Yesterday, a FlyDubai flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv plummeted from 33,000 feet to 17,000 feet in under 2 minutes.
It was carrying 174 passengers, mostly Israeli, including women and children.
The sudden plunge was because the co-pilot stabbed the captain with a knife, and tried to crash the plane.
The only reason that he didn’t succeed is because the wounded captain got the cockpit door open, passengers rushed in and subdued the attacker, and off-duty pilots among the passengers landed the plane.
An Omani official confirmed the attacker is Omani, and Israel’s defense minister described it as an “attempted jihadist terror attack”.
Here is how the New York Times reported it:
Notice anything?
One pilot stabbed the other, unprovoked, and passengers had to intervene.
But it’s framed as “an altercation” between pilots.
The framing is technically true - but clearly sanitized.
By the time the Times posted, the plane’s hijack signal had been public for almost two hours.
Passengers had described a stabbing.
Israeli TV was reporting a suspected terror attack.
The Times called the hijack signal a “distress signal.”
And it called the stabbing a “clash between pilots.”
To be fair, nobody could have known who the attacker was yet.
I’m not saying they should have written “Muslim attacker.”
But “suspected terror attack” was available.
If that was too strong, mentioning the hijack signal was also available.
They went with “altercation.”
Imagine if 9/11 was presented as an “altercation” between the passengers and pilots?
Contrast this with how the US and Israeli strikes that hit a school in Iran were presented by these same outlets.
Do you see the difference?
Both incidents rely on reporting from one side.
In the case of the plane - it’s Israel.
In the case of the school - it’s Iran.
BBC ran Iran’s claim, with Iran’s number, the same day.
“Iran says US and Israel strikes hit school killing 108” was enough for a headline.
A hijack signal and a stabbing got “clash between pilots.”
When the killer is potentially an Islamic extremist - that is downplayed.
But when the killer is potentially America or Israel - that is emphasized.
After receiving backlash, the New York Times argued that they did this because they “don’t publish speculation or unverified information”.
But that’s not true. They have reported unverified information:
In October 2023, Hamas - which is funded by Iran’s government, the Islamic Republic - claimed Israel bombed al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza, killing 500 people. The Times ran it. It turned out the explosion was most likely caused by a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that hit the hospital parking lot - not the hospital itself. The Times later published an editors’ note admitting it relied too heavily on Hamas’s claims.
In May 2026, they published a column claiming Israeli guards used a dog to rape a prisoner. The source was a former detainee’s account. It remains unverified.
In July 2025, they put a photo of an emaciated child in Gaza on the front page, with his mother’s claim that he was born healthy. Days later, the Times admitted he had pre-existing health problems affecting his brain and muscle development. This doesn’t mean that there wasn’t starvation in Gaza - but the picture is not proof. The photographer went on to win a Pulitzer for his Gaza starvation photos.
Now these are easy examples of NYT publishing unverified speculation that was later shown to be false, or never verified.
But the issue isn’t just getting things wrong.
They reported Iran’s claim about the school the same day it happened.
In hindsight - it was likely to be true.
But at the time, we didn’t know - all of the information was based on one party’s accounting - the Islamic Republic.
So if they are OK reporting one side’s unverified claim in that case, why not report the suspected terror attack Israeli TV was already reporting on the plane?
Particularly when the NYT themselves reported information from Islamic extremists that turned out to be false just 2 years prior, with the Al-Ahli hospital incident?
Now you’ve seen the bias in reporting around these stories dissected - so it should be more clear.
But often, it isn’t so clear.
Right now you’re being guided through the process, but normally, you’re not.
You’re busy, and you’re getting assaulted with heaps of information every day.
So how can you make sure you’re protected against this kind of bias during even your passive news consumption?
I recommend Ground News.
This is a plug - and it’s a plug for something I sincerely believe in.
You’ve seen how the New York Times presented the plane story.
Here’s how Ground News presented it:
Not as an “altercation”.
As a stabbing and an attempted crash. And they appropriately named the source so that you can decide what to do with that unverified information.
Ground News breaks down the bias between the left, right and center so you can decide what to think with full information, rather than be led to a conclusion with omission.
I cannot emphasize more strongly - we are in a crisis of critical thinking.
Social media is eroding people’s cognition.
AI, when used unintentionally, will erode it further.
And none of us is immune.
Having the tools to support your thinking is basic cognitive security for maintaining your mental sovereignty.
Because we’re all in the midst of an information war we didn’t sign up for.
I urge you to sign up for Ground News right now. I use it every single day and I think you will too.
You can get 40% off the Vantage plan, their top tier, at groundnews.com/kaizenx
This is not just about having a bias against Israel and American military action.
Endless pieces have been written by me and others about media bias.
BBC and NYT have a left-leaning bias - that bias makes them hostile to Israel and the Trump administration - but that’s not an interesting point, because all outlets have some bias in some direction.
This is a more precise issue: it’s about avoiding identification of Islamic terrorism when it happens.
This is a post from March 10, 2026.
The incident happened outside Gracie Mansion, the mayor’s residence in NYC.
There were two protests.
One was an anti-Muslim rally billed as “Stop the Islamic Takeover of New York City, Stop New York City Public Muslim Prayer.” It was aimed at Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
The organizer, Jake Lang, showed up with about 20 followers and a goat.
The other was a counter-protest called “Run the Nazis Out of New York City.” About 125 people showed up for that side.
The teenagers were Muslim.
They were 18 and 19.
They threw homemade bombs toward the anti-Muslim protest.
They supported ISIS. Federal prosecutors charged them with it.
The day before CNN’s post, police said it was being investigated as ISIS-inspired terrorism.
CNN reported the terrorism charges itself.
And CNN presented them as “Two Pennsylvania teenagers crossed into New York City Saturday morning for what could’ve been a normal day enjoying the city during abnormally warm weather.”
Do those sound like terrorists, or just two teens on an adventure?
“But in less than an hour, their lives would drastically change as the pair would be arrested for throwing homemade bombs during an anti-Muslim protest.”
Why is the protest labeled as anti-Muslim, but the bombers aren’t labeled as supporting ISIS - which was public info at the time?
Why are they presented in passive voice (their lives would change, they were arrested), rather than active voice (they went to a protest and threw bombs, endangering the lives of others)?
CNN deleted the post and admitted it “failed to reflect the gravity of the incident.”
The pattern is selective caution.
When America or Israel is accused, these outlets run the claim fast, unverified.
When the attacker might be an Islamic extremist, they suddenly discover caution.
To be fair, these attacks get plenty of coverage once the facts are in.
The difference is in the first hours, and in the words.
Why? I can’t read their minds. But I can read their headlines.
And here’s my inference:
The Left is afraid of being seen as Islamophobic.
That is why despite the fact that Islamist groups account for most terrorism deaths worldwide, the media avoids naming Muslims when there is yet another terrorist attack.
That is why when an armed man rammed a truck into a synagogue in Michigan with 140 children inside, Abdul El-Sayed condemned it - and then said “hurt people hurt people”. (He apologized five months later.)
That is why everything Hamas does - even if it endangers their own civilians - is justified by a large part of the pro-Palestine movement as “resistance” to Israel, when nothing Israel does is justified as resistance to Hamas.
Hamas’ evils are secondary, Israel’s evils are considered primary.
This is bias.
And it’s the worst kind of bias for a Western democratic country to have.
Because it’s a bias against Western values themselves.
Now to be clear, everyone has their bias - including me.
But some biases are worse than others.
Israel and Jews aren’t constantly launching terror attacks across America and Europe - Muslim extremists are.
But there’s infinite energy spent in the West on what’s happening thousands of miles away in Gaza - very little on the threat of Islamic extremism in the West itself.
Endless energy spent on Gaza, infinite avoidance of the Islamification of Western capitals - London, Paris, New York City - and how to reckon with that.
Perhaps there is nothing wrong with Muhammad being the most common baby name in London - but we need to talk about it honestly.
But rather than confront the topic of Islam, these outlets conceal it.
25 years since 9/11, and Islamophobia is being treated as a greater threat than Islamic extremism.
It is not.
Islamic extremism is killing people across the Western world.
Islamophobia is creating a deeply unpleasant, isolating experience for Muslims.
Islamic extremism is killing Jewish people on the beaches of Australia, outside the synagogues of England, and in the cities of America.
Islamic extremism drove a truck through a Christmas market in Berlin and killed 13 people.
Counting 9/11, Islamic extremists have killed thousands of people in the West.
Anti-Muslim attackers have killed dozens.
Islamic extremism is so corrosive that even Islamic first-world nations like the UAE are banning it.
The UAE designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group in 2014.
This year it stopped funding its students at British universities.
A Muslim country is afraid its kids will be radicalized in England.
The West is excusing it.
Of course both Islamic extremism and hatred toward Muslim citizens should be eradicated.
But when everything is an equal priority, nothing is an actual priority.
We’re losing the ability to reason about what the first priority should be, to the point that we avoid confronting physical violence because of emotional discomfort.
We see this across virtually every dimension of politics and culture.
Lindsay Clancy kills her 3 kids - and the focus becomes Lindsay Clancy’s struggles.
The border was left wide open - allowing violent criminals and sex traffickers in - and deportations get framed in abstractions like white supremacy.
Massive fraud of hundreds of millions of dollars perpetrated by a subset of the Somali community happens in Minnesota - and the focus becomes preventing the negative perception of Somalis.
You don’t help populations by avoiding talking about bad actors within those populations.
Muslims are not helped by this avoidance.
The overwhelming majority of the 4.5 million Muslims in America are peaceful and have found a way to make their observance of their faith compatible with Western values.
But there are extremists who ruin it for them and everyone else.
They are the people who are driving the majority of Islamophobia.
Yes, there are idiots and shock-jockeys and loud mouths on the Right who critique Muslims in unproductive ways.
But the primary issue is, and should always be: those who are being physically violent toward their fellow citizen.
And unfortunately, there is an alarmingly large contingent of Muslims who are sympathetic to these violent extremists.
One in five American Muslims told Pew that the way Hamas carried out October 7 was acceptable.
And that conversation needs to be had so that people who value life, liberty, equality - Muslims and non-Muslims both - can address it accordingly.
This confusion and mental rot has an even deeper foundation.
It’s hatred of the West, and the elevation of extremists.
And we’re seeing this play out in the Israel versus Hamas conversation.
From here, you’ll learn:
Why Israel became the lightning rod for anti-Western sentiment, and why the colonialism charge is loudest in the countries that actually colonized.
The two-question shortcut many people use to pick a side in Israel vs. Hamas.
How to judge which side is better without it coming down to opinion.
Why judging by body count alone would make the Allies worse than the Nazis, and what that measure misses.
The litmus test that separates terrorists from armies, and extremists from governments.
