A hideous article in the Washington Post goes out of its way to flaunt its disregard for journalistic ethics in the service of exacerbating the national anti-Semitism crisis. The piece itself is the reporting equivalent of corking the bat, filling an article with examples that undermine its thesis and hoping nobody looks inside.

The topic of the piece, written by Pranshu Verma, is the assertion that cancel culture is being applied to defenders of Hamas, so now cancel culture is bad. But the most objectionable part of the article is where Verma misrepresents an incident so egregiously that the credibility of the whole piece crumbles to dust.

To be clear, the rest of the article isn’t accurate either. For example, people weren’t being punished for “criticiz[ing] Israel,” as the headline declares, but usually for behavior such as destroying posters or chanting genocidal slogans and the like. Unfortunately, that sort of obfuscation is ubiquitous in media reporting on the aftermath of Hamas’s massacre on Oct. 7. The truly appalling part of the article is in the following excerpt:

Since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7 and Israel responded by attacking Gaza, groups have poured resources into identifying people with opposing political beliefs, sometimes deploying aggressive publicity campaigns that have resulted in profound real-world consequences.

Within weeks of Oct. 7, ‘doxing trucks’ prowled the campuses of Harvard, Columbia and Princeton, displaying the names and photos of students and professors who had signed statements declaring solidarity with Palestinians. In January, a Rutgers Law School student sued the university, alleging that he had faced discriminatory disciplinary action after sharing what he deemed ‘pro-Hamas’ messages from his classmates with school administrators.

So here’s how the Washington Post frames the Rutgers situation: Pro-Hamas people are having their lives ruined by Jews who highlight their public comments, and this Rutgers fellow is an example not only of that but of essentially doxxing. (Doxxing means to reveal personal identifying information that is either nonpublic or requires enough effort to find that it is, in a practical sense, nonpublic.)

Here’s what actually happened. Members of the Student Bar Association sent their group chat anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas messages after the Oct. 7 massacre, and an Orthodox Jewish law student in the chat, Yoel Ackerman, responded. He shared the messages with the Rutgers Jewish Law Students Association. For this, the law school opened disciplinary proceedings against Ackerman, with the law school dean telling her colleagues “we have a Jewish law student seeking to take and publish the names of those he deems to be supporting Hamas.” He was then subject to a Sovietesque impeachment hearing from the Student Bar Association. Ackerman, without receiving sufficient explanation, was berated for three hours in what amounted to administrative harassment. In order to dispense of their troublesome Jew, the SBA then moved to suspend its own constitution in order to expel Ackerman.

That’s when Rutgers University stepped in, and briefly suspended the SBA while it could sort out the mess that Hamas propagandists and their enthusiastic supporters among the deans had made of the school. The SBA was soon reinstated.

This, the Washington Post tells us, is an example of a Jew oppressing the poor gentile.

This is not biased reporting. It is Jew-baiting propaganda with a long and very disturbing history. The rest of the article, meanwhile, is biased reporting: Verma simply launders the exterminationist language of domestic extremists into legitimate criticism of a foreign government.

The whole article is science fiction. But the apology the paper owes Ackerman is very real.

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link