The academic fraud, and obnoxious editor who defends her lies, in the NY Review of Books

Professor Katherine Franke of Columbia University - whom we have mentioned before - wrote last month about the completely fictional "Pro-Israel Push to Purge US Campus Critics."

The article is riddled with half truths and errors, but one is particularly easy to show.

She writes:

Especially chilling, the US Department of Education recently adopted a new definition of anti-Semitism, one that equates any criticism of Israel with a hatred of Jews.

Is that what the policy says? No, it says the exact opposite. It says, explicitly, "[C]riticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

Franke is 100% wrong.

When this was pointed out to the editor of the New York Review of Books, he responded in an astonishing way:

A perfectly reasonable and accurate criticism was leveled at Seaton - and his response was dismissive and derisive.

Is this how editors are supposed to deal with fact checking? By making fun of the number of followers the fact checkers have?

I couldn't resist responding to Seaton:

I just was made aware of this exchange and I am astonished at the lack of ethics of an editor at @nybooks. The tweet is absolutely correct, Franke is 100% wrong in her assertion. Weeks later and there is no correction.

And Matt -I have a LOT more followers than you do, "loser."

— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) January 3, 2019

I usually don't use ad hominems in my tweets, but by Seaton's yardstick for how important one is, he indeed is a loser compared to me. Not to mention if one compares how either of us deal with honest fact checkers.

 Of course, as of this writing, Seaton hasn't responded. He can't because whatever he says (outside of an abject apology to the original fact checker) would make him look like even more of a "loser."

I don't know if Seaton is the person who edited Franke's inaccurate article and allowed her lies to be published under its name.

But one wonders why the New York Review of Books, which often has the word "prestigious" attached to its name when it is mentioned in the media, would employ someone who is so utterly dismissive of both readers - and of the truth.

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.