Irving v. Penguin & Lipstadt (1996)
On September 5, 1996, now-notorious Holocaust denier David Irving filed a libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Publishing. A few years earlier, she had written a book called Denying the Holocaust, in which she referred to Irving as a Holocaust denier, falsifier, and bigot, saying that he manipulated and distorted real documents. Irving did not like this, and commenced a claim against Penguin and Lipstadt.
In Canada, if someone sues for libel, the burden of proof is on the person bringing the claim (the plaintiff). That is, the plaintiff must prove the libel. In Britain, however, the burden of proof shifts, and the person who has been sued (the defendant) must prove that the statements made were true. This flips the onus and puts a significant burden on the defendant’s shoulders.
As such, Lipstadt’s team decided that to win, they needed to demonstrate:
That the Holocaust happened, or more specifically that any reasonable historian would not doubt it;
That Irving’s political views aligned with extremist, neo-Nazis; and
That Irving’s work falsified the historical record.
Lipstadt eventually won, but let’s talk about point #3.
Throughout the trial, Lipstadt’s lawyers analyzed Irving’s writings about Hitler and the Holocaust. Many times, when they proved that what he had written was objectively false, Irving fell back on the defence of innocent misrepresentation: he may have misrepresented the facts, but he didn’t mean to. In his telling, it was an innocent error of translation, or misrepresentation of the facts.
When Mr. Justice Gray however assessed this defence as part of his ultimate finding in Lipstadt’s favour, he noted that,
“I find myself unable to accept Irving's contention that his falsification of the historical record is the product of innocent error or misinterpretation or incompetence on his part. When account is taken of all the considerations set out… it appears to me that the correct and inevitable inference must be that for the most part the falsification of the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence. (emphasis added)
In doing so, His Honour found that if Irving had innocently misrepresented or simply erred, that the mistakes would have pointed in different directions. For example, if he had made “mistakes”, then logic would dictate that some would favour Irving’s thesis, and some would not. This is, after all, how randomness works. However, Justice Gray determined that since every single one of Irving’s so-called “mistakes” supported Irving’s case, that they could not have been mistakes. He falsified his translations or his conclusions, to support his thesis. That they were deliberate misrepresentations, intended to mislead the reader, and ensure that the evidence aligned with his own beliefs.
His Honour ultimately concluded that, “Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.” He concluded that Irving “is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.”
Lipstadt remains an authority on Holocaust denialism and antisemitism. She is currently serving as the United States Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism.
The media bias against Israel
I mention the Irving case above, because there is an echo of the judge’s findings in today’s media environment when it comes to covering Israel’s war with Hamas.
It is actually jarring, if you follow along.
Following the same rationale as Justice Grey did 23 years ago, I submit that the media writ-large persistently and deliberately misrepresents evidence about Israel, in pursuit of some broader belief that Israel has itself to blame. That Israel has brought the tragedy of October 7 on itself. That Jewish life is cheap, and that Arab lives only matter when they are killed at the hands of the Jews.
Look at the corrections issued by various news outlets, and there are many. They correct the record where a “mistake” was made against Israel. Find me a correction of a “mistake” that was made in Israel’s favour. I’ll wait.
Let’s look at some examples:
Paul Kessler
On November 5, 2023, Paul Kessler was marching in solidarity with Israel on the street in Los Angeles. He was holding an Israeli flag. During an altercation with an anti-Israel protestor, he was apparently pushed, fell, struck his head, and died. On November 16, 2023, police arrested Loay Alnaji, an anti-Israel college professor, charging him with involuntary manslaughter. He is alleged to have caused Kessler to fall and hit his head.
Thus, CNN reported today that, “Arrest made in death of Jewish protestor who was pushed, hit head, and died of internal bleeding.”
Just kidding.
Their headline read:
He just fell? Then why was someone arrested? This headline is left vague, ascribing no fault or action to the person who was arrested for apparently perpetrating this crime.
Vivian Silver
On Oct 7, Vivian Silver, a peace activist who helped Palestinian women get healthcare in Israel, was taken by Hamas. On November 13, over a month after her abduction at the hands of Hamas, her dead body was located by IDF forces.
How was this reported by CTV news?
Where did she go? Was she hiding? Did she voluntarily go missing? Did she trip and fall? Did she hit her head? Or was she abducted by a terrorist organization and murdered?
After public pressure, CTV eventually acknowledged that she was likely killed in the Oct 7 attack by terrorists. The new headline read:
Al Ahli Hospital
There’s too much to write about this, but on October 17, Hamas reported that an Israeli rocket hit the Al Ahli Hospital in Gaza, causing a fiery death for over 500 innocent Palestinians.
The world went nuts. Condemnations were broad. Hamas’ Health Ministry was given absolute benefit of the doubt, and their word was taken as gospel.
It didn’t take long however for Israeli, American, British, and Canadian security services, among others, to investigate and conclude however that a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) rocket hit the parking lot of the Al Ahli Hospital on October 17.
But the damage had already been done. People heard what they wanted to hear. The initial allegation by Hamas however, has persisted. As recently as November 10 (weeks after international intelligence services debunked Hamas’ initial claims), Britain’s SkyNews reported that:
A correction was later issued, noting that “an earlier version of this post referred to Al Ahli Hospital as being hit by an Israeli missile earlier this month. This is incorrect and has been removed.”
CNN on Al-Quds Hospital
On November 13, CNN posted this headline:
Has anyone else heard of a hospital in Gaza collapsing from an Israeli bombardment? You haven’t, because it did not happen. The hospital did not “collapse.” It shut down due to operational issues on account of fuel shortages. But, reading this headline quickly, you pick up what CNN was trying to put out there: utter destruction in Gaza at the IDF’s hand.
BBC’s outrageous allegation on Al Shifa operation
On the air on November 14, a BBC News anchor said that she was hearing that, “Israeli forces are carrying out an operation against Hamas in Gaza’s Al Shifa hospital, and they are targeting people including medical teams as well as Arabic speakers.” She said it pretty matter-of-factly, like of course Israel would target doctors and anyone who speaks Arabic in Gaza. Or, in Ron Burgundy style, she was just reading whatever was put in front of her.
Well what do you know? The IDF had clearly said that it was bringing medical teams and Arabic speakers to assist with their raid on the hospital which doubles as a Hamas fortification.
Reuters reported that, “IDF forces include medical teams and Arabic speakers who have been trained with the intent no harm is caused to civilians.” The IDF reported that, “We’ve taken medical teams and Arabic speakers to Al-Shifa hospital to ensure medical supplies reach those in need.”
But the damage was done with the initial statement. BBC’s bias was laid as bare as it could possibly be. There was apparently no concern about the veracity of that outrageous statement, and no one seemed to think that it didn’t sound right.
Yes, the BBC has issued a correction. Unfortunately, the initial story has gotten far more traction than the correction.
MSNBC platforming Palestinian propaganda
On November 10, Chris Jansing at MSNBC showed a Palestinian propaganda video from a well-known Hamas-linked crisis actor. Jansing aired a video put out by Saleh Aljafarawi (known to many online as Mr. Fafo), who appears to be a crisis actor, and who has been seen in videos since Oct 7 pretending to be, among other things, a Hamas fighter, a radiology technician, a foster father, a member of the press, and a rescue worker. Impressive no? All that was not enough however to deter Jansing from playing a video with him running around with “blood” on his hands.
Fret not, the BBC also broadcast a video by Aljafarawi on the street.
New York Times on hostage video
The NYT often throws unnecessary qualifiers into their reporting on the Jewish community or Israel. On October 31, for example, when a hostage video was released by Hamas showing three Israeli hostages held in Gaza, the NYT reported the following:
WTF? Firstly, obviously they were forced to make the video, and secondly, WHO CARES??
This is probably one of the least offensive things that the New York Times has written about Israel in the last six or so weeks, but it is just another example of the immediate anti-Israel bias that we see these days.
CNN on rescued Israeli soldier
On October 30, the IDF rescued Ori Megidish, who had been taken hostage by Hamas during their raid on the 7th. It was a rescue, not a humanitarian gesture by those who kill babies. But CNN framed it as follows:
Was she rescued by the IDF? Or was she released by the sympathetic Hamas, who felt that she should be returned to her parents in Israel?
Well, she was rescued. This was confirmed by the IDF, and subsequently corrected by CNN, who fixed their headline to read:
A pattern emerges
There have been a heck of a lot of corrections over the last few weeks.
If these were simply innocent errors, then we would see an equal number of mistakes for and against Israel. But we do not. The errors fault Israel, deprive Israel of the benefit of the doubt, accuse Israel, blame Israel, and pass judgment on Israel even before the dust settles.
My examples above do not even include all the times the word “fighters” was used instead of “terrorists”, or the fact that photographers employed by CNN, Reuters, the AP, and the New York Times appear to have been fore-warned about the Oct 7 attack and did not alert the security services. There is plenty to criticize.
There are many amazing services out there who do their best to keep the media honest, and who push them to change headlines, make corrections, or issue apologies, if necessary. Honest Reporting, for example, is an exceptional resource, and they were used to prepare this piece.
But all of the above goes to say that just as Justice Grey determined that Irving purposely misrepresented the facts to support his thesis, the same action is being played out by the media during this conflict. If these were simply innocent errors, then we would see an equal number of mistakes for and against Israel. But we do not. The errors fault Israel, deprive Israel of the benefit of the doubt, accuse Israel, blame Israel, and pass judgment on Israel even before the dust settles. It is tactical and purposeful, and lays bare a particular agenda.
As media consumers, we must be vigilant.
We must question what we read, learn the truth, fight disinformation, report errors to media companies, and insist that they issue corrections where they are wrong, or clarify when they are vague. If they stand by false reporting, make them explain why.
This is a war that is being waged on several fronts. We must be vigilant on them all.