The N.Y. Times versus Israel

Arutz 7 (IsraelNationalNews.com) ^ | 7/1/2002 | Fred Ehrman

[eclectic]

Israel is once again fighting for its very survival. However, the battle is not only between the Israel Defense Forces and the Palestinian Arab terrorists, there is a secondary arena of combat being waged in the media to sway public opinion - to win the hearts and minds of the viewers, listeners and readers.

A little over two months ago, a small group of us began a campaign in an attempt to bring fairness and balance to the Mideast news coverage as presented by The New York Times. After years of attempts by many people to write and meet with senior editorial staff, pointing out The Times´ errors and distortions, there had been no change in the newspaper´s approach to its coverage of this conflict.

A few examples of The Times´ anti-Israel bias:

1. The large photo on the front page after this year´s Israeli Solidarity March in New York that featured an "End Israeli Occupation of Palestine" sign, distorting what really happened and occasioned an Editors Note the following day because of the outcries and massive subscription cancellations.

2. An article by Times correspondent Joel Greenberg describing the death of two girls, 17-year old Rachel Levy (the victim) and 18-year old Ayat al-Akhras (the murderer) as two high school seniors whose lives intersected, divided by war but joined in carnage, was totally obscene and morally repugnant. To somehow put a homicide bomber on the same level as an innocent girl shopping for the Sabbath is odious. Imagine the outcry had The Times printed an article last fall describing how the lives of Al-Quaida killer Muhammad Atta and a 25-year old bond trader at Cantor, Fitzgerald murdered at his desk in the World Trade Center had been intertwined and joined in carnage. This is moral relativism at its worst.

3. The 39 day standoff in The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem was reported from a Palestinian perspective. It was continually referred to as an "Israeli siege", not an "occupation by Palestinian terrorists", even though armed Palestinians shot their way into one of Christendom´s holiest sites and held the church and its religious leaders hostage at gun point. New York Times journalists frequently turned the terrorists into victims by describing them as taking "refuge" in the church.

4. The Times uses the words "terror" or "terrorist" selectively. In articles describing the terrible attacks against the World Trade Center or the USS Cole, the term "terror" was freely used. But in describing individuals belonging to groups such as Hamas or al-Aqsa Brigade that have committed no less horrendous acts of terror, The Times frequently refers to them as "militants" or simply "activists." As President Bush has said, "terror is terror no matter who the erpetrator or the victim is." Apparently The New York Times disagrees.

5. A Camera report dated May 1 (www.camera.org) analyzing The Times coverage for the two-week period from March 28 to April 11, 2002 during when ten major terrorist attacks against Israelis and Israel´s response, Operation Defensive Shield, with Israeli military incursions into the Palestinian Authority controlled territories took place, The Times is shown to have taken a highly imbalanced and skewed coverage of the events. They have repeatedly refused to comment on this report when asked.

The decision was made to begin a campaign that might impact The New York Times´ executive staff. We have been urging three things from Times readers:

a. Suspend their subscriptions,
b. Ask their local and national organizations to stop placing notices and public service announcements in The Times, and most importantly,
c. To convey to corporate advertisers the reader´s strong disapproval of The Times for not presenting a balanced coverage of the Arab/Israeli conflict, when the only democracy in the Middle East is combating a corrupt dictatorship that supports and carries out terrorism.

The response has been tremendous and we believe that some impact has been made. But there is still a long way to go in this effort.

We have focused on The New York Times, even though some other media outlets may be equally and even more biased in their presentation of this conflict, because The Times is the most influential. It is the newspaper of record. Many TV and radio stations, as well as other print media, input The Times´ stories to form their own presentations. Government opinion makers are also influenced by what they read in The Times. And ultimately, Israel´s ability to effectively fight this war has been constrained because of the fear of negative reactions from other friendly governments, resulting in needless tragic deaths of many innocent Israeli citizens. That is why this effort is so important.

The New York Times is simply not telling the truth about Israel. Therefore, it is our responsibility to tell the truth to The New York Times.

Please click on our new website to view how we are proceeding in this most important effort, at: www.nytimesprotest.org.

-------------------------------
Fred Ehrman is an investment adviser in New York. He is involved in many Jewish organizations, and is coordinating the protest against The New York Times Mideast coverage.

[eclectic]

And the Goebbels Award goes to ... THE NEW YORK TIMES!

[j.cam]

The New York Times is pro DNC and pro terrorist.

[gcruse]

If I recall correctly, the NYT was pro-Israel until the 1967 war showed that the country might survive, then the Times went anti. The ideology seems to be that the underdog is always right, be he a communist in El Salvador or a suicide bomber in Israel.

[McGavin999]

So, how long do you think it's going to take for them to realize that the liberals hate them. They only wanted their money, but when it comes time to stand up for Israel, notice who's missing.

[PhiKapMom]

NY Times is worthless IMO! Seems all they do is report the RAT talking point papers along with being definitely Anti-Israeli.

Between NY Times and CNN, the reporting is atrocious!

[Aaron_A]

Add CNN to the same group.

[FunTruth]

Times of Dawson
NY Sun Editorial
July 1, 2002

To newspapermen of a certain age, the course the New York Times has hewed in
the past decade in the Middle East has reminded of nothing so much as the
course that the Times of London pursued under Geoffrey Dawson. He was the
editor who, as World War II was brewing at Europe, counseled the course of
appeasement. He was for treating with the Germans. He sent his
correspondents instructions to be sensitive to German sensibilities. He no
doubt thought of himself - and was widely thought of - as the most
well-connected of newspapermen. He echoed the views of the foreign office,
and vice versa. Whole books have been written on the sad story of the
editor and the government. Dawson's tenure stained the reputation of the
Times for two generations.

One doesn't have to equate the Arabs with the Nazis to comprehend that this
is what is happening to the Times of New York. It was a boastful advocate
of the Oslo accord. When the American Congress finally voted to fund the
democratic resistance in Iraq, the New York Times sent its most ardent
Dawsonian, Thomas Friedman, to Qatar, to mock the free government-in-exile
of Iraq, the Iraqi National Congress. When the enemy sent waves of suicide
bombers to kill Jews in Israel, the Times rushed Mr. Friedman to sit with
the crown prince of the enemy camp, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, whence the
correspondent promptly sent back a dispatch saying he and the prince saw eye
to eye on a peace plan. What was its central plank? That after the wave of
suicide bombings, Israel should turn over to the enemy half of the Israeli
capital of Jerusalem. Institutionally, the New York Times jumped right on
the bandwagon. Maybe if the Saudis had funded twice as many suicide
bombings, the Times would have demanded Israel surrender all of Jerusalem.

This is what New Yorkers have had from the Times for years. Only Mr.
Friedman could look at President Bush's decision to swing behind the idea of
democracy for the Palestinian Arabs and conclude that it was the end rather
then the begging of the idea of a two-state conclusion to the Middle East
war. The president, the Times foreign affairs columnist asserts flatly,
blinked (meaning refused to demand that Israel withdraw its defense of the
most exposed Jews in Judea and Samaria) because "he didn't want to alienate
Jewish voters." The young Dawsonian not only asserts this but finds it
"sad." It is sad because, he says, "George Bush may be on Israel's side,
but history, technology and demographics are not." And there you have it,
the Dawsonian world-view in a nutshell.

[LarryLied]

The New York Times liked Stalin, Alger Hiss, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, Castro, Mao (a little) and Pol Pot.

What on earth did or could Israel do to deserve their scorn?

[sheik yerbouty]

All the News That's Shi'ite to Print"

[EaglesUpForever]

Yes, as bad as the times is that's not what I see as the worst distortion. The worst distortion is globally, such as Murdoch's papers and most foreign papers.

I think there is one huge debating point worth clarifying in such a propaganda-rich context: Arafat's association with terrorism.

Even the duller minds at the NY Times could be swayed by evidence against Arafat, but it is hardly presented, I only see things in passing, but the other media is devoid of information that one can piece together but not find in one place.

That's the only hope I see for Europe wholeheartedly joining America in the war on terror: Arafat should be shown for what he is. The general public just likes to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, they are happy to watch the World Cup and fantasize that America is some lone nut, "there's two sides to every story" in the middle east, while at the same time counting on us to save their butt should they face similar threats.

Can someone cite a single online source cataloging Arafat's connections to terrorism, historically and in the present? What kind of "leader" is that? What kind of "religion" preaches that there should be terrible things falling on innocent civilians? If that is a distortion of Islam let's hear one muslim speak up.

The Palestinians are like a beaten women that is now acting as if she deserved the beating she got in the first place. It can be easily dismissed as "well both sides have suffered" but what you need to really assess is "what are the plans for the future of both sides" and reward plans for peace, punish plans for murder, whether the murderous plans hide behind "religion" or not.

[Aleksandar Vojvoda]

Since time immemorial,each warring side will propagandize to it's own perceived advantage.

[Aleksandar Vojvoda]

Is that alzheimered Safire still at the Times?I wouldn't be surprised if he was "Deep Throat".

[xvb]

Pat Buchanan is Deep Throat.

[Valin]

If I recall correctly, the NYT was pro-Israel until the 1967 war

Yes but then the left in general was pro-Israeli until the 67 war. Since then the left has been getting more and more anti-Israeli. So that today a person could make a real good case for calling them anti semite.

[timestax]

bttt

[Valin]

Tag! You're it.

[gcruse]

So that today a person could make a real good case for calling them anti semite.

Incredibly so in such a heavily populated Jewish area.

[gcruse]

Is the editor of the Sun the guy who used to run the daily critique/trashing of the NY Times? He has their number, if so, and couldn't have come along at a better time.

[Valin]

I wasn't speaking of the Times so much as the left in general. Particularly those on the "progressive wing of the left.