Thursday, October 19th | 29 Tishri 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
October 4, 2015 4:49 am

The Blatant Anti-Israel Bias at The New York Times

avatar by Noah Beck

Email a copy of "The Blatant Anti-Israel Bias at The New York Times" to a friend
Office of The New York Times, in New York City. Photo: WikiCommons.

The New York Times offices. Photo: Wiki Commons.

The anti-Israel prejudice at The New York Times (NYT) is so extensive and persistent that the paper’s partiality is now undeniable and well documented (see the endless archive of NYT bias reports at two media watchdogs: CAMERA and Honest Reporting). Here are just four egregious examples from the last few weeks.

On September 10, the NYT singled out Jewish lawmakers on the Iran deal.

On September 15, the NYT suggested that the Israeli who was murdered by rock-throwing Palestinians had died of a “self-inflicted accident” after the attackers had merely “pelted the road” (rather than his car). The National Review provided a detailed critique of this farcical “reporting.”

Unbelievably, Diaa Hadid, a NYT “journalist” responsible for reporting on Israel, used to work for an anti-Israel hate group, so it’s no surprise that she authored an article suggesting that Palestinian attackers pelted a road with stones on which an Israeli’s self-inflicted car accident just happened to cause him to die.

Related coverage

October 18, 2017 3:51 pm
0

New York Times Pulls Out All the Stops to Push Iran Deal

Seven to two is the lopsided score of opinion pieces the New York Times has published this month about the...

On September 29, Hadid used an anonymous European advocate of Palestinian rights as a witness to contradict Israeli army claims that a Palestinian woman who was shot at an IDF checkpoint had been armed with a knife. Hadid then omitted confirmatory reports from another witness mentioned in the article, a Palestinian named Fawaz Abu Aisheh, who said the woman had dropped her knife after being shot. (Hadid ignored this evidence even though Amnesty International mentioned Aisheh’s corroborating testimony about the knife).

On September 30, the NYT struck again with false historical information and tendentious coverage of Abbas’ UN speech. The article, by Rick Gladstone and Jodi Rudoren, noted that “Mr. Abbas accused Israel of having systematically violated these pacts,” without mentioning the many violations of the Oslo Peace Accords by Palestinians. In an article exceeding 1,000 words, the reporters made not even one reference to Palestinian terrorism, a basic historical fact that is essential to any fair and balanced understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, since the Oslo Peace Accords, there have been 22 years of Palestinian terrorist attacks — including 140 suicide bombings — which have murdered more than 1,500 Israelis (in U.S. population terms, about 60,000 people killed) and made Israeli compliance with a complex and risky “peace” agreement even harder.

The paper’s token attempt at balance was to quote some perfunctory response to Abbas’ speech from Israel’s foreign ministry (“Israel does uphold its agreements”), as if anyone could — in a quotable soundbite — possibly provide sufficient details to refute the sweeping accusations that Abbas made in his speech.

The article editorializes by noting that “Mr. Abbas delivered the speech…against a backdrop of growing frustration among many Palestinians over the paralysis in peace negotiations with Israel,” as if the Israelis aren’t equally frustrated, and as if the Palestinians aren’t largely responsible for the lack of peace progress.

Gladstone and Rudoren then combine outrageously skewed reporting with blatantly false historical claims: “Compounded by new strife over contested religious sites in Jerusalem and other festering issues, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most protracted dispute vexing the United Nations since the organization’s founding 70 years ago.”

The reporters shamelessly failed to note that the “new strife over contested religious sites in Jerusalem” was produced by Palestinian incitementanti-Jewish harassment and violence.

Equally egregious is their patently false claim that “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most protracted dispute vexing the United Nations since the organization’s founding 70 years ago.” Some basic Wikipedia research reveals that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in 1948 and has produced about 24,000 fatalities since then, while the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan began in 1947 and has produced about 47,000 fatalities, and the conflict over Kurdish separatism in Iran began in 1946 and has caused at least 30,000 fatalities.

So Gladstone and Rudoren have twisted history to suggest that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the world’s most pressing issue. When combined with Abbas’ quotes (left unbalanced by any other perspective or facts), their article implies that Israel is to blame for lack of peace after 70 years — as if Israel hadn’t participated in numerous peace efforts and withdrawn from conquered territories (for peace with Egypt and for rocket attacks from Gaza and Lebanon).

The reporters then suggest that Abbas has unilaterally pursued Palestinian statehood out of frustration with Israel, but conspicuously fail to inform readers that such Palestinian unilateralism is itself a violation of the Oslo Accords.

The consistent and blatant anti-Israel bias at the NYT should cause anyone who cares about Israel to stop trusting the paper for Israel-related news, and — more generally — to stop supporting the newspaper, because every NYT issue purchased or article viewed online only supports more defamatory reporting on Israel.

And any NYT readers who want facts and unbiased reporting should find another source of information because the NYT’s anti-Israel bias calls the entire newspaper into question. After all, if the NYT can’t be trusted to report fairly and accurately on a conflict that is closely watched by millions of people – which interest level should create a strong incentive to achieve fair, balanced, and precise reporting – then why can it be trusted to provide reliable information on any other topic? What other latent agendas or biases skew the news produced by the NYT? Indeed, the severity of the NYT’s anti-Israel bias should defrock the newspaper of its status as the “paper of record.”

The NYT might be appallingly biased only when it comes to Israel (in which case the paper’s prejudice becomes even more damning). But it’s more likely that the newspaper allows its political leanings to color its reporting on many other topics, even if they are less monitored for unfairness. Either way, the NYT simply can’t be trusted any more.

Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, an apocalyptic novel about Iranian nukes and other geopolitical issues in the Middle East.

 

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Donna

    It’s very amusing when Zionist bigots come out in force because the media prints some facts and truth for a change instead of the one-sided Zionist rhetoric and outright Bulls%#! that is normally printed.

  • The animus predates the establishment of Israel. It goes back to the opposition of Times publisher Adolph S. Ochs to the Balfour Declaration.

    In May, 1939, the Times backed Britain’s decision to tear up the Balfour Declaration and end Jewish immigration to Palestine, notwithstanding the murderous anti-Semitism of the Nazis. The editorial backing the British White Paper cam six months after Kristallnacht.

    A month later, June 14, 1939, the Times, in its third editorial on the St. Louis — none of the paper’s editorial’s on this tragic ship, returning its Jewish refugees to Europe, asked President Roosevelt to give haven to the Jews on board — declared that the days of mass migration to the United States were over.

    In recent years, the paper seems to have changed its tune on the matter of large-scale immigration to the U.S. — but then the lives of imperiled Jews are not much in evidence among the immigrants whose presence the Times now favors.

    These 1939 editorials instruct that callous indifference to Jews in peril is to be expected from The New York Times.

  • ===========================================
    How French Police Handle Anti-Jewish Attacks
    ===========================================

    Judge after judge told him [Sammy Ghozlan,
    a 72-year-old retired Paris police commissioner]:

    “There is no anti-Semitism charge applicable unless someone dies.”

    SOURCE:
    New Dangers for the Jews of Paris
    by Marie Brenner, Vanity Fair magazine,
    August 2015, page 114

  • Jack Kessler

    I used to subscribe to the NYT. For a long time I thought that it was only that it was the headline writers who distorted and misrepresented the contents of news stories. It did not then occur to me that the headline writers were the editors of the paper. Then I noticed that the reporting was progressively more jumbled and incoherent as it became more and more skewed a against Israel. Even so I thought I could filter out the bias and read past to the news. Then the day came when I read an article on a subject which interested me and I found myself wondering what actually happened. I started casting about for where to look for actual news of the event. The Washington Post? The Wall Street Journal? The LA Times? I realized that the bias at the NY Times was no longer a mere twist or coloring of the news. The bias had supplanted the news to where the reporting had become submerged in the political fantasies and propaganda and had vanished under the waves of bigotry and lying.

    The Washington Post is a fine newspaper but is limited by its focus on Washington politics, at which it excels.

    The LA Times is also a fine newspaper but has more Southern California coverage than I want. I will always respect and admire the LA Times for its coverage of the death of Ernest Hemingway. It went on endlessly through “continued on page such and such” again until buried deep in the last “continued on” we found an oblique but clear indication that Hemingway had committed suicide. I wondered why they had gone to so much trouble to conceal a sensational news item that could have sold a lot of newspapers. Then I realized that they had buried the suicide because Mrs. Hemingway was still alive. They had foregone the sensationalism because they were gentlemen, a kind of person not to be found at the New York Times.

    In the end I settled on the Wall Street Journal. While their editorial policy is absurdly tight-wing, unlike the New York Times, they limit it to their editorial page. The rest of the pages are limited to honest reporting.

    If, like me, you have had it with the lies and propaganda at the New York Times, give the Wall Street Journal a look.

  • paddy

    Diaa Hadid,is an extremely upleasant piece of work;but I have to give her some credit for parading her vile, anti-Israel sentiments so nakedly and brazenly. It’s refreshing in these P.C.times

  • Franklin Delano Paskutnik

    The NYT’s old masthead read “All the News That’s Fit to Print” but should now read “All the Jews That’s Fit to Revile”.

  • Myron Slater

    I used to live in NY and always read the NYT. Because of their so called reporting with an anti- Israel biase, I will no longer read or support this so-called “newspaper” ! The people of NY should boycott the paper and no advertiser should support them!

  • Morty Mooze

    In order to sell a print newspaper the articles presented , on one hand pander to readers; on the other hand, news article incite reaction from the offended.

    The long story – short- is that: Jews make news, in one way or in an other!

  • ralph

    Isn’t possible to sue the NYT iv there are so many proofs of anti-srael bias ?

  • Robert Davis

    The medias are cowards who take sides with the party which knows how to HANDLE POLITICS. arabs unfortunately are good at that whereas Netanyahu anbd his predecessors DO EXACTLY THE CONTRARY OF WHAT THEY SHOULD DO SYSTEMATICALLY. Cowards do not care for Justice they only try to be withe victorious party. With a PM like Netanyahu Israel cannot win and those editors have felt that. If he could change totally the medias would understand Israel CAN prevail and they will modify their attitude. But Netanyahu cannot change and this is how they all feel. Who would bet on a lame horse?

  • Michael Garfinkel

    Does the New York Times explicitly recruit Jew-hating, hard-left reporters of Jewish ancestry, or is it just word-of-mouth?

  • coreyNY

    Q: What do Israel haters, self hating Jews and anti-Semites call the NY Times Building on 42nd Street In NYC?

    A: Home sweet home.

  • Pearl

    Gee the NYT is anti-Semitic, biased, and vile in it’s reporting of Middle East conflicts. They wouldn’t know how to tell the truth if the truth bit them in the ass.
    As the self hating owner of said paper, all I can say is “shame on you. You perpetuating lies about the world as it is. Omitting something that is happening is lying by omission. So basically nothing you print is worth the paper it’s printed on!
    Anyone of conscience should not be reading your paper. Or read it as though it’s the Sunday funnies!

  • Daniela Lowinger

    It seems that truth-the most basic component of a newspaper- has been forgotten by the NYtimes. Hypocrites!! No jew that call himself a jew should support such a bunch of lies.

  • Yunkle

    When are we going to start a boycott campaign against the Times?

  • Reform School

    Liberal MAD Magazine publisher William M. Gaines, over 20 years ago, made it plain the motto of the New York Times SHOULD HAVE BEEN “All the News that Fits we Print!”

  • Debbi Cane

    Siding with terrorists and supporting them is why the world looks like one big mess. The blame for what is happening today in the world lies on the media and the media alone, and of course our weak and antisemite president who sold Israel and our country to the devils.
    The garbage you spread around fuels the fire and you better start cleaning your s**t.

  • Al Shebber

    Israel has been allowing these brain dead, Jew hating “reporters” to party in Israel since 1948, the establishment is so frightened from the idea of taking one or two ant-Semites and chucking them out, as if the sky will fall, waves of them have been using Israel as a playground from where the ascended to better paying jobs, all depends on their ability to market their lies, fiction and narratives. It is time the boys at the Israel’s Government Press offices, in Jerusalem, a bunch of half baked, free loading Israeli “journalists” got a bit “manly” and did some work, what does it take to serve this NYT reporter with a notice of voluntary departure within a week? get her out nicely! if this is too “challenging” why not cancel her press credentials and notify her bureau that she cannot remain in Israel on a tourist visa, because her Journalistic permit expired? I don’t blame the anti-Semitic editors of the NYT, the have been reliably dishonest for over 100 years, I blame the Israeli government officials for not taking care of business.

  • Mackykam

    It’s time Israel bars propaganda driven foreign news sources and newspapers from reporting in Israel. Those legitimate papers may continue to do so, and I include self-hating Jewish reporting for Israeli newspapers among this group.

  • Jim Gardner

    The New York Times once said God is dead. The New York Times is as biased as any media source in this country. Be aware the majority of the U.S. population does not agree with everything in our media and the lack of support for Israel by the current administration does not indicate the stance of the majority of American people. It only indicates the ability of one man to fool enough fools to elect him twice!

  • max Genghis Cohen

    Lest any Israeli place their confidence in the NYT be warned that all free-enterprise democracies are the hated enemies of this deceitful rag of a newspaper. Starting with Stalin’s USSR and continuing through the occupation of Europe into North Korea and North Viet Nam, the Times of New York has supported Communism more out of a vindictive hatred of public prosperity than a love of public regimentation, but make no mistake, it is public regimentation that the Times most lusts for, even the kind that Khameini will impose.

Algemeiner.com