The recent foiled hijacking of a Flydubai flight from Dubai to Israel was a dramatic event: passengers subdued a co-pilot who had stabbed the captain, causing the plane to drop nearly 14,000 feet before landing safely. The quick actions of the passengers and crew prevented what could have been a catastrophic attack, and Israeli officials were quick to label it a terrorist incident.
Yet, in the immediate aftermath, major news outlets, including the New York Times, were hesitant to use the word "terrorism." The Times initially described the incident as an "altercation between the pilot and co-pilot," while Reuters called it a "pilot brawl." This cautious language, while perhaps appropriate for breaking news, stands in stark contrast to the way these same outlets often handle allegations against Israel.
As Becket Adams, a media critic, points out, the New York Times has a troubling record of rushing to publish unverified or false claims when they reflect poorly on Israel. For instance, in the early days of the Gaza war, the Times reported that Israel had bombed Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, killing 500 people. That claim was later debunked, with evidence pointing to a rocket misfire by Islamic Jihad that hit a parking lot, not the hospital. The Times eventually issued an editor's note acknowledging the error.
Similarly, the Times published a front-page photo of a Palestinian child with cerebral palsy, captioning him as a victim of an Israeli-induced famine. The paper later admitted it had failed to verify the child's medical condition before publication. In another instance, the Times ran an opinion piece by Nicholas Kristof alleging that Israeli police had trained dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners—a claim that the paper's own executive editor said he would not have published in the news pages.
These examples highlight a double standard: while the Times exercises caution in reporting on incidents involving Israel as a victim, it seems far less willing to verify claims that cast Israel in a negative light. As Adams notes, "It seems no claim is too stupid, outrageous, or ridiculous to make its way into the Times, so long as it is aimed at Israel."
This selective caution is not just a matter of journalistic ethics; it has real-world consequences. When media outlets rush to publish unverified claims, they can fuel anti-Israel sentiment and undermine public trust in the press. The arrest of the co-pilot in the hijacking case serves as a reminder of the importance of accurate reporting in high-stakes situations.
For the New York Times and other outlets, the challenge is to apply the same rigor to all stories, regardless of the subject. As Adams argues, the paper's claim that it doesn't "publish speculation or unverified information" rings hollow when it has repeatedly done so in coverage of Israel. The debate over campus Israel boycotts and Democratic divisions on Israel are just a few areas where accurate reporting is crucial.
In the end, the media must strive for consistency in its standards. If the Times can hold back on the hijacking story until it had verified facts, it should apply the same discipline to all reporting, especially when the subject is as polarized as Israel. Otherwise, it risks being seen as not a news organization but a partisan actor.
