As part of CAMERA on Campus’s ongoing effort to help students understand truth-based advocacy and how misinformation spreads, I spoke with David Litman, one of our veteran senior researchers who is now CAMERA’s new U.S. Media Manager. He shared his insights on how media bias takes shape, how to confront it effectively, and what it means to uphold factual integrity in public discourse.

What first led you to get involved with CAMERA?

I began following CAMERA as a teenager during the Second Intifada. At the time, I could already tell the tone of the reporting was skewed. Reading CAMERA’s work, I was able to learn how the coverage was substantively skewed, too. I greatly admired the investigative and analytical skills of the organization’s researchers. Their ability to speak through the universal language of facts, instead of emotions and ideology, was highly appealing to me. Their writings played no small part in developing my critical thinking skills. When the opportunity arose to become such a researcher, I could not pass it up.

How do you approach fact-checking or challenging biased or inaccurate media coverage? 

There are many ways media outlets get stories wrong, and many ways to identify and expose such flaws. But boiled down, it’s all about a very healthy dose of curiosity and skepticism. Media reports should never be taken at their word and credibility is earned, not given. Each news article needs to earn the audience’s trust. When reading any particular claim or set of claims, one should always ask relevant probative questions. 

What is actually known and what is speculation? What is unknown? Why is it unknown? What alleged facts are verifiable? If not verifiable, which alleged facts nonetheless come from a credible source? What details, if true, would completely change the story? 

You’d be amazed how quickly news stories can fall apart with the slightest amount of investigative effort. I recall a lengthy CNN “investigation” that claimed a warehouse in Gaza was bombed by the Israelis despite there being no terrorists in the vicinity. A few minutes of Googling and I uncovered multiple reports from Palestinian media and even from Hamas itself boasting of Hamas terrorists engaging with Israeli forces in that area on that day. A few more minutes of research and I uncovered that there were multiple Hamas tunnels in the immediate vicinity, too.

What are the most common mistakes you see in media coverage of Israel or antisemitism?

The greatest issue, which I’d argue is made by the vast majority of Western journalists, is the simultaneous dehumanization of both Palestinians and Israelis. In media coverage, Palestinians are denied their agency; they are treated as if they are incapable of controlling their own actions and shaping the course of events. Meanwhile, Israelis are denied human fallibility. In a chaotic world, they are depicted as in total control. Any mistake is treated as intentional, any challenging circumstance as an Israeli design, and any disaster as the consequence of devious Israeli machinations.

With so many distortions out there, how do you decide which stories deserve a response? 

Factors I consider in determining which lies to devote my time to include: the amount of attention the lie is receiving; the relative difficulty in disproving the lie; whether the lie is central to a misleading narrative; the relative level of damage the lie is doing to people’s understanding of Israel and the conflict. 

Is there a project or article you’re most proud of?

Over the last several years, we produced several in-depth research reports on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias at Brown University. Our work helped spur an investigation into discrimination and extremism. Hundreds of millions in funding were suspended and the institution was forced into a settlement agreement involving a set of reforms. More needs to be done, but the results show our research is having a real-world effect in the sphere of higher education.

Have your views on the media  evolved since you began this role?

Of course. I did not imagine just how little regard so many journalists had for their own profession. While there are many great exceptions, there is an overabundance of self-importance in the industry. I get the impression that most journalists don’t view their profession as a service to the public. Instead, many seem to approach their work instead with a view to serving their own worldviews. 

How do you handle backlash or pushback to your pieces?

If it is criticism made in good faith, I give it serious consideration. Constructive feedback is how you grow as a professional. My writing style used to be much more snarky, for example, until constructive critiques taught me more persuasive, appealing ways to illustrate the absurdity of the subjects of my analyses.

For all other criticism, the simplest and best answer is usually to just ignore it. When you can’t just ignore it, you can always turn someone’s non-constructive criticism against them. Highlight how it shows their inability to genuinely engage with your arguments. People regularly try to dismiss me as “biased” because I’m proudly Zionist; but my bias is irrelevant when I bring independent sources to the table. If a critic won’t engage with those sources, choosing instead to attack your character, that’s worth highlighting.

What kind of messaging tends to break through the noise? 

Genuine, authentic discussions that focus on the concerns and dilemmas faced by Israelis. You can’t just tell someone they’re wrong, or they’re being lied to; you need to help them realize it themselves. Messaging that gets people to put themselves in the shoes of Israelis – often best achieved by asking the right questions about the important facts.

How do you tailor your writing for different audiences, such as students, journalists, administrators, or the general public? 

Writing for specific audiences is all about trying to understand their mindset. What are their values? What are their concerns? What are their motivations? When I wrote an article on the daughter of a Hamas leader studying at Georgetown, it sounded very different from my piece on a Harvard instructor’s hypocritical BDS stance. With the former, my intended audience was primarily policymakers. With the latter, my intended audience was the general public.

 When dealing with serious or emotional topics, how do you maintain clarity and objectivity in your work?

By understanding that one cannot do this job well without maintaining those qualities. I believe in the mission and its importance. Accomplishing it requires constantly challenging my own beliefs and assumptions. At the end of the day, what matters is not reassuring myself of my righteousness, but convincing those with very different life experiences and frames of mind than me. That requires speaking to universal values and with universal terms and concepts they can appreciate, namely facts.

Lightning Round

Why do you think this work is important? 

Fundamentally, truth matters. 

Inaccurate information can lead to bad policy, which in turn can lead to disastrous real-world consequences. Accurate reporting isn’t just a moral obligation for journalists – it’s in everybody’s interests to advance society and our national interests. 

What is the biggest challenge facing pro-Israel advocates today? 

There are many. Impatience is one. Even the best activism rarely changes opinions overnight. Perseverance, composure, and self-reflection are important qualities to have in this fight.

Are there any common anti-Israel rhetorical tactics that students should learn to recognize? 

Strawmanning is everywhere. Clearly define your arguments and hold them accountable to them. When you argue that BDS in academia restricts open dialogue and they try to reframe your position as censoring pro-Palestinian activism – stay firm and bring it back to the original point. Do not allow opposing activists to skirt around your strongest arguments, either. 

People feel, then they think. Effective propaganda works by understanding human emotions and exploiting them. To challenge propaganda, one shouldn’t simply dismiss the real emotions. Work with them, but connect them to the facts.

What advice would you give to our fellows who want to write compelling, fact-driven op-eds? 

You’re writing neither for other Zionists nor for antisemites – you’re writing to educate the general public, many of whom have a very different frame of mind and level of knowledge than you. Understand that, and write accordingly.

How do you stay grounded and motivated in such a high-stakes, polarizing field? 

It’s hard, especially when you’ve lost friends and family in the conflict. I think the way I do it is simply reminding myself what I can and cannot control and focusing my time and energy on where I can make a real difference.

What books, thinkers, or journalists have most influenced how you approach your work? 

Socrates: question everything! America’s most famous jurists have also had a profound effect on me, such as Louis Brandeis, Hugo Black, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and many more. While I may not always agree with them, their argumentation is always worth considering.

Is there a recurring bias or falsehood that you find most frustrating to keep correcting?

Any definitive claim about “international law.” Few subjects are so misunderstood, and yet so often repeated, by journalists.

What do you think makes CAMERA’s approach distinct from other pro-Israel organizations? 

Our style is to simply speak with a universal language, facts, and connect them to the wider public audience. It may not be flashy, but it’s impactful.