Misleading Indy scare headline: Israel to build “900 MORE SETTLEMENTS”


True, the accompanying text of an Aug. 14th story by the Indy’s Ben Lynfied does note that Israel has merely announced their intention to build 900 more homes in (eastern) Jerusalem neighborhoods – but that’s not what the headline tells readers:

original headline indy

As anyone even vaguely familiar with the issue should know, there are 120 or so such ‘settlements’ – Israeli communities built across the green line – in total. So, it’s quite curious how “900 homes” was translated by editors into “900 settlements”.

Moreover, whilst some may claim such errors merely reflect the innocent mistakes of editors, it seems fair to ask why such mistakes are ubiquitous, and seem to nearly always result in errors which show Israel in a less favorable light.  

Finally, given that the homes (in existing Jerusalem neighborhoods) will likely “not be ready for habitation for another couple of years”, and the current round of peace talks are scheduled to last 9 months, it’s questionable how – per the Indy headline and accompanying text – such planned construction can reasonably be characterized as undermining hopes for a final agreement.

But, of course, such loaded headlines, whatever their motivation, are clearly not meant to contextualize news in a manner which will provide readers with an accurate understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. 

17 comments on “Misleading Indy scare headline: Israel to build “900 MORE SETTLEMENTS”

  1. Sadly not the first time this has happened. And given the politically charged nature of the issue, it really is a pathetic balls-up.

    And FFS where is the editor anyway? The excuse would presumably be they misread homes for settlements. If it were a matter of a dozen, that might be an “understandable” (although not really) mistake. But 900????

    • They’re only counting housing units as settlements? Why not count each person as a settlement? Then they could report far more settlements. How exciting that would be!

  2. Of cure you are right this was a stupid own goal of a headline …yes a home can be a settlement but it implies 900 groups of homes.

    However you still haven’t addressed the wider question. Why now?

  3. The use of “settlements” for “apartments” was first used by Harriet, wasn’t it?

    And wasn’t there a correction made at the G.?

    • Thank you for your considered and insightful legal opinion about the status of settlers.

      I think Matron is looking for you as it is time for your meds.

    • Sherrimunnerlyn:

      “The story is 100% true.”

      Why of course it is.

      “Each settler is a war criminal …”

      Why of course they are.

      “Whats the diffetence?”

      I think you meant to say “what IS A diffetence?”, and the anser should have been provided after a long drum roll.
      Logest in history…

Comments are closed.