What examples have researchers cited when classifying Candace Owens’ content as antisemitic?

1. Specific tropes and claims researchers flag

Analysts cite Owens’ repeated use of longstanding antisemitic tropes: alleging Jewish control over media and Hollywood “cabals,” accusing Jews of orchestrating historical crimes like the transatlantic slave trade, and invoking Talmud-related slurs about Jewish values — each example surfaced in media reporting and watchdog briefings ^{[3] [2] [5] [6]}.

2. High‑profile episodes that anchor the classification

Researchers and advocates point to concrete episodes: Owens’ 2021 appearance with Tucker Carlson where she pushed a George Soros funding trope; a public urging that audiences read a 19th‑century antisemitic tract and claims that Jews ran the slave trade; and livestream remarks that tied Jewish figures and Frankist conspiracies to ritual murder narratives — incidents repeatedly documented in news coverage and watchdog reports ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

3. Platform enforcement and algorithmic studies used as evidence

Platform actions and quantitative studies are treated as empirical corroboration: YouTube suspended and demonetized content it said suggested Jews “control the media,” an action cited by observers as validation of policy breaches; and an AI transcript study by the Jewish People Policy Institute found a rising share of Owens videos mentioning Jews classified as antisemitic, with the rate jumping sharply in some recent months — researchers use both enforcement and algorithmic coding as part of the evidentiary picture ^{[3] [7]}.

4. Pattern of defense, minimization, and entrenchment noted by critics

Commentators and institutions emphasize pattern and context: Owens has defended or downplayed others’ antisemitic statements (for example, her defenses of Kanye/Ye’s remarks) and continued to amplify conspiratorial narratives about Israel and Jewish leaders; advocacy organizations have cataloged this behavior when calling her antisemitic and, in one instance, naming her “Antisemite of the Year” for a portfolio of such remarks ^{[6] [8] [9]}.

5. How researchers distinguish anti‑Zionist critique from antisemitism in her case

Scholars and watchdogs quoted in the reporting draw a line between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and rhetoric that traffics in conspiracist or race‑based explanations for events; they argue Owens’ material often moves from political critique into conspiratorial attributions (e.g., alleging Jewish orchestration of assassinations or secret global influence) and into classic libels, which is why it is categorized as antisemitic in analyses cited ^{[1] [4] [10]}.

6. Pushback, caveats, and political context that researchers note

Sources record pushback and political dynamics: some conservative allies have hesitated to fully repudiate Owens and public figures like Megyn Kelly have at times declined to condemn her, illustrating partisan frictions that complicate consensus; at the same time, outlets differ in tone and emphasis, and researchers caution that classification often combines qualitative judgment about intent and harm with quantitative methods like keyword algorithms ^{[10] [7]}.

7. Limits of available reporting and where researchers still rely on interpretation

The public record compiled by journalists and advocacy groups documents specific statements and platform responses, but researchers’ broader judgments sometimes rely on pattern‑analysis, algorithmic classification, and contextual interpretation rather than a single legal standard; where reporting does not provide transcript‑level verification for every attributed line, analysts acknowledge those interpretive steps in their assessments ^{[7] [1]}.