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.
US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy-designate Steve Witkoff gives a speech at the inaugural parade inside Capital One Arena on the inauguration day of Trump’s second presidential term, in Washington, DC, Jan. 20, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Iran and the United States have agreed to continue nuclear talks next week, both sides said on Saturday, though Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi voiced “extreme cautious” about the success of the negotiations to resolve a decades-long standoff.
US President Donald Trump has signaled confidence in clinching a new pact with the Islamic Republic that would block Tehran’s path to a nuclear bomb.
Araqchi and Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff held a third round of the talks in Muscat through Omani mediators for around six hours, a week after a second round in Rome that both sides described as constructive.
“The negotiations are extremely serious and technical… there are still differences, both on major issues and on details,” Araqchi told Iranian state TV.
“There is seriousness and determination on both sides… However, our optimism about success of the talks remains extremely cautious.”
A senior US administration official described the talks as positive and productive, adding that both sides agreed to meet again in Europe “soon.”
“There is still much to do, but further progress was made on getting to a deal,” the official added.
Earlier Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi had said talks would continue next week, with another “high-level meeting” provisionally scheduled for May 3. Araqchi said Oman would announce the venue.
Ahead of the lead negotiators’ meeting, expert-level indirect talks took place in Muscat to design a framework for a potential nuclear deal.
“The presence of experts was beneficial … we will return to our capitals for further reviews to see how disagreements can be reduced,” Araqchi said.
An Iranian official, briefed about the talks, told Reuters earlier that the expert-level negotiations were “difficult, complicated and serious.”
The only aim of these talks, Araqchi said, was “to build confidence about the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.”
Trump, in an interview with Time magazine published on Friday, said “I think we’re going to make a deal with Iran,” but he repeated a threat of military action against Iran if diplomacy fails.
Shortly after Araqchi and Witkoff began their latest indirect talks on Saturday, Iranian state media reported a massive explosion at the country’s Shahid Rajaee port near the southern city of Bandar Abbas, killing at least four people and injuring hundreds.
MAXIMUM PRESSURE
While both Tehran and Washington have said they are set on pursuing diplomacy, they remain far apart on a dispute that has rumbled on for more than two decades.
Trump, who has restored a “maximum pressure” campaign on Tehran since February, ditched a 2015 nuclear pact between Iran and six world powers in 2018 during his first term and reimposed crippling sanctions on Iran.
Since 2019, Iran has breached the pact’s nuclear curbs including “dramatically” accelerating its enrichment of uranium to up to 60% purity, close to the roughly 90% level that is weapons grade, according to the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this week Iran would have to entirely stop enriching uranium under a deal, and import any enriched uranium it needed to fuel its sole functioning atomic energy plant, Bushehr.
Tehran is willing to negotiate some curbs on its nuclear work in return for the lifting of sanctions, according to Iranian officials, but ending its enrichment program or surrendering its enriched uranium stockpile are among “Iran’s red lines that could not be compromised” in the talks.
Moreover, European states have suggested to US negotiators that a comprehensive deal should include limits preventing Iran from acquiring or finalizing the capacity to put a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile, several European diplomats said.
Tehran insists its defense capabilities like its missile program are not negotiable.
An Iranian official with knowledge of the talks said on Friday that Tehran sees its missile program as a bigger obstacle in the talks.
The post Iran Says ‘Extremely Cautious’ on Success of Nuclear Talks with US first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas attends the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, April 28, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Hamad I Mohammed
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas named close confidant Hussein al-Sheikh as his deputy and likely successor on Saturday, the Palestine Liberation Organization said, a step widely seen as needed to assuage international doubts over Palestinian leadership.
Abbas, 89, has headed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) since the death of veteran leader Yasser Arafat in 2004 but he had for years resisted internal reforms including the naming of a successor.
Sheikh, born in 1960, is a veteran of Fatah, the main PLO faction which was founded by Arafat and is now headed by Abbas. He is widely viewed as a pragmatist with very close ties to Israel.
He was named PLO vice president after the organization’s executive committee approved his nomination by Abbas, the PLO said in a statement.
Reform of the PA, which exercises limited autonomy in the West Bank, has been a priority for the United States and Gulf monarchies hoping the body can play a central role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Pressure to reform has intensified since the start of the war in Gaza, where the PLO’s main Palestinian rival Hamas has battled Israel for more than 18 months, leaving the tiny, crowded territory in ruins.
The United States has promoted the idea of a reformed PA governing in Gaza after the war. Gulf monarchies, which are seen as the most likely source of funding for reconstruction in Gaza after the war, also want major reforms of the body.
CALL FOR HAMAS TO DISARM
Israel’s declared goal in Gaza is the destruction of Hamas but it has also ruled out giving the PA any role in government there. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he opposes the creation of a Palestinian state.
Hamas, which follows a militant Islamist ideology, has controlled Gaza since 2007 when it defeated the PA in a brief civil war after winning an election the previous year. It also has a large presence in the West Bank.
At a meeting of the PLO’s Central Council on Wednesday and Thursday that approved the position of vice president without naming an appointee, Abbas made his clearest ever call for Hamas to completely disarm and hand its weapons – and responsibility for governing in Gaza – to the PA.
Widespread corruption, lack of progress towards an independent state and increasing Israeli military incursions in the West Bank have undermined the PA’s popularity among many Palestinians.
The body has been controlled by Fatah since it was formed in the Oslo Accords with Israel in 1993 and it last held parliamentary elections in 2005.
Sheikh, who was imprisoned by Israel for his activities opposing the occupation during the period 1978-89, has worked as the PA’s main contact liaising with the Israeli government under Abbas and been his envoy on visits to world powers.
The post Palestinian Leader Abbas Names Likely Successor in Bid to Reassure World Powers first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Atomic symbol and USA and Iranian flags are seen in this illustration taken, September 8, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
i24 News – The third round of talks between Iran and the United States over Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program has concluded on Saturday, US media reported.
The two sides are understood to have discussed the US lifting of sanctions on Iran, with focuses on technical and key topics including uranium enrichment.
On April 12, the US and Iran held indirect talks in Muscat, marking the first official negotiation between the two sides since the US unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 during President Donald Trump’s first term.
The second round of indirect talks took place in Rome, Italy, on April 19.
All parties, including Oman, stated that the first two rounds of talks were friendly and constructive, but Iranian media pointed out that the first two rounds were mainly framework negotiations and had not yet touched upon the core issues of disagreement.
According to media reports, one of the key issues in the expert-level negotiations will be whether Washington will allow Iran to continue uranium enrichment within the framework of its nuclear program. In response, Araghchi made it clear that Iran’s right to uranium enrichment is non-negotiable.
The US, Israel and other Western actors including the United Nation’s nuclear agency reject Iranian claims that its uranium enrichment is strictly civilian in its goals.
The post 3rd Round of Nuclear Talks Between Iran, US Concludes in Oman first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login