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 argued that the anchor’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 battle session, bringing in DEI consultants to “educate” him on the acceptable boundaries of discourse and the proper body language to maintain when speaking to an elevated minority guest. This is the state of modern journalism: the smallest challenge to the progressive narrative results in rapid re-education efforts.

A review of the contents of the underlying exchange, and the stunning explanation Coates offered in defense of his dishonesty toward Israel, illuminates why there has been such a rush to reframe his appearance at CBS as a hostile confrontation.

Dokoupil’s initial comments and questions challenged the broadside of Coates’ new book against Israel: The message. “The contents of that section” about Israel, Dokoupil noted, “would not be out of place in an extremist’s backpack.” “Why Does Ta-Nehisi Coates . . . a very talented, smart guy, are you leaving out so much? Dokoupil asked. In a book largely about Israel’s security practices and their alleged excesses, the anchor was dropped: “Why leave out the fact that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it? Why would you ignore the fact that Israel is dealing with terrorist groups that want to eliminate the country?” These are crucial questions that Coates must have expected from even a friendly interlocutor. Dokoupil offers another natural follow-up for the author, who cannot find any justification for Israel’s security measures: “Is it because you simply don’t believe that Israel has a right to exist, under any circumstances?”

Coates’ answer was confusing, but revealing:

I would say, the perspective that you just outlined – there is no shortage of that perspective in the American media. . . . I am always most concerned about those who have no voice, about those who cannot speak. I have asked repeatedly in my interviews if 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 more sympathetically believe in Israel and its right to exist have no problem making their voices heard. But what I saw in Palestine. . . those were the stories I haven’t heard yet.

In these few lines, Coates channels the rhetoric he has used throughout his career—a vague invocation of marginalized peoples (in this case the Palestinians) and an assertion that their members are denied a platform in the American public sphere. He specifically refers to the “perspectives” of those groups, regardless of the validity of those perspectives. It’s as if the very presence of elimination groups blowing up Israeli buses and cafes – which prompted many of the security measures Coates decries – was a matter of opinion.

It gets even worse when you get deeper into the details. First, in what sense do Palestinians have no “voice”? Unlike the Kurds, Copts, Uyghurs and a number of other ethnic and religious minority groups, Palestinians in the United States have a chorus of outspoken advocates, especially within elite media and academic circles. Figures such as representatives of Rashida Tlaib (of Palestinian descent), Jamaal Bowman and Ilhan Omar have made anti-Israel extremism central to their political platforms. Entire academic departments exist to demonize Israel and justify Palestinian violence against the Jewish state. The United Nations condemns Israel while coddling dictators; its subsidiary, UNRWA, has special rules that treat Palestinians more favorably than any other group under the umbrella of the UN (and openly cooperates with Hamas).

Coates’ claim that the Palestinians’ “stories” are not being “heard” is equally remarkable. The media routinely publishes reporting that is so sympathetic to Palestinians as to border on parody, from uncritically citing the unverifiable casualty figures of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry to hastily publishing claims that Israel is the All -Bombed Ahli Hospital, killing hundreds of people, when in fact a Palestinian Islamic Jihad missile 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 is perhaps the most overrepresented foreign movement in American cultural history.

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

The deeper problem with Coates’ response, however, is not the inaccuracy of his claims, but his implication that defending a supposedly marginalized group justifies presenting a one-sided story. His response, which indicates that he has heard Israel’s perspective and now wants to offer an opposing view, does not deny that his account of what he has seen in Israel and the Palestinian territories is biased. Instead of trying to show that his assessment of the conflict is accuratelyhe claims it is moral justified. But that merely amounts to suggesting that the end justifies the means: giving voice to those he presumes are oppressed excuses presenting misleading histories and half-baked analyses.

If Dokoupil was mistaken at all, it was in not pressing Coates to answer two questions. First, what’s the point of lending your voice to a group, if you’re using your vote to advance a dishonest bill? And second, why do you think that advancing the interests of the Palestinians requires lying by making omissions about the context of the situation?

For his own good, Coates should recognize that those who claim to stand up 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 diligent counsel will be punished for deliberately withholding important evidence. What Coates is doing is not advancing justice – it is not even advancing the Palestinian cause. Instead, he’s just repeating the same tired, misleading themes he’s been preaching for years.

Photo by Johnny Louis/Getty Images