Posted on 07/25/2006 4:09:26 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
July 25, 2006 - 07:01
Back to the drawing board for Bill O'Reilly. As noted here, on his radio and TV shows yesterday, BOR propounded the theory that the big-city newspapers have tread lightly in the current Middle East conflict for fear of alienating their liberal Jewish readers. As Bill put it, liberal Jews "are all the papers have left" when it comes to significant market niches.
BOR particularly singled out the New York Times as a paper that hesitant to take any positions that could be construed as contrary to Israel's interests. As of this morning's NY Times editorial, No More Foot-Dragging, that theory might be 'inoperative.' For the Times, in flat contradiction of Israeli desires, is now calling for an immediate cease-fire:
"Wed like to believe that [Sec. Rice's trip to the region] means Washington is now urgently committed to finding a way to halt the fighting." And in case we missed its intent, the Times spells it out: "What the people of Lebanon and Israel urgently need is a cease-fire."
True, the Times went on to call for a muscular peace-keeping force and the disarmament of Hezbollah, but it also managed to take swipes at Israel and at the Bush administration's foreign policy to date:
"The White House has resisted calls for a cease-fire, arguing that a return to the situation that existed before the latest fighting would not bring lasting peace. While that is true, we fear that what the administration has been doing is buying Israel more time to pound Hezbollah and Lebanon. Since July 12, hundreds of Lebanese civilians have been killed and nearly a score of Israelis. For all that dying, there is little sign that Hezbollah which fired 100 missiles into Israel on Sunday has been so deeply wounded that it cant rebuild quickly. Ms. Rice needs to make clear to Israel that more civilian deaths in Lebanon wont make Israelis safer."
How's this for an alternative theory: after a brief hiatus to assess matters, the Times has reverted to form. It has combined Bush-administration bashing with a dash of disapproval of Israel, seasoned the stew with a soupcon of moral relativism and called for peace-at-any price.
I always thought "Sfachim" was Mario Cuomo's first name.
According to Bob Grant
"The NY Times were cheerleaders for Hitler and Stalin. They have always been champions of evil."
Don't forget Castro, whose boots they've licked for five decades. If the despot is anti-American, the NYT is their friend.
One thing that should become standard-operating-proceedure for any Republican pol/pundit is to ridicule reporting from the NYSlimes when used in an argument against them. The paper is nothing more than a talking-points update for the radical left. Russert, Matthews & Schieffer do this all the time... and it makes me 'wanna puke!
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
nothing like proving you are powerless.....we all see the NYSlimes as traitors, but to call for something so stupid and then be ignored, well....I see those subscriptions dwindling away...
But we all know the gospel truth according to the NYT's that Saddam couldn't rebuild his WMD quickly, so why can these terrorists?
The way he rolled it of his tongue... oozed revulsion.
Try this link...they have a lot of great stuff.
http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
also Keywords 2006israelwar or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Same here. Most liberals would be completely lost if they didn't have the Times to tell them what to think and feel. All you have to do is scan the morning's editorial page to know what liberals will be saying that day. And it's all treated as gospel.
As a Jewish Rep I agree with you. They only align to LIEberalism now because of their gay children they have created via their own confusion in all areas of life.
Since when?!
All B.O. did was give The NY Times a big chuckle.
Don't forget the NYTimes and their cheerleading for Central American Marxists. In addition, for thirty years the NYTimes led the way among the cabal of anti Anti-Communists.
Liberal Jews are almost as annoying as liberal Episcopalians.
Because they don't want a successful Israel
Rarely listen to BOR radio program, but did happen to catch part of yesterday's program.
May not agree with everything he says, but he was spot on yesterday, with his dissertation (very well documented and wish I had copy of transcript) of how we are engaged in World War III.
If anyone has it (or access) please post.
The Times stopped being an objective, unbiased newsource many years ago. These days, its simply comfort food for certain target audiences.
1) Liberal Jews
2) Upper Eastside residents
3) Limousine Liberals
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.