RAPPORT on anti-Israel Media Bias
From the BBC to the World: How Reporting Practices Shape Public Perception of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict
Executive Summary
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of the most intensively reported and passionately debated issues in the global media landscape. While journalistic ethics demand accuracy, fairness, and balance, persistent allegations—rooted in detailed research and firsthand testimony—demonstrate that much global media coverage is influenced by subtle and overt biases against Israel and the foundational ideology of Zionism. This comprehensive report investigates the nature, mechanisms, and effects of media bias against Israel, detailing how such bias contributes to the normalisation of anti-Zionism and, in many contexts, makes space for classical antisemitism.
Prologue:
The Unique Impact of BBC Bias—Why the BBC Is the Most Dangerous Trendsetter
The BBC’s Prestige and Global Reach
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) occupies a privileged position in the global media ecosystem. Funded by mandatory license fees and underpinned by its Royal Charter, the BBC presents itself as the gold standard of impartiality and journalistic integrity. It is not just another broadcaster; in many regions, the BBC is often the definitive English-language news source, relied upon by governments, rival journalists, NGOs, academics, and the general public.
Global Audience: The BBC World Service reaches hundreds of millions worldwide, making its editorial decisions and framing profoundly influential—not just in the UK, but across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and even in North America.
Media Benchmark: Journalists in scores of countries treat the BBC as a template for tone, terminology, and ethical norms. Many media organisations train their personnel on BBC methods or directly syndicate its content.
The Domino Effect: Other Media Follow the BBC’s Lead
When the BBC sets a narrative—whether in headlines, terminology, or framing—other networks, wire services, and even digital outlets rapidly fall in line. This “trendsetter effect” makes any error or omission in BBC coverage especially consequential:
Headline Echo Chamber: As independent investigator David Collier wrote, “The reason why the BBC is so awful is because they are seen globally as the standard bearers of journalism and if they do it, everybody else does it...” Other media often run with the BBC’s story angles and repeat its talking points, even rewriting their own stories to match BBC framing.
Wire Service Confirmation: Global agencies (Reuters, AFP, AP) and regional broadcasters often cite BBC reporting as corroboration—that is, if “the BBC is saying it,” that itself is used as evidence.
Case Example: In the aftermath of the “Gaza hospital bombing” claim (2023), the BBC amplified initial, unverified Palestinian statements blaming Israel. Many major networks (CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, France 24, Sky News) adopted the same framing within minutes to hours, only to issue quiet corrections days later after new evidence emerged. The public impact was irreversible.
Setting Dangerous Precedents
Because the BBC is widely perceived as “above politics” or uniquely trustworthy, its errors have broader, more lasting effects:
Politicians, diplomats, and NGOs routinely quote the BBC in parliament, at the UN, and in policy papers.
Biased reporting or misinformation from the BBC can spark diplomatic incidents, trigger mass protests, or even incite violence against Jews worldwide—events usually justified by “as reported by the BBC.”
As noted in multiple sources, “If the BBC demonises Israel or spreads anti-Zionist rhetoric, other British and global outlets see that as a green light.”
Internal Culture and Lack of Accountability
Unlike private or partisan outlets, the BBC’s internal culture is shaped by a sense of mission—believing deeply in its own impartiality, even as repeated reports (e.g., the Asserson Report, the Balen Report) document consistent, statistical patterns of anti-Israel bias.
Licence fee funding and government oversight in the UK give the British public a direct stake in BBC output. The sense of betrayal and outrage is compounded by the lack of serious institutional consequences for mistakes or malicious reporting.
“Investigations and inquiries have happened, but the BBC spent huge sums fighting even the release of their own bias audits,” as activists note.
Conclusion
The BBC’s unrivalled prestige, reach, and perceived neutrality mean its editorial decisions carry vastly more weight and entail far graver consequences than any other broadcaster. When it gets the Israel story wrong—whether through bias, omission, or credulity—the BBC does not merely misinform its own audience. It sets off a chain reaction, both media and political, that is almost impossible to reverse.
That is why bias at the BBC is the most dangerous of all: what starts as a narrative or error in London becomes, within hours, the accepted “truth” in headlines, parliaments, and streets the world over. As the trendsetter, the BBC holds a unique ethical and historical responsibility—a responsibility it too often neglects when reporting on Israel and Zionism.
Part 1:
Introduction and Foundations
1. Introduction: What is Media Bias and How Does it Affect Israel?
Media Bias Defined
Media bias is the skewing of news reporting in favour of or against specific parties, through selective presentation of facts, loaded language, omission, and misrepresentation. Bias can be conscious or subconscious, institutional or the product of individual choices, and its effects ripple across public perception, public policy, and societal attitudes.
Zionism and Its Critics
Zionism is the movement for Jewish self-determination and statehood in the ancestral land of Israel. While all ideologies are open to criticism, anti-Zionism, as expressed in much media and activism, often veers from legitimate critique of policy and leaders to the denial of Israel’s right to exist or the legitimacy of Jewish national consciousness.
“If you spread and demonise Israel, then you are also demonising Zionism by extension... and by extension, Jews.”
The Stakes
Media bias does not exist in a vacuum. It shapes international relations, solidifies hostilities, and—particularly in the information age—fuels polarisation, misinformation, and acts as a catalyst for anti-Semitic sentiment under the cover of humanitarian or anti-colonial discourse.
2. The Language of Reporting
The Power of Words
Media coverage is not simply about the transmission of facts but about the framing of narratives. Even seemingly neutral choices have immense power in influencing perception.
Loaded Terms:
Words such as “settlers,” “apartheid,” “occupation,” and “colonialism” are frequently employed by media outlets, drawing upon their established moral weight. By routinely referring to disputed territories as the “occupied West Bank” instead of “Judea and Samaria” (the Israeli/Jewish historical terms), global media privilege a Palestinian narrative as default.
“These words are chosen not because they reflect reality but because they all have something in common: they are all internationally accepted as evil. So putting them next to ‘Zionism’ or ‘Israel’ is... repeating the message that Zionism and Israel are the ultimate evil.”
The Problem of Mistranslation
A subtle, yet powerful form of bias is the mistranslation or “softening” of hostile rhetoric. For example:
The Arabic word “yahud” (“Jews”) is sometimes translated in reporting as “Israelis,” which shifts the intent from anti-Jewish hatred to mere anti-Israel sentiment.
This translation minimises the ethnic/religious components of some propaganda and makes incitement appear political, not racist.
Omission and Emphasis
Media often places Israel under a microscope:
“Settler violence” is frequently covered, while attacks on Israelis by Palestinians or incitement to violence in official Palestinian media receives less coverage.
Reporting on Israeli military actions regularly lacks context about previous rocket attacks or terrorism from Gaza or the West Bank.
As Matti Friedman, a former AP reporter, observed:
“In my time in the press corps I saw, from the inside, how Israel’s flaws were dissected and magnified, while the flaws of its enemies were purposefully erased... by inflating certain details, ignoring others, and presenting the result as an accurate picture of reality.”
3. Verification, Sources, and Censorship
Gaslighting by Omission
Many news reports about Gaza or the West Bank are generated by local journalists living under Hamas or Palestinian Authority control:
Local sources may be subject to censorship, intimidation, or be active partisans.
As documented in multiple reports, initial claims blaming Israel for incidents (such as “massacres” at aid sites) have later been corrected but those corrections receive far less attention and thus public perception stays skewed.
Example: The Jenin “Massacre” Myth
In April 2002, reputable global media outlets reported hundreds, even thousands, of Palestinians slaughtered by Israeli troops in Jenin. Later investigations, including by the UN, found no massacre occurred—fewer than 60 Palestinians died, most of them combatants, and Israel lost 23 soldiers. Yet, the massacre myth persists in public memory.
One-Sided Sourcing
Reports often quote Palestinian sources as fact, while Israeli statements are labelled as “claims.” When international media lack independent corroboration, their default reliance is on the narrative supplied by actors with a vested interest—frequently unchallenged.
Omitted reporting on:
Gaza’s rocket infrastructure embedded in civilian areas.
Hamas suppressing images of militants or munitions, while amplifying images of civilian suffering for media consumption.
Part 2:
Case Studies, Digital Warfare, and Institutional Bias
4. Case Studies: Media Distortion in Practice
4.1 The Gaza Wars: Selective Sympathy and Image Manipulation
The multiple rounds of conflict between Israel and Hamas (2009, 2012, 2014, 2021, and after) provide sobering case studies of media distortion.
Operation Protective Edge (2014):
Global headlines focused on images of devastation in Gaza but often failed to show Israeli families under persistent rocket attack in Sderot, Ashkelon, and other cities.
Viral videos purporting to show Israeli “atrocities” were debunked as footage from Syria or Iraq, or scenes staged for media consumption (“Pallywood”).
News agencies, including Reuters and AFP, have struggled at times to correct such errors, but corrections lack the viral impact of the original sensationalist stories.
The “Gaza hospital strike” narrative that spread globally in 2023 (and similar claims before) received wall-to-wall coverage blaming Israel, only for evidence to later point to a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket. Most outlets issued belated corrections—but by then the initial headline had spurred worldwide protests and driven UN condemnation.
4.2 The UNRWA School and the Human Shield Dilemma
During each flare-up, the issue of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) facilities being used for launching rockets or storing munitions arises:
Reports from Israel and neutral third parties (including UN officials after the fact) have admitted that Hamas utilises schools and hospitals as shielded positions.
Initial reports nearly always omit this complexity, presenting Israeli actions as unprovoked or “indiscriminate.”
When facts emerge, such as secondary explosions indicating hidden munitions, they are relegated to back pages or technical corrections buried in later news cycles.
4.3 Humanising Terror, Demonising Security
International outlets have profiled figures such as Leila Khaled (airplane hijacker) or Hamas commanders as “resistance fighters” and rarely label them terrorists. Simultaneously, Israeli security officials are frequently shown in connection with destruction or military action, reinforcing an image of disproportionate power or brutality.
“The BBC disgracefully whitewashes two terrorist families in order to portray Israel as bloodthirsty child killers … It is a classic antisemitic smear.”
5. The Digital Battlefield: Social Media, Hashtags, and Information War
5.1 The Rise of Hashtag Activism
With the dawn of social media, the battleground has shifted profoundly:
Hashtags like #FreePalestine, #GazaUnderAttack, and #BDS trend globally during each round of violence.
Viral images—often taken out of context or from unrelated conflicts—become emotional rallying points.
Influencer campaigns coordinate international outrage within hours, outpacing more cautious, verified journalism.
StandWithUs and other Israeli advocacy groups set up the “Social Media Situation Room” as early as 2009 to counter this onslaught, but still face an uphill battle. Pro-Israel messages are both quantitatively outnumbered and sometimes subject to algorithmic suppression or organised reporting/boycotts online.
5.2 Misinformation and Its Correction
Once a narrative has gone viral, even robust rebuttal struggles to repair the damage. Examples include:
The rapid spread of the false “Israel bombed baby incubators” claim—echoing similar infamous propaganda lies in 1991 Kuwait and again in Gaza decades later.
Staged scenes, alleged “fake funerals,” and manipulated casualty statistics regularly feature on viral platforms.
“Hour by hour and day by day, the world’s only Jewish country is being slandered. Whether by misleading graphic posts on Facebook, via lies told in a stream of tweets or through vicious propaganda videos on YouTube, there is a drip-drip of defamation aimed at the State of Israel.”
5.3 Attempts to Redress the Balance
Efforts include:
Training Israeli youth to document their lives under threat (#IsraelUnderFire).
Research projects debunking viral images and fact-checking livestreams from conflict zones.
“Cyber defence” units monitor and report coordinated anti-Israel activity (though this sometimes backfires by providing fodder for conspiracy claims).
6. Institutional Bias: NGOs, International Agencies, and Academia
6.1 NGOs and Human Rights Organisations
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others have made invaluable contributions to the fight for human rights globally. Yet, their special focus on Israel—often exceeding their scrutiny of far more egregious regimes—creates a misleading impression:
Israel is the only country with a permanent agenda item against it at the UN Human Rights Council.
Reports sometimes rely on testimonies from activists and do not always distinguish between combatants and civilians.
NGOs have referred to Israeli defensive or counter-terrorism measures as “executions” or “crimes against humanity” even when evidence does not match such accusations.
“When it comes to Israel we increasingly see the closing of the academic mind. ... It is increasingly becoming the hard-core centre of dogma when it comes to issues concerning Israel.”
6.2 UNRWA and Education
Multiple watchdogs have produced compelling, evidence-based reports documenting:
UNRWA textbooks and even teachers in Palestinian Authority-run schools instructing children that “Palestine” includes all pre-1967 Israel, erasing Jewish self-determination or presence.
Teachers’ social media accounts discovered inciting violence or glorifying attacks on civilians.
“Contemporary antisemitic libels about Israel causing cancer among Palestinians” or similar canards appearing in teaching materials.
Even when UNRWA pledges reform, follow-up assessments often reveal little systemic change.
6.3 Academia and the Boycott Movement
University humanities and social science faculties, especially in the West, have become focal points for anti-Zionist activism:
Academic boycotts of Israeli scholars and institutions are promoted in the name of “decolonisation” or “anti-apartheid.”
Jewish and pro-Israel students face pressure to denounce Israel to fit into activist spaces, or risk ostracism.
Left-wing faculty (especially in the US, UK, and some European countries) routinely inject ideological narratives into coursework, shaping generations of opinion-makers in academia, media, and politics.
“Academia is supposed to be the heart of open-minded discourse … it is increasingly becoming the hard-core centre of dogma when it comes to issues concerning Israel.”
Part 3:
Double Standards, The Anti-Zionism–Antisemitism Nexus, and Real-World Impacts
7. Double Standards and the Distortion of Moral Judgement
7.1 Disparate Expectations for Israel
One of the most persistent features of media bias is the application of double standards. Israel is held to standards of conduct that are not applied to any other state, not least its antagonists or neighbouring regimes. This is evident in areas including:
Military Engagement: When Israel responds to Hamas rocket fire or terror attacks, its actions are labelled as “aggression,” “war crimes,” or “disproportionate.” The complex reality—urban warfare against a terrorist entity embedded in the civilian population—is rarely acknowledged in headlines.
Case Study: The killing of Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin was condemned as “murder” by the BBC, contrasting with how Western strikes against ISIS or al-Qaeda leaders are routinely called "counter-terrorism."
Human Rights Reporting: Israeli legal procedures for investigating wrongdoings and providing humanitarian aid to Gaza are seldom featured. The existence of a robust, independent Israeli press and judiciary is rarely cited as context, despite the lack of such mechanisms in Hamas- or PA-controlled territories.
International Forums: Israel is almost uniquely and perpetually condemned by UN bodies that routinely ignore far more egregious abuses by member states such as Syria, Iran, China, or Russia.
7.2 The “Cycle of Violence” Narrative
The favoured narrative in much global reporting emphasises a never-ending “cycle of violence” without identifying initiators or the nature of attacks. This reporting:
Often obscures the distinction between offensive terrorism and defensive military operations.
Fails to note that periods of Israeli military action are nearly always preceded by waves of rocket attacks, suicide bombings, or killings of civilians.
Ignores official Hamas and PA incitement and glorification of martyrdom or “heroic resistance” targeting Israeli civilians.
7.3 Omission of Context
By omitting critical background, outlets create a sense of unprovoked Israeli aggression:
October 7, 2023: Large-scale attacks by Hamas sparked a major conflict. Some coverage failed to note the unprecedented nature of the massacre—over 1,000 Israelis murdered, hundreds taken hostage—focusing instead on the rapid escalation of Israeli military response.
Rocket Fire: Reports often begin the running order with “Israeli jets bombed Gaza,” omitting the trigger event of rocket barrages into Israeli cities.
8. The Slippery Slope: From Anti-Israel Bias to Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism
8.1 Demonisation of Zionism
Media bias frequently manifests in the consistent vilification of Zionism, conflating the Jewish national movement with racism, colonialism, or even Nazi ideology. This demonisation is not just rhetorical but has deep historical echoes:
“Anti-Zionism became a magical formula enabling one to be ‘democratically anti-Semitic.’” — French philosopher Vladimir Jankélévitch (1978).
8.2 The Conflation of Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism
Whereas criticising any government is legitimate, denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination—alone among all peoples—is recognised by scholars and international bodies as a form of antisemitism. Key points include:
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism explicitly links some anti-Zionist rhetoric (such as calls for Israel’s destruction or accusations of uniquely evil conduct) to antisemitism.
Boycotts targeting Israelis—while leaving Jews in America, Europe, or Arab countries as fair game—send a message of collective guilt that echoes antisemitic boycotts of the past.
8.3 Contemporary Examples
Accusations of “Genocide” and “Crimes Against Humanity”: Labelling Israel’s defensive actions as “genocide” trivialises real atrocity crimes, inflames passions, and contributes to the normalisation of anti-Jewish conspiracy thinking.
The proliferation of these terms in pro-Palestinian protest and on social media seamlessly transitions into anti-Jewish graffiti, attacks, and threats in the diaspora.
Media and Political Impact: Media narratives, such as the “massacre at Jenin” and subsequent quiet retractions, become sources for political condemnation, UN resolutions, and fuel for hate crimes worldwide.
8.4 Impact on Jews Worldwide
When Israel is demonised, diaspora Jews inevitably become targets:
Synagogues, Jewish schools, and businesses in Europe and North America are attacked after Israeli military operations.
Jewish students are told to distance themselves from Israel to be accepted in activist or academic spaces.
In extreme rhetoric, Jewish support for Zionism is classified as racist, inviting exclusion and physical threat.
“Their noisy demonstrations and activism has given a legitimacy to the rank and file anti-Semite who can now express his bile under the guise of professing moral concerns for the human rights of an oppressed people.”
9. Real-World Consequences of Media Bias
9.1 Fuelling Policy and Diplomacy
World leaders cite erroneous reports to justify diplomatic pressure or condemnation of Israel.
Example: U.S. and UN condemnation over incidents that, when later investigated, are found to be misrepresented or fabricated by the initial, unfiltered reports.
9.2 Societal Polarisation
Media-amplified anti-Israel and anti-Zionist narratives harden political tribalism on campuses and in politics.
Well-intentioned but misinformed people are recruited into BDS and other delegitimisation movements, which often spill into anti-Jewish harassment.
9.3 Safety of Jews Globally
Spikes in antisemitic violence correlate with each round of major Israel–Gaza conflict, inflamed by biased headlines and viral content.
Governments struggle to maintain social cohesion as Jewish communities demand protection and protest the conflation of Jews with Israeli state actions.
Part 4:
Solutions, Recommendations, and the Path Forward
10. Toward Fairer Coverage: Recommendations and Best Practices
A just and peaceful future in the Middle East demands honest, contextualised journalism—reporting that neither demonises nor romanticises, but enables public understanding and discourse. Below are actionable steps for journalists, media institutions, civil society, and the public at large.
10.1 Journalistic Reform & Institutional Accountability
1. Commitment to Contextualisation:
Provide necessary historical, political, and security context in all reporting. Explanations of why conflict areas are disputed, the history of territorial claims, and consistent coverage of incitement and violence on all sides must become standard practice.
2. Transparent Source Attribution:
Clearly identify the origin and possible partiality of sources, especially when quoting officials from authoritarian or conflict parties.
Distinguish between verified facts, battlefield claims, and propaganda. Report initial information with cautionary disclaimers and update stories as facts emerge.
3. Correction Protocols:
Corrections of erroneous reports—especially those that gain widespread dissemination—must receive the same level of prominence and amplification as the original story.
For example, major outlets should issue push notifications, social media updates, and headline banners when clarifying significant errors in initial reports about the conflict.
4. Equal Moral Standards:
Apply consistent standards in coverage of all conflicts: evaluate civilian protection measures, security dilemmas, and humanitarian crises with the same critical lens used for Israel and its neighbours.
10.2 Enhancing Media Literacy and Civil Society Response
5. Promote Media Literacy Education:
Empower news consumers with the tools to recognise bias, fact-check, and triangulate information. This includes understanding manipulative visuals, viral misinformation, and emotionally charged reporting.
Educational programmes in schools, universities, and community centres should include modules on misinformation about international conflicts, including the Israeli–Arab dynamic.
6. Support Fact-Checking Initiatives:
Independent organisations and coalitions should routinely monitor viral content, provide accessible debunking, and hold media to account for systematic errors or omissions.
Collaborative projects (i.e., partnerships between newsrooms and external specialists) should be funded to offer immediate corrections in high-profile cases.
7. Foster Advocacy and Pluralism:
Encourage a plurality of voices—including Israeli, Palestinian, Jewish, Arab, and other minority perspectives—in mainstream media. Include human stories from all communities under threat, not just headlines that conform to preexisting narratives.
10.3 Oversight of NGOs and International Agencies
8. Transparency in Educational and Humanitarian Agencies:
Agencies such as UNRWA must disclose:
The content of educational curricula.
Training protocols for teachers on tolerance, peace, and factual history.
Internal review procedures for removing incitement and antisemitism.
Employment rosters of staff associated with terror or hate-link content as already called for by watchdog groups.
9. Accountability for Human Rights Organisations:
NGOs must adopt verifiable criteria for evidentiary standards and clearly distinguish between allegations and confirmed abuses—especially on high-impact issues related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
10.4 A Role for the Global Jewish Community and Allies
10. Increase Community-Led Research and Response:
Jewish and pro-Israel organisations must continue funding independent, fact-based research into media bias. Support for investigative journalism, as illustrated in the Asserson Report and the writings of independent researchers like David Collier and Matti Friedman, is vital for holding large institutions to account.
11. Build Coalitions with Other Marginalised Communities:
Build alliances with groups facing similar delegitimisation and share best practices for countering hate while supporting dignity and truth.
11. The Role of Digital Platforms and Tech Companies
12. Social Media Regulation:
Tech companies must develop more transparent policies for viral misinformation, including clear systems for reporting and correcting false or manipulated content.
Algorithms should be regularly audited for fairness in exposure of differing perspectives, ensuring minority, mainstream, and fact-based pro-Israel content are not unfairly suppressed.
13. Digital Advocacy Training:
Grassroots digital ambassador programmes, such as Israel’s Social Media Ambassadors, should be expanded and supported by diaspora communities and sympathetic governments.
12. Conclusion: Toward Truth and Reconciliation in Media
The world’s only Jewish nation-state exists in a uniquely volatile region and operates under threats often ignored or denied in international narratives. That reality is complicated, tragic, and, at times, disquieting. However, honest criticism is indispensable for democratic self-correction; what cannot be tolerated is chronic demonisation, the repeated erasure of Jewish history and agency, and the recycling of ancient antisemitic tropes under the guise of modern activism.
Bias in media coverage—through language, omission, sourcing, and digital amplification—has far-reaching consequences, not only distorting public understanding but fuelling hatred and division far from the Middle Eastern sand.
Balanced journalism, grounded in facts and reflective of the full human cost on all sides, is not a gift to Israel, or to the Jewish people, but a responsibility owed to universal democracy, justice, and peaceful coexistence. As the age of social media and “citizen journalism” unfolds, the collective obligation to defend nuance, context, and basic decency has never been greater.
Appendices and Further Reading
1. Annotated Bibliography and Further Reading
Key Reports
The Asserson Report (full text & executive summary) – a forensic audit of BBC coverage during the Israel–Hamas war.
UN Watch & IMPACT-se dossiers on antisemitic incitement in Palestinian curricula and UNRWA classrooms.
HonestReporting’s annual Bias Index and special bulletins on lethal journalism.
Research papers and commentary from the London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, directed by David Hirsh.
Long-form investigations by David Collier, Matti Friedman, Manfred Gerstenfeld, and others into media distortion and rising antisemitism.
Books
A History of the Jews – Paul Johnson
Pumpkinflowers – Matti Friedman
Industry of Lies – Ben-Dror Yemini
Fighting Hamas, BDS and Antisemitism – Barry Shaw
Israel Reclaiming the Narrative – Barry Shaw
The Case for Israel – Alan Dershowitz
The War of Return – Einat Wilf & Adi Schwartz
Zionism: The Birth and Transformation of an Ideal – Gil Troy
Can the Whole World Be Wrong? Lethal Journalism, Antisemitism and Global Jihad – Richard Landes
The Jews – Arthur Koestler (selected essays)
Jews Don’t Count – David Baddiel (for contemporary cultural context)
Academic Papers
Framing-theory analyses in Journalism Studies on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Peer-reviewed work on algorithmic amplification of conflict narratives in New Media & Society.
Articles from the Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism and affiliated publications from the LCSCA.
Journalism & Commentary
Danny Cohen – Telegraph columns on media bias and antisemitism (e.g., We Must Fight This Creeping Antisemitism, 21 Jan 2024; The BBC’s Broadcast of Glastonbury Hate Chanting Is Nothing Short of a Disgrace, 29 Jun 2025).
Jonathan Sacerdoti – analysis pieces for The Spectator, Sky News, and Times Radio dissecting media narratives and antisemitic tropes.
Jake Wallis Simons – I Am Proud to Be a Zionist – and You Should Be One Too (Telegraph, 21 Jun 2025).
Melanie Phillips – Guardian of the Flames blog archive and commentary on Western double standards.
David Hirsh – articles and essays addressing contemporary antisemitism, anti-Zionism, and left-wing ideological blind spots.
2. Expanded Appendix of Case Studies
Jenin “Massacre” Myth (2002) – timeline of initial claims, UN findings, and lingering public perception.
Gaza Border Protests (2018) – comparison of headline casualty figures versus later IDF and Hamas admissions.
Al-Ahli Hospital Blast (2023) – juxtaposition of early global headlines and subsequent forensic assessments attributing the explosion to a mis-fired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket.
“Pallywood” Incidents – catalogue of staged funerals, recycled Syrian footage, and Photoshop fabrications that entered mainstream news cycles.
Ben & Jerry’s Boycott Saga (2021–2025) – media treatment of corporate activism and its geopolitical fallout.
To keep up with ongoing research, analysis, and updates on media bias and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, visit our Substack:
THE RISE OF THE IDIOTS
A platform for further investigations, commentary, and community discussion.