Harvard University President Dr. Claudine Gay delivers remarks on Dec. 5, 2023, during the House Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing on the recent rise in antisemitism on college campuses. Photo: USA TODAY NETWORK via Reuters Connect
US and international media outlets have widely covered the backlash sparked by last week’s testimony of American university heads before a House committee, in which they refused to outright condemn calls for genocide against Jews.
But in their immediate coverage of the congressional hearing — i.e., before a storm erupted thanks to those unwilling to let antisemitism slide — the media were blind to what should have led their reporting and only later became a huge story.
A survey of the coverage on the day of the hearing reveals that Reuters, AP, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, and The Washington Post either ignored or buried the specific line of questioning that had pinned down the trio of presidents — Claudine Gay of Harvard, UPenn’s Lizz Magill, and Sally Kornbluth of MIT — who all evaded answering Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY)’s simple “yes” or “no” question about whether calls for genocide against Jews violate their institutions’ codes of conduct. They all said it was dependent on the context.
These media outlets focused on other issues that arose during the hearing, and created the impression that the university presidents had to defend themselves against an attack — as it was also represented later, some might say tastelessly, by US satire show Saturday Night Live.
Reuters’ text did not include any mention of the problematic back-and-forth regarding genocide (although it later added a video clip of it). It dryly conveyed some of the presidents’ talking points in response to various questions, with some necessary background.
The agency’s reportage completely missed what should have been the headline: Heads of Ivy League universities fail to condemn calls for genocide against Jews.
The AP did the same.
So if anyone on December 5 consumed their news solely from the wire services — which are responsible for distributing accurate information to hundreds of media outlets worldwide — he or she would have no idea that America’s elite universities had legitimized calls for the slaughtering of Jews.
Two months after Hamas had carried out a genocidal attack on southern Israel on October 7, triggering the rise in campus antisemitism that the committee set out to investigate, it’s incomprehensible how journalists could have missed the very discussion pertaining to such genocide.
CNN also ignored the exchange. It did quote a similar one, regarding “Intifada” and the slogan “From the River to the Sea,” but that wasn’t nearly as poignant.
Likewise, NPR’s report mentioned the “Intifada” questions but omits the testy debate over genocide. It was also quite supportive of the leaders of the universities, who they said “have long struggled to balance free speech and student safety.”
Burying the Headline
Other media mentioned the genocide issue, but in a way that did more harm than good.
The New York Times started by presenting the universities’ presidents as victims of events, rather than leaders who carry responsibility:
From the beginning of the Israel-Hamas conflict, the presidents have struggled to balance the free speech rights of pro-Palestinian protesters with the competing claims of Jewish students, who say that some of the rhetoric has spilled over into antisemitism. And the presidents have had to handle an increase in bias attacks for both sides.
Then the Times simply glossed over the heated genocide exchange, which is briefly buried at the end of the article as if it doesn’t merit any special attention:
She asked Ms. Magill of the University of Pennsylvania, “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct, yes or no?”
Ms. Magill replied, “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.”
Representative Stefanik pressed: “I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?”
After some back and forth, Ms. Magill said, “It can be harassment.”
Representative Stefanik responded: “The answer is yes.”
The Washington Post chose to present the exchange in the middle of its piece, between lengthy paragraphs regarding other issues that arose during the hearing:
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) asked the presidents about the limits of free speech. “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules on bullying and harassment?” she asked.
“Calling for the genocide of Jews is antisemitic,” Gay replied. “And that is antisemitic speech. And as I have said, when speech crosses into conduct, we take action.”
“So is that a yes?” Stefanik asked.
“When speech crosses into conduct, we take action,” Gay repeated.
Republicans also pushed the university leaders about the role of faculty.
It can be argued that both The New York Times and Washington Post, by reporting on the issue as just another item out of many, have actually contributed to its legitimization.
Apparently, antisemitism doesn’t ring loud enough to make headlines.
After the backlash
Luckily, viewers and decision-makers had more common sense than major media outlets.
The backlash started almost immediately, with heavy criticism from appalled donors, lawmakers, and alumni.
Media quickly jumped on the bandwagon and widely covered subsequent events — the public uproar, the clarifications, and the resignation of UPenn’s president Liz Magill.
But their initial fault should not be forgotten.
To be clear, a short exchange at the end of a five-hour hearing can be easily missed. But the question remains: Why wasn’t it obvious to the media? Why did it become obvious only after Jews and their supporters complained?
Would news outlets be so indifferent if the same question regarding genocide had been posed about any other minority?
Unfortunately, it may imply that antisemitism has become an accepted feature of reality, for academics and media alike. But those aiming to objectively report on that reality should take a very good look at their own blind spot before doing so.
The post Coverage of Campus Antisemitism Hearing Exposes Media Blind Spot first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Bob Vylan music duo performance at Glastonbury Festival (Source: FLIKR)
The US State Department has revoked the visas for the English punk rap duo Bob Vylan amid ongoing outrage over their weekend performance at the Glastonbury Festival, in which the pair chanted “Death to the IDF.”
The State Department’s decision to cancel their visas would preclude a planned fall concert tour of the US by the British rappers.
“The [US State Department] has revoked the US visas for the members of the Bob Vylan band in light of their hateful tirade at Glastonbury, including leading the crowd in death chants. Foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country,” Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau wrote on X/Twitter on Monday.
During a June 28 set at Glastonbury Festival, Bob Vylan’s Pascal Robinson-Foster ignited a firestorm by leading the crowd in chants of “Death, death, to the IDF,” referring to the Israel Defense Forces. He also complained about working for a “f—ing Zionist” during the set.
The video of the performance went viral, sparking outrage across the globe.
The BBC, which streamed the performance live, issued an on‑screen warning but continued its broadcast, prompting criticism by government officials for failing to cut the feed.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer and festival organizers condemned the IDF chant as hate speech and incitement to violence. The Israeli Embassy in London denounced the language as “inflammatory and hateful.”
“Millions of people tuned in to enjoy Glastonbury this weekend across the BBC’s output but one performance within our livestreams included comments that were deeply offensive,” the BBC said in a statement following the event.
“These abhorrent chants, which included calls for the death of members of the Israeli Defense Forces … have no place in any civil society,” Leo Terrell, Chair of the US Department of Justice Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, declared Sunday in a statement posted on X.
Citing the act’s US tour plans, Terrell said his task force would be “reaching out to the U.S. Department of State on Monday to determine what measures are available to address the situation and to prevent the promotion of violent antisemitic rhetoric in the United States.”
British authorities, meanwhile, have launched a formal investigation into Bob Vylan’s controversial appearance at Glastonbury. Avon and Somerset Police confirmed they are reviewing footage and working with the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether the performance constitutes a hate crime or incitement to violence.
United Talent Agency (UTA), one of the premier entertainment talent agencies, dropped the duo, claming “antisemitic sentiments expressed by the group were utterly unacceptable.”
The band defended their performance on social media as necessary protest, stating that “teaching our children to speak up for the change they want and need is the only way that we make this world a better place.”
The post US State Department Revokes Visas of UK Punk Rap Act Bob Vylan Amid Outrage Over Duo’s Chants of ‘Death to the IDF’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
US House Democratic leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (NY) urged Democratic nominee for mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani to “aggressively address the rise in antisemitism” if he wins the general election in November.
“‘Globalizing the intifada’ by way of example is not an acceptable phrasing,” Jeffries said Sunday on ABC’s This Week. “He’s going to have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward.”
“With respect to the Jewish communities that I represent, I think our nominee is going to have to convince folks that he is prepared to aggressively address the rise in antisemitism in the city of New York, which has been an unacceptable development,” he added.
Jeffries’s comments come as Mamdani has been receiving an onslaught of criticism for defending the controversial phrase “globalize the intifada.”
Mamdani first defended the phrase during an appearance on the popular Bulwark Podcast. The progressive firebrand stated that he feels “less comfortable with the banning of certain words.” He invoked the US Holocaust Museum in his defense, saying that the museum used the word intifada “when translating the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising into Arabic, because it’s a word that means ‘struggle.’”
The Holocaust Museum repudiated Mamdani in a statement, calling his comments “offensive.”
Mamdani has continued to defend the slogan despite ongoing criticism, arguing that pro-Palestine advocates perceive it as a call for “universal human rights.”
Mamdani, the 33‑year‑old state assembly member and proud democratic socialist, defeated former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other candidates in a lopsided first‑round win in the city’s Democratic primary for mayor, notching approximately 43.5 percent of first‑choice votes compared to Cuomo’s 36.4 percent.
The election results have alarmed members of the local Jewish community, who expressed deep concern over his past criticism of Israel and defense of antisemitic rhetoric.
“Mamdani’s election is the greatest existential threat to a metropolitan Jewish population since the election of the notorious antisemite Karl Lueger in Vienna,” Rabbi Marc Schneier, one of the most prominent Jewish leaders in New York City, said in a statement. “Jewish leaders must come together as a united force to prevent a mass Jewish Exodus from New York City.”
Some key Democratic leaders in New York, such as US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Gov. Kathy Hochul, have congratulated and complimented Mamdani, but have not yet issued an explicit endorsement. Each official has signaled interest in meeting with Mamdani prior to making a decision on a formal endorsement.
The post Dem House Leader Hakeem Jeffries Urges Mamdani to ‘Aggressively Address’ Antisemitism in NYC if Elected Mayor first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar attends a press conference with German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul (not pictured) in Berlin, Germany, June 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Christian Mang
Israel is interested in establishing formal diplomatic relations with long-standing adversaries Syria and Lebanon, but the status of the Golan Heights is non-negotiable, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said on Monday.
Israeli leaders argue that with its rival Iran weakened by this month’s 12-day war, other countries in the region have an opportunity to forge ties with Israel.
The Middle East has been upended by nearly two years of war in Gaza, during which Israel also carried out airstrikes and ground operations in Lebanon targeting Iran-backed Hezbollah, and by the overthrow of former Syrian leader and Iran ally Bashar al-Assad.
In 2020, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco became the first Arab states to establish ties with Israel since Jordan in 1994 and Egypt in 1979. The normalization agreements with Israel were deeply unpopular in the Arab world.
“We have an interest in adding countries such as Syria and Lebanon, our neighbors, to the circle of peace and normalization, while safeguarding Israel‘s essential and security interests,” Saar said at a press conference in Jerusalem.
“The Golan will remain part of the State of Israel,” he said.
Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 after capturing the territory from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. While much of the international community regards the Golan as occupied Syrian land, US President Donald Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over it during his first term in office.
Following Assad’s ousting, Israeli forces moved further into Syrian territory.
A senior Syrian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Syria would never give up the Golan Heights, describing it as an integral part of Syrian territory.
The official also said that normalization efforts with Israel must be part of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and not carried out through a separate track.
A spokesperson for Syria‘s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The 2002 initiative proposed Arab normalization with Israel in exchange for its withdrawal from territories including the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and Gaza. It also called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Throughout the war in Gaza, regional power Saudi Arabia has repeatedly said that establishing ties with Israel was conditional on the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
Israel‘s Saar said it was “not constructive” for other states to condition normalization on Palestinian statehood.
“Our view is that a Palestinian state will threaten the security of the State of Israel,” he said.
In May, Reuters reported that Israel and Syria‘s new Islamist rulers had established direct contact and held face-to-face meetings aimed at de-escalating tensions and preventing renewed conflict along their shared border.
The same month, US President Donald Trump announced the US would lift sanctions on Syria and met Syria‘s new president, urging him to normalize ties with Israel.
The post Israel Eyes Ties With Syria and Lebanon After Iran War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
