“Shrill.” “Strident.” “Stubborn.” “Abrasive.” “Derisive.” “Cynical.” These are adjectives used by New York Times journalists this month to describe Israel’s prime minister or cabinet ministers.
And that was just in news articles. New York Times editorialists added a few additional descriptors to that list – “aggressive,” “combative,” “sarcastic,” “eager for a fight,” and “sabotaging diplomacy.”
In fact, the only Israeli political party that merited a positive characterization by the Times was the far-left Meretz party, which was described in a news article as “peace-seeking.” The Meretz party with six seats of 120 in the Knesset is hardly representative of the mainstream. And while nearly all other Knesset members, including those in power, claim to be seeking peace, The New York Times is not having any of that. Nor do they want their readers to.
Indeed, looking at this month’s coverage of Israel-related news items, it would appear that reporters are reserving positive labels for those whose positions they support, and negative ones for those with whom they disagree. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas received a positive label this month: He was said to be “conciliatory.”
That reporters are characterizing the subjects of their news articles with pejorative adjectives would indicate they are trying to influence readers about how to view events. This seems to contradict The New York Times’ self-declared editorial guidelines which claim to provide readers with “impartial” reporting and “the complete, unvarnished truth.” Yet, such injection of commentary into what are supposed to be news stories is allowed to continue.
What then is the newspaper’s notion of “impartiality” and “unvarnished truth”?
In a recent article about a “conciliatory” Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren contrasted the Israeli prime minister negatively, characterizing a speech he made to Israeli diplomats and academics as “strident” and comments he made about a historical figure, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin Al Husseini, as “derisive.”
Mr. Netanyahu talked about the root of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, which included a historical review of the Grand Mufti’s incitement of Palestinian Arabs to riot and massacre Jews in pre-1948 Palestine, and his notorious alliance with Hitler and Nazi Germany. The Israeli prime minister quoted directly from a 1942 propaganda broadcast by the Palestinian leader:
I quote: “If England is defeated and its allies overwhelmed, it will provide a final solution to the Jewish question, which in our mind is the greatest danger.”
These are incontrovertible facts, borne out by extensive historical documentation, including recordings and photographs. The reason for mentioning them, Mr. Netanyahu explained in his speech, was that the Mufti’s actions and desire to uproot Zionism lay “at the root of the [Arab-Israeli] conflict” and because “the Mufti is still an admired figure in the Palestinian national movement.”
The term “derisive” with its connotation of mockery and contempt is generally not used to describe historic, if unpleasant, truths. Does The New York Times reporter believe that the Mufti’s genocidal hatred of Jews and Zionism should remain unmentioned? Evidently so. Nor did she make any mention of President Abbas’ glorification of the Grand Mufti – as well as Palestinian terrorists from Fatah, DFLP, PFLP, Islamic Jihad and Hamas — in her coverage of a January 2013 speech by the Palestinian leader that was publicly aired on Palestinian Authority TV.
To report such things would be to present readers with a less conciliatory image of Palestinian leaders, and a more balanced picture of the roots of the conflict. And that, apparently, is not what The New York Times wants its readers to see. Mr. Netanyahu’s speech was thus dismissed as “strident” and his historical review of the Mufti’ as “derisive” comments about “the support that a long-ago Palestinian mufti of Jerusalem provided the Nazis.”
The New York Times has declared its concern about maintaining its reputation as “the newspaper of record.” According to its own guidelines:
At a time of growing and even justified public suspicion about the impartiality, accuracy and integrity of some journalists and some journalism, it is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure that we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns.
But it is difficult to see how readers can retain confidence in a news organization that attempts to influence them with incomplete and partisan news reporting.
This article originally appeared in the Times of Israel
(31) DAS1951, December 29, 2013 5:37 PM
Disappointing
This is very disappointing to learn. (I live in the UK and do not follow the NYT but am, of course, aware of it.)
(30) Sabus, November 23, 2013 12:26 PM
Real facts NOT news papers
I've always urged friends to seek for reality not intended opinion and interest of the media owners and workers. They aim to bias and goad people out of reality.
(29) Miles Greenberg, November 4, 2013 5:47 AM
NYT's will dig their own grave
While many a NYT's readers are faithful diehards truth will ultimately trump the lies and misrepresentations. The NYT's is no longer offering up the cutting edge journalism that created this dynasty. Many readers still have moved on and I am no exception.
If and when the demon of antisemitism rises and breaths fire down the necks of even the anti-Israel Jews where the hell are they going to go? Israel I submit should let the wolves consume their unworthy hides.
(28) Tzvi, November 3, 2013 2:57 PM
The Sngle Greatest Danger
The NYT is managed by people who represent the single greatest danger to the Jewish people; Powerful Jews who believe that their continued power lies in distancing themselves from other Jews.
(27) Anonymous, November 3, 2013 2:55 PM
No wonder newspapers are not selling!
בס"ד
When papers dish up such obviously biased reporting, it is no wonder newspapers are non, largely speaking, selling! This is so far from the journalistic standards I was taught as a girl.
(26) Andy, November 3, 2013 11:08 AM
The Times is not anti Israel per se
The Times reporting seems no more biased against Israel than the views of a large minority of Israelis [read Haaretz ]and seemingly the majority of Jews in the USA who voted overwhelmingly for Obama. The vision of Israel they seek is a secular democratic state within modified 1967 borders. It seems to me the Times will use it's influence to push that agenda in their reporting even beyond the op ed page where it is expected. In my opinion the reality is if the Arab world wanted a two State solution with a Jewish State they could have had one long ago and probably still could,so the Times and others are misreading the situation. Despite the continuing US pressure on Israel to relinquish first prisoners and then land they are no closer to a lasting peace. I would guess only when Jews are more unified and Israel truly independent will this will be resolved. Until then biased from the Times reporting should not surprise.
(25) Anonymous, November 2, 2013 7:46 PM
An Inside Look
My husband worked for "that" paper for over 30 years as a Sr. Editor. There was a time he took pride in his work with what once a great newspaper. By the time he retired, he was disgusted and felt disgraced by this association. Things started changing most drastically when the "old guard" was dismissed and or disregarded under the reign of Joe Lelyveld (with the exception of a few "stars").
As for making a difference ... believe me, some of the old guard tried. Their story ideas about Israel and Europe were frequently circular filed. HR told me personally that they had never, in the history of the paper had so many people seeking early retirement.
It's been downhill since. This has been going on for years now. As far as management, look at the Jayson Blair case. NONSENSE response. Impossible for this to h ave happened as explained.
It's a pity, a tragedy, and a travesty re: responsible reporting, and how management deals with most staff.
(24) Midwestern Member of the Tribe, November 2, 2013 3:55 PM
And you're just coming to that conclusion?
Look outside of NTC and into the rest of the country. Perspective is everything. Why do you think clamor about the "liberal media?"
Hello! Welcome to middle America.
(23) Danielle, November 2, 2013 10:17 AM
Israel Advocacy Conference
There will be an Israel Advocacy Conference in New York at the Edmond J Safra synagogue November 17. Gershon Mesika will be there!! Contact info: david@haivri.com
(22) Fred, November 2, 2013 2:20 AM
The New York Times should change its name to the New York Stuermer it would be more appropriate in view of its untrameled hatred of Israel ( Jews).
(21) Anonymous, November 1, 2013 4:30 PM
And so,
Ricki, What are you going to do about it? Have you at minimum sent a letter of objection directly to the NY Times Editor, voicing your objections, giving them a copy of this article, and challenging them to publically respond? Has any single Jew done this. Imagine, every last Jew taking a copy of this letter, along with their own letter of objection, and sending it directly to the Editor? Do you think that could be ignored? And if so, wouldn't that incur a larger public statement, that certainly the NY Times wouldn't be able to ignore. Common people, this is basic grass roots America form of movement. Class 101. Start a signatory petition demanding a public apology. It is time for America Jews to get up out of the easy chair, and start taking an active interest in the world around them,and of Israel specifically. Stop being arm-chair critics, in the safe cloistering of your home, and take an ACTIVE interest in Israel, where our fellow brothers and sisters: every man, women, and child, has to live at real serious risk level for the safety and well-being of their kith and kin. Shame. Shame. Shame.
(20) miriam w. Cohen, November 1, 2013 9:47 AM
Abd who cares?
The Times is biased, and every one knows that, They print what sells papers. I cancelled my subscription years ago.
A rag, not worth the paper or the ink, and their reporters should be sent back to Journalism School,.
(19) Reuven B. Frank, November 1, 2013 7:30 AM
More of the Same
I don't worry about the New York Times, or the BBC, or CNN, or any other Jew-hating, Anti-Semitic, Anti-Israel reporting. They're not going to stop, and we're not going to disappear (let's rely on G-d on that one). Only the coming of the Moshiach (Messiah), is going to change things.
I've lived in Israel for over 30 years, and it's just more of the same.
You want to cancel your subscriptions? Fine.
You /MIGHT/ however want to consider coming to live here, too.
Sure the Arabs, and the Palestinians, and the Syrians, and the terrorists, and...are over here as well.
But, at least, over here, I know where I stand, despite then all!
Andrew Stiller, November 1, 2013 1:22 PM
I couldn't have said it any better!
Bravo. What you say is absolutely true.
Sharon Shea, November 1, 2013 2:51 PM
I certainly support your comments. As a NON-American viewer I am continually appalled by the anti-semetic absolutely disgusting "reporting" supposedly done by the "unbiased???" reporters. It is one thing for the bias of those being interviewed to be "observed". It is obscene to hear it coming from supposedly professional announcers/reporters. I am 75 years old and unable to move to Israel. Would dearly love to be there. I am a Messianic follower of Yahushua Ha'Moshiach and eagerly await HIS return to Jerusalem. G-d bless you and Israel/Jerusalem.
(18) judith bell, November 1, 2013 2:04 AM
comments on NYT
I attempt to comment on the NYT often. Although my posts always meet guidelines, they are often refused. Posts I flag as clearly antisemitic are rarely removed.
I would like to know if anyone who reads this has the same problem. 40% of readers now read the comments section. It is important to get on these boards and counter the article and the hateful comments supportive of the article
I believe the NYT and others use the comments section to bolster their agenda.
Again, I would love to hear if anyone has had the same experience.
Anonymous, November 1, 2013 4:25 PM
YES!!! I have had the same thing occur to me when I attempted to post something about a year ago! I still read the NYTimes, but their guidlines with respect to impartiality are a joke.
(17) Wayne, October 31, 2013 11:57 PM
The NYT biased? Who would have known?
I'm two thirds of a century old, and I don't recall anyone ever accusing the NYT of being impartial. I'm not holding my breath waiting, either.
(16) Lou, October 31, 2013 11:14 PM
Post linke to Dr Denis MacEoin's blog
I suggest that you reply to NY Times articles by posting links to Dr Denis MacEoin's writing. A British-Irish Christian Islamist, he writes well and accurately of Israel.
His profile of himself, and some links, are below.
Denis M. MacEoin (born 1949, Belfast, Northern Ireland) has been editor of Middle East Quarterly since June 2009. A former lecturer in Islamic studies, his academic specializations are Shi‘ism, Shaykhism, Bábism, and the Bahá'í Faith, on all of which he has written extensively. MacEoin is also a novelist, writing under the pen names Daniel Easterman and Jonathan Aycliffe. He and his wife live in Newcastle upon Tyne in northern England.
“A Liberal Defence of Israel” blog:
http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.ca/
Letter to Edinburgh University Student Association, April 06, 2011
http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.ca/search?updated-min=2011-04-01T00:00:00-07:00&updated-max=2011-05-01T00:00:00-07:00&max-results=2
Open Letter to Alice Walker, Monday, September 03, 2012
http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.ca/search?updated-min=2012-09-01T00:00:00-07:00&updated-max=2012-10-01T00:00:00-07:00&max-results=4
Open Letter to Alice Walker reprinted (and reformatted) here:
http://www.aish.com/jw/me/An_Open_Letter_to_Alice_Walker.html
Open Letter to Malcolm Levitt, Part 1
http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.ca/2013/06/here-is-my-latest-and-probably-final.html
Open Letter to Malcolm Levitt, Part 2
http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.ca/2013/06/this-is-second-half-of-my-long-letter.html
(15) Chaim, October 31, 2013 10:42 PM
Unequaled Hypocrisy - Check out this article claiming the IDF is racist because its soldiers do not rape Palestinians
Incredible and beyond words..........
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ex-israeli-soldier-denounced-on-us-campus-for-not-raping-palestinian-women/
(14) Anna, October 31, 2013 9:50 PM
These adjectives would be all right if they were true, but I somehow doubt that they can be all those times unless the people of Israel are not very discerning about who they elect. Which is possible but most improbable.
(13) Eden Maxwell, October 31, 2013 9:34 PM
The Weak Minded
In simplest terms, morons and haters will believe the tripe of biased reporting. Open minds will ferret out the truth.
But, we must also consider a fact:
Even if a Palestinian sees the absurdity of his leaders, speaking out will get that person and his family killed. Palestinians need an enlighten commander in chief. Then, peace will surface.
Well done article,
(12) herb, October 31, 2013 9:31 PM
The New York Times is an enemy of the Jewish people
Roger Cohen-promotes nuclear iran
Thomas Friedman- promotes notion of zionist occupation government in the US, similar to KKK
Maureen Dowd- states that Saudi women have more rights than Israeli women
Nicholas Kristoff- accuses Israel of massive human rights violations
Ian Lustick-calls for end of Israel
(11) Jerry E., October 31, 2013 9:14 PM
Finally!
Ah, so the progressive/liberal Jews are fainally catching on to what the Left is all about! Hopefully, many eyes will be opened as we learn who our true friends really are. And It ain't the NY Times!
(10) Sherrie, October 31, 2013 8:42 PM
I don't get it?
I copy pasted this, "The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones’s estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper’s current publisher and CEO. The executive editor is Max Frankel, and the managing editor is Joseph Lelyveld."...
So why again, is the NY Times bashing Jewish people?
(9) Mickey Oberman, October 31, 2013 8:33 PM
NY Times.
It must be obvious that the NY Times is now in dire financial trouble. These anti Israel rants are its way of sucking up to the wealthy Muslim oil countries. All it wants is Arab charity.
(8) Bill Morgenstein, October 31, 2013 8:07 PM
and Jews are proud supporters of the NYT?
Even realizing that many Jews have gotten away from their roots (but not necessarily from their Socialist upbringing) I still cringe when I see the New York times newspaper under a Jew's arm. The fact that their (Times Management) fore bearers and many currently in their ranks are crypto Jews supporting the J-Street line in my view bodes great danger to Israel and our people.
How you can't be saddened by this is truly beyond my comprehansion?
(7) sd page, October 31, 2013 8:05 PM
And the owners wonder why they lose readers/revenue? Kiss the grey lady goodbye.
(6) Malka Kideckel, October 31, 2013 7:51 PM
Maintain the highest possible standards
What an understatement, indeed
(5) Anonymous, October 31, 2013 6:47 PM
NY Times Magic Show
It is purely magical how journalists at the Times and other news outlets use their bias to create a moral parity between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If it were not for their "magic" the world would get a very clear contrast of the two.
(4) Bob Kirk, October 31, 2013 4:22 PM
All true and CAMERA"S work is excellent but the NYT does not care. .
Nevertheless we should all criticize them for their political anti-Semitism and their support for Palestinian terror and those like Abbas who advocate or praise it. Abbas held a presidential reception for released Arab terrorists who murdered Israeli civilians - calling them heroes. All Palestinian terrorists are heroes for Abbas and the Palestinians. The NYT supports all of this. But they do not care - do not buy it, simple as that.
(3) Jay, October 31, 2013 3:51 PM
No, not impartial
The NY Times hasn't been impartial in decades, if ever. I encourage everyone to cancel their subscription to blatantly biased publication.
(2) moshe, October 31, 2013 2:40 PM
creating false memories
reminds me of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB2OegI6wvI
(1) Ariela, October 31, 2013 1:33 PM
NY Times subscription
I've encouraged my friends to drop their subscriptions to the NY Times. It would be helpful if the author of this article were to draft a note and provide an email address, where everyone could email the NY Times in protest. It burns me up when I read the Israel bashing articles, but feel helpless to make an impact. If we all wrote and called and canceled subscriptions, it might make a difference.
jgarbuz, October 31, 2013 7:54 PM
Amen! And Ha'aretz too while their at it!
Yes!
Evelyn Dow, October 31, 2013 8:08 PM
Ny times Articles
I dropped my subscription to the NY times a long time ago. Got tired of the biased articles- especially about Israel.
bill morlgenstein, October 31, 2013 8:10 PM
Pray for the day that the NYT goes out of business!
It might help if they followed their original principal of impartial journalism but not now where their Far Left ideology is fixed.