3 ms·
They're great for this kind of reporting. Really bad at others where their biases come out, like Israeli-Palestinian reporting.
by kobayashi 11y ago
They're great for this kind of reporting. Really bad at others where their biases come out, like Israeli-Palestinian reporting.
- username223 11y ago> ... Israeli-Palestinian reporting. That's just how American reporting and politics work. Ironically, Israeli newspapers are more likely to be critical of Israel.
- steve-howard 11y agoI would imagine that in Israel, it's easier to criticize what Israel is currently doing without the assumption that you hate Israel's existence or, worse, Jews.
- kobayashi 11y agoIt's just factually incorrect that "the media" in Israel is more critical of Israel. Regardless of political bent, media outlets in Israel usually do a better job of reporting on the conflict than does the NYT. The Times of Israel, IMHO, does the best job of accurately reporting the issues. They have some great op-ed and analysis writers. This guy in the US does a great job of analyzing the NYT's coverage of Israeli and Palestinian news. https://tayaravaknin.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/series-revising-news-at-the-ny-times/ https://tayaravaknin.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/series-revisin...
- kobayashi 11y agoThat's actually not what I mean. It's not being critical of Israel, but rather, substandard journalistic integrity when writing on Israeli-Palestinian affairs. For example, the use of the passive voice when describing Palestinian terror attacks against Israelis, purposefully burying the lead, or other such media malpractice.