[deepFR]

NYT wrong then, and wrong today.

[nopardons]

bttt

[LoudAmericanCowboy]

As much as prominent Jewish leftists want to deny it, most Jews, at least the ones I know, HATE and BOYCOTT the NYT. Yes, we believe in a liberal media too.

The NYT used to be Republican at one point.

[leadpenny]

I wonder what is said in the book about the "influence" of the FDR administration on what most newspapers printed?

[zarf]

Haven't we had enough of this Holocaust crap?

How many damn memorials do we need?

The Holocaust has been franchised to the point that it should be renamed McMassacre.

It has now become a pathetic, generic symbol of "man's inhumanity to man" with the Jewish experience during that sick period slowly sinking into the muddle of McVictimization.

The Holocaust is becoming a shield in which modern day Jew haters can defend themselves from claims of Anti-Semitism while bashing the Jews at the same time.

[Enterprise]

What a profound example of how a paper can direct events by what it prints, and what is suppresses!

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[Cinnamon Girl]

The New York Times' deliberate disregard of the Holocaust they knew full well about is clearly explained in "The Abandonment of the Jews", by David S. Wyman, published in 1984. And yes, it talks about how FDR blew off the Holocaust as well.

[pharmamom]

I wonder if the Slimes will review this book? </irony>

[processing please hold]

Is the Times ever going to just die and go away?

[Snickersnee]

It was easy to get Americans' blood up for war after Pearl Harbor -- the sentiment for revenge against the "dirty Nips" probably ran in polls on the order of 90 for, 10 against. But in 1940-1941 you could not get a majority, or even a decent plurality, of Americans to agree to go to war in Europe because the Jews were being put into ovens. That was a European problem. Britain is standing alone? Sounds like a British problem. Hitler attacks Stalin? Great -- they deserve each other. The point is, Hitler had to be beaten, yes, even before the Japanese, and the Jewish-owned (and deeply self-conscious of it!) NYT could not allow it to appear that American boys were being fed into the ETO meat-grinder just because of the Jews. That wouldn't wash.

I refuse to believe that the reason for this is native American anti-Semitism. It is more likely an appreciation of the horrors of 1914-1918 that tempered American attitudes toward military involvement on the Continent.

[Nam Vet]

Why don't I find this surprising?

Nam Vet

[Loyal Buckeye]

"New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, an assimilated Jew of German descent, feared that the newspaper would be engaging in special pleading..."

The reason is "special pleading"??? What in the heck is that?