Friday, May 25th | 11 Sivan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

May 2, 2017 12:07 pm

New York Times Touts Hamas ‘Moderation,’ Ignores ‘Truly Disgusting’ Video in Which Group Taunts Bereaved Israeli Parents

avatar by Ira Stoll

Email a copy of "New York Times Touts Hamas ‘Moderation,’ Ignores ‘Truly Disgusting’ Video in Which Group Taunts Bereaved Israeli Parents" to a friend

Hamas fighters. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

“Hamas Tempers Extreme Stances In Bid For Power” is the headline at the top of the front page of the New York Times.

You have to read all the way to the tenth paragraph of the story, inside the paper, to find out, “Experts on all sides of the complex struggle here say the new document is unlikely to represent any profound change in Hamas’s true position toward Israel. The group recently chose a hard-liner, Yehya Sinwar, as its new leader in Gaza, and it has still in no way recognized Israel or renounced violence.”

Well, if it is “unlikely to represent any profound change,” why in the world does it merit a top-of-the-front page headline in the Times?

The Times article goes on, further down:

In Israel, which has fought three wars with Hamas since 2008, the document was greeted with skepticism.

“Not even one mind” will be changed in Israel, said Yossi Kuperwasser, a retired Israeli brigadier general who led the army’s research arm. “Nobody will be affected by this.”

Again, if “nobody will be affected by this,” why is it a top-of-the-front page story?

Maybe instead of the misleading headline “Hamas Tempers Extreme Stances,” the Times headline should have been something more accurate, like, “Nobody Will Be Affected by Move That Everyone Agrees Makes No Difference.”

Better yet, instead of overplaying news that doesn’t matter, the Times might quit ignoring news that actually does matter — news that demonstrates the true nature of Hamas.

To give but one significant example, Hamas recently released a Hebrew-language video taunting the parents of two slain Israeli soldiers, Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul. Israel says Hamas has been holding the bodies of the soldiers as a bargaining chip rather than returning them for a proper burial. That story got coverage in the Israeli press (see here and here.) A year ago, the Times wrote an online-only news article when Hamas published photos of the Israeli soldiers. But this year, the Times chose to ignore the video. The Times didn’t publish any story at all about the video, as far as I can tell, let alone a top-of-the-front page story about it. Nor was the video mentioned at all in today’s long, top-of-the-front page dispatch about how, as the Times inside-the-paper headline over the continuation of the story put it, “Hamas Moderates Extreme Stances.”

This video isn’t just some right-wing talking point. Former President Barack Obama’s ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro, tweeted about it, commenting, “Truly disgusting.” The tweet has been retweeted or “favorited” on Twitter more than 100 times, and that — rather than any Times coverage — is how I heard about it.

There is a “dog bites man” versus “man bites dog” phenomenon in news judgment. “Hamas are sicko terrorists” is easily dismissed as a “dog bites man” story, something that everyone already knows and happens all the time. “Hamas moderates” has at least potential to be a “man bites dog” story, something unexpected, even if, as in this case, it doesn’t really mean anything.

Even discounting for the “man bites dog” phenomenon, though, the Times wildly overplays the “Hamas moderates” story while totally ignoring the “truly disgusting” taunting video story. It amounts to a failure of news judgment.

Given other recent Times coverage or non-coverage (see “New York Times Finds Gaza Cancer-Patient Terror Attempt Unfit To Print” and “The New York Times Whitewashes Hezbollah Terrorism”), the newspaper  risks slipping into such a disappointingly bad pattern that when and if it actually does cover something well on the Israel beat, this will be a “man bites dog” type surprise.

More of Ira Stoll’s media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.

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
  • Hamanhanger

    Ira, you need to become a moderate regarding the NYT; stop being such a vile extremist. Leave that to me –but I am also becoming a moderate about the NYT, which I have not deigned to read in over three years, now. I now only propose to find a way to eliminate at least 50% of its readership (I used to think it should be 95%, so you see, I am becoming a moderate.. but my charter as a former journalist still says it should be 100%.) I just feel sorry you have to subject yourself to reading that garbage paper, since hardly anyone today needs to wrap herring. But I suppose that’s the only way you can point out the necessary pest control needs for that crappy has-been paper! (That still has the lying outrageous Tom Friedman as a prominent calumnist (sic).)

  • montlasky

    Why is the NY supposedly. so successful? False news? anti Semites?
    Obviously false news pays well form the NY. So much for “good” journalism!

  • dante

    with respect to coverage of Israel (& certain other issues), nyt has departed from any attempt at journalism or reportage, i.e. an objective & comprehensive report of the pertinent facts. instead, nyt has embarked on a mission to promote a limited and biased narrative which is hostile to Israel. nyt writers inveigh against “alternative facts” but they, the editors, and publisher have demonstrated their own dedication to alternative facts in their campaign against Israel. [the vile attacks upon Bret Stephens’ first column and Stephens, himself, were initially seen as surprising but they are, in fact, an apt reflection of a barbarous, demoralizing paper; this savagery has been cultivated by nyt.]