"ALL HOT AREAS OF CONFLICT IN THE WORLD,
YOU WILL FIND THAT MUSLIMS ARE INVOLVED."
FRIDAY, JULY 23, 2010
by Barry Rubin
The New York Times--with the exception of some honorable reporters in the field (you know who you are)--never ceases to amaze one in the spectacularly biased writings of those back at headquarters. Here'sone that's particularly remarkable, a real piece of advocacy in which the reporter does everything possible to justify flotilla ships trying to run the blockade of the Gaza Strip.
He also selectively discusses the IHH sponsor of the previous flotilla, leaving out all the evidence (presented in my articles and elsewhere) of its radical and terrorist connections, includingU.S.
The article even includes a pro-IHH video without any balancing video, of which a number are easily available. There is virtually no hint that the militants on board had earlier shouted slogans advocating genocide for Jews, declared their intention to be Jihad martyrs, or attacked and kidnapped the arriving soldiers.
In addition, this article was written afterGermany
And on top of that the article was also written after the terms of the blockade were changed, with the approval of theU.S.
Nor does it mention that the purpose of the flotillas--even before, but most obviously now--is not to help the people of Gaza but to ensure the easy import of weapons and militarily useful goods for a radical,antisemitic, anti-American repressive regime that opposes a two-state solution and openly proclaims its intention of committinggenocide on Israel's Jews.
If this kind of thing appeared on a left-wing blog (or an Iranian or Syrian newspaper) it would at least not be surprising. But this is theNew York Times. I no longer write a response like this one to correct errors in the Times coverage, but rather to point out that this is not the great newspaper (whatever its flaws) that once was consideredAmerica Israel
For other examples, see the Times' remarkably deceptive portrayal of an Egyptian antisemitic extremist as a moderate, or theimbalance in its op-ed page. If you want to read a serious, balanced, full-service print newspaper pick up the Washington Postinstead.
Are there still journalism classes where an article like this would be presented as a horrendously bad example of what newspapers should do?
Note: If you want to think you're helping Palestinians, promoting peace, and being fair--or even being merely moderately anti-Israel--at least have the decency to back the Palestinian Authority (PA) and oppose Hamas. The PA is corrupt, still riddled with radical elements, sometimes involved in terrorism, and unready for a real two-state solution. But at least, unlike Hamas, it isn't a client ofIran
The New York Times--with the exception of some honorable reporters in the field (you know who you are)--never ceases to amaze one in the spectacularly biased writings of those back at headquarters. Here'sone that's particularly remarkable, a real piece of advocacy in which the reporter does everything possible to justify flotilla ships trying to run the blockade of the Gaza Strip.
He also selectively discusses the IHH sponsor of the previous flotilla, leaving out all the evidence (presented in my articles and elsewhere) of its radical and terrorist connections, including
The article even includes a pro-IHH video without any balancing video, of which a number are easily available. There is virtually no hint that the militants on board had earlier shouted slogans advocating genocide for Jews, declared their intention to be Jihad martyrs, or attacked and kidnapped the arriving soldiers.
In addition, this article was written after
And on top of that the article was also written after the terms of the blockade were changed, with the approval of the
Nor does it mention that the purpose of the flotillas--even before, but most obviously now--is not to help the people of Gaza but to ensure the easy import of weapons and militarily useful goods for a radical,antisemitic, anti-American repressive regime that opposes a two-state solution and openly proclaims its intention of committinggenocide on Israel's Jews.
If this kind of thing appeared on a left-wing blog (or an Iranian or Syrian newspaper) it would at least not be surprising. But this is theNew York Times. I no longer write a response like this one to correct errors in the Times coverage, but rather to point out that this is not the great newspaper (whatever its flaws) that once was considered
For other examples, see the Times' remarkably deceptive portrayal of an Egyptian antisemitic extremist as a moderate, or theimbalance in its op-ed page. If you want to read a serious, balanced, full-service print newspaper pick up the Washington Postinstead.
Are there still journalism classes where an article like this would be presented as a horrendously bad example of what newspapers should do?
Note: If you want to think you're helping Palestinians, promoting peace, and being fair--or even being merely moderately anti-Israel--at least have the decency to back the Palestinian Authority (PA) and oppose Hamas. The PA is corrupt, still riddled with radical elements, sometimes involved in terrorism, and unready for a real two-state solution. But at least, unlike Hamas, it isn't a client of
Barry RubinCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
