IJN Assistant Publisher Shana Goldberg, together with Scott Levin, former regional director of Mountain States ADL, presented a workshop at the annual meeting of the Colorado Press Assn., Aug. 28, 2026.
The topic: “The Jewish Experience in Journalism Since Oct. 7.”
Here is an adaptation of the IJN’s presentation.
Where journalism has fallen short
Curiosity. As Jews and as journalists, we have experienced professional disappointment. Curiosity is the bedrock of journalism. Why has there been such a lack of interest in reaching out to the local Jewish community? Where is the story about why people are Zionists?
Local Jews are a long-standing minority community. They feel strongly about this topic. Journalistic curiosity would dictate: Let’s find out why.
Rigor. It should not be that only certain people or topics are fact checked, but it’s OK not to fact check claims about Israel or the Jewish community. Or not to fact check certain terms just because they are widely used. Example: Pushback from journalists often stops with the charge of “genocide.” It is rare that the person making the charge is asked to provide evidence for the claim.
Major news outlets say they don’t broadcast President Trump’s speeches because it is too difficult to fact check him in real time. Yet, some of these outlets do not fact check claims about Israel. Worse, when informed of a factual error in a story, they will not correct it.
That double standard contributes to distrust in the Jewish community of major media outlets, including The New York Times.
Example: A Denver Post story included a source stating that Gaza has been occupied by Israel since 1948. This is false. From 1948 to 1967, Egypt occupied Gaza, not Israel. The writers of the story did not fact check the claim, and, after they were informed of their error, they did not acknowledge it, nor did their editor. Which leads to a lack of . . .
Accountability. Silence is often the response to attempts at communication by the local Jewish community. This is bad journalism. Yes, it is hard to be told that one has made a mistake. But it happens. The journalistic impulse should be to correct the record. Journalism is about holding leaders accountable. That same standard should be applied by journalists to themselves.
If a journalist or editor continues to ignore these concerns, does it mean they are anti-Semitic? At the very least, it means they don’t care about the Jewish community. Good journalism does not result.
Coverage. Every editor has constraints — budget, human resources, time — and every editor also has editorial discretion. Every editor makes choices.
It’s an editorial choice to disseminate stories and pictures that have not been fact-checked. It is an editorial choice to give these photos front page placement. It is an editorial choice essentially to ignore the year-long rocket-fire by Hezbollah on Israel’s north, forcing some 80,000 civilians to flee their homes. It is an editorial choice to report on anti-Israel encampments in New York City but not to report on the stabbing of a Jewish man on a Jewish holiday in New York City.
When one type of story is privileged and another type is ignored, it leads one to ask: Is good journalism the aspiration?
If not, it’s back to the double standard. Another example: Discrimination against minority groups by US allies like Turkey and Pakistan is more or less ignored by many media, but every move of US ally Israel is reported and critiqued.
Tokenism. It is not unusual for marginal Jewish voices to become the only Jewish voices in a story. Include those voices — but when no other Jewish voices are included, the false impression is conveyed that the marginal voices represent the community. That’s misinformation.
The Jewish community is easy to access — there are umbrella groups, large synagogues, Jewish community centers, well known rabbis and leaders. Call us!
If a conservative outlet is writing a story in 2020 about George Floyd and wants to include a black voice, would it be good journalism if the only black voice would be Clarence Thomas’? That’s tokenism. Minority groups recognize it. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the Jewish community is fooled by including a marginal Jewish voice in a story.
Worse: ignored. The first lead “Perspective” on anti-Semitism after Oct. 7, 2023 in the Denver Post was written by radio host Peter Boyles on the anniversary of Alan Berg’s assassination. Boyles might be an expert on Berg’s assassination by white supremacists, but Boyles is not an expert on anti-Semitism, on Israel or on the Middle East. His listeners know he is not especially supportive of Israel. Yet his is the voice that the local daily chose to elevate on the topic of the steep rise of anti-Semitism.
Anyone may opine on anything, but to give the first opportunity to a gentile who is not close with the local Jewish community is an editorial choice. It’s a choice that says: We don’t value Jewish voices.
In some cases, a non-Jewish columnist will weigh in on whether a political slogan is anti-Semitic. The writer might conclude that the slogan is not anti-Semitic, even though many Jews say it is. The issue is not about censoring anyone’s views. Disagreement is the cornerstone of a free society. But a media outlet should first consider asking a member of the impacted group to explain why it may view a given slogan as anti-Semitic or racist or xenophobic.
Instead, a Jewish person or organization is put in the position of responding to a casual dismissal of anti-Semitism by someone else, who is not Jewish.
In the past, if a political party used racist imagery, it was acceptable for a non-Japanese writer to argue that caricatures of blood-thirsty Japanese people was not racist. This put a Japanese person on the defensive, forcing him to respond that such caricatures are indeed racist.
It is not 1945 anymore. It is 2026. Journalists shouldn’t be defining for the Jewish community the nature and legitimacy of its concerns.
Minority groups know when they are excluded from coverage. It is another factor contributing to the distrust of many media outlets by many in the Jewish community.
Case study
The following paragraph appeared in an opinion column in a left-leaning online Colorado publication:
“The rally’s featured speakers are united by their identities as young candidates pushing for a more progressive Democratic Party, and have attracted both criticism and support for advocating in favor of a free Palestine and an end to unconditional arms shipments to Israel. Though [Democratic congressional candidate Melat] Kiros has drawn allegations of antisemitism for her critical stance on Israel’s actions, her positions on the issue are shared by a majority of Americans, a supermajority of Democrats, and prominent Jewish organizations like JStreet and Jewish Voice for Peace. JVP Action has endorsed Kiros” [the underlines represents links].
Someone without any knowledge of the American Jewish community or Israel would likely conclude that the piece is well sourced — look at all the links! — and that most Americans and “prominent” Jewish organizations side with Kiros’ positions. So why the uproar about Kiros?
Links. Today it’s considered good journalism to substantiate facts by providing a link. But how many people click on the link? Does it actually link to a reliable news resource? A relevant one? How many people understand the resource?
Example: A 2024 AP story on the Columbia University encampments stated that outside influence was a “baseless claim.” The phrase was not attributed, but a link was provided. It led to an anonymous X user accusing the NYPD of disinformation. That was it! That’s all the AP needed to call outside influence a “baseless claim.” (The story remains online.)
Tip: For journalists using links, review the content closely, and if it’s reliable, present a little more detail in the story itself along with the link.
Beats. How many newsrooms have people on specific beats? Certainly not the online publication we quoted above. Neither one of the “prominent” organizations it cited is an umbrella group representing the majority of American Jews, or even the majority of any major denomination, or even the majority of left-wing Jewish groups. Anyone whose “beat” was the Jewish community would know this.
If a newsroom cannot afford to put a reporter on a single beat, it must work harder to substantiate its reportage. Call the archdiocese, call an imam, call the Jewish federation, call a prominent rabbi, etc. If you don’t know a community or topic well, don’t write an opinion piece about it.
Disinformation: “Though Kiros has drawn allegations of antisemitism for her critical stance on Israel’s actions.” Incorrect. Not factual. Kiros has drawn allegations of anti-Semitism because she refused to call the Boulder firebomber of June 1, 2025 (by then already convicted of hate crimes) anti-Semitic. In reading this online opinion column, Jews are reading an article gaslighting readers about Kiros. This is not good journalism. It’s misinformation if unintentional; it’s disinformation if intentional.
Either way, there are real world consequences. Example: A Denver restaurant owner cites similar “sources” to ban Zionists from his restaurant and to tell Jews that they don’t understand Zionism.
Standards
If journalists value the free press and are troubled by attacks on it, journalists must live up to their own standards of curiosity, rigor and accountability; they must pursue the real story and not a token one, and a substantiated story and not a sloppy one.
A good way to start on the journey to meeting these standards in reporting on the Jewish community is for a journalist to ask: Am I treating this story the same way I would if I were writing about a different minority group? Am I reporting as a journalist, or am I reporting as me?
© IJN 2026
