Posts on the topic of "New York Times"
The attack against Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria – six killed and 36 injured – was the worst suicide bomb attack in the European Union since the London transport bombings of July 2005.
Commentator Tom Gross notes the weak coverage of the tragedy by the Western media.
• AFP, the leading French news agency, downplayed the terrorists' intention by scare-quoting the word "attack" in its headline: "Three Dead in 'Attack' on Israelis at Bulgaria Airport."
• BBC News described the bombing as an "awful accident" (long after it was clear to all that this was a bomb attack, not an accident).
• Never to be outdone, the New York Times reported how "bellicose adversaries, Israel and Iran, have a long history of accusing each other of terrorist attacks." Apparently the Times regards the deliberate murder of Israelis on vacation, with the elimination of an Iranian scientist working to produce a nuclear bomb for an Iranian regime that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map.
Journalists have long tried to minimize Arab terror by taking the focus off the Israeli victims. Associated Press noted that "357 bystanders have been killed" by Palestinian suicide bombings (Jason Keyser, "Suicide Bombing on Jerusalem Bus, Seven Killed"), and the New York Times wrote that "a barrage of four Palestinian attacks killed nine bystanders" (James Bennet, "Israel Pulls Back From Peace Plan After 4 Attacks"). In common usage, a "bystander" is peripheral to the central event – e.g. a bystander injured in a bank robbery. By describing Israeli terror victims as "bystanders," the media obscures the basic fact that Israeli civilians are the intentional target of these bombers.
Meanwhile, Israel endures another round of funerals, mourning and rehabilitation.
Last week Hamas fired over 100 rockets at Israeli towns before agreeing to a ceasefire.
On Friday, following some more cross-border action, Reuters posted this headline:
Israeli Air Strike Kills Gaza Militant, Breaks Truce
According to Reuters, Israel broke the truce. That would be correct, if not for two key pieces of information:
1) The militant killed in the air strike was, according to Palestinian sources, preparing to fire a rocket at Israel from Gaza. Doesn't that count as "breaking the truce"?
2) As Reuters reports in the body of the article, the Israeli strike followed the firing of two rockets at Israel earlier in the day from Gaza. If Israel was responding to rocket fire, how exactly does Reuters conclude that Israel "broke the truce"?
Particularly in online news where users get their fix by scanning a list of links, it is imperative that headlines be clear and direct, leaving no confusion over "who did what."
I recall a few years ago when Associated Press issued this headline: "Rockets Hit Lebanon Despite Cease-Fire." Readers would presume that Israel had broken a cease-fire by attacking Lebanon. Only those bothering to read the article, however, discovered that the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah had fired 10 Katyusha rockets that accidentally fell short, landing in southern Lebanon – hence the technically-true-but-wildly-deceptive headline, "Rockets Hit Lebanon Despite Cease-Fire."
Even Israel's basic counter-terrorist measures are blamed for causing hostilities. When Israel stopped Hamas from building tunnels designed to ferry lethal weapons and kidnap IDF soldiers, the New York Times cited this as evidence of Israel breaking the truce and driving "the cycle of violence to a much higher level." ("A Gaza Truce Undone by Flaws May be Revived by Necessity," December 18, 2008)
It's a world turned upside-down, where Israel is blamed in knee-jerk fashion. Sometimes I think the solution is just to ignore the sophomoric condemnations and do whatever is needed to defend the citizens of Israel. Because if we're anyway damned if we do, and damned if we don't... why not "do"?
Visitor Comments: 5
On Sunday evening, tens of thousands of Orthodox Jews packed into Citi Field (home to baseball’s New York Mets) for a rally to discuss responsible use of the Internet. No need to reiterate that message here; Aish.com has already dealt extensively with the issue of online pornography, as well as the addictive pull of the Internet. (See articles here, here, here and here.)
What got me riled up was media coverage of the event. This New York Times video report gave less airtime to the 40,000-plus attendees than it did to the few dozen “anti-Orthodox” protesters. One protester, a middle-aged man in a tank top, told viewers of the Times that this rally
In truth, far from issuing its “last dying gasp,” Orthodoxy is the most vibrant and fastest-growing segment of American Jewry. This “floundering” community somehow managed to pack Citi Field and is planning another gathering of 90,000 people at MetLife Stadium in August.
It’s one thing to interview a professor who has conducted extensive sociological studies to offer a reasoned assessment of the Orthodox community. But for the Times to give a platform to outright falsehoods is irresponsible, agenda-driven reporting.
Closing out the Times’ video report is a statement by rally spokesman Eytan Kobre, whose words are taken out of context and cleverly edited, making it sound as if he describes his own Orthodox community as “putting one’s head in the sand.”
This is not the first time the New York Times has pulled such a stunt. I recall ten years ago when the Salute to Israel parade in Manhattan drew 800,000 people, including marching bands and professionally-designed floats. A few hundred protesters also showed up – representing less than one-tenth of one percent of total attendance.
Yet the Times ran a front-page photo of a protester clutching a large anti-Israel poster, suggesting to readers that there had been a huge anti-Israel parade. Inside the newspaper as well, a large photo of protesters showed a banner that likened Zionism to Nazism.
Following numerous complaints, the Times issued a rare apology:
As documented in my book, David & Goliath, the New York Times has a long and sordid history of anti-Jewish bias. Back in the 1930s, Times’ publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger was a committed anti-Zionist. When the British passed laws restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine – thus slamming the door on Jews desperate to flee the Nazi inferno – a Times editorial praised the law as necessary “to save the homeland itself from overpopulation.” The Times’ horrific cover-up of the Holocaust is well-documented as a policy directed by Sulzberger for both political and personal reasons: He didn’t want his paper characterized as “Jewish,” and he didn’t approve of Jews helping fellow Jews.
For the millions of New York Times readers worldwide, this week’s rally at Citi Field is just another sad reminder that when it comes to Jewish concerns, the news is not quite “fit to print.”
Visitor Comments: 2
The New York Times reports:
In Tehran, the speech by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made during Friday Prayer and broadcast live to the nation, came amid deepening American concern about a possible military strike on Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites by Israel, whose leaders delivered blunt new warnings on Thursday about what they called the need to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran a threat to its existence. (Robert F. Worth and David E. Sanger, "U.N. Nuclear Inspectors’ Visit to Iran Is a Failure, West Says," New York Times, February 3, 2012.)
Now why, pray tell, might Israel “consider” a nuclear-armed Iran a threat to its existence?
The Times doesn't get into specifics, and indeed leaves out a key part of Khamenei’s speech, reported by the Ahlul Bayt ("Holy Household") Islamic News Agency:
"The Zionist regime is truly a cancerous tumor in the region and it must be, and will be, cut off.”
Why did the Times leave out that key statement, and present this very real threat to Israel as a mere concern?
This is just another one of the many, many patterns of bias the New York Times is perpetrating against Israel. In reporting on Ahmadinejad's horrific threat that Israel "must be wiped off the map," the Times has cleverly re-translated the original Farsi into the far milder wish that Israel should "vanish from the pages of time." (Ethan Bronner, "Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?", New York Times, June 11, 2006)
Of course, the Times’ mistranslation ignores the fact that the Iranian government has erected billboards with the phrase "Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world" in plain English, and the slogan is painted on Iranian ballistic missiles.
The English section of Ahmadinejad's own website quotes him as saying that Israel "will be wiped off the map." ("President Says Zionist Regime of Israel Faces Deadend," June 3, 2008) And Dariush Rezaiinejad, chief commander of Iran's Basij militia, has stated clearly: "We have no option but to have the Zionist regime wiped off the map." ("IRGC Basij: No Choice But to Wipe Out Israel," Home Daily News - Iran, July 27, 2011)
All this is documented in my book, David & Goliath. And it’s all been erased from the New York Times, the increasingly-questionable "newspaper of record."