Click here to get your FREE sticker!
8/4/10
On August 2, the New York Times published an op-ed arguing that Arabs do not care much about Palestinians--and that this is a good thing, especially for Palestinians. But the argument relied on a "poll" of the Arab world that does not exist.
The piece, by historian Efraim Karsh, intended to show that the "conventional wisdom" about the Israel-Palestine conflict--that Arabs "are so passionate about the Palestine problem"--is wrong. His main evidence is this: "What, then, are we to make of a recent survey for the Al Arabiya television network finding that a staggering 71 percent of the Arabic respondents have no interest in the Palestinian/Israeli peace talks?"
Action Alert: Does the NY Times Factcheck Op-Eds? : Bogus evidence showing Arab apathy towards Palestinians (8/4/10)
Media Advisory: PBS's Shultz Doc Has Content to Match Its Conflicts (8/2/10)
Media Advisory: WikiLeaks and the U.S. Press : Media resistance to exposure of government secrets (7/30/10)
CounterSpin: Daniel Ellsberg on WikiLeaks, A.C. Thompson on New Orlean police shootings (7/30/10)
| Other Recent Additions
Terrorism
Energy
Economy
FROM THE ARCHIVES
Riki Ott on Exxon Valdez, Harvey Wasserman on Three Mile Island
(3/27/09)
FROM THE ARCHIVES
Tyson Slocum on offshore drilling, Matthew Lasar on the Red Lion decision
(6/20/08)
FROM THE ARCHIVES
Failing to Do the Math on Oil
Support for offshore drilling increases following media misinformation (Update August 2008)
FROM THE ARCHIVES
Slick Coverage of the Exxon Valdez Spill
Unreliable Sources (March/April 1990)
- Posted by Peter Hart on 08/04/10 at 3:06 pmFAIR just released an action alert about the New York Times and a factchecking failure on its op-ed page. Read the alert if you haven't already, and if you decide to write to the Times, please share your letter in the comments section below. Read more»
- Posted by Zachary Tomanelli on 08/04/10 at 2:14 pmIn Howard Kurtz?s latest column (8/2/10), the Washington Post media reporter bemoans the new media atmosphere as a "search-and-destroy culture" that is "as likely to vilify journalists as political and corporate leaders." Kurtz counts himself among those vilified journalists, citing recent criticism over his defense (7/22/10) of Fox News' handling of the Shirley Sherrod debacle:
I know what it's like to be caught in the crossfire. When I reported that Fox News did not air the Sherrod video until after she had been fired, I got hammered by the left, and some commentators just ignored the chronology. (And conspiracy theorists pounced when I left out that a Fox online story had run an hour or so before the firing--hardly the reason that Sherrod was canned.)
Those "conspiracy theorists" apparently include FAIR, which pointed out Kurtz's oversight on this blog two weeks ago (7/23/10). But FAIR is not alone; the L.A. Times (7/24/10) and Media Matters (7/29/10) made similar points.
Do you really have to be a "conspiracy theorist," though, to think that a White House that's worried that a story will appear on Fox News would keep an eye on Fox's websites? [...] Read more»
- Posted by Jim Naureckas on 08/04/10 at 10:35 amMatthew Yglesias (8/3/10) has a good takedown of senators John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Tom Coburn's (R.-Ok.) list of supposedly wasteful stimulus projects that generated an "exclusive" on ABC's Good Morning America (8/3/10): Jon Chait observes that McCain and Coburn also seem to have decided that anything relating to animals is necessarily waste. Hence a small grant [...] Read more»
- Posted by Peter Hart on 08/03/10 at 3:21 pmEvery Sunday on ABC's This Week there is a feature that names the U.S. servicemembers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan the previous week. Christiane Amanpour is the new host of the show, and the segment continues. But her critics see something sinister at work. This is how previous host Jake Tapper generally introduced the list: This week, the Pentagon released the names of 16 soldiers and marines [...] Read more»