The study suggests that television news on the Israel/Palestinian conflict confuses viewers and substantially features Israeli government views. Israelis are quoted and speak in interviews over twice as much as Palestinians and there are major differences in the language used to describe the two sides. This operates in favours of the Israelis and influences how viewers understand the conflict. The study focused on BBC One and ITV News from the start of the current Palestinian intifada, the Glasgow researchers examined around 200 news programmes and interviewed and questioned over 800 people. The study is unique in that for the first time it brought senior broadcasters together with ordinary viewers to work in research groups, analysing how the news informs people and how it could be improved. Read more about New Book: Bad News from Israel 

Since the Palestinians began their armed uprising against Israel’s military occupation three years and eight months ago, British television and radio’s reporting of it has been, in the main, dishonest - in concept, approach and execution. In my judgment as a journalist and Middle East specialist, the broadcasters’ language favours the occupying soldiers over the occupied Arabs, depicting the latter, essentially, as alien tribes threatening the survival of Israel, rather than vice versa. The struggle between Israel and the Palestinians is shown, most especially on mainstream bulletins, as a battle between two ‘forces’, possessed equally of right and wrong and responsibility. It is the tyranny of spurious equivalence. That 37 years of military occupation, the violation of the Palestinians’ human, political and civil rights and the continuing theft of their land might have triggered this crisis is a concept either lost or underplayed. Read more about The story TV news won't tell  

Where objectivity fails, investigative and feature-oriented journalism plays a potent role. On May 31, the New Yorker published Jeffrey Goldberg’s 21-page “Among the Settlers.” Unfortunately, his essay is not more than an attempt to legitimize Zionism, an ethnically exclusive colonial project, as a liberal idea. Moreover, by eliminating the legitimate and empirical arguments against Zionism, Goldberg leaves his readers with few moral conclusions. The direction he intends those conclusions to take is partly revealed in his omission of the most convincing anti-Zionist argument: the right of return. Read more about The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails 

Since the beginning of May 2004, Israel has dramatically increased its program of structural and ethnic cleansing of Rafah. While Israel claims that its military operations in Rafah are motivated by “security reasons”, numerous reports from human rights organisations paint a picture of arbitrary shootings of residents, including children, and nightly firing at border homes from Israeli watchtowers. EI co-founder Nigel Parry examines the various claims Israel has made about the ongoing “Operation Rainbow” and attempts to uncover some of the realities behind Israel’s distortions of what is happening in Rafah. Read more about Key Israeli distortions about "Operation Rainbow" in Rafah