Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

NY Times Tag

Singling Out Jews in Yellow

Shortly before the Senate vote on the nuclear deal with Iran was supposed to take place (but was filibustered by Democratic supporters of the deal), The New York Times *helpfully* provided a list letting everyone know which Jewish lawmakers were against the deal, with the names highlighted in yellow.

New york times congressional jew tracker iran deal senate

The New York Times, after the expected (and deserved) outrage, removed the "Religion" column from the list but acknowledged no wrongdoing, "[under] Times standards, the religion or ethnicity of someone in the news can be noted if that fact is relevant and the relevance is clear to readers." Nonetheless due to readers' outrage, it adjusted the list.

In his testimony last week before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, concerning the grand Iran deal deception described in a recent New York Times article that was carried out by Obama and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, laid out five areas where the White House deceived the American people. First, Doran in his testimony established that even before he became president, Obama had expressed an interest in rapprochement with Iran. He cited former CIA chief and Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, from The New York Times expose on the echo chamber saying that the administration knew that "They’d have gotten “the [expletive] kicked out of them,” if they had been upfront about their intention to engage Iran. Doran summed it up:

There continues to be fallout from the profile of Obama adviser Ben Rhodes that appeared in Sunday's New York Times magazine last week. Much of discussion of the article has surrounded who demonstrated bad faith, the Obama administration or Samuels. There are two targets of the criticism. In the MSM and left-leaning media the villain is David Samuels for writing a hatchet job on the administration. In the right-leaning media the villain is the administration for lying about the nuclear deal with Iran. But the question of dishonesty or bad faith is less important than the system Samuel described. From the administration's view, the article was, according to Lee Smith, "a victory lap," a boast of how they bested their political opponents and mastered the media. Little attention has been paid to exactly how the "echo chamber" Ben Rhodes boasted about actually worked.

Perhaps the most famous person on the internet right now is Ben Rhodes, Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser. Rhodes is profiled in a The New York Times Magazine cover stroy that rips to shreds both the story line sold to the American public and the notion that we have independent media in the age of Obama. Rhodes' job was to message and ensure that the White House's narrative of the nuclear deal with Iran was the media's. Rhodes, in the profile written by David Samuels, displays no shame about his job; in fact he seems quite pleased with himself.

Donald Trump launched his campaign popularity with a hard line on immigration, not limited to The Wall. It struck a chord with the electorate, as I noted in a guest column at National Review on July 13, 2015, Trump’s Lesson: Voters Are Furious about Illegal Immigration:
.... something happened on the way to the denunciations and purges [of Trump]. Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco, a sanctuary city. Steinle was killed in broad daylight on a popular pedestrian pier in a business and tourist district, by an illegal immigrant with a long criminal record who had been deported five times and recently was released from custody…. In the wake of the murder of Kate Steinle, many Republican candidates have denounced the sanctuary-cities agenda. There is talk of withholding funding from cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. But who among the Republican candidates has stood side by side with the families who have lost loved ones to illegal-immigrant criminals? Trump did….”
Since then, immigration has continued to be the rocket fuel in Trump's campaign.

We hear from critics of Israel that Israel needs a two-state solution to be  legitimate. Without a Palestinian state, the argument goes, Israel will rule over millions of resentful Palestinians to whom it will have to deny their basic rights in order to maintain its Jewish nature. Or if Israel enfranchises the Palestinians, they could overwhelm the Jews with their votes and then Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. So the reasoning goes, without a separate Palestinian state, Israel will either cease being Jewish or democratic. But there was already a separation achieved in 1993, with the signing of the Oslo Accords. By the end of 1995 Israel had withdrawn from the major population areas in the West Bank, leaving over 90% of Palestinians under the political control of the Palestinian Authority. In 2005, Israel "disengaged" from Gaza ending the occupation of that territory.

Pallywood is the Palestinian industry of creating fake images, events and stories to demonize Israel. It is a critical part of the worldwide, decades-long propaganda campaign against Israel. Pallywood is not done only by Palestinians. In fact, some of the most egregious perpetrators are Western anti-Israel leftists who create and spread false or distorted stories about Israel. The NY Times just got Pallywooded. Anti-Israel activists, the identities of whom are not currently known, created a fake Supplement Edition of the Times with fake stories meant to pursue anti-Israel narratives. Parody NY Times anti-Israel Israel General Homepage

The NY Times, as most of Western media, always is looking for a "reason" for the current Palestinian wave of terror that is unrelated to Palestinian responsibility. It's always a search for a way to excuse the terror, including the knifings by Palestinian teens of Israelis, particularly targeting Israeli women. A January 19, 2016, NYT article by Steven Erlinger typifies the genre, Anger in a Palestinian Town Feeds a Cycle of Violence
Raed Jaradat was 22, an accounting student from a well-to-do family here, already working part time with his father in his stone quarry and construction business. After Dania Ersheid, 17, was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers who said she had pulled a knife at the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, a version disputed by Palestinians, Mr. Jaradat wrote an angry post on Facebook: “Imagine if this were your sister!”
Stephen Flatow takes apart both the Erlinger article and the genre, Let’s play the ‘blame Israel game’ with The New York Times:

Although John Kasich has recently surged in New Hampshire to tie for second place in the Granite State with Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush, few believe he has any chance at all of winning the GOP nomination. The New York Times hopes to change that, however, with their endorsement of Kasich today. The NYT writes:

Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, though a distinct underdog, is the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience on display in this race. And Mr. Kasich is no moderate. As governor, he’s gone after public-sector unions, fought to limit abortion rights and opposed same-sex marriage.

Anti-Israel bias in The New York Times isn't news. But an article this week once again highlights how the Times promotes those who criticize or demonize Israel pretty uncritically, Israeli Veterans’ Criticism of West Bank Occupation Incites Furor. The report in question was about the group Breaking the Silence, which the paper described as "a leftist organization of combat veterans that says it aims to expose the grim reality of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank." Of course that's not all, it also has brought up of accusations, often unsubstantiated, of IDF misconduct during war too. Still the story of Breaking the Silence is portrayed as a referendum on Israel and its morality. We read of the organization as being "at the center of a furor that is laying bare Israel’s divisions over its core values and the nature of its democracy," and "[highlighting] what it views as the corrosive nature of the occupation of the West Bank on Israeli society."

If you ask me what the most important article in The New York Times of the past week, it would not be the front page editorial advocating stricter gun control. That editorial was important in terms of the mindset of the Times, but had little real new value. The most significant new article in The New York Times during this past week was Friday's analysis of the nuclear deal with Iran. The article is a devastating indictment of the administration and its zeal to reach a nuclear deal with Iran at all costs. To be sure the reporter, David Sanger, an excellent journalist, presented the administration's positions respectfully. But there's no getting around that however President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry justify their capitulations, they are willing to lift sanctions on Iran without requiring Iran to come clean about its past illicit nuclear research. In the wake of last week's IAEA report about Iran's past nuclear research, the administration is reportedly satisfied that Iran has provided the IAEA with enough information to close the investigation into Iran's past nuclear work and move ahead to the implementation of this summer's nuclear deal. The administration's rationale is that "preventing a nuclear-armed Iran in the future is far more important than trying to force it to admit" its past illicit nuclear research.

In the early days of blogging there was a blog called Oh, that liberal media, which regularly exposed instances of liberal media bias. In fact in the early days of blogging that was one of the top achievements of the blogosphere, to point out the easy political bias most supposedly objective news sources engaged in. I used to think that the blogosphere would serve as a necessary corrective to the media, but that hasn't happened. In recent years, I don't think that the criticism has had the same effect, even if in some ways the media cocoon has worsened. I think that conservative media critics have convinced all those who can be convinced of the bias and now either people accept the bias because they agree with it or look to alternative news sources because they don't trust the MSM. And the MSM started paying less attention to the criticism. Most of those who were persuadable have been persuaded. (As far as those who deny that such bias exist ... it's hard to deny when prominent journalists have boasted of the bias.) But I still believe that it's possible for the media to jump the shark. At some point the media will show that they are so hopelessly out of touch with most voters, that even non-ideological types would cease to believe them.

The effort by liberal media to delegitimize Clarence Thomas as a powerful legal scholar is not new. From his confirmation hearings through to the present, Thomas has endured relentless denigration of his intellect in places like The NY Times. Yesterday brought a stark example. NYT Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak has an article focusing on the frequency of Thomas using language in his writing similar to briefs submitted by parties, amicus briefs, and lower court opinions, Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court Justice of Few Words, Some Not His Own. Someone casually reading the headline would suspect Thomas of plagiarism (in spirit, if not technically) and being unique among the Justices. The Headline matters -- Thomas alone is singled out. The opening paragraphs of the article seem damning:

When the Hillary Clinton email scandal first broke, Hillary's claims that she conducted her entire job as Secretary of State without classified information being transmitted through her private server and email account did not seem plausible to me. I said at the time that there was a Bigger Question: Did Hillary use unsecured email for Classified Info?:
As Secretary of State, Hillary presumably received classified and other protected information via email at least on occasion, since it was her only email account. That distinguishes her from predecessors, who at least had government email accounts. We need more facts on her usage, but if Hillary maintained classified documents (including emails) on an unclassified computer device and email account, that could raise much more serious issues than the records violation.... As Hillary heads towards the presumptive Democratic nomination for President, we need to know what Hillary did with her email account, and when did she do it.
Initially, the press accepted at face value Hillary's claim that there was no transmission of classified information from her private server/email account. Slowly, it has been revealed that Yes, Hillary’s emails did contain classified information.

President Obama defended his deal to Iran to Thomas Friedman of The New York Times yesterday. It was a bad deal and it represented a retreat on nearly every single element of the deal. In any case this is what Obama told Friedman:
“We are not measuring this deal by whether it is changing the regime inside of Iran,” said the president. “We’re not measuring this deal by whether we are solving every problem that can be traced back to Iran, whether we are eliminating all their nefarious activities around the globe. We are measuring this deal — and that was the original premise of this conversation, including by Prime Minister Netanyahu — Iran could not get a nuclear weapon. That was always the discussion. And what I’m going to be able to say, and I think we will be able to prove, is that this by a wide margin is the most definitive path by which Iran will not get a nuclear weapon, and we will be able to achieve that with the full cooperation of the world community and without having to engage in another war in the Middle East.”
And what about the opposition to the deal?

The NY Times refuses to publish cartoons of Mohammed even as part of news stories about cartoons of Mohammed, and the violence that ensues. But The NY Times has no hesitation in publishing Condom Pope artwork, a portrait of the Pope composed of condoms. The Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan, who functions as a quasi-ombudsman, wrote how the Times Standards Editor responded (emphasis added):
The standards editor, Philip B. Corbett, fielded an inquiry about this from The Washington Examiner. Here’s how he responded:
There’s no simple, unwavering formula we can apply in situations like this. We really don’t want to gratuitously offend anyone’s deeply held beliefs. That said, it’s probably impossible to avoid ever offending anyone. We have to make these judgments all the time. Reasonable people might disagree about any one of them.

The NYT published an article last week pretending Sen. Rubio's traffic tickets from the 90s were scandalicious. Mockery of the "troubling" allegations ensued and the NYT was rightly mocked. This week, the NYT again dropped a ridiculous "scoop." This time, they portrayed the Rubios as spendthrifts who had luxury speed boats and a house with extra-large windows... As these things go, the NYT report found its way into national and local news coverage, providing perfect mashup fodder. Yesterday, the NYT received the Jon Stewart treatment:

Last week, the New York Times dropped the lamest "hit" piece in the history of hit pieces. Pretending a few traffic tickets from the 90s made Sen. Rubio and his wife unfit for public service, the NYT ended up the butt of the joke. On social media, #rubiocrimespree trending nationally for hours with submissions like, "drank milk after it expired," and "Didn't read Apple End User Licence [sic] Agreement but still clicked "I Agree"." Rubio's campaign got in on the fun, and celebrities publicly declared the NYT story dumb. Apparently that wasn't enough embarrassment for the NYT. Tuesday, the NYT released yet another 'scoop' on the good Senator from Florida. This time, the NYT suggested that Rubio had financial problems which have tainted his career. Those "financial problems"? "Student debt, mortgages and an extra loan against the value of his home totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars."
Font Resize
Contrast Mode