Why Does the New York Times Love Hamas?
The paper of record refuses to call them terrorists, extols the group’s humanitarian efforts, and whitewashes its behavior during the now-broken cease-fire.
by Steve Emerson, The Daily Beast
Steven Emerson
Even The Times knows it has a bias problem. Readers who detected it got a chilling confirmation of their suspicions in the December 13 column by Ombudsman Clark Hoyt. Addressing a public outcry over the paper’s failure to use the term “terrorist” for the attackers who executed some 170 people in Mumbai, India, in late November (and mutilated the six Jews killed in the Chabad House—a fact never reported by The Times), Hoyt quoted several reporters and editors making extraordinary admissions that shed some light on the newspaper’s most recent dispatches from Gaza.(Continue Reading this Article)
Emerson never does get around to answering his own question. He does however make his case that the NYT does love Hamas or at least loves Hamas far more the it loves Israel and may for that matter even hate Israel.
Many, including pundits and other media people have labelled the NYT liberal or left wing to account for their apparent leftist bias.
That however is a broadside aimed at the whole NYT operation.
Surely those critical of the NYT for their anti-Israel and other leftist reporting can be more precise in identifying who exactly are the people in power at the NYT.
I am speaking of those people at the NYT who hire on the scene staff reporters, journalists, columnists and a variety of on staff and guest op-ed writers, those who determine and shape reporting and editorial policy and those who guide NYT writers in their advocacy reporting dressed up to look balanced.
An expose on who pulls the strings at the NYT that tilts that media giant against Israel, sets the NYT in the pro-Palestinian camp, promotes Western appeasement of Islamism and generally constitutes it a voice for the left would I think be pretty hot stuff.
I wonder which other media giant would be prepared to take on the NYT or to be used by a person for that purpose.
I guess it would have to be a media giant that is confident it has nothing to hide and no skeletons in the closet.
Comment by Bill Narvey — January 7, 2009 @ 11:55 am
After all is said and done, NYT is not going to change. They say that their editorials are meant not to cast aspersions on anyone and they will continue that philosophy until they have no readers nor advertisers left. That’s a good thing.
Comment by Ed D — January 7, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
It’s true, the investigator does not answer his own question.
Most of those reporters have a Stockholm-type syndrome. I am seeing the same thing with Canadian TV reporters exposed to war for the first time in Gaza. They are just horrified by war. The only problem is they were not sent to Israel to be horrified so they don’t know the history or sequence of events or how the terrorists are manipulating the situation causing all the disaster themselves and they can’t see the full picture. They just want it all to stop ie disappear from their view, and go back to the status quo of Hamas killing Israelis and they don’t have to be horrified anymore.
And the editors probably also have this syndrome or just they are Pre-prejudiced in their viewpoint.
That doesn’t matter, it is the owners that decide to hire and fire the personnel who execute and portray their viewpoint.
The truth hides behind closed doors in the board rooms and in private conversations of the elite who control the Times.
But even if a camera was there, it would be very much an exception to see direct orders given. Everything is done by suggestion, by appointment of the “right person” and by tacit understanding. The intention or will is not written down , it is simply implemented. Sometimes at the very top, sometimes something will slip, a casual remark, an attitude or a direct order and all is revealed from that if one can ignore all the smoke and mirrors.
It is not simply some personal anti-semitic attitude by some elite dinosaur. It is business. There is money, power, politics, profits and interlocking interests of the elite elite involved.
Someone needs to investigate and follow the money trail and personal and political influence involved.
Comment by Max — January 10, 2009 @ 3:43 am