Wednesday, January 11, 2006

The Times Again 'Resists' Reality

The wall picture says it all

It's becoming increasingly obvious that New York Times coverage of the Middle East has a problem with a concept called "reality." That's clear in two adjoining stories today.

One story, by Craig S. Smith, continued the Times's offensive and inaccurate practice of using the heroic word "resistance" to glamorize the vicious terror group Hamas. Craig switches into Hamas-flack mode in the following little riff:

Hamas's organizational discipline, hard political line and promises to prosecute corrupt officials have won it widespread popularity among Palestinians, particularly in Gaza. Indeed, its reputation for violent resistance led to a kind of competition with Fatah over attacks against Israelis.
Can someone please write a polite letter to Craig here, to point out to him that Hamas is a group whose soul purpose is to murder Israeli civilians, primarily by sending suicide bombers to mingle among civilian buses and civilian discos and civilian shopping districts? This isn't "violent resistance," a term that is accurately used only in referring to actions against military personnel. It is "murder."

As it has many times before, the Times's use of language effectively minimizes, and some might say justifies, Hamas terror.

Then we come to the story below on the upcoming Palestinian elections, by Greg Myre, which contains the following Times boilerplate:
Israel annexed East Jerusalem after capturing it in 1967, and considers all of the city its capital, a position that has not been recognized internationally. The Palestinians, in turn, demand the eastern part as a capital for a future state.
You see this language very frequently in Times stories that mention Jerusalem. It gives one the impression that the Palestinians reasonably want only the "eastern part" of Jerusalem, selfishly and illegally denied them by Israel, as capital of a "future state" living side by side with Israel.

But as the photo illustrating the story (above) makes abundantly clear, the goal of both the Palestinians and the majority of Arab public opinion is not just the "eastern part" of Jerusalem but all of Jerusalem, and not just all of Jerusalem but all of Israel. As has been the case for decades, the goal is not a "future state" as much as it is "one fewer states in the region."

In these two stories you have the Times, in both its news and editorial pages, continuing in its policy of slanting its coverage and refusing to recognize reality. It's a matter of policy.

I'm sending a copy of this item to the Empty Suit, Times "public relations editor" Barney Calame. Since he came on board seven months ago, this management shill and parody of a newspaper ombudsman hasn't said so much as one word about the Times's coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Come on, Barney! Let's see you chide the Times for inaccurately and offensively referring to Hamas as a "resistance" group. (Hey, I can have fantasies too, can't I?)


To read the most recent items in this blog, click here!


Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home