And those numbers themselves ought to have made any competent journalist suspicious. An organisation devoted to the study of genocide produces an extraordinarily consequential resolution, yet fewer than three members in ten participate, while those who do vote overwhelmingly in one direction. That pattern alone should certainly have provoked questions. The obvious journalistic response is scepticism, not blind repetition. Who joined? Who voted? What were their qualifications? How representative were they of the field? Had the composition of the organisation changed recently? What process produced the resolution? What dissent existed? Instead, the institutional label does all the work – after...
Monitoring Antisemitism Intel
