Bias

In journalistic jargon, “if it bleeds, it leads,” and tales of Israel’s alleged cruelty and criminal acts against humanity are avidly gobbled up by reporters seeking a salacious story.

It's okay to report a humanitarian crisis, but as a part of the whole story, with balanced information about all the relevant actors. 

Locking the narrative is useful in political communication, framing events or policies in a way that favors a particular viewpoint.

The New York Post's report follows a 90-day review of America's presence in the UN body focused on probing "any antisemitic or anti-Israel sentiment within the organization."

The discussion focused largely on transcending the need to ascertain whether certain violent acts fit the “narrow and highly technical realm of criminal law” and the legal definition of genocide.

We all would like to think that the truth is self evident – always there in black and white; always the victor. It’s hardly so! 

This narrative is very dangerous because any future Iranian retaliation against the US in which an American is harmed would likely be blamed on Israel.

When corrections are issued for news stories that were inaccurate or unverified, it's often too late.

It looks like Israel, for the most part, handled the incident well; and especially in tough times like these, any PR victory must be celebrated, including getting the better of Greta Thunberg.

Calling for “climate justice” while ignoring the greatest injustice perpetrated against the Jewish people since the end of the Nazi regime, is grotesque.

The systemic bias is too difficult to ignore. Since 2006, the UN General Assembly has passed more resolutions against Israel than all other countries combined.