Religion Wiki
Arab League states and Israel map.png
This article is part of the
Arab-Israeli conflict series.
Views on the conflict
Media coverage of the conflict
International law
Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Arab League
Soviet Union, Russia
Israel, Palestine and the United Nations
Iran-Israel relations
Israel-United States relations
Boycott of Israel
Peace treaties and proposals

Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been dogged by allegations of bias. These perceptions of bias, possibly exacerbated by the hostile media effect,[1] have generated more complaints of partisan reporting than any other news topic and have led to a proliferation of media watchdog groups on both sides.[2]

Types of bias

Bias in print and broadcast media may manifest itself in varying ways, including:

  • Diction: The use of emotive words or euphemistic terminology as well as double-speak may prejudice the audience one way or another.
  • Omission: The presentation of some facts but not all the facts may lead to false and biased conclusions.
  • Selective reporting: Over time, the news presented through a media organization may emphasize one side of the story at the expense of the other.
  • Decontextualization: News may appear without sufficient explanation of the circumstances of the events being reported.
  • Placement: The consistent placement of one viewpoint in preferential locations of an article (e.g. in the headline or in the first paragraph) may increase reader exposure to one side of the story.
  • Factual errors: Errors in content may mislead the reader.

Print and broadcast media may be biased for varying reasons, including:

  • Coercion or censorship: Journalists may be pressured into distorting their reporting for fear of losing access or their lives.
  • Lack of verification: News outlets may "parrot" as objective fact the unverified or disputed claims of one side.
  • Exaggeration or sensationalism: In order to increase a publication or broadcasts's consumption, reporters may exaggerate events for the maximum emotional response.
  • Prejudiced journalists: Journalists may intentionally or unintentionally distort reports due to political ideology, national affiliation, anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism, or Islamophobia.
  • Forgery or falsification: Video footage, quotes, and other items may be fabricated to bias the presentation. See Pallywood for such allegations.
  • Prejudiced fixers: Journalists may distort reports due to fixer ideology, national affiliation, or for-profit motives.


File:MediaCoverageOfTheArabIsraeliConflict wallorfence.png

  Main article: Israeli West Bank Barrier

The structure shown above, described by Wikipedia as the Israeli West Bank barrier, is officially termed the Israeli "security fence" by Israel and is officially termed the Israeli "apartheid wall" by the Palestinian National Authority.[3] Alternative Israeli terms include the "anti-terrorist fence" and the "separation barrier", while alternative Palestinian terms include the "annexation wall", the "colonization wall", and the "expansionist wall".[3] There is no single, agreed upon term across media sources, and news outlets tend to combine one of the nouns "fence", "wall", or "barrier" with one of the adjectives "security", "separation", "anti-terrorist", "apartheid", "West Bank", or one of a few others.[3]

Israeli sources argue that it is a "fence" on the basis that more than 97% of the structure is fenced whereas less than 3% of the structure consists of concrete walls.[4][5][6] Israeli sources argue that the structure's purpose is security, citing the rise in Palestinian suicide bombing attacks in Israel during the Second Intifada and citing a more than 90% decrease in such attacks following the construction of the structure.[4][6]

Palestinian sources argue that it is a "wall" on the basis that the structure contains concrete wall near key areas such as Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Qalqiliya.[7][8] Palestinian sources argue that the purpose of the structure is not just security but also to take Palestinian land on the basis that the structure has been built within the West Bank, with 50% of the West Bank placed on the structure's Israeli side.[7][8]

Diction, or word choice, affects the interpretation of the same set of entities or events. There is an emotional and semantic difference between the verbs died and killed, and similarly between kill and murder; murder evokes stronger negative emotions and connotes intent. In the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, various terminological issues arise. The terms "disputed territories" versus "occupied territories" reflect different positions on the legal status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The terms "security fence" and "apartheid wall," "neighbourhood" and "settlement," and "militant," "freedom fighter," and "terrorist," while used to describe the same entities, present them in a different light and suggest a different narrative. Similarly, describing an attack or bombing as a "response" or "retaliation" again places the events in a different light.


A study by the American organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting monitored the use of the term "retaliation" in the nightly news broadcasts of the three main American networks CBS, ABC, and NBC between September 2000 through March 17, 2002. It found that of the 150 occasions when "retaliate" and its variants were used to describe attacks in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, 79 percent were references to Israel "retaliating" and only 9 percent were references to Palestinians "retaliating".[9]

Emotive Language

In a study of BBC television news coverage, the Glasgow Media Group documented differences in the language used by journalists for Israelis and Palestinians. The study found that words such as 'atrocity', 'brutal murder', 'mass murder', 'savage cold blooded killing', 'lynching' and 'slaughter' were used for Israeli but not for Palestinian deaths. The word 'terrorist' was used to describe Palestinians, but in reports of an Israeli group attempting to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as 'extremists' or 'vigilantes'.[10]


In the context of media, an omission refers to the failure to include information. This selective inclusion of information, which results from omitting other information, may distort the presentation of events in favor of one side or the other. In the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, for example, consider the difference in overall impact between:

  • An article mentioning both a Palestinian suicide bombing in Israel and an Israeli offensive in the West Bank.
  • An article mentioning only the Palestinian suicide bombing.
  • An article mentioning only the Israeli offensive.
According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "Critical Thinking: Can You Trust Everything You Read?" article, CAMERA explains:[11]

"Factual errors can be errors of omission or commission. Omission means that something important was not said, and as a result, readers are misled. In errors of commission, the reporter gives information which is not true."

In its "Understanding Bias" article, Honest Reporting asks the following questions pertaining to omission:[12]

  1. "Was the reporting one-sided and imbalanced?"
  2. "Was key information missing (selective omission)?"
According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups

In its "Media critique quick sheet", Palestine Media Watch asks the following questions pertaining to omission:[13]

  1. "How many times were UN reports/findings/resolutions mentioned?"
  2. "How many times were Human Rights reports/findings/statements mentioned?"
  3. "Did the story describe official Palestinian denials/pleas of ignorance and innocence in violent acts?"
  4. "Did the story describe official Israelis denials/pleas of ignorance and innocence in violent acts?"

Lack of verification

The ethics and standards of Journalism requires journalists to verify the factual accuracy of the information they report. "Factual verification is a hallmark of good journalism"[14] and "is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment".[15] Lack of verification refers to a failure to perform factual verification, involves the publication of potentially unreliable information prior to or without independent confirmation of the facts, and have resulted in various scandals. In the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, for example, consider:

  • The Battle of Jenin, after which early media reports claimed that Israel "massacred" hundreds of Palestinian civilians.[16][17][18] Later investigations by the United Nations and Human Rights Watch estimated the total Palestinian death toll at 52 (with estimates of civilian deaths ranging from 22 to 26) and contradicted previous claims that a massacre had taken place.[19][20][21][22][23]
  • The Islamic Jihad shooting attack on Kiryat Arba in November 2002, which Western media reports described as an attack on "worshipers," resulting in international condemnations.[24][25] According to the Jerusalem Post, Islamic Jihad "opened fire at a [sic] security forces safeguarding Jewish worshipers," and according to both Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, the twelve Israelis killed all belonged to the IDF, the Israeli Border Police, or the Hebron security force.[26][27]
According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "Atrocities of the British Press" article, Honest Reporting writes the following with regard to lack of verification:[28]

"One of the hallmarks of journalism is to independently verify info before printing a 'fact.' Otherwise, readers are only being treated to rumors, accusations and even propaganda. ... Though not independently verified, many media outlets devoted huge amounts of ink to unverified Palestinian tales of conspiracies, mass murders, common graves, and war crimes."

In its "Edward Said's Documented Deceptions" article, CAMERA writes the following with regard to lack of verification:[29]

"It is unfortunate that when dealing with vilification of Israel, facts remain unchecked, accusations remain unverified, and journalistic responsibility is replaced by formulaic disclaimers."

According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups

In its "Coverage of the Middle East Crisis In the Opinion Pages and News Coverage Of the Charlotte Observer" article, Palestine Media Watch writes the following with regard to lack of verification:[30]

"PMW found that more and more, facts are being verified by independent and Palestinian sources and witnesses rather than relying on Israeli government, Israeli military, or Israeli sources solely. PMW believes this should be a consistent practice, but is encouraged to find it happening increasingly. ... When Israelis targeted a Palestinian girls’ school and hospital, they were described as 'Jewish extremists'. Also, when Israeli military or Jewish settlers kill civilians, their death is reported as a 'mistake' or as accidental due to 'crossfire'. These Israeli statements are rarely if ever challenged or reported as verified."

Selective reporting


A pro-Palestinian webcomic -- in reference to the capture of Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit and subsequent news reports -- alleges that the media favors Israel, by allegedly devoting more attention to Israelis captured by Palestinians than to Palestinians captured by Israel.

Selective reporting involves devoting more resources, such as news articles or air time, to the coverage of one side of the story over another. In the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, for example, consider the overall impression given by:

  • A broadcast which spends eight hours interviewing Palestinian victims and only three hours interviewing Israeli victims.
  • A broadcast which spends eight hours interviewing Israeli victims and only three hours interviewing Palestinian victims.
According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "Understanding Bias" article, Honest Reporting asks the following question regarding selective reporting:[12]

"Is 'equal time' granted to both sides of the conflict, or is one side given preferential treatment -- hence lending more weight and credibility to that side's position?"

In its criticism of National Public Radio, CAMERA writes:[31]

"...CAMERA identified 350 speakers and found a gaping disparity in the time afforded to Israeli and pro-Israeli speakers compared to that provided the Arab and pro-Arab speakers. The pro-Arab speakers received 77% more time. ... More dramatic still was the disproportionate number of segments that included only pro-Arab speakers and excluded entirely any pro-Israel voices as compared to the many fewer reports that omitted altogether Arab speakers. The Arab-speakers-only segments were almost twice as numerous (41 to 24) and four times as long (18,321 words spoken on the air versus 4,934)."

According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups

In its "Killings of dozens once again called 'period of calm' by US media" article, Electronic Intifada writes the following regarding selective reporting:[32]

"...there is a widespread tendency in the US media to simply ignore or severely underplay violence when its victims are Palestinians, while focusing intensely on incidents when the victims are Israeli. One of the reasons for the disturbing and persistent phenomenon of devaluing Palestinian life and death, is a structural geographic bias - most US news organizations who have reporters on the ground base them in Tel Aviv or west Jerusalem, very far from the places where Palestinians are being killed and bombarded on a daily basis."

In its criticism of National Public Radio, FAIR, writes:[33]

"The unequal treatment of Israeli and Palestinian deaths is a long-standing pattern at NPR; a FAIR study of six months of the network’s coverage (Extra!, 11-12/01) found that 81 percent of Israeli conflict-related deaths were reported, but only 34 percent of Palestinian deaths. Strikingly, NPR was even less likely to report the deaths of Palestinian minors killed; only 20 percent of these deaths were reported, as compared to 89 percent of Israeli minors’ deaths. While NPR was more likely to cover Israeli civilian deaths than those of Israeli security personnel (84 percent vs. 69 percent), the reverse was true with Palestinians (20 percent vs. 72 percent)."


Decontextualization is a type of omission in which the omitted information is essential to understanding a decision, action, or event, its underlying motivations or key events leading up to it. In the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, for example, consider the effect of the following:

  • An article discussing the West Bank Barrier, which does not mention the suicide bombings of the Second Intifada.
  • An article discussing the 2006 Hamas Election Victory, which does not mention the corruption of Fatah.
According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "Objectivity & The Media: 7 Principles of Media Objectivity" article, Honest Reporting writes the following with regard to decontextualization:[34]

"By failing to provide proper context and full background information, journalists can dramatically distort the true picture."

In its "How to Recognize Unfair Reporting" article, CAMERA writes the following regarding to decontextualization:[35]

"Does the article or broadcast omit essential context and information? This tends to be a frequent problem when reporting about the Middle East. Write a letter to the editor or directly to the journalist and/or media outlet to provide the missing context."

According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups

In its "Media critique quick sheet" article, Palestine Media Watch asks the following questions pertaining to decontextualization:[13]

  1. "Were Palestinian actions described in context (e.g., 'Palestinians launched a mortar attack after Israelis bulldozed a row of houses')?"
  2. "Were Israeli actions described in context (e.g., 'Israelis bulldozed a row of houses after Palestinians launched a mortar attack')?"

According to Kaminer Ray of the online Z Magazine:[36]

"Instigation and retaliation, while both violent, are naturally judged differently. Violence is wrong, but motives are relevant. This is not 'moral equivalence,' as many like to claim without elaborating on what this term means, but rather a simple quality that infects all moral considerations, from courtroom sentencings to parental groundings. If we can state that [one side] started it, then we can do away with overtly stated moral judgments in favor of the implication that [the other side] is acting defensively, and conventional wisdom is, thus, born."

Coercion or censorship

File:MediaCoverageArabIsraeliConflict CoercionCensorship DryBones.jpg

A comic from the Israeli blog DryBones -- in reference to the kidnapping of BBC reporter Alan Johnston and to a decision by the NUJ to boycott Israeli goods -- alleges that the BBC favors the Palestinian side as a result of intimidation.

Coercion or censorship refers to the use of intimidation or force to promote favorable reports and to confiscate unfavorable reports. In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, both sides accuse each other of coercion or censorship as an explanation of alleged bias in favor of the other side. In support of these claims, Israeli advocates point to kidnappings of foreign reporters by Palestinians, while Palestinian advocates point to media blackouts and confiscation of reports by Israelis. Additionally, both sides point to reports by both governmental and non-governmental organizations, which assess the degree of journalistic freedom in the region. See Media of Israel and Human rights in Israel#Freedom of speech.

Forgery or falsification

Forgery or falsification involves the intentional misrepresentation, alteration, or invention of reported information. Due to the severity of these actions, which violate the ethics and standards of journalism, instances of forgery and/or falsification are frequently cited by Israelis and their advocates and/or by Palestinians and their advocates—depending on the nature of the forgery and/or falsification—in order to support claims that the media favors the other side.

According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "Anti-Israel Venom at University of Illinois Paper" article, CAMERA criticized the student paper for using fabricated quotes:[37]

"The University of Illinois newspaper, the Daily Illini, is making a dubious name for itself as one of America’s more recklessly anti-Israel student publications. Flouting journalistic norms that mandate accuracy, ethics and responsible sourcing it has repeatedly run false, anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic commentaries."

"'Stop turning a blind eye' (Dec 11, 2003) is on this unfortunate list. Written by Mariam Sobh, a journalism student and regular Illini columnist, the op-ed contained a grotesque, invented quote attributed to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as well as a spurious reference to another non-existent quote, by another Israeli official, supposedly from the New York Times. This is a pattern with the Illini columnist. In her zeal to vilify Israel, Sobh consistently turns to unreliable sources to prove her point. Both the extreme invective against Israel and the permissive editorial policy allowing student and community writers to use the pages of the newspaper for propaganda are apparently habitual. A year ago, on Jan 22, 2003, for example, the paper ran a virulent letter to the editor entitled 'Jews manipulate America' offering crude anti-Semitic allegations authored by one Ariel Sinovsky from Seattle, Wash. Although an editor claimed to have confirmation of the writer’s identity, university alumnus Jeff Kamen told CAMERA that students and community members searched all available databases and directories, but did not find an Ariel Sinovsky in Seattle or anywhere."

In its "Bold Distortions and Outright Lies" article, HonestReporting commented on the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies:[38]

"A Reuters photo turns out to be an outright lie, manipulated to make damage in Beirut appear much worse than reality."

"The conflict between Israel and the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah has produced some of the most distorted and biased reporting we have seen in years. Despite evidence that Israel is taking unprecedented steps to avoid civilian casualties, some in the media have accused the IDF of using disproportionate force against a harmless civilian population. With little evidence to back up this claim, some are even resorting to outright fraud...."

For additional claims of forgery and/or falsification made by Israelis and their advocates, please see Pallywood and the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies.

According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups

In its "Please counter the Israeli PR machine" letter, Palestine Media Watch criticized the media for fabricating information or for reporting fabricated information:[39]

"Basic facts will not only be ignored, but will be fabricated, outright, bald-faced lies will be told, and the intelligence of the American people will be shamelessly and repeatedly insulted and violated. And all along, the US media will not only simply roll over and play half-dead, as usual, but will cheerfully accept the easy, comfortable way out, never bothering to ask the obvious questions, never pointing to the decades-old record of rejection from Ariel Sharon, his open refusal to accept a viable Palestinian state, his brutality, his war crimes, and his relentless sabotaging of all chances, minor or major, at advancing political dialog. The media will again fail to connect the simple dots, will fail to look for or detect obvious patterns, never daring to stare reality right in the face, let alone break free from the mindless narrative sandbox in which they have decided to confine themselves."

In a letter to the Washington Post by Omar Barghouti, an activist of Palestine Media Watch, Barghouti criticized the Post for repeating allegedly fabricated information:[40]

"By relying largely on Israeli Army sources, Mr. Keith Richburg and Mr. Lee Hockstader portrayed an inaccurate picture for the Israeli operation on Thursday, November 9th, against Mr. Hussein Abayat. The Israeli army wants us to believe that Mr. Abayat was a 'terror' mastermind, who 'deserved' to be killed by Israel. The Washington Post article only helps promote this distorted image."

"From the very beginning, the article calls the operation a 'targeted slaying', which in any other context would be immediately and intuitively be called assassination. The reader, as always, is given a very foggy account of the victim, Mr. Abayat, and only the Israeli-provided biographic information is highlighted. I have always complained about the convenience with which some Post journalists rely on Israeli sources, despite the fact that they were proven over and over again to be grossly inaccurate, if not altogether fabricated. A quick look at the reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights will attest to what I am saying."


Where text appears in a news article affects the frequency with which it is read and the likelihood that a reader will recall that information. Headlines, for example, are more frequently read than any other part of a news article.[41][42][43] The first paragraph is read more frequently than the rest of the article, but less frequently than the headline.[44] If an article is read in its entirety, the reader will most strongly recall the last paragraph, due to the recency effect, followed by the headline and first paragraph, due to the primacy effect; whereas, the reader is unlikely to recall information in the middle of the article as strongly as information placed closer to the beginning or end of the article. Along this vein, "placement" refers to allegations, by both sides, that the consistent preferential placement of the opposing point of view biases the media's presentation of the Arab-Israeli conflict in favor of the other side.

According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its page on "Headlines & Graphics", CAMERA writes the following regarding placement:[45]

"Headlines are the first, and sometimes only, news items seen by readers and should provide the essence of a news story. While they must capture the reader's attention, headlines should always be accurate and specific. The size of a headline signals the importance of the story and its relationship to other stories, and the use of the active versus passive voice also shapes reader perceptions."

In its "New York Times Skews Israeli-Palestinian Crisis" article, CAMERA criticized the New York Times for the placement of news stories about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, writing:[46]

"In a key period in late March and early April, as Israel suffered a wave of unprecedented Palestinian terrorism prompting the Israel Defense Forces to respond with incursions into areas under Palestinian Authority control, the New York Times presented a decidedly skewed picture of events. Reporting focused heavily on Palestinian suffering while continually minimizing the personal toll on Israelis. The number and prominence (judged by placement and size) of news stories and photographs regularly cast Palestinians as blameless victims of Israeli aggression. Israeli victims were rarely even named, much less profiled. Guest Op-Ed’s were overwhelmingly tilted toward condemnation of Israel."

According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups

In its report "Off the Charts: New York Times coverage of Israeli and Palestinian deaths," If Americans Knew writes the following regarding placement:[47]

"Every death mentioned solely in the last two paragraphs of an article was Palestinian. There were five Palestinian deaths mentioned for the first time in the second to last paragraph, including that of a 16-year-old girl shot through the chest by the Israeli army. Also, there were five Palestinian deaths mentioned for the first time in the last paragraph. [...] Since readership diminishes the further down an article one goes, such patterns reduce readers’ awareness of Palestinian deaths."

Exaggeration or sensationalism

Sensationalism, in general, is a form of being extremely controversial, loud, or attention grabbing. In the context of the media, sensationalism refers to claims that the media chooses to report on shocking events or to exaggerate, at the expense of accuracy and objectivity, in order to improve viewer, listener or readership ratings. This criticism, also known as media circus, is proffered by both Israelis and Palestinians as a possible explanation for alleged bias.

According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "'New Rules' For Mideast Reporting" media critique, Honest Reporting writes the following regarding sensationalism:[48]

"Every media outlet has its own stylebook, designed to be as fair and impartial as possible. These days, however, it often seems like the Palestinian Minister of Information is publishing and distributing his stylebook to dozens of newspapers and media outlets. Since September 2000, a new de facto "stylebook" has emerged for reporters covering the Palestinian violence against Israel. In some cases, the "new rules for reporting" are based on actual policies promulgated by news organizations and editors. Though elements of "pack journalism" are evident, there are probably no conspiratorial hands behind the emergence of this stylebook. For the most part, reporters and correspondents have informally, perhaps even subconsciously, adopted these guidelines. Invariably, the new rules are biased against Israel. While not a "conspiracy," an anti-Israel press "convention" has emerged, and clear biases are evident. For now, the bias appears to have had little impact on American public opinion regarding Israel. In Europe, the stronger, more strident anti-Israel tone of much of the media may be having a different impact. Following are eight new "rules" for reporters covering the Middle East, as distilled from hundreds of articles covering the recent violence:"

"Rule 1. Sensationalize the intensity and scope of Israeli military actions.
Call the Israeli actions 'aggressive,' 'devastating' or 'intensive.' Refer to Israeli incursions into Palestinian territory as 'deep,' even when they involve only 300 yards. [The New York Times, April 14, 2001]
On the other hand, refer to Palestinian mortar attacks as 'ineffective' or 'falling harmlessly,' even though the intent of the mortar teams is malevolent."

In its "Selective Quotes Distort Intent of Sharon's Gaza Withdrawal" article, CAMERA criticized Haaretz for using a sensational headline:[49]

"The 'teaser' revealed a few selected quotes, and carried the sensational headline, 'Top PM aide: Gaza plan aims to freeze the peace process.' ... By valuing sensationalism over accuracy in its teaser, Haaretz practiced irresponsible journalism."

According to Pro-Palestinian Watchdog Groups

In its "Canada's Nearly 400,000 Muslims Concerned about Media Stereotypes" article, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs writes the following regarding sensationalism:[50]

"Sensationalist coverage has cultivated fear of Muslims, Islam and Arabs, says Ausma Khan, a third-year law student at the University of Ottawa, and one of the estimated 150,000 Canadian Muslims with roots in the Indian subcontinent.... the [tenets] of responsible journalism are increasingly being disregarded in the pursuit of sensationalism."

In its "Issue Area: Sensationalism" webpage, FAIR writes the following regarding sensationalism:[51]

"Profit-driven news organizations are under great pressure to boost ratings by sensationalizing the news: focusing attention on lurid, highly emotional stories, often featuring a bizarre cast of characters and a gripping plot but devoid of significance to most people's lives. From Tonya Harding to O.J. Simpson to Elian Gonzalez, major news outlets have become more and more dependent on these kind of tabloid soap operas to keep profits high."

Prejudiced journalists

Journalists may intentionally or unintentionally distort reports due to political ideology, national affiliation, anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism, or Islamophobia. Both Israelis and their advocates along with Palestinians and their advocates have pointed to these qualities—political ideology, national affiliation, anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism, or Islamophobia—as a potential explanation for the alleged bias of certain prominent journalists.

According to pro-Israel watchdog groups

In its "Amanpour's Troubling Journalism" article, CAMERA attributed Christiane Amanpour's allegedly biased news coverage to her political ideology:[52]

"Known for parachuting in to cover the latest global hotspot, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour is one of the most famous journalists in the world. But there have long been questions about her habit of skewing coverage to suit her own political biases."

Ira Stoll of the New York Sun, and formerly of the Jerusalem Post, attributes alleged anti-Israel media bias in part to reporters of Jewish background:[2]

"Most deficiencies of fairness and balance, alas, aren't the result of editors deliberately placing their papers on the side of freedom, democracy, and the West and against murderous, repressive tyrants. I suspect they are instead the result of four factors: 1. Self-hatred and bending over backward by Jewish or once-Jewish reporters, editors, and owners; 2. Ordinary, innocent carelessness and mistakes that can creep in on any stories that are constructed by tired human beings working on deadline; 3. The structural imbalance that comes from journalists being able to work mostly free and uninhibited in Israel but being subject to severe restrictions in countries like Syria or Iran; 4. Lack of understanding of the underlying historical and political background."

Frequently cited incidents

In order to substantiate claims that the media favors the other side, participants in the conflict on each side frequently cite a number of illustrative and extreme examples of controversial reporting. This section lists incidents of controversial reporting frequently cited by only Israelis and Israel advocates, by only Palestinians and Palestinian advocates, or by both sides. The list of incidents appear chronologically, according to when the incident took place. Where events took place on the same date, the incidents appear sorted alphabetically. Template:Collapse top Though there have been a number of controversial news reports regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, reports listed in the frequently cited incidents section must meet the following criteria:

  1. The reported information was refuted by one or more prominent governmental or non-governmental organizations, or
  2. The reported information was admitted to be false by the publisher, or
  3. The reported information was called into question by a high contracting party or by notable persons (e.g. a high-ranking government official of Israel or the Palestinian Authority)
  1. At least one pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian media watchdog group has referred to the incident on more than one occasion, or
  2. Several pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian media watchdog groups have referred to the incident.

Template:Collapse bottom

Shooting of Muhammad al-Durrah

On September 30, 2000, the 11-12 year-old boy, Muhammad al-Durrah, was shot in Palestinian-Israeli crossfire at the Netzarim junction.[53] France 2, which caught the incident on tape, claimed that Israel had fatally shot the boy.[54] After an official, internal investigation, the IDF conceded that it was probably responsible and apologized for the shooting.[55] Al-Durrah became a symbol of the Second Intifada and of Palestinian martyrdom.[56]

External investigations suggested that the IDF could not have shot the boy and that the tape had been staged.[57][58] In 2001, following a non-military investigation, conducted by Israeli Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yom Tov Samia, the Israeli Prime Minister's Foreign Media Advisor, Dr. Ra'anan Gissin, along with Daniel Seaman of the Israeli Government Press Office (GPO) publicly challenged the accuracy of the France 2 report.[59] In 2005, the head of the Israeli National Security Agency, Major-General (res.) Giora Eiland publicly retracted the IDF's initial admittance of responsibility.[59] In order to avoid negative publicity and a resulting backlash, the IDF did not conduct its own official, military investigation until 2007.[60] On October 1, 2007, Israel officially denied responsibility for the shooting and claimed that the France 2 footage had been staged,[61][62] prompting criticism from Al-Durrah's father.[63]

Both Palestinians and Israelis cite the Muhammed al-Durrah case in order to further claims that the media favors the other side. Israelis and their advocates cite the case because France 2 attributed the shooting to Israel when either side could have shot the boy. Palestinians and their advocates cite the case because of the attention the media has given to Israeli allegations that the video tape was staged.

Photo of Tuvia Grossman


The caption of the Associated Press photograph, which also appeared in the New York Times, misidentified Tuvia Grossman's nationality, misidentified the photograph's location, and implied police brutality by Grossman's Israeli rescuer. Tuvia Grossman has since become an icon of alleged anti-Israel media bias.

On September 30, 2000, the New York Times, the Associated Press, and other media outlets published a photograph of a club-wielding Israeli police officer standing over a battered and bleeding young man.[64] The photograph's caption identified the young man as a Palestinian and the location as the Temple Mount.[64] The young man in the picture was 20-year old Tuvia Grossman, a Jewish American student from Chicago who had been studying at a Yeshiva in Israel; the Israeli police officer in the photograph, who appears to have beaten Grossman, actually came to his rescue by threatening his Palestinian assailants.[64][65]

On October 2, 2000, Tuvia Grossman's father sent the following email to the New York Times:[66]

"Regarding your picture on page A5 (Sept. 30) of the Israeli soldier and the Palestinian on the Temple Mount - that Palestinian is actually my son, Tuvia Grossman, a Jewish student from Chicago. He, and two of his friends, were pulled from their taxicab while travelling in Jerusalem, by a mob of Palestinian Arabs and were severely beaten and stabbed. That picture could not have been taken on the Temple Mount because there are no gas stations on the Temple Mount and certainly none with Hebrew lettering, like the one clearly seen behind the Israeli soldier attempting to protect my son from the mob."

On October 4, 2000, the New York Times issued the following incomplete correction, which incorrectly identified the location of the incident:[67]

"A picture caption on Saturday about fighting between Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem included an erroneous identification from The Associated Press for a wounded man shown with an Israeli policeman. He was Tuvia Grossman of Chicago, an American student in Israel, not an unidentified Palestinian. In some copies the caption also misidentified the site where Mr. Grossman was wounded. It was in Jerusalem's Old City, but not on the Temple Mount."

On October 7, 2000, the New York Times published an article about the incident and printed the following, more complete, correction:[65][68]

" A picture caption on Page A6 last Saturday about fighting in Jerusalem gave an erroneous identification from The Associated Press for a wounded man shown with an Israeli policeman. He was Tuvia Grossman of Chicago, an American studying at a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem, not an unidentified Palestinian. In some copies the caption also included the news agency's erroneous reference to the site. The incident occurred in an Arab neighborhood of Jerusalem, not on the Temple Mount or elsewhere in the Old City."

"A correction in this space on Wednesday cited the errors incompletely and omitted an explanation of the scene. The officer was waving a nightstick at Palestinians, telling them to stay away from Mr. Grossman. He was not beating Mr. Grossman."

"An article about the incident and the photograph appears today, on Page A4. "

The Tuvia Grossman Photo appears frequently in Israeli criticisms of the media, because the photograph implied that the Israeli police officer who rescued Tuvia Grossman had beat him, it implied an Israeli perpetrator, it implied a Palestinian victim, and it conveyed the opposite of what had transpired.[64][66][69][70] According to Honest Reporting's promotional videos, the pro-Israel watchdog was established in 2000 in response to this incident, which it describes as "the photo that started it all".[71][72] Seth Ackerman of FAIR described the attention given to the photo, as well as the three NYT corrections, as disproportionate to a "plausible, though careless" assumption resulting from "garbled information from the Israeli photographer".[73]

Battle of Jenin

On April 3, 2002, following a devastating suicide bombing on March 27th [74] which killed 30 Israeli civilians and wounded as many as 143,[75][76] the IDF began a major military operation in the Jenin refugee camp, a city which, according to Israel, had "served as a launching site for numerous terrorist attacks against both Israeli civilians and Israeli towns and villages in the area".[77] The fighting, which lasted eight days and resulted in the deaths of 52 Palestinians (including 14 civilians, according to the IDF, and 22 civilians, according to HRW) and 23 Israeli soldiers, has been interpreted quite differently by Israelis and Palestinians.[78][79][80][81] In the aftermath of the fighting, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat claimed that the IDF had killed 500 Palestinians and accused Israel of committing a "massacre".[82] Early news publications, following both IDF estimates of 200 Palestinians killed and Palestinian estimates of 500 Palestinians killed, reported hundreds of Palestinian deaths and repeated claims that a massacre had taken place.[83][84] Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International later found that a massacre had not taken place, although both organizations charged the IDF with war crimes and human rights violations.[85][86] The United Nations similarly dismissed claims that hundreds of Palestinians had been killed as unsubstantiated, a finding which was widely interpreted and reported as rejecting claims of a "massacre".[21][22][78][87] The Battle of Jenin is still largely called the "Jenin Massacre" (Arabic: مجزرة جنين‎) by Arab and Palestinian sources.

The reporting surrounding the Battle of Jenin has been frequently criticized by both Israelis and their advocates and by Palestinians and their advocates. Israelis and their advocates frequently cite the reporting surrounding the Battle of Jenin, because "the Arab and European media hastily reported",[88] without proper verification, Palestinian allegations that a massacre had taken place, a claim broken by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and described by many pro-Israel sources as "The Big Jenin Lie" and by HonestReporting as "Jeningrad".[88][89][90][91][92][93] Palestinians and their advocates, many of whom view a massacre as having taken place, frequently cite the reporting surrounding the Battle of Jenin for later rejecting Palestinian claims of a massacre and for ignoring claims by Amnesty International and by Human Rights Watch that the IDF had committed war crimes.[94][95]

Gaza beach blast

On June 9, 2006, an explosion on a beach in the Gaza Strip killed seven Palestinians, including three children.[96] Palestinian sources claimed that the explosion resulted from Israeli shelling.[96] After a three-day investigation, Israel concluded that the blast could not have resulted from an IDF artillery shell.[97][98] This IDF investigation was criticized by both Human Rights Watch and The Guardian for ignoring evidence.[99][100] The IDF later conceded that the report was flawed for failing to mention two gunboat shells fired at about the time of the deaths but insisted that these shells had landed too far away from the area to be the cause of the explosion and that this omission, therefore, did not impact the report's overall conclusion that Israel had not been responsible for the blast.[101] According to CAMERA, "many in the press [have presumed] that Israel is responsible".[102] This incident is often cited by Israel advocates who claim that the media favors the Palestinian side, because of reports which attributed the blast to the IDF prior to the conclusion of the IDF investigation.[102][103]

2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies

On August 5, 2006 blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs accused Reuters of inappropriately manipulating images of destruction to Beirut caused by Israel during the Second Lebanon War.[104] This accusation marked the first of many accusations against media outlets for inappropriate photo manipulation. Media outlets were also accused of incorrectly captioning photos and of staging photographs through the inappropriate use of props. These accusations, which initially appeared in the blogosphere, were amplified by Aish HaTorah through an online video entitled "Photo Fraud in Lebanon".[105] In response to these allegations, Reuters toughened its photo editing policy and admitted to inappropriate photo manipulation on the part of Adnan Hajj, a freelance photographer whom Reuters subsequently fired.[106] Additionally, BBC, the New York Times, and the Associated Press recalled photos or corrected captions in response to some of the accusations.[107] This journalistic scandal, dubbed "Reutersgate" by the blogosphere in reference to the Watergate scandal and dubbed "fauxtography" by Honest Reporting and others, is frequently cited by Israelis and by Israel advocates in order to demonstrate alleged anti-Israel bias, this time in the form of an outright forgery created by a biased local freelance photographer.[108][109]

The Independent's "Mystery of Israel's Secret Uranium Bomb"

On October 28, 2006, The Independent published an article, by Robert Fisk, which speculated, based on information from the European Committee on Radiation Risk, that Israel may have used depleted Uranium weapons during the 2006 Lebanon War.[110] The article prompted criticism by HonestReporting for coming to conclusions prematurely,[111] and resulted in an investigation by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).[112] On November 8, 2006, UNEP concluded that Israel had not used any form of Uranium-based weapons.[113][114] Israelis and Israel advocates cite the article as an instance of "shoddy journalism", arising allegedly as a result of media sensationalism.[115]


This section discusses films with media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict as its main topic. The films presented in this section appear in alphabetical order.


Décryptage is a 2003 documentary written by Jacques Tarnero and directed by Philippe Bensoussan.[116] The French film (with English subtitles) examines media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict in French media, and concludes that the media's presentation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in France is consistently skewed against Israel and may be responsible for exacerbating anti-Semitism.[117]


Pallywood: According to Palestinian sources... is an 18-minute online documentary by Richard Landes.[118][119] The film, with its title derived from the words Palestinian and Hollywood, claims that the Western media uncritically accepts and reports the stories of freelance Palestinian videographers who record staged scenes, often involving faked or exaggerated injuries, in order to elicit sympathy and support.[119]

Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land

Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land is a 2004 documentary by Sut Jhally and Bathsheba Ratzkoff.[120] The movie claims that the influence of pro-Israel media watchdog groups, such as CAMERA and Honest Reporting, leads to distorted and pro-Israel media reports.[121] In its response to the movie, the pro-Israel JCRC criticizes the film for not discussing the influence of "the numerous pro‐Palestinian media watchdog groups, including, ironically, FAIR (Fair and Accuracy in the Media, which describes itself as 'A National Media Watch Group'), whose spokesperson played a prominent role in the film".[122] According to the pro-Palestinian LiP Magazine, the movie "offers a great starting point for thinking about media misrepresentation of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and useful analysis of how language is used to manipulate public opinion," but is short on "solid statistics and facts to back up some of its blanket statements".[123] A review in the New York Times by Ned Martel found that the film "largely ignores Palestinian leadership, which has surely played a part in the conflict’s broken vows and broken hearts. And such a lack of dispassion weakens the one-sided film’s bold and detailed argument".[124]

Other criticisms

Some media criticisms appear less frequently than those listed in the common claims section above or are made by only one side. Such criticisms are documented and explained here.

False compromise

False compromise refers to the claim, made by some Israeli advocates and by some Palestinian advocates, that their side of the conflict is morally right and the other side is morally wrong and, therefore, attempts to balance the presentation of both viewpoints wrongfully suggests that both sides are morally equivalent. For example, Palestinian advocate Kathleen Christison writes that "a balanced position in an unbalanced situation inevitably is a miscarriage of justice. In Palestine-Israel, it is a profoundly immoral stance to maintain neutrality between powerless Palestinians (who have the ability occasionally to murder innocent Israelis but no power to regulate or save their own lives) and an overpowering, overbearing Israel possessing all the military power, controlling all the land".[125] Similarly, in the words of Israel advocate Bret Stevens, "Moral clarity is a term that doesn't get much traction these days, least of all among journalists, who prefer 'objectivity' and 'balance.' Yet good journalism is more than about separating fact from opinion and being fair. Good journalism is about fine analysis and making distinctions, and this applies as much to moral distinctions as to any others. Because too many reporters today refuse to make moral distinctions, we are left with a journalism whose narrative and analytical failings have become ever more glaring".[126]

Structural geographic bias

Structural geographic bias refers to the claim, made by some Palestinian advocates, that the Western media favors Israel, allegedly as a result of Western reporters living in Israel.[127][128]

New Media and Internet

This section documents how the Arab-Israeli conflict is both portrayed and played-out on the web.

The Internet

In the words of Jerusalem Post writer Megan Jacobs, "War in the Middle East is being waged not only on the ground, but also in cyberspace."[129] While Israeli and Palestinian advocacy websites promote their respective points of view, fierce debate over the Arab-Israeli conflict has embroiled social networking websites and applications with user-generated content, such as Facebook, Google Earth, and Wikipedia.[129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138]


Facebook is a social networking website, which allows users to connect and interact with other people online, both directly by "friending" people and indirectly through the creation of groups. Because the website allows users to join networks organized by city, workplace, school, and region, Facebook has become embroiled in a number of regional conflicts. Facebook groups such as "'Palestine' Is not a country... De-list it from Facebook as a country!" and "Israel is not a country! ... Delist it from Facebook as a country!", among others reflecting the mutual non-recognition of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have protested Facebook's listing of Israel and Palestine, respectively, as countries.[139] This controversy became particularly heated when, in response to protests over Palestine being listed as a country, Facebook delisted it. The move infuriated Palestinian users and prompted the creation of numerous Facebook groups such as "The Official Petition to get Palestine listed as a Country", "Against delisting Palestine from Facebook", and "If Palestine is removed from Facebook ... I'm closing my account".[129] Facebook, in response to user complaints, ultimately reinstated Palestine as a country network.[129] A similar controversy took place regarding the status of Israeli settlements. When Israeli settlements were moved from being listed under the Israel network to the Palestine network, thousands of Israelis living in the area protested Facebook's decision.[131] In response to the protest, Facebook has allowed users living in the area to select either Israel or Palestine as their home country.[131]

Another controversy over Facebook regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict concerns Facebook groups which, against Facebook's terms of use, promote hatred and violence. According to former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Facebook has been used to promote anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.[130] A proliferation of Facebook groups praising the perpetrator of the Mercaz HaRav massacre in 2008 prompted the creation of the Facebook group "FACEBOOK: Why do you support Anti-Semitism and Islamic Terrorism", which succeeded in deleting over 100 pro-Palestinian Facebook groups with violent content, by reporting the groups to Facebook.[132][140] The group, which since evolved into the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF), took over the Facebook group "Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country" when, according to the JIDF, Facebook stopped removing such groups.[141][142] The JIDF described the "Israel is not a country!" group as "one of the most vile, antisemitic, pro-terrorist sites on the internet" and stated that it "was the most active hate group of all----promoting hatred, violence, murder, and genocide..."[140][141] After taking over the group, the JIDF began to remove its more than 48,000 members and replaced the group's graphic with a picture of an IAF jet with the flag of Israel in the background.[142]


Wikipedia is an online, collaborately written encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Wikipedia contains articles on a wide variety of subjects, and users may create new articles. The writing of articles is organized into Wikipedia projects, called "WikiProjects". Articles pertaining to Israel are managed by WikiProject Israel, while articles pertaining to Palestine are maintained by WikiProject Palestine (this article is under the auspices of both WikiProjects). Articles on controversial subjects, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, may be the subject of editing disputes, edit wars, or neutral point-of-view disputes. The WikiProject Israel-Palestine Collaboration was established for the purpose of reducing such disputes on topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The WikiProject maintains a list of ongoing disputes and editing conflicts on articles pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Wikipedia policy requires, among other things, that all articles adhere to neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing; however, since Wikipedia articles are written collaboratively, there is no guarantee that articles will adhere to these principles, unless editors involved with the page adhere to these rules or, if necessary, seek mediation or arbitration in order to ensure that other editors adhere to these principles.

While editing conflicts occur frequently, one particular conflict, involving CAMERA and Electronic Intifada, made headlines in the Jerusalem Post and the International Herald Tribune.[134][143] When CAMERA encouraged individuals sympathetic to Israel to participate in editing Wikipedia in order to "lead to more accuracy and fairness on Wikipedia",[137] Electronic Intifada accused CAMERA of "orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged."[136] The accusations led to various administrative actions on Wikipedia—including the banning of certain editors. HonestReporting subsequently responded to the incident with its own article, entitled "Exposed - Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia" which complained of "anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia" and described Wikipedia's NPOV policy as a "noble goal not always applied equally by Wikipedia users.[135] CAMERA similarly responded to the incident with a letter entitled "The failure of Wikipedia", appearing in IHT , which described Wikipedia's Middle East articles as "often-unreliable".[144][145] In a separate article entitled "The Wild West of Wikipedia", which appeared in The Jewish Chronicle and IMRA, Gilead Ini of CAMERA decried "Wikipedia's often-skewed entries about the Middle East", described Wikipedia's rules as "shoddily-enforced", and wrote that, following the incident, "many editors who hoped to ensure accuracy and balance ... are now banned" while "partisan editors ... continue to freely manipulate Wikipedia articles to their liking".[146]

Watchdog groups

This is an alphabetically sorted list of media watchdog groups which monitor coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict in Western news media. While academics debate the impact of the media on public opinion,[147] lobbying organisations view the media as essential in influencing public perceptions of the conflict and, therefore, as paramount in influencing and securing favorable public policy in relation to the conflict.[148][149]

Template:Collapse top While there are countless organizations which monitor media pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the following criteria have been applied to organizations for inclusion in the media watchdog groups list:

  1. The organization must monitor Western media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Organizations which monitor Middle Eastern coverage of the conflict have been excluded, for the purposes of limiting the length of this list.
  2. The organization must monitor news for the purpose of revealing biases, with the intent of effecting change in reporting. PMW and MEMRI which monitor for the purpose of revealing incitement to Western audiences have, thus, been excluded.
  3. The organization may focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, specifically; however, the organization may monitor media coverage of a wide variety of topics, so long as the Arab-Israeli conflict is one such topic.

Template:Collapse bottom

Name Official Homepage Affiliation
Accuracy in Media Pro-Israel
Arab Media Watch Pro-Palestinian
BBC Watch Pro-Israel
Beyond Images Pro-Israel
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) Pro-Israel
Eye on the Post (Referring to The Washington Post) Pro-Israel
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) Pro-Palestinian
Fraud Factor Pro-Israel
Honest Reporting Pro-Israel
If Americans Knew Pro-Palestinian
Institute for Middle East Understanding Pro-Palestinian
Just Journalism Pro-Israel
MediaChannel Unaffiliated
Media Watch International Pro-Israel
Middle East Media Research Institute Pro-Israel
NPR Bias Pro-Israel
Palestine Media Watch Pro-Palestinian
Palestine National Authority International Press Centre Media Watch Pro-Palestinian
Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting (PRIMER) Pro-Israel
Take A Pen Pro-Israel
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Pro-Palestinian

See also

  • Media bias
  • Spin
  • Propaganda
  • Hasbara
  • Pallywood
  • Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land
  • Muhammad al-Durrah
  • Tuvia Grossman
  • 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies
  • 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping
  • Kidnapping of Alan Johnston
  • Fadel Shana'a
  • James Miller
  • Jewish Internet Defense Force
  • Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict
  • Alleged Ouze Merham interview of Ariel Sharon
  • Adnan Hajj photographs controversy
  • Israeli-Palestinian history denial
  • A land without a people for a people without a land
  • Bogus Moshe Ya'alon quotation

Further reading

The following is a list of relevant publications sorted alphabetically by title (ignoring leading "The"s) and then by author:

  • Bad News from Israel, Greg Philo and Mike Berry Pluto Press, (2004)
  • Caught in the Middle by Steve Mcnally; Columbia Journalism Review, Vol. 40, January-February 2002
  • Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World, by Edward W. Said (1997)
  • Covering the Intifada: A Hazardous Beat; Photographers and Journalists Come under Gunfire While Reporting on the Conflict, by Joel Campagna; Nieman Reports, Vol. 56, Fall 2002
  • Covering the Intifada: How the Media Reported the Palestinian Uprising, by Joshua Muravchik; Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2003 ISBN 0-944029-85-X
  • Days of Rage: News Organizations Have Been Besieged by Outraged Critics Accusing Them of Unfair Coverage of the Violence in the Middle East. Are They Guilty as Charged?, by Sharyn Vane; American Journalism Review, Vol. 24, July-August 2002
  • Do Words and Pictures from the Middle East Matter? A Journalist from the Region Argues That U.S. Policy Is Not Affected by the Way News Is Reported, by Rami G. Khouri; Nieman Reports, Vol. 56, Fall 2002
  • Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition, by Norman G. Finkelstein (2003)
  • Images Lead to Varying Perceptions: 'In Photographs in Which We, as Journalists, Saw Danger, Some Readers Saw Deception, by Debbie Kornmiller; Nieman Reports, Vol. 56, Fall 2002
  • Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East by Richard A. Falk and Howard Friel London: Verso (2007) ISBN 1-84467-109-7.
  • The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict by Marvin Kalb John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, February 2007
  • The Minefield of Language in Middle East Coverage: Journalists Rarely Have the Time or Space to Navigate through the War of Words, by Beverly Wall; Nieman Reports, Vol. 56, Fall 2002
  • Missing: The Bias Implicit in the Absent, by Marda Dunsky; Arab Studies Quarterly, Vol. 23, 2001
  • The Other War: A Debate: Questions of Balance in the Middle East by Adeel Hassan; Columbia Journalism Review, Vol. 42, May-June 2003
  • The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy, by Stephanie Gutmann, Encounter Books 2005 (ISBN 1-893554-94-5)
  • Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, by Charles D. Smith (2004)
  • Pens and Swords: How the American Mainstream Media Report the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Marda Dunsky, Columbia University Press, 2008 (ISBN 978-0-231-13349-4)
  • Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy, Kathleen Christison (2001)
  • Racism and the North American Media Following 11 September: The Canadian Setting, by T.Y. Ismael and John Measor; Arab Studies Quarterly, Vol. 25, 2003
  • Reporting the Arab Israeli Conflict: How Hegemony Works by Tamar Liebes (1997)
  • Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict: What the Headlines Haven't Told You, by Michael Rydelnik; Moody Publishers (June 1, 2004) ISBN 0802426409


  1. Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the "Beirut Massacre". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585. summary.
  2. 2.0 2.1 The Other War: A Debate by Columbia Journalism Review
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Coming to Terms: A conflict analysis of the usage, in official and unofficial sources, of 'security fence,' 'apartheid wall,' and other terms for the structure between Israel and the Palestinian Territories by Richard Rogers and Anat Ben-David
  4. 4.0 4.1 Israel's Security Fence by Jewish Virtual Library
  5. Israel's Security Fence by Palestine Facts
  6. 6.0 6.1 Israel's Security Fence by MFA on YouTube
  7. 7.0 7.1 Israel's West Bank Barrier: Semantics on the Internet by Nigel Parry on Electronic Intifada
  8. 8.0 8.1 Frequently Asked Questions about the Apartheid Wall by Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign
  9. [1] In U.S. Media, Palestinians Attack, Israel Retaliates
  10. Greg Philo and Mike Berry, Bad News From Israel
  11. Critical Thinking: Can You Trust Everything You Read? by CAMERA
  12. 12.0 12.1 Understanding Bias by Honest Reporting
  13. 13.0 13.1 Media critique quick sheet by Palestine Media Watch
  14. Ethics Guidelines by InterNews
  15. Principles of Journalism by PEJ
  16. "Hundreds of victims 'were buried by bulldozer in mass grave". Telegraph. April 13, 2002. 
  17. "Jenin 'massacre evidence growing'". BBC. April 18, 2002. 
  18. "Ben Wedeman: Access to Jenin difficult". CNN. April 11, 2002. 
  19. Report of the Secretary-General on Jenin by the United Nations
  21. 21.0 21.1 "UN says no massacre in Jenin". BBC. August 1, 2002. 
  22. 22.0 22.1 "U.N. report: No massacre in Jenin". USA Today. August 1, 2002. 
  23. "DEATH ON THE CAMPUS: JENIN; U.N. Report Rejects Claims Of a Massacre Of Refugees". New York Times. August 2, 2002. 
  24. "Manufacturing a Massacre". Salon. November 19, 2002. 
  25. UN Press Release: Secretary-General condemns 'despicable' Hebron terrorist attack
  26. "Victims of the Hebron shooting attack". Haaretz. November 17, 2002. 
  27. "12 killed in Hebron Shabbat eve ambush". Jerusalem Post. November 15, 2002. 
  28. Atrocities of the British Press by Honest Reporting
  29. Edward Said's Documented Deceptions by CAMERA
  30. Coverage of the Middle East Crisis In the Opinion Pages and News Coverage Of the Charlotte Observer by Palestine Media Watch
  31. NPR Distorts Even Its Bias by CAMERA
  32. Killings of dozens once again called "period of calm" by US media by Electronic Intifada
  33. For NPR, Violence Is Calm if It’s Violence Against Palestinians by FAIR
  34. Objectivity & The Media: 7 Principles of Media Objectivity by Honest Reporting
  35. How to Recognize Unfair Reporting by CAMERA
  36. Omission vs. Repitition: Cause and Effect in Israel's Wars by Kaminer Ray on
  37. Anti-Israel Venom at University of Illinois Paper by CAMERA
  38. Bold Distortions and Outright Lies by HonestReporting
  39. Please counter the Israeli PR machine by Palestine Media Watch
  40. Assassination Disguised by Omar Barghouti on Palestine Media Watch
  42. Writing Effective, Attention-Getting Headlines and Titles on Your Blog
  43. How to Write Magnetic Headlines
  44. How To Write Your First Paragraph
  45. Headlines & Graphics by CAMERA
  46. New York Times Skews Israeli-Palestinian Crisis by CAMERA
  47. Off the Charts: New York Times coverage of Israeli and Palestinian deaths by If Americans Knew
  48. "New Rules" For Mideast Reporting by HonestReporting
  49. Selective Quotes Distort Intent of Sharon's Gaza Withdrawal
  50. Canada's Nearly 400,000 Muslims Concerned about Media Stereotypes by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
  51. Issue Area: Sensationalism by FAIR
  52. Amanpour's Troubling Journalism by CAMERA
  53. "12-year-old boy among dead in Israeli-Palestinian cross fire". CNN. October 1, 2000. 
  54. "French Public TV and the Perpetuation of a Scandal". The New York Sun. November 26, 2004. 
  55. "Israel 'sorry' for killing boy". BBC. October 3, 2000. 
  56. Mohammed al-Dura lives on by Gideon Levy on Haaretz
  57. Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? by James Fallows
  58. BACKGROUNDER: Mohammed Al Dura by CAMERA
  59. 59.0 59.1 "We did not abandon Philippe Karsenty". JPost. June 25, 2008. 
  60. "IDF demands uncut al-Dura tape". Jerusalem Post. September 17, 2007. 
  61. "Israel officially denies responsibility for death of al-Dura in 2000". YNet. October 1, 2007.,7340,L-3455496,00.html. 
  62. "GPO head: Sept. 2000 death of Gaza child Al-Dura was staged". Haaretz. October 1, 2007. 
  63. "Al-Dura's father: Israel's claims ridiculous". YNet. October 2, 2007.,7340,L-3455539,00.html. 
  64. 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.3 The Photo That Started It All by Honest Reporting
  65. 65.0 65.1 "Corrections". New York Times. October 7, 2000. 
  66. 66.0 66.1 New York Times Media Fraud, Incompetence, and Bias by Fraud Factor
  67. "Corrections". New York Times. October 4, 2000. 
  68. "Abruptly, a U.S. Student In Mideast Turmoil's Grip". New York Times. October 7, 2000. 
  69. Victim of the Media War bu Tuvia Grossman on Aish HaTorah
  70. Photo Falsehood and the Rosh Hashanah Riots by CAMERA
  71. Seven Years on the Front Lines by Honest Reporting on YouTube
  72. Five Years of Anti-Israel Media Bias by Honest Reporting on YouTube
  73. Those Aren't Stones, They're Rocks
  74. "'Passover massacre' at Israeli hotel kills 19". CNN. March 27, 2002. 
  75. "Alleged Passover massacre plotter arrested". CNN. March 26, 2008. 
  76. "Israel Passover bomb suspect held". BBC. March 26, 2008. 
  77. Jenin's Terrorist Infrastructure by MFA
  78. 78.0 78.1 Report of the Secretary-General on Jenin by UN
  79. Jenin: IDF Military Operations - Summary by HRW
  80. Inside the Battle of Jenin by Time
  81. "New Battle Over Jenin, on Television". New York Times. April 13, 2003. 
  82. "Powell postpones meeting with Arafat". CNN. April 12, 2002. 
  83. "Jenin 'massacre evidence growing'". BBC. April 18, 2002. 
  84. Conflict in the Middle East: Fierce Fighting Continues in Jenin by CNN
  85. Jenin: IDF Military Operations by HRW
  86. Israel and the Occupied Territories: Shielded from scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus by Amnesty International
  87. "DEATH ON THE CAMPUS: JENIN; U.N. Report Rejects Claims Of a Massacre Of Refugees". New York Times. August 2, 2002. 
  88. 88.0 88.1 Jenin: The Big Lie by Ariel Cohen on NRO
  89. The Big Jenin Lie by Richard Starr on the Weekly Standard
  90. Jenin: Massacring Truth on Aish HaTorah
  91. Jeningrad: What the British Media Said by HonestReporting
  92. What Really Happened in Jenin? by JCPA
  93. Anatomy of Anti-Israel Incitement: Jenin, World Opinion and the Massacre That Wasn't by ADL
  94. Gross distortions of UN Jenin report by US media by Palestine Media Watch
  95. No Massacre at Jenin: Says Who? by Stephen Gowans
  96. 96.0 96.1 "Hamas militants vow to end truce". BBC. June 10, 2006. 
  97. "Peretz: Friday's Gaza beach shelling 'not our doing'". Jerusalem Post. June 13, 2006. 
  98. "IDF not responsible for Gaza blast". Jerusalem Post. June 13, 2006. 
  99. Israel: Gaza Beach Investigation Ignores Evidence by HRW
  100. "The battle of Huda Ghalia - who really killed girl's family on Gaza beach?". The Guardian. June 17, 2006.,,1799825,00.html. 
  101. "Israel admits shell report flaws". Times Online. June 17, 2006.,,251-2230076,00.html. 
  102. 102.0 102.1 Israel Should Not Be Presumed Guilty of Gaza Beach Deaths by CAMERA
  103. Gaza Beach Libel by Honest Reporting
  104. Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut? on Little Green Footballs
  105. Photo Fraud in Lebanon by Aish HaTorah on YouTube
  106. "Reuters toughens rules after altered photo affair". Reuters. January 18, 2007. 
  107. "Reutersgate strikes other news outlets". JPost. August 11, 2006. 
  108. The Dishonest Reporter 'Award' 2006 by HonestReporting
  109. Stephen D. Cooper, Marshall University (2007). "A Concise History of the Fauxtography Blogstorm in the 2006 Lebanon War" (in en). American Communication Journal. Retrieved 2008-07-11. 
  110. "Robert Fisk: Mystery of Israel's secret uranium bomb". The Independent. October 28, 2006. 
  111. Indie's Uranium Charges by HonestReporting
  112. "UN investigates Israel's 'uranium weapons'". The Independent. October 30, 2006. 
  113. "Israel did not use depleted uranium during conflict with Hizbollah, UN agency finds". UN News Centre. November 8, 2006. 
  114. "UN: No IDF uranium bomb use in Lebanon". YNet. November 8, 2006.,7340,L-3325254,00.html. 
  115. No Retraction For Indie's False Uranium Libel by Honest Reporting
  116. Décryptage (2003) on IMDB
  117. Décryptage on Sundance Channel
  118. Movies on The Second Draft
  119. 119.0 119.1 Pallywood on YouTube
  120. Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land on IMDB
  121. Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land on Google Video
  122. Refutation of Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land (HTML) by JCRC
  123. Review of Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land by LiP Magazine
  124. Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land (2003) by Ned Martel on the New York Times
  125. The Problem with Neutrality Between Palestinians and Israel by Kathleen Christison on CounterPunch
  126. Eye on the Media: Depending on your 'point of view' by Bret Stevens on Jerusalem Post, quoted from Watch - "Immoral equivalency"
  127. The Hottest Button: How The Times Covers Israel and Palestine by the New York Times
  128. Killings Of Dozens Once Again Called Period Of Calm By US Media by Michael Brown and Ali Abunimah on ZNet
  129. 129.0 129.1 129.2 129.3 "Facebook sparks 'Palestine' debate". JPost. October 10, 2007. 
  130. 130.0 130.1 "Facing up to the 'Facebook' dilemma". JPost. February 5, 2008. 
  131. 131.0 131.1 131.2 "Facebook Makes an About-Face". Arutz 7. March 18, 2008. 
  132. 132.0 132.1 "Jewish Activist Battles For Israel on Facebook". Arutz 7. April 3, 2008. 
  133. "Northern Israeli town files complaint over Google claim it was built on Arab village". IHT. February 11, 2008. 
  134. 134.0 134.1 "Wiki-Warfare: Battle for the on-line encyclopedia". JPost. May 13, 2008. 
  135. 135.0 135.1 Exposed: Anti-Israel Subversion on Wikipedia by HonestReporting
  136. 136.0 136.1 EI exclusive: a pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia by Electronic Intifada
  137. 137.0 137.1 How and Why to Edit Wikipedia by CAMERA
  138. Latest Front In Mideast Wars: Wikipedia by Tamar Snyder in The Jewish Week
  139. "Playing politics on Facebook". TheStar. May 3, 2007. 
  140. 140.0 140.1 Response to Wikipedia by JIDF
  141. 141.0 141.1 "Jewish Internet Defense Force 'seizes control' of anti-Israel Facebook group". JPost. July 29, 2008. 
  142. 142.0 142.1 "Facebook: 'Anti-Semitic' group hijacked by Jewish force". The Daily Telegraph. July 31, 2008. 
  143. "Wiki-war in the Middle East". IHT. May 6, 2008. 
  144. CAMERA Letter About Wikipedia in International Herald Tribune by CAMERA
  145. "The failure of Wikipedia". International Herald Tribune. May 11, 2008. 
  146. The Wild West of Wikipedia by Gilead Ini of CAMERA
  147. Empathy with Palestinians vs. Israelis: Examining U.S. Media Representations, Coverage, and Attitudes by Donald A. Sylvan and Nathan Toronto, pg. 3
  148. About CAMERA by CAMERA
  149. About IMEU by IMEU

External links