Thursday, June 21st | 8 Tammuz 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

October 19, 2017 3:40 pm

New York Times Launches ‘Strident’ Attack on Ambassador Haley for Iran Truthtelling

avatar by Ira Stoll

Email a copy of "New York Times Launches ‘Strident’ Attack on Ambassador Haley for Iran Truthtelling" to a friend

The headquarters of The New York Times. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

The New York Times cheerleading for Iran is spilling over from its editorial and op-ed pages into its news columns.

The Times recently published seven editorial or op-ed pieces in 12 days supporting the Iran nuclear deal that the Israeli government and its American friends oppose. But now you don’t even have to read the Times editorial or op-ed page to find pro-Iranian commentary: it’s available in the news columns, starting with a dispatch by Rick Gladstone that is just terribly tilted.

The Gladstone article appears under the online headline “U.S. Ambassador to U.N. Escalates Confrontation With Iran.” At least three times, it applies different standards to covering the Iran-Israel-US dispute than the Times applies in other situations.

The first double standard is a sexist one. Describing comments made at the UN by the American ambassador, Nikki Haley, the Times said “her remarks were among the most strident denunciations Ms. Haley has made of Iran since she became President Trump’s ambassador in January.”

Related coverage

June 21, 2018 8:28 am

Don’t Separate Families at the Border — But Don’t Expropriate the Holocaust Either

As an Orthodox rabbi, it is not for me to comment on US Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ invocation of the New...

My authoritative Webster’s Second unabridged dictionary defines “strident” as “creaking; harsh; grating.” When it is applied to liberal women, like, say, Hillary Clinton, the Times says it is a term that can signal sexism. Here, for example, is a 2008 column by Times public editor Clark Hoyt, discussing coverage of Clinton: “I asked my assistant, Michael McElroy, to run a database search for some key words that might indicate sexism in The Times — ‘shrill,’ ‘strident,’ ‘pantsuit’ and ‘giggle,’ among them.” A 2016 opinion piece in the Times by the president of Smith College, Kathleen McCartney, published after Clinton’s election loss, said, “If women stay boxed in by the norms of our gender — passive, gentle and congenial — we may not be viewed as leadership material. If women adopt the norms of a leader — commanding, decisive and assertive — we may be punished for being too bossy, too pushy, too strident, too ambitious, too scary.”

What the Times describes as “strident” coming from Haley strikes me as “principled” and “brave.” It’s another example, among too many, of the Times hurling negative adjectives at Israelis or at pro-Israel politicians or public figures.

I asked Gladstone on Twitter if he thought the term “strident” as he used it was sexist and he did not immediately respond.

The second double standard in the Times article has to do with foreign meddling in American politics. When it comes to alleged Russian interference in the American electoral process, the Times is up in arms about it, devoting editorials and front-page news articles to breathless, outraged accounts. Yet on the Iran nuclear deal, there is a different standard. The Times matter-of-factly reports that Britain, France, and Germany “have exhorted Congress to preserve the deal, which they say is doing exactly what had been intended — thwarting Iran’s ability to attain a nuclear weapon. They have warned that the United States is risking isolation, loss of credibility, and increased global insecurity if the deal unravels…China and Russia, veto-wielding members who are parties to the Iran nuclear agreement, are strong supporters of it.”

The British, French and German arguments about how “the United States is risking isolation” are taken at face value, without any kind of skepticism. Maybe the British and French and Germans don’t really care much about American security or credibility but do have their own strong commercial interests in commerce with Iran, such as the $4.8 billion deal recently made with Iran by the French oil company Total. Maybe the French, British and Germans don’t actually have that good a track record at protecting Jews from genocide of the sort that Iran is promising. Witness the horrors of the World War II era, including Vichy France and the British refusal to admit Jewish refugees into what was then the British Mandate of Palestine.

What, precisely, the British, Germans and French are doing in respect of the Iran deal and the American Congress would be a worthy topic for Times investigation. How are these foreigners wooing American lawmakers? With fancy diplomatic receptions? Expensive entertainment? Phone calls? Meetings? Meetings between Russians and Trump campaign officials generate extensive Times coverage and headlines. But an ongoing European pro-Iranian campaign aimed at the American legislature merits just a sentence or two, as if the Times thinks it’s no big deal. The paper does mention a letter from “a group of 25 former foreign ministers.”

A similar double standard is on display with the Times reporting of the claim by Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Gholamali Khoshroo, that “’no country has done more than Iran’ in fighting Middle East terrorism.” When President Trump makes demonstrably false claims, the Times pats itself on the back for bluntly pointing them out, using terms like “falsely” or “lie.” “Times Editor Dean Baquet on Calling Out Donald Trump’s Lies,” was one Times headline. Yet when an Iranian ambassador — and Times op-ed contributor — makes the nonsensical and false claim that Iran is the world leader at “fighting Middle East terrorism,” the Times doesn’t call it out. The newspaper might have told readers that that Iran actually is, according to the US and Israeli governments and even American courts, a leading funder and mastermind of terrorism.

The Times writes that Haley injected Iran into “a Security Council meeting that had been meant to focus on developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” The newspaper makes it sound like the two matters are unrelated, but how can one discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without mentioning Iran, which funds and encourages anti-Israel military and terrorist attacks? It’s the elephant in the room.

If anyone is being “strident” here, it’s not Ambassador Haley, but the New York Times. That newspaper aims to reap more than $1 million in revenues for its ailing business by offering readers a series of luxury tours of the Islamic Republic, guided by Times journalists and by former Obama administration officials who were involved in crafting the Iran nuclear deal. The Times has also started translating some of its editorial content into Farsi as a way to reach Iranian readers. This particular news article is one that would probably find a more appreciative audience over there than over here. It would fit right in not only with Iran’s foreign policy agenda, but also with the Islamic Republic’s retrograde attitudes toward women.

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
  • Rie Moya

    I thought that the role of the media is to provide news that are generated by others rather than their internal opinions. As such, they are supposed to be objective. The problem with the media is that they are writing about their own views and they are so obvious. Maybe they will learn the truth when Iran will start pounding the US with missiles but it would be too late then.

  • Rie Moya

    I think that the people are seriously beyond caring what the media says today. They sound just as bad as fraudsters and scammers so who would believe what they say about the work Haley is doing for the good of the people!

  • The U.N. is a useless organization and counter-productive – Issues Non-binding resolutions with no legal standing that includes the ICJ advisory only.
    The U.N. cannot create State or modify borders, they have no such authority.
    In a Democratic legal system if you have decision that you think is erroneous or unjust you can appeal that decision and many times it is reversed.
    U.N. opinions and or resolutions are (non-binding) biased, unjust, arbitrary and capricious (the same apply to the ICJ – International Court of Justice).
    The U.N. has issued numerous opinions and non-binding resolutions that are biased, unsubstantiated and contrary to historical and factual evidence. This U.N. collusion with corrupt and biased countries and the issuance of non-binding egregious opinions and resolution has eroded the credibility of the U.N. beyond repair.
    This has raised the ire and an outcry by many nations, politicians and institutions to de-fund the U.N. and dismantle it.
    It is well known that the U.N. and the ICJ can only offer and issue a non-binding advisory recommended opinions and resolutions which carry no legal standing or affect. They can only issue a non-binding recommendation and resolution and if it is accepted by all parties in writing, then their recommended opinion and resolution is applicable (Provided the parties abide by the terms). Otherwise it has no meaning, validity, and no legal standing.
    Therefore, my suggestion is stop panicking and aggrandizing these biased criminal organizations. Their recommended non-binding opinion has no meaningful value and no legal standing.
    By reacting to and citing the non-binding recommendations of this criminal organization as having any validity, you are misleading the public that the recommended opinions by these criminal organizations might have some validity, which it does not.
    It is time to expose the fraud and deception by these unethical, corrupt and unjust organizations and dismantle them completely.
    It will also save a substantial amount of money and resources that could be put to a better use.
    YJ Draiman

    P.S. The League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations, since the league did not accomplish its purpose. The U.N. has not accomplished its purpose for what it was created to perform ethically and honestly.
    In today’s society the Nations of the world can function without an organization such as the U.N.