protest, but they have to protest peacefully.” (Emphasis original.)
fair.org
>Rather than publishing any op-eds critical of the Cass Review for balance, the **Washington Post** (5/3/24) added a second op-ed a week later by freelance journalist Benjamin Ryan, who has [recently](http://www.benryan.net) published several pieces on trans issues for the conservative **New York Sun** and **New York Post**. Ryan criticized the American Psychiatric Association (APA) for being “notably silent” on Cass’s findings, and citing the fact that the only panel at its 2024 conference contained supporters of gender transition: >>The program for the 2024 APA annual meeting lists only one panel that touches on pediatric gender-transition treatment, titled “Channeling Your Passion and ‘Inner Outrage’ by Promoting Public Policy for Evidence-Based Transgender Care.” > > >The panel notably includes Jack Turban, a University of California at San Francisco child psychiatrist and a vocal supporter of broad access to gender-transition treatment. > >A letter to the editor in the **Washington Post** (5/10/24) noted that abstracts for the APA were due before the final Cass Review was published, so it would not have been possible to submit a panel examining its findings. This is something the **Post** could have easily factchecked. > >In the US, gender-affirming care bans for minors have taken place amongst a similar backdrop of relentless media assault, based on similarly poor sources (**FAIR.org**, [8/30/23](https://fair.org/?p=9035165)) and bad interpretations of data (**FAIR.org**, [6/22/23](https://fair.org/?p=9034073)). The coverage of the Cass Review shows just how much US media have taken their cues from the Brits. (Emphasis original.)
www.projectliberty.io
(Not exactly media criticism, but there is no c/fediverse comm here 🤷) [Frank McCourt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_McCourt_(executive)) >In 2013, he donated $100 million to establish the [McCourt School of Public Policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCourt_School_of_Public_Policy), the ninth school of Georgetown University. He made a second $100 million gift to Georgetown University in March 2021, for the express purpose of ensuring that "the McCourt School can open its doors more widely and build a pipeline of future public policy leaders that reflects the true diversity of our communities." >In 2021, he founded the non-profit Project Liberty. The initiative has multiple components which includes the development of the Decentralized Social Networking Protocol (DSNP), the founding of the McCourt Institute with founding academic partners Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and Sciences Po in Paris, and a network of partners within the Unfinished network > >In 2023, he transitioned from CEO of McCourt Global to executive chairman and announced Shéhérazade Semsar de Boisséson, former *POLITICO Europe* CEO, as McCourt Global's CEO. > >In 2024, he announced plans to build a consortium to buy the US arm of TikTok. - Project Liberty: https://www.projectliberty.io/ - “DSNP stands for Decentralized Social Networking Protocol”: https://www.projectliberty.io/dsnp/ - DSNP\.org Blog, May 2024: [Announcing the Publication of the DSNP Governance Framework v.1](https://dsnp.org/blog/2024/05/23/announcing-governance-v1.html) - Forbes, 2022: [Transforming The Internet With Project Liberty](https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomdavenport/2022/11/18/transforming-the-internet-with-project-liberty/) - Semafor: [Tech critic McCourt mounts TikTok bid](https://www.semafor.com/article/05/15/2024/tech-critic-frank-mccourt-mounts-tiktok-bid) - McCourt School of Public Policy @ Georgetown University: https://mccourt.georgetown.edu Discovered in a lemmy\.ml/c/privacy post today: [Project Liberty](https://lemmy.ml/post/18542051)
fair.org
>In none of these mentions did the **Times**’ writers attempt to set the record straight on the actual crime situation in the country—that crime rates are low and heading lower. In the case of the news report, such an observation would likely be seen inside the **Times** as [editorializing](https://fair.org/?p=5579654)—a forbidden intervention into the political process. > >But most people don’t get their ideas about how much crime there is by personal observation; with roughly 1 person in 300 victimized by violent crime over the course of a year, you’d have to know an awful lot of people before you would get an accurate sense of whether crime was up or down based on asking your acquaintances. > >As with [immigration](https://fair.org/?p=9021476), and to a certain extent with the [economy](https://fair.org/?p=9036749), people get the sense that crime is a crisis from the news outlets that they rely on. If they’re being told that “many Americans are worried about crime”—then many Americans are going to worry about crime. (Emphasis original.)
www.workers.org
>Already in March, some of the European medical staff who had been volunteering at Gaza hospitals said the Israeli forces had dismantled the entire health care system. On May 20, top officials of the European Commission — who are no friends of the Palestinians, let alone of the resistance organizations — said that 31 of the 36 hospitals in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. This included the large al-Shifa hospital, which the [settlers] not only bombed but raided, destroying oxygen tanks and CT scanners. > >And the World Health Organization said that since October 7, the IOF has carried out attacks on 890 health care facilities, 443 in Gaza and 447 in the West Bank. > >It is a war crime to bomb hospitals, which are never legitimate military targets. > >If Washington objected simply to attacks on hospitals or other health care facilities, we ask, why then haven’t the U.S. politicians and media exposed [neocolonialism’s] wanton, mass destruction of the health care system that was serving Palestinians? > >The answer is obvious: U.S. [neo]imperialism arms NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, and its corporate media will spread any attack on the Russian government, while U.S. [neo]imperialism arms [its neocolony], considers it an ally not only in the Middle East but worldwide, so U.S. politicians and media refuse to condemn the IOF’s genocidal war on the Palestinians. > >This double standard is another reminder that [neo]imperialism treats civilians, including children, as collateral damage in their wars of aggression and domination.
jonathancook.substack.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Cook
www.dropsitenews.com
- Scahill: [I’m leaving The Intercept and starting Drop Site News](https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/im-leaving-the-intercept-and-starting) - Ryan Grim: [This is an email I never thought I'd be sending](https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/this-is-an-email-i-never-thought) There seems to be a rash of exoduses from The Intercept going on. Two months ago, Ken Klippenstein quit for [The Grayzone](https://thegrayzone.com/author/ken-klippenstein/): [Why I'm Resigning From The Intercept](https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/why-im-resigning-from-the-intercept) You may recall Glenn Greenwald’s exit in 2020. - [My Resignation From The Intercept](https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept) - [Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored By The Intercept](https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored)
fair.org
>In less than one week, the **New York Times** published three articles about the upcoming Venezuelan election, all of which referred to Maduro as “authoritarian” in the headline, rather than by name, so readers immediately take note of the “bad guy”: > >* “Meet the Candidate Challenging Venezuela’s Authoritarian President” (5/6/24) >* “Reality Show Contestants Compete for an Authoritarian’s Campaign Jingle” (5/9/24) >* “Can Elections Force Venezuela’s Authoritarian Leader From Power?” (5/11/24) > >The **Times**’ [Julie Turkewitz](https://fair.org/?p=9013819) opened the third piece by claiming that Venezuelans are voting “for the first time in more than a decade…in a presidential election with an opposition candidate who has a fighting—if slim and improbable—chance at winning.” (Emphasis original.)
fair.org
>If the Koch brothers quietly spent millions to sway Democratic primaries, their chosen candidates would be tarred. Same goes for Big Oil, the NRA and other right-wing special interests. But AIPAC is an exception to this rule. > >“AIPAC [is] the biggest source of Republican money flowing into competitive Democratic primaries this year,” **Politico** (6/9/24) reported. AIPAC’s UDP is “by far the biggest outside group in Democratic primaries, with more money flowing from UDP than the next 10 biggest spenders combined.” > >Despite being conservative donors’ preferred instrument for hijacking Democratic primaries, UDP is described in media reports as “pro-Israel,” often with little said of its right-wing funding. This glaring omission provides AIPAC with cover to play in Democratic primaries in ways other right-wing groups can’t. (Emphasis original.)
fair.org
No. --- Thanks for reading, everybody. If you liked this article you can check out more on their website FAIR.org, where you can [subscribe to their email network](https://fair.org/signup) and get a weekly overview of their latest content. FAIR relies on your support to keep running. If you would like to support FAIR you can click [here](https://www.cambeywest.com/EXT/?f=donate) to donate to them, or you can become a subscriber on [their Patreon page](https://www.patreon.com/fairnessandaccuracyinreporting) for as little as one dollar a month. Please click [here](https://fair.org/contact-fair) if you need to contact FAIR for anything, and be sure to follow [their Mastodon page](https://mastodon.world/@FAIR). If you would like to purchase FAIR merchandise you can click [here](https://www.cambeywest.com/subscribe2/?p=EXT&f=fairstore) and order T‐shirts, DVDs, books, and tote bags. FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation. They work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. They expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, they believe that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non‐profit sources of information. FAIR’s work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. You are free to copy or redistribute the material in any medium or format, and the licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation. No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL CREATIVE COMMONS BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, ACTUAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR OTHER DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOSS OF REVENUE OR INCOME, LOST PROFITS, PAIN AND SUFFERING, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, COST OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR SIMILAR DAMAGES SUFFERED OR INCURRED BY YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY THAT ARISE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICES (OR THE TERMINATION THEREOF FOR ANY REASON), EVEN IF CREATIVE COMMONS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, CREATIVE COMMONS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE WHATSOEVER IN ANY MANNER FOR ANY CONTENT POSTED ON OR AVAILABLE THROUGH THE SERVICES (INCLUDING CLAIMS OF INFRINGEMENT RELATING TO THAT CONTENT), FOR YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES, OR FOR THE CONDUCT OF THIRD PARTIES ON OR THROUGH THE SERVICES. Certain jurisdictions do not permit the exclusion of certain warranties or limitation of liability for incidental or consequential damages, which means that some of the above limitations may not apply to you. IN THESE JURISDICTIONS, THE FOREGOING EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS WILL BE ENFORCED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.
fair.org
>One of the mayor’s deputies, Fabien Levy, quickly responded on **Twitter** ([5/16/24](https://nitter.poast.org/Fabien_Levy/status/1791263665359843796)) that “the insinuation that Jewish donors secretly plotted to influence government operations is an all-too-familiar antisemitic trope.” >>@**WashingtonPost** & others can make editorial decisions to disagree with the decisions by universities to ask the NYPD to clear unlawful encampments on campuses, but saying Jews “wielded their money and power in an effort to shape American views” is offensive on so many levels. > >The **Washington Post**, of course, did not report that “Jews” had “wielded their money and power”—but that “some prominent individuals” had, distinguished not by religion or ethnicity, but by their politics. > >The mayor himself called the story “antisemitic in its core” (**Good Day New York**, 5/20/24) and doubled down on this point when speaking to reporters (**New York Post**, 5/21/24). The Anti-Defamation League (**Twitter**, [5/20/24](https://nitter.poast.org/ADL/status/1792607440355340509)) said that the **Washington Post** should be >>ashamed of publishing an article that unabashedly (and almost entirely on anonymous sources) plays into antisemitic tropes by inferring a secret cabal of Jews is using wealth & power to influence governments, the media, the business world & academia. > >The Adams administration’s effort to redirect scrutiny away from the latest credible charge of coziness with wealthy donors found a friendly audience in right-wing media. **Fox News** ([5/17/24](https://archive.is/tMNpH)) gave Levy’s claims headline status, and the **New York Post** editorial board ([5/17/24](https://archive.is/3vKLI)) said that the Adams administration “smells a whiff of antisemitism in the **WaPo** report,” because “intimating that a mainly Jewish bunch of wealthy power-players were quietly pulling a politician’s strings is a classic trope of Jew-hate.” > >Yes, that’s the same **New York Post** that obsessively ties every political cause to the left of Emperor Palpatine to the Jewish [millionaire] George Soros (e.g., [8/1/22](https://archive.is/ivbuV), [1/22/23](https://archive.is/aDfqX), [1/25/23](https://archive.is/FXLza), [7/24/23](https://archive.is/CoQr8), [12/9/23](https://archive.is/ph8SY), [4/26/24](https://archive.is/OWf53), [4/26/24](https://archive.is/gIjPI)). It is also interesting to note that two Rupert Murdoch outlets, thought to be Republican stalwarts, are once again acting as in-kind public relations agents for a Democratic mayor, a testament to Adams’ right-wing agenda—the **New York Post** endorsed him (5/20/21) and continues to cheerlead for him (1/27/24) as he approaches the end of his first term. For the Murdoch empire, politics (including shielding [neocolonialism]) sometimes comes before party. (Emphasis original.)
fair.org
>It may be news to the Republicans who cited the **Times** in their report on “censorship,” but Brazil’s legal system has all kinds of significant differences from that of the US. It may not be standard practice in Brazil for an investigation judge to rule on the results of his own investigation, but the **Times** didn’t think it was significant enough to dwell on as a sign of judicial overreach in its 37 articles on Operation Car Wash when Judge Sergio Moro did it during his now-reversed [witch hunt against Lula](https://web.archive.org/web/20180411002106/http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p063dcss). (Emphasis original.)
I enjoyed this series and (most) of his other videos. I wouldn’t assume that Moeller is ML, but he is a materialist working in China. >Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor at the Philosophy and Religious Studies Department at the University of Macau, and, with Paul D'Ambrosio, author of "You and Your Profile: Identity After Authenticity". https://fah.um.edu.mo/hans-georg-moeller/ >My research focuses on Chinese and Comparative Philosophy (specifically Daoism) and on Social and Political Thought (specifically Social Systems Theory). [Moeller’s bibliography (Google Books)](https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor%3A%22Hans-Georg+Moeller%22)
fair.org
>Kang’s thesis was premised on years’ worth of media and policymaker fearmongering that **TikTok** user data was susceptible to surveillance by the Chinese government (**BuzzFeed News**, 6/17/22; **Forbes**, 10/20/22; **Guardian**, 11/7/22). According to Kang’s colleagues, the law’s enactment was prompted by “concerns that the Chinese government could access sensitive user data” (**New York Times**, 4/26/24). In 2023, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte sought to prohibit **TikTok** throughout his state on the grounds that “the Chinese Communist Party” was “collecting US users’ personal, private and sensitive information” (**Montana Free Press**, 5/17/23). (Gianforte’s attempt was later [thwarted](https://archive.is/Hvj3j) by a federal judge.) > >If such fears were officials’ genuine motivation, one could hope that broader data-privacy regulation might follow. Yet, as the **Times** neglected to mention, the spying accusations are tenuous—and deeply cynical. As even US intelligence officials concede, apprehensions about China’s access to **TikTok** user data are strictly hypothetical (**Intercept**, 3/16/24). And, despite its bombshell headline “Analysis: There Is Now Some Public Evidence That China Viewed **TikTok** Data,” **CNN** (6/8/23) cautioned that said evidence—a sworn statement from a former **ByteDance** employee—“remains rather thin.” (Emphasis original.)
fair.org
>I was at Columbia hours before the police came in and liberated Hamilton Hall from its occupiers. Unlike protesters of the past, who were usually eager to share with others what they thought and why, these demonstrators would generally not speak or make eye contact with members of the press, or, as they say, “corporate media.” > >I was on a bench taking notes as a group of young women, all in sunglasses, masks and kaffiyehs, walked by. “Friends, please come say hello and tell me what you think,” I called. They marched past, not making eye contact, save one, a beautiful girl of about 20. “I’m not trained,” she said. Which is what they’re instructed to say to corporate-media representatives who will twist your words. “I’m barely trained, you’re safe,” I called, and she laughed and half-halted. But her friends gave her a look and she conformed. Hmm, I wonder why somebody wouldn’t want to talk to an anticommunist[.](https://lemmygrad.ml/post/201212)
www.workers.org
>The truth is that thousands of students have surprised everyone — including those who rule the United States — and have energized and encouraged poor and oppressed people all over the world. When attacked by police, they have attracted even more support from fellow students, teachers and workers, on and off their campuses, who have also been energized. > >For six months, those who became involved in the encampments watched [neocolonists] commit genocide in real time, caught on social media. They watched the U.S. government arm [neocolonists] and supply political and diplomatic as well as logistical support — that is, being complicit with genocide. > >And now, like the boy who was unafraid to point out the emperor’s nakedness, those in the encampments have made millions more people aware of these crimes of the U.S. empire. The students need no extra “outside” agitation. They are already doing the right thing. > >Like anyone in a struggle with a monster, these students could use solidarity. And anyone else who opposes genocide should show them that solidarity. See also: [*Class nature of violence against the student Intifada*](https://www.workers.org/?p=78509)
fair.org
>Earlier **CNN** reporting (5/1/24) from UCLA referred to “dueling protests between pro-Palestinian demonstrators and those supporting Jewish students.” It’s a false dichotomy, as many of the antiwar protesters are themselves [Jewish](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6erq2KOYyY), and eyewitness reports suggested that many in the mob were not students and not representative of the Jewish community (**Times of Israel**, 5/2/24). > >**CNN** likewise highlighted the law and order perspective after Columbia’s president called in the NYPD to respond to the student takeover of Hamilton Hall. **CNN Newsroom** (5/1/24) brought on a retired FBI agent to analyze the police operation. His praise was unsurprising: >>It was impressive. It was surprisingly smooth…. The beauty of America is that we can say things, we can protest, we can do this publicly, even when it’s offensive language. But you can’t trespass and keep people from being able to go to class and going to their graduations. We draw a line between that and, you know, civil control. > >CNN host [Jake Tapper](https://fair.org/?p=6344005) (4/29/24) criticized the Columbia president’s approach to the protests—for being too lenient: “I mean, a college president’s not a diplomat. A college president’s an authoritarian, really.” (More than a week earlier, president Minouche Shafik had had more than a hundred students [arrested](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/05/02/timeline-the-gaza-solidarity-encampment) for camping overnight on a lawn—**FAIR.org**, [4/19/24](https://fair.org/?p=9039248).) (Emphasis original.)
>We found that the **Times** wrote just nine articles focused on [Zionism’s] killing of specific journalists, and just two which examined the phenomenon as a whole. > >Of the nine headlines which directly noted that journalists have been killed, only two headlines—in six months!—named [Zionism’s neocolony] as responsible for the deaths. Both of these headlines (11/21/23, 12/7/23) presented [neocolonial] responsibility as an accusation, not a fact. > >Some headlines (e.g., 11/3/23) simply said that a journalist had been killed, without naming the perpetrator. Others blamed “the war” (e.g., 10/13/23). > >[…] > >From October 7 until April 7, the **Times** wrote 43 stories that mentioned either the overall journalist death toll or the deaths of specific journalists. As noted, 11 of these articles (26%) either focused on the death of a specific journalist or on the whole phenomenon. But in the vast majority of these articles, 32 out of 43 (74%), the killing of journalists was mentioned in passing, or only to add context, often towards the end of a report. > >Many of these articles (e.g., 10/25/23, 11/3/23, 11/21/23, 12/15/23) contained a boilerplate paragraph like this one from November 4: >>The war continues to take a heavy toll on those gathering the news. The Committee to Protect Journalists said that more news media workers have been killed in the Israel/Hamas war than in any other conflict in the area since it started tracking the data in 1992. As of Friday, 36 news workers—31 Palestinians, four Israelis and one Lebanese—have been killed since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, the group said. > >Saying that “the war” was taking a heavy toll, and listing the number of journalists “killed in the Israel/Hamas war,” the **Times**’ standard language on the death toll for reporters omits that the vast majority have been killed by [Zionism’s neocolony]. It does note, however, that these deaths occurred “since Hamas attacked Israel,” suggesting that Hamas was directly or indirectly to blame. (Emphasis original.)
fair.org
>“First, it’s impossible to know just how and where universities’ endowments are invested,” he maintained, because “schools are notoriously close-mouthed about it, revealing as little as they can.” Yes, which is why, as the **Post** noted, investment transparency is the second of [three demands](https://nitter.poast.org/ColumbiaSJP/status/1782241294858719676) from Columbia University protesters, and a key issue in many other encampments. > >But not so fast, Marsicano warns: “Disclosing investments can lead to complications large and small,” including “the possibility that a university disclosing its decision to sell or buy stock could affect the price of that stock.” > >Surely that will keep a lot of protesters up at night—the fear that their university’s sale of stock might cause Boeing’s stock price to drop. (Emphasis original.)
fair.org
>Noting that “Security Council resolutions are considered to be international law,” **Times** reporters Farnaz Fassihi, Aaron Boxerman and Thomas Fuller wrote, “While the Council has no means of enforcing the resolution, it could impose punitive measures, such as sanctions, on [Zionism], so long as member states agreed.” > >This was nevertheless followed by a quote from Washington’s UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who abstained from the otherwise unanimous 14–0 vote of the rest of the Security Council, characterizing the resolution as “nonbinding.” > >The **Times** offered no comment from any international law scholars, foreign or U.S., to rebut or even discuss that claim. Such an expert might have pointed to the unequivocal language of [Article 25](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-5) of the UN Charter: “The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.” > >If the U.S. offered its [claim](https://archive.is/izrRV) that this language only applies to resolutions explicitly referencing the UN Charter’s Chapter VII, dealing with “threats to the peace,” an international law expert (**EJIL: Talk!**, [1/9/17](https://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-bindingness-of-security-council-resolutions-generally-and-resolution-2334-on-the-israeli-settlements-in-particular)) might note that the International Court of Justice stated in 1971, “It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view.” (Emphasis original.)
fair.org
Fox News is an easy target, but when overrated billionaires like Elon Musk share it as a credible source, that is when it becomes truly troublesome. >In his article, Pandolfo explains that the numbers **Fox** used to conduct their analysis were derived from the federal government’s reporting of border encounters: >>That figure comes from US Customs and Border Protection, which has already reported 961,537 border encounters in the current fiscal year, which runs from October through September. If the current pace of illegal immigration does not slow down, fiscal year 2024 will break last year’s record of 2,475,669 southwest border encounters—a number that by itself exceeds the population of New Mexico, a border state. > >But this is extremely misleading: CBP “encounters” are not a tally of how many people were able to enter the country without authorization; it’s a count of how many times people were stopped at the border by CBP agents. Many of these people had every right to seek entry, and a great number were turned away. Some of them were stopped more than once, and therefore were counted multiple times. > >Indeed, of **Fox**’s 7.3 million total, roughly 2.5 million were released into the country; the rest were turned back or placed in detention centers. A majority of those 2.5 million were families, and not all of them will stay long-term; these are simply the migrants who will have an opportunity to have their cases heard. ># Border patrol categories >The CBP [calculates](https://archive.is/3drIS) its border encounter number by adding together three categories: Title 8 apprehensions, Title 8 inadmissibles, and—through May 2023—Title 42 expulsions (**NPR**, [5/11/23](https://archive.is/WZvXE)). > >Title 8 [inadmissibles](https://archive.is/7SHq3) are people who present themselves at a port of entry without authorization to enter, i.e., without a visa; those who withdraw their application to enter and voluntarily leave; and those who attempt to enter legally but are determined by border agents to be inadmissible due to a [range of reasons](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182), including previous immigration infractions, a criminal background, lack of immunization, etc. > >Title 8 apprehensions refer to people who are caught crossing the border without authorization, and are taken into custody by border patrol agents. Collectively, Title 8 encounters made up approximately 4.8 million of **Fox**’s 7.3 million number. > >Both of these categories include many migrants seeking humanitarian protection. Migrants have a [legal right](https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum) to request asylum at a port of entry, so including these in a calculation of “illegal” crossings is not journalism but propaganda. > >Migrants falling into the category of Title 8 encounters have the option of requesting a court hearing to have an immigration judge decide their fate—which results in them either being held in detention or allowed limited release into the country as they await their hearing. The number who will ultimately be allowed to stay long-term is nearly impossible to determine, as cases can take years to resolve. > >Finally, Title 42 expulsions—derived from a 1944 public health law that allows curbs on migration in the interest of public health (**AP**, [5/12/23](https://archive.is/6m7v2))—refers to migrants who were turned away during the Covid pandemic without being allowed to file for asylum. The policy, instituted by President Donald Trump in March 2020, continued well into the Biden administration (**FAIR.org**, [4/22/22](https://fair.org/?p=9028340)). Biden declared an end to the Covid emergency in April 2023 (**NPR**, [4/11/23](https://archive.is/ftPVS)), resulting in an end to Title 42–based border restrictions the following month. These expulsions made up the remaining approximately 2.5 million CBP encounters over the course of the Biden administration. > >Because these expulsions did not, unlike deportations, come with legal consequences for reentry, Title 42 produced a great many repeat attempts at crossing the border, inflating the totals. For instance, in the first nine months of the 2022 fiscal year, almost a quarter of the 1.7 million encounters reported by CBP were individuals who had already been stopped (**Cronkite News**, [7/18/22](https://archive.is/sfeOR)). (Emphasis original.)
fair.org
>One might expect, therefore, that the **Journal** would not be shocked to learn that Senate Majority Leader [Charles Schumer](https://fair.org/?p=8927225), the highest-ranking Jewish American in U.S. politics, had called for new […] elections to replace Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (**New York Times**, [3/19/24](https://archive.is/ILMrr)). > >Schumer, after all, didn’t call for an anti-government mob to remove Netanyahu from the Knesset and send him into exile. No, he just suggested it would be in [Zionism’s neocolony’s] interest to hold elections to replace [its] longest-serving leader, whom Schumer described as “an obstacle to peace.” > >Schumer’s view shouldn’t be surprising, because Jewish American voters are still overwhelmingly liberal (**Jewish Telegraphic Agency**, [6/26/23](https://www.jta.org/?p=1837803)), while in recent decades [the neocolony’s] political center of gravity has moved far to the right. Polling shows that Netanyahu is deeply unpopular among Americans as a whole (**Jerusalem Post**, [1/8/24](https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-781227)). > >Yet the **Journal**—along with the Murdoch empire’s other main U.S. newspaper, the **New York Post**—professed outrage at the idea of an American official intervening in the politics of another country. (Emphasis original.)
fair.org
>Linguistic gymnastics—a longstanding plague pervading Western media coverage of Palestine (**FAIR.org**, [8/22/23](https://fair.org/?p=9035060))—were so popular in news headlines and reporting that Caitlin Johnstone (**Consortium News**, [3/1/24](https://consortiumnews.com/?p=107745)) compiled a list of them, adding “chaotic incident” (**CNN**, [2/29/24](https://archive.is/sSiDR)) and “chaotic aid delivery turns deadly” (**Washington Post**, [2/29/24](https://archive.is/2GppV)) to those already mentioned. > >Sana Saeed, media critic for **Al Jazeera**, decoded the latter kind of construction for **AJ+** ([3/29/24](https://archive.is/xiM5T)), arguing that such passive language has been used “consistently to sanitize the violence that a powerful state is unleashing against civilian populations.” > >As the genocide enters its sixth month, media analysts, investigative reporters and social media users have become adept at recognizing pro-[Zionist] contortions and patterns of language that justify [neocolonialism’s] war on Gaza. This has become an essential aspect in exposing [neocolonialism’s] genocide. (Emphasis original.)
www.projectcensored.org
>Attending a themed middle school does not ensure success, either, as Field shares data showing how several STEM-themed schools reported math scores below the citywide average on the state standardized test. Focus on one theme, too, may lead to a lack of time spent on other parts of the curriculum. Maud Abeel, a director at the nonprofit Jobs for the Future, notes how there is a fear that students in themed schools may feel they are missing opportunities available at mainstream middle schools, becoming alienated from peers, or pigeonholed by the pressure to “live up to the moniker.” > >Whereas the Hechinger Report discusses the nuances of themed schools and the concerns raised related to their effectiveness and branding, establishment news coverage largely ignores the equity and misperception concerns. For example, in April 2023, the *New York Times* [reported](https://archive.is/8XM2o) on the growing interest among New York charter networks for licenses for themed schools. While this article focused on future possibilities such as gender justice or STEM education, discourse addressing past cases of misleading themed schools was not addressed. > >Meanwhile, the Hechinger Report expands on what the *New York Times* did not report: how students from poorer parts of the district may be drawn in by themed schools’ false promises, with misleading names when the school’s curriculum or values have shifted. As of March 2024, themed schools and the equitable factors and misleading branding that limit students’ opportunities have not been well covered by the corporate media.
www.projectcensored.org
>The “uncommitted” vote was a way for citizens in Michigan to express their [frustration](https://web.archive.org/web/20240228045947/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-these-michigan-voters-are-choosing-uncommitted-in-the-primary) with Biden in general, and his support for Israel’s assault on Gaza in particular. Indeed, activists [in other states](https://truthout.org/?p=315624) such as [California](https://calmatters.org/?p=408020), [Maine](https://www.pressherald.com/?p=7272156), and [Washington](https://web.archive.org/web/20240302193556/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/washington-states-largest-labor-union-endorses-uncommitted-biden-rcna141139) are considering [protest votes](https://web.archive.org/web/20240302161838/https://nypost.com/2024/03/02/us-news/biden-facing-super-tuesday-revolt-from-uncommitted-voters) similar to what happened in Michigan in 2024 states. The establishment news coverage of the protests demonstrates that those in corporate media are either unwilling or too ignorant to understand the activists they claim to be covering. It seems the corporate media are uncommitted to understanding that rather than using the lesser-of-two-evils strategy, a substantial portion of Democratic Party voters are choosing the “uncommitted” option to express their disapproval of the President and his party.
fair.org
>The **Morning** consistently has argued that Hamas makes densely populated civilian areas legitimate targets for […] attacks by conducting military operations nearby. This deflects blame from [neocolonialism] and frames civilian casualties as a necessary evil, as in the [October 30](https://archive.is/IXolc) edition of the newsletter: >>Hamas has hidden many weapons under hospitals, schools and mosques so that [neocolonialism] risks killing civilians, and facing an international backlash, when it fights. Hamas fighters also slip above and below ground, blending with civilians. >> >>These practices mean that Hamas is responsible for many of the civilian deaths, according to international law. > >Similar rhetoric was deployed in this December edition ([12/20/23](https://archive.is/StZgf)): >>Hamas has long hidden its fighters and weapons in and under populated civilian areas, such as hospitals and mosques. It does so partly to force [neocolonists] to make a gruesome calculation: To fight Hamas, [neocolonialism] often must also harm civilians. (Emphasis original.) Hmm… who or what was it that forced Palestinians to live in such densely populated areas, I wonder…
fair.org
>There’s a reason why the major factchecking organizations hesitate to pass judgment on the widespread claim of slaughtered babies: They rightly conclude that the lack of verifying evidence, such as photos or autopsy reports, does not conclusively prove the claims are false. > >FAIR contributor Saurav Sarkar made that precise point in his report ([10/20/23](https://fair.org/?p=9035865)) lambasting “corporate media” for “their repetition of the shocking, unsubstantiated claim that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies in its violent attack on a kibbutz in southern [occupied Palestine] on October 7.” > >“So we have a story, and that story was generated in a grossly irresponsible way, and then repeated over and over,” Sarkar stated. “But what proof do we have that the story is false? After all, even if it was reported badly, and repeated without additional substantiation, it might be true.” > >Bituah Leumi, [Zionism’s] social security agency, provided that missing proof when it posted the official list of victims that showed only one infant was killed in the attack. > >The mainstream U.S. news media ignored that authoritative evidence. > >[…] > >In January, when the Health Ministry had estimated the number of children killed at 10,000, **Al Jazeera** ([1/25/24](https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2024/israel-war-on-gaza-10000-children-killed)) published the names of more than 4,200 Palestinian dead under 18 years old. Of those children named, 502 were under 2 years old—that is, infants. (Emphasis original.)
fair.org
>Reports that the IDF gave orders to disregard the lives of […] captives have caused great consternation [under Zionism] (**Haaretz**, [12/13/23](https://archive.is/QVhtq)). An author of the IDF ethics code called it “unlawful, unethical, horrifying” (**Haaretz**, [1/17/23](https://archive.is/N8hL7)). Yet any mention of the reports, or the debates they have inspired [under Zionism], seems to be virtually taboo in the mainstream U.S. media. > >The only mention of “Hannibal directive” FAIR could find in a major U.S. newspaper the since October 7 came in a **New York Post** article ([12/18/23](https://web.archive.org/web/20231218020138/https://nypost.com/2023/12/17/news/former-hamas-hostages-warn-of-colossal-danger-in-gaza-tunnels)) paraphrasing a released hostage who >>claimed that Hamas told them the [Imperialist Occupation] Forces would employ the infamous “Hannibal Directive” on civilians, a revoked protocol that once allegedly called on troops to prioritize taking out terrorists even if it meant killing a kidnapped soldier. (Emphasis original. To tell you the truth, I doubt that the resistance killed ‘many’ civilians, but this is still a worthwhile article.)
fair.org
>In the first two months of the current Gaza crisis, the **Times** featured the crisis on its op-ed pages almost twice as many times as the **Post** (122 to 63). But while both papers did include a few strong pro-Palestinian voices—and both seemed to make an effort to bring Palestinian voices close to parity with [privileged] voices—their pages leaned heavily toward a conversation dominated by [neocolonial] interests and concerns. > >That was due in large part due to their stables of regular columnists, who tend to write from a perspective aligned with [Zionism], if not always in alignment with its right-wing government. As a result, the viewpoints readers were most likely to encounter on the opinion pages of the two papers were sympathetic to, but not necessarily uncritical of, [Zionism’s neocolony]. > >Many opinion pieces at the **Times**, for instance, mentioned the word “occupation,” offering some context for the current crisis. However, very few at either paper went so far as to use the word “apartheid”—a term used by [prominent human rights groups](https://fair.org/?p=9026351) to describe [neocolonialism’s] treatment of Palestinians. > >Clear calls for an unconditional [ceasefire](https://fair.org/?p=9035890), while widespread in the real world, were vanishingly rare at the papers: two at the **Times** and at the **Post** only one, which itself was part of a collection of short responses to the question, “Should Israel agree to a ceasefire?,” which included strong opposition as well. > >For guest perspectives, both papers turned most frequently to government officials, whether current or former, U.S. or foreign. And the two papers continued the longstanding media bias toward male voices on issues of war and international affairs: the **Times** with roughly three male-penned opinions for every female-written one, and the **Post** at nearly 7-to-1.
fair.org
>As noted, **AP** and the **Washington Post** haven’t completely ignored the story—although the **Times**, as of this writing, has more or less looked the other way. But as the right celebrates Abbott’s defiance and legal scholars worry about a constitutional crisis, the two big papers and the major wire service have clearly underplayed the standoff’s significance. > >Given that former President Donald Trump is now the likely Republican presidential nominee, with his neo-fascist ideas (**ABC**, 12/20/23; **NBC**, 12/22/23) about immigration the centerpiece of his campaign, one would think centrist news outlets would give this story more attention. > >Even if **American Renaissance** and the **National Review** are right that this standoff is more rhetorical than a pre-staging of the next civil war, given that nearly half the states are backing a state’s defiance of the Supreme Court in an election, the major news outlets should be a part of that conversation. (Emphasis original.)
fair.org
>By size alone, the rally deserved a story in the **Times**. But this wasn’t just one isolated US demonstration; it was part of a global call for protest against the ongoing assault on Gaza, which by January 13 had killed nearly 24,000, 70% of the victims being women and children. **Times** editors were surely aware that large anti-[Zionist], pro-Palestinian demonstrations were occurring around the US and the world (**Al Jazeera**, [1/13/24](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/13/pro-palestine-demonstrations-around-the-world-as-gaza-war-nears-100-days)). > >Even more newsworthy than the number of demonstrators and simultaneous global actions was the reality that this was the second mass action in DC in two months. In both cases, the lead organizers were Palestinian or US Muslim pro-Palestinian organizations. > >Also newsworthy was that those two demonstrations both prominently featured activists from Jewish Voice for Peace (**Newsweek**, 1/13/24), a leftist anti-Zionist organization that claims to have some 400,000 members. This unique sponsorship marks a huge development after the two decades of widespread US Islamophobia that followed the 9/11 attacks, as well as a rare political alliance between US Muslims and anti-Zionist American Jews. > >Surely all this deserved an article in the the nation’s leading newspaper. (Emphasis original.) NYT always delivers the goods.
www.workers.org
>Much of the corporate media downplayed the arguments made by the South African attorneys, while at the same time presenting [Zionism’s régime] as a “victim” simply “defending itself.” Take for example the first sentence of a Reuters article: “Israel on Friday rejected as false and ‘grossly distorted’ accusations brought by South Africa at the U.N.’s top court that its military operation in Gaza is a state-led genocide campaign against Palestinians.” (Jan. 12) The author legitimizes [neocolonialism’s] deceitful response to the charges of genocide at the very beginning of the article, setting its tone. > >Unlike South Africa’s diverse legal team, the [neocolonial] respondents are predominately white. [Berlin] has decided to testify on [neocolonialism’s] behalf, which the bourgeois press has been happy to report. Numerous U.S. media headlines, have highlighted how Germany is calling South Africa’s charges “baseless.” > >[Neocolonial] representatives peddled false claims about the Hamas Islamic Resistance Movement of Gaza and demonized its supporters. The U.S. corporate media has also been pushing misinformation about the Palestinian resistance movement in recent months. Neither the [neocolonial] legal team nor the bourgeois press willingly admit that the people of Gaza overwhelmingly voted for Hamas as their legitimate representative during the 2006 legislative elections. > >The Palestinian people should be the only ones able to determine their own destiny — not the racist leaders of the U.S., Germany or [their neocolony]. The South African government, led by the African National Congress, is going out of its way to do what it can to show solidarity with its Palestinian siblings who are experiencing similar apartheid conditions. Their efforts must be defended and honorably recognized by those who support a “Free Palestine!”
fair.org
>But the law of war is not, in fact, clear in the way the **Journal** claims. “Even if there is a military facility operating under the hospital, this does not allow [a neocolony] to bomb the site,” the […] human rights group B’Tselem ([11/7/23](https://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20231107_israel_must_not_bomb_a_shifaa_hospital)) said in a statement before the hospital raid. > >Even if a hospital were used for “acts harmful to the enemy,” that does not give that enemy “the right to bombard it for two days and completely destroy it,” Mathilde Philip-Gay, an expert in international humanitarian law at France’s Lyon 3 University, told the **Guardian** ([11/17/23](https://archive.is/PhfsI)). > >“Even if the building loses its special protection, all the people inside retain theirs,” Rutgers Law School international law expert Adil Haque told the **Washington Post** ([11/15/23](https://archive.is/lOyxc)). “Anything that the attacking force can do to allow the humanitarian functions of that hospital to continue, they’re obligated to do.” The director of the hospital, Mohammad Abu Salmiya, said that 179 patients died while the facility was surrounded by [neocolonial] forces and had to be buried in a mass grave (**Al Jazeera**, [11/14/23](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/14/gazas-al-shifa-hospital-forced-to-bury-dead-patients-in-mass-grave)). (Abu Salmiya was later arrested by [neocolonial] forces along with other Palestinian medical personnel—**Al Jazeera**, [11/11/23](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/23/al-shifa-hospital-director-arrested-by-israeli-army-in-gaza).) (Emphasis original.)
www.workers.org
>It is no surprise that the study determined that [neocolonists] are often depicted using humanizing photographs, whereas Palestinian actors are dehumanized — depicted in ways that reinforce the narrative of their “irrational militancy.” > >Coverage of the genocide waged against Palestine has been equally abysmal, if not worse. Corporate media outlets, emboldened by wartime fervor, have spread unproven theories and rumors. There has been an overwhelming focus on the humanization of [Hamas’s] hostages. [The media] present the genocide against Palestinians as a means of fighting terrorism and securing the release of hostages. > >On the other hand, the ruling-class media’s depictions of Hamas’ motives suffer from a demonizing undertone, using terms such as “jihad” intentionally to invoke terror and amplify Islamophobia. > >It must be made clear how the corporate media is currently working as a tool supporting this imperialist conquest. Under the guise of impartiality and fairness, it subtly pushes a specific narrative, while marginalizing others — often that of the most oppressed. The media is representative of the ruling class, whose interests lie in contradiction with the peace and prosperity of the Palestinian people.
mondoweiss.net
>The CNN report begins with an interview with Cochav Elkayam-Levy. She is identified as an “expert in human rights law who organized a civil committee to document evidence.” The speaker is indeed an expert, but not of human rights law. In her former positions, including a post for the [neocolony’s] Attorney General’s Office in the International Law Department, she provided the legal justification for [neocolonial] officials committing human rights violations against Palestinians. > >She had previously published a “[guidance for policymaking, government officials and legal advisors in the management of hunger strikes](http://docplayer.net/24918924-Cochav-elkayam-levy.html).” There, she provided a detailed legal manual to “standardization through legislation and regulation” for forced feeding – a brutal act of torture used to break political prisoners. In the same year, [the neocolony] legalized and regulated the “forced feeding” law to oppress and torture Palestinian prisoners protesting their administrative detentions through hunger strikes. > >Yet, CNN considered it appropriate to bring her as a human rights expert. In her interview, which opens the CNN report, Elkayam-Levy presents nothing but justifications for the absence of evidence and facts. While Elkayam-Levy claims to speak under the auspice of the “civil committee,” CNN hides the tight connections between her and the National Security Council for the [Zionist] Prime Minister. > >Elkayam-Levy is also the founder and director of the “[Dvora Institute](https://www.dvora-institute.org/english),” which works as a close advisory body to the [Zionist] prime minister’s “National Security Council.” The advisory committee for the Dvora Institute includes a former director of the [Zionist] Prime Minister’s Office, and three former officials in the National Security Council.
fair.org
>Democrats were generally more restrained, but unwavering in their support for [Zionism] and a military solution. Rep. Adam Smith (D–Wash.), with strong financial backing from both the military industry and pro-[Zionist] funding, told **Fox** (10/22/23): >>Israel has to win the broader fight against Hamas. It is a military campaign, anyone who says there’s no military solution to this, I think the military is a huge part of it. > >Sen. Jack Reed (D–R.I.), who finds all three “defense industries” among his top 10 contributors, argued (**Fox**, 11/5/23) that “what Israel is doing, appropriately so, is targeting Hamas to degrade it and then destroy it.” He also urged that >>what they have to do, not only for the complying with the rule of law, but also winning the battle of minds and hearts, is to do it in such a way as that they minimize the harm to civilians. (Emphasis original.)
