Lying by omission | City Journal

Ta-Nehisi Coates' recent appearance on CBS News has sparked another round of controversy. This time the firestorm surrounded the network's Tony Dokoupil, who dared to ask Coates challenging, if obvious, questions. Those who view Coates as a modern-day prophet claimed that the host's behavior crossed the line into insensitivity and even racism.

What followed was ritual humiliation. CBS subjected Dokoupil to what can only be described as a fight session, bringing in DEI consultants to “educate” him on the acceptable boundaries of discourse and the proper body language to maintain when speaking to a distinguished minority guest . This is the state of modern journalism: the slightest challenge to the progressive narrative leads to rapid re-education efforts.

A look at the content of the underlying exchange and the startling explanation Coates gave in defense of his injustice toward Israel makes it clear why there was such a rush to recast his CBS appearance as a hostile confrontation.

Dokoupil's first comments and questions were directed against the anti-Israel broadside contained in Coates' new book: The message. “The contents of this section” on Israel, Dokoupil noted, “would not be out of place in an extremist’s backpack.” “Why does Ta-Nehisi Coates . . . a very talented, smart guy, leave out so much?” asked Dokoupil. In a book that focuses primarily on Israel's security practices and their alleged excesses, the presenter urged: “Why ignore the fact that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to destroy it?” Why ignore that Israel with terrorist groups that want to destroy it?” These are crucial questions that Coates himself must have expected from a friendly interlocutor. Dokoupil offers another natural response to the author, who cannot find the slightest justification for Israel's security measures: “Is it because you simply do not believe that Israel, under any conditions, has a right to exist?”

Coates' answer was enigmatic but insightful:

I would say the perspective that you just outlined – there is no shortage of that perspective in the American media. . . . I am always most worried about those who have no voice, those who cannot speak. I have repeatedly asked in my interviews whether there is a single network (or mainstream organization) in America with a Palestinian-American bureau chief or correspondent who actually has a voice to articulate their part of the world. . . . The reporters of those who are more sympathetic to Israel and its right to exist have no problem speaking out. But what I saw in Palestine. . . These were the stories I hadn't heard yet.

In these few lines, Coates expresses the rhetoric he has used throughout his career—a nebulous invocation of marginalized peoples (here, Palestinians) and the assertion that their members are denied a platform in the American public sphere. In particular, it refers to the “perspectives” of these groups, regardless of the validity of those perspectives. It's as if the mere presence of eliminationist groups blowing up Israeli buses and cafes – which triggered many of the security measures that Coates denounces – were a matter of opinion.

Things get even worse when you look deeper into the details. First, in what sense do Palestinians have no “voice”? Unlike the Kurds, Copts, Uyghurs and many other ethnic and religious minority groups, Palestinians in the United States have a chorus of vocal supporters, particularly in elite media and academic circles. Figures such as Representatives Rashida Tlaib (of Palestinian descent), Jamaal Bowman and Ilhan Omar have placed anti-Israel extremism at the center of their political programs. Entire academic departments exist to demonize Israel and justify Palestinian violence against the Jewish state. The United Nations condemns Israel while coddling dictators; Its affiliate, UNRWA, has special rules that treat Palestinians more favorably than any other group under UN care (and openly collaborates with Hamas).

Equally notable is Coates' claim that Palestinians' “stories” are not being “heard.” Media outlets routinely publish coverage so sympathetic to Palestinians that it borders on parody, from uncritically citing the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry's unverifiable casualty figures to rushing to report claims that Israel is carrying out a bombing the Al-Ahli Hospital killed hundreds, although in reality a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket had landed in the parking lot. A woman with alleged ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – a terrorist group – was nominated for an Emmy this year. The Palestinian cause may be the most overrepresented foreign movement in American cultural history.

What about Coates' claim that too few Palestinians hold influential positions in Western media? It's almost too obvious to say, but you don't have to be a member of a group to advocate for that group. Only die-hard believers in “standpoint epistemology”—the idea that only members of oppressed groups can truly understand those groups’ oppression—would believe otherwise. Coates, who wrote a book about the Palestinians despite not being Palestinian himself, certainly doesn't.

The deeper problem with Coates' response, however, is not the inaccuracy of his claims, but his conclusion that supporting a supposedly marginalized group justifies presenting a one-sided narrative. His response, indicating that he has heard Israel's perspective and now wishes to offer a counterperspective, does not deny that his portrayal of what he has seen in Israel and the Palestinian territories is biased. Instead of showing that his assessment of the conflict is correct Exactlyhe argues that it is moral justified. But this simply amounts to suggesting that the ends justify the means: giving a voice to those he assumes are the oppressed, excuses that present misleading stories and half-baked analysis.

If Dokoupil made a mistake at all, it was in not pushing Coates to answer two questions. First, what good is lending your voice to a group if you are using your voice to spread a dishonest narrative? And second, why do you think that to advance the interests of the Palestinians you have to lie by omitting the context of the situation?

Indeed, in his own interest, Coates should recognize that those who claim to advocate for the voiceless must do so responsibly. The role he has taken on for himself can best be compared to that of a lawyer who zealously advocates for his client. But even the most dedicated lawyer will be penalized if they intentionally withhold important evidence. What Coates is doing is not promoting justice – it is not even advancing the Palestinian cause. Instead, he's just rehashing the same tired, misguided themes he's been peddling for years.

Photo by Johnny Louis/Getty Images